A New Paradigm for Physics

  

A New Paradigm for Physics: the Space-time considered as an Emanation of the Causality

 

Étienne Klein, in one of his lectures, uses this aforementioned expression by stating that there are important research studies in physics on this subject. But, to go further on this point, we must return to a causal approach (the four causes). Science had lost the causal analysis because the latter, which is presented by the philosophy, was not compatible with its approach. It is a question now of discovering her again in order to be able to go further on this point. I suggest that - under this analysis - it leads to the conclusion that the driving principle of the physical world acts immanently and by the interrelationship, according to the determination of the elements. From my point of view, there is no other way to fully respect the causal approach concerning the physical world. This would mean that this conclusion is probably essential, in the long term. It would through in this way that we could discover how the Space-time is an emanation of causality. This oblige us to go out - for diverse reason - from the conception of the time of special relativity- hence the subject of my latest book “And if Einstein was wrong on a crucial point in his analysis leading to the special relativity?” - Et si Einstein s’était trompé sur un point capital dans son analyse aboutissant à la relativité restreinte ? ”

 

From the moment where discover the mode of operation of the driving principle of the physical world, we can formulate a conceptual postulate and thus to define the initial concepts of physics. The first postulated principles shall have value not only on the basis of the Being and the pure significance, but also of the Becoming. This can allow to obtain a analysis rule concerning the coherence in the structure and the movement of the physical world, and thus to define some initial concepts reflecting this coherence (the physics as the approach of the coherence in the structure and the movement of the physical world, for the knowledge of quantitative proportions, and based on some mathematical formalism). This is how we can reach the conceptual unity of the physics. This is what I carried out in my books from 1990 (see chapters 6 and 8 of the book: The Driving Principle of the Universe and the Space-Time Le Principe Moteur de L’Univers et L’ESpace-Temps , where this approach is continued, and the afterword of “And if Einstein was wrong on a crucial point in his analysis leading to the special relativity?” ). It would be necessary for the physicists, if they recognize the interest of this problematic, that they discover- by developing this subject- the various implications of the aforementioned statements.

 

This approach to matters leads to a relational conception of the Space and movement. In a Space defined in a relational way, then it is the current relation between the Bodies which allows the movement, and this changes the analysis of the inertia and the impulse. This is in fact the main difficulty of the subject. From the moment we understand that the relation between Bodies cannot be only the fact of matter and form (quantified matter), this forces to state a driving principle distinct from the matter and the form, acting immanently and by interrelation. Since we can not go back to the infinity in the causes order (cause of the cause etc.) , it means that elementary constituents exist. We would therefore have the spiritual (the driving principle), the material (the constituents) and the physical (the immanent and interrelated action of the driving principle). It is the action of the driving principle according to the determination of the elements which would allow this action to be physical. From a theological point of view, this may lead to a Trinitarian conception of God action on the physical world; at least this is not incompatible. This conception of things, from the moment it implies a present given point in time for the universe, is not compatible with the retro-causality (the future influencing the past). In contrast, different presence modes of the final causality can exist, whereas the role of the final cause does not appear clearly to physicists.

 

The expansions and contractions of the Space can be clearly understood in a relational way, but from here, we must discover how the movement of a Body can be analyzed in relation to this Space constituted by the other Bodies (impulse). This is what I tried to explain in the chapter 8 of the book The Driving Principle of the Universe and the Space-Time - Le Principe Moteur de L’Univers et L’ESpace-Temps. From the moment we understand that everything that exists in the physical world exists in the present given point in time, we will also understand that, as in the given point in time there is no movement, it is by the expansions and the contractions of the Space that the movement takes place, each Body presenting a particular relation to the Space. Furthermore, the question that arises is why the expansion movements of the Space can be faster than those relative to a given Space. I think that the analysis of the impulse provides the answer. For a Body in a "state of inertia", it is not that no force is acting on the Body, but rather that the resultant of the forces is zero, which is not quite the same thing. . It is according to this resultant of the forces that the Body will take such a position, this one being due to the action of the driving principle and evolving progressively. That’s why a Body in free fall will not feel its own weight. In fact, this means that the notion of inertia is perfectly compatible with the notion of current cause and with that of the driving principle. This presents the main subtlety of the subject. Therefore, to achieve a general theory of the Universe, it is probably a good practice to reconsider the thought experiment of Einstein elevator, having regard to what it really teaches us about the notions of inertia and impulse. It seems to me that this thought experiment was the basis of the general relativity. By this experience of thought, Einstein shows that the local effects of gravitation and an accelerated reference frame for the observer are not physically distinguishable by a mechanical experiment: there is a local equivalence. "This explains at the same time the equivalence between the gravitation mass (linked to the attraction of the Bodies) and the mass of the inertia (resistance to the change of speed) "(Wikipedia). It is necessary to discover why there is equivalence between the inert mass and the weighing mass. I think that the analysis of the impulse in a Space defined in a relational way, which should provide the answer.

 

"One day in 1907, Einstein has the idea that he considers" the happiest idea of his life ": "I was sitting in my chair at the Federal Office in Bern ...I understood that, if a person is in free fall, he will not feel his own weight. I was surprised. This thought surprised me. It urged me towards a new theory of gravitation. " (Étienne Klein, The scientific conversation, La conversation scientifique France Culture) ". The General Relativity considers that a Body in free fall is in a "state of inertia". However, compared to the Body which is generating the gravitational field, the Body in free fall accelerates. Now, in order to enable a Body to accelerate, a force must be constantly acting on it. I think that for this reason: the new conception of the inertia of general relativity could be further deepened. It must be considered that, for a Body in a "state of inertia", it is not that no force is acting on it, but rather that the resultant of the forces is zero, the latter evolving progressively in the time and being responsible for the current position of the Body.

 

However, this observation can lead us to a deeper understanding of the principle of inertia. For Einstein, and for general relativity, a free-falling Body is actually in a state of inertia (it does not accelerate), whereas a held Body during its free-fall accelerates in a direction opposite to the gravitational field. From there, it can be stated that a Body in a state of inertia would be a Body whose relationship with the gravitational field remains not modified. Similarly, a Body that gravitates around the Earth, in the absence of an atmosphere that dampens it, is in a state of inertia, hence the idea of the ​​curved Space. The Body, because of its inertia, runs straight on rails, but they are curved. I have without doubt read this presentation of things in the works of different scientific authors (I think Hubert Reeves or Robert Signore who wrote very good books on the evolution of the conception of Space-time and the inertia). But it is also clear that a Body in free fall does not maintain the same relation to the gravitational field as in the case of Body that gravitates. Hence the idea that the inertia of a Body is related to the particularized relationship that the latter has with the gravitational field. According to this particular relation which unites the Body to the gravitational field, this Body tends to preserve an initiated movement.

 

It is the same thing as preventing a Body from falling freely than accelerating a Body in the Space when it is far away from any important mass. This means that a Body, while it is away from any mass, maintains a relationship with the unidirectional gravitational field that maintains it in a state of stability. Indeed, whether we intend to accelerate the Body in one direction or another, the result is the same: the Body resists in the same way by its inertia to this acceleration. Once the Body had accelerated in one direction, the unidirectional relation between the Body and the gravitational field changed. When a Body gravitates, it has a relation to the gravitational field which, on the one hand, causes the Body to have a curved trajectory and, on the other hand, makes the Body moving forward. This means: this relation to the gravitational field is the current cause of its movement. However, the gravitational field, in order to be the current cause of the gravitating Body movement, can not be that of the Earth which tends to make the Body fall freely. It is therefore obligatory that the gravitational field - allowing the Body to go further - is present in all the Space. Furthermore, the relationship of Body with the gravitational field must vary in function of the impulse given to the Body. This means that the Body, while having an unidirectional relationship with the gravitational field, must also have a relationship that memorizes the direction of the impulse that was transmitted to it, and this is what changes the analysis of the impulse. The impulse implicates a particular relationship of the Body with the gravitational field.


The General relativity had understood that the Space was curved by the gravitational field, but perhaps it is not the case, that the Body had to be united by a particular relation to the gravitational field to move forward, in other words, that a current cause would be required to recognize the movement. When we consider a Body in free-fall, on one hand, we can admit with general relativity that it is in a state of inertia because it is stable with respect to the gravitational field; on the other hand, we can estimate that it accelerates if we consider its movement with respect to the Body that generates the gravitational field. Therefore, we can legitimately think that the gravitational field causes the movement of the Body and as the Body (which is in free fall) with respect to that which generates the gravitational field is in constant acceleration, we can affirm that the gravitational field is the current cause of the free-falling Body movement. Similarly, the impulse of the Body which gravitates causes a particular relation of the Body with the gravitational field, this one being the current cause of the movement of the Body which gravitates. A stable Body in a reference Space is in a state of inertia, in the same way as a Body that has a constant movement in a reference Space. But, in order that the Body would be able to move in the Space (for example, the Moon that gravitates around the Earth), this implicates that the Body has an impulse, namely a particularized relationship with the gravitational field.

 
However, it is quite possible that Space is not a container, i.e. it owes its existence to the actual relations existing between Bodies. Indeed, it is more simple to think that there is no container and that Space is purely relational in nature on the basis that if the Bodies have: - on the one side, a relation to the container that modifies the structure of the latter - and on the other side a relation to the container that modifies their trajectory. In a Space defined relational way, it is the current relationship between the Bodies that is the current cause of movement. With the general relativity, the mass of a Body is the cause of the evolution of the Space structure, but it is not described. That's why his vision of the world shall be completed. And, if we have a relational conception of the Space, this leads to a global view of the physical world and to a global understanding of the physical forces, respecting a causal approach.

 
Therefore, I would fully accept this idea of ​​Space curvature, but I think the latter is a function of the current relationship that the Bodies maintain between them. It's because Space tends to lead a Body into a contraction that a Body would fall in free fall. Similarly, it is the curvature of Space in a given direction - in comparison to the Body based on his impulse - that would lead to the trend for a Body to maintain an initiated movement. The impulse implies a double relationship to the reference Space which balances and, therefore, there would be in some cases a speed limit. But I will not go further, because I have neither provided all the elements to reach this conclusion, nor specified the initial principles of understanding.


It is not a question of being entirely in agreement with my reasoning, but rather that it would make it possible to understand that an evolution of the perception of the principle of inertia occurs with the general relativity. And I think what is missing from this evolution is to understand that any movement, even if it is constant, implicates a current cause. The difficulty is that a Body in constant motion can be considered legitimately in a state of rest. Therefore, if a current cause is needed to recognize this constant movement, then this current cause must also be responsible for the state of rest. And, I think that this is only possible in a relational approach of the Space and movement. Indeed, in such an approach, the current state of Space is caused to the current relationship that Bodies maintain between them. Furthermore, the state of rest of a Body, in a Space defined in a relational way, is due to a current cause; the current relation between the Bodies and it is the same for the state of movement. Therefore, from this point of view, only a relational approach of the Space can ultimately recognize the inertia that can be considered as a state of rest as well as a state of motion.

 

The deep understanding of the notion of inertia is a key that takes us further away. But, for it, it is necessary to study how the so-called inertia for the general relativity is compatible with the idea of ​​a current cause, which is necessary to the movement, advocated by the Aristotelian philosophy, and thus to respect a causal analysis. Yet, I think that when considering a Body in free fall which is in a state of inertia indicates a part of the solution. Just to set it in parallel with the fact that the Moon which gravitates around the Earth is also in a state of inertia, by understanding well the facts implicated by the thought experience of the Einstein elevator. It seems to me that there is present in the seeds, in this thought experience, a general theory of the Universe. Of course, my approach to inertia and impulse may be considered as an extension of the evolution, that has been started on this subject by the general relativity (please refer to what is said about the inertia and impulse in the chapter 8 of the book: The Driving Principle of the Universe and the Space-Time Le Principe Moteur de L’Univers et L’ESpace-Temps , but I will probably write an annex on this subject if I will publish another book). The physicists should also discuss these ideas further.

 

Strictly speaking, it is not the Earth which attracts the Moon (1), but rather the driving principle of the physical world which would act immanently and interrelated according to the determination of the elements. It would thus produce the contractions and expansions of the Space, the unity of the whole being realized and being a function of the unity of the elements. It is worth to study this subject in-depth both in philosophy and physics. But later, everyone is free to see whether he wants to crowd out this problem or not, the risk being to miss a key in context of helping us to understand the issues better. Different types of knowledge are diversified according to their analysis perspective, but from the moment they could reach what is fundamental in reality, they become practically complementary. There is no immediate connection between the physics and the theology. On the other hand, the philosophy, from the moment it discovers the mode of action of the driving principle, can establish a certain connection between these two distinct domains. Indeed, this conclusion of philosophy has repercussions both in physics as well as in theology.

 

Crucial experience:

After understanding that there is necessarily absolute simultaneity and that the Space and the movement must be approached in a relational way, it is possible to develop a crucial experiment concerning the speed of light. Indeed, it emerges from such a design, that there is a constant adaptation of the photon speed to the spatial configuration. The Earth, by its existence, would generate a local spatial configuration, and, if the speed of light is invariant with respect to the station, it can not be invariant with respect to the moving train with respect to the station. The difficulty related to the speed of light with respect to the Earth is the Sagnac effect. Furthermore, our planet, due to its mass and its different movements, can results in the movement of a part of the particles, by playing the role of ether. Therefore, it would be perhaps necessary to measure the speed of light between two arms of a very fast moving shuttle in Space, but I do not know if the distance between the two arms will be sufficient to reach a conclusive measurement. Based on the movement of the shuttle, with respect to a given reference Space, it will be possible to measure a difference in the speed of light.

 

Conclusion

It is necessary to come out from the Space-time conception of the special relativity which leads to the idea of ​​a universe as a block where the time would be already written. And if it is necessary to reach a relational conception of the Space-time, then it will be, also, required to deepen the approach of the Space-time of general relativity. This can likely be that for the general relativity, the Space-time is still a container. Indeed, within a relational approach of the Space, it is the actual relation between the Bodies which is the cause of the movement, and this changes the analysis of inertia and impulse, and as far as I could understand: this point was not still recognized by general relativity (again).

 

(1) I add this note to clarify my ideas.

Or rather it should be said, that when two particles attract each other, they attract through the action of the driving principle. This nuance may be important from a theological point of view in order to understand the connection between the driving principle and the constituents.

 

Philippe de Bellescize

 

 

Translated by Easy Translate