Research Article Volume 2 Issue 2
Home of Physical Problems, Uzbekistan
Correspondence: Temur Z Kalanov, Home of Physical Problems, Yozuvchilar (Pisatelskaya) 6a, 100200 Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Received: June 19, 2017 | Published: March 20, 2018
Citation: Kalanov TZ. On the correct formulation of the starting point of classical mechanics. Phys Astron Int J. 2018;2(2):79-92. DOI: 10.15406/paij.2018.02.00066
The correct scientific and critical analysis of the generally accepted foundations of classical mechanics is proposed. The methodological basis for the analysis is the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics. The main results of the analysis are as follows: (1) the correct starting point of kinematics is formulated: the informational definition of the concept of time; definitions of the concepts of motion, speed, and acceleration of material point in the metric system of coordinates; the principle of motion of quantum particle (photon); proof of the mathematical, physical, and formal-logical erroneousness (fallaciousness) of Lorentz transformations; (2) the correct starting point of dynamics is formulated: the definition of force as a physical property of the structure of the system of the interacting objects; (3) the correct starting point of the theory of gravitation is formulated: the condition of existence of the gravitational interaction which represents the condition of existence of the region of overlap (superposition, intersection) of the gravitational fields of the material objects; (4) the correct formulation of the law of gravitation within the framework of the system approach is given (the formulation represents the system of the proportions); (5) it is proved that the formulation of Newton’s empirical law of gravitation represents the formal-logical and dialectical errors.
PACS: 01.55.+b, 01.65.+g, 01.70.+w, 02.90.+p, 03.30.+p, 03.65.-w, 04.25.Nx, 45.05.+x, 45.20.-d, 45.20.D-
Keywords: general physics, special relativity, quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, formalisms in classical mechanics, newtonian mechanics, post-newtonian approximation, gravity, philosophy of science, history of science
Recently, the progress of sciences, engineering, and technology has given rise to a new problem: the problem of rationalization of the fundamental sciences (for example, theoretical physics and mathematics). Rationalization of sciences is impossible without rationalization of thinking and critical analysis of the foundations of sciences within the framework of the correct methodological basis: the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics. Therefore, one should call achievements of classics of sciences in question within the framework of the correct methodological basis. As has been shown in works,1–99 the foundations of theoretical physics, of mathematics, and of philosophy contain formal-logical and dialectical errors. This signifies that any generally accepted theory can be refuted if it contradicts to the formal-logical and dialectical laws.
As is known,98,110 classical mechanics as a branch of physics arose from the needs of sciences and practice and has a long history of development. The important significance of classical mechanics is determined by the contribution of the prominent scientists of past time: Kepler J, Galileo Galilei, Newton I, Lagrange JL, Hamilton WR, and others. Since the end of the 20th century, the place of classical mechanics in physics has been no longer that of an independent theory. Instead, classical mechanics is now considered an approximate theory to the more general quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics is a theory useful for the study of the motion of non-quantum mechanical, low-energy particles in weak gravitational fields. In the 21st century classical mechanics has been extended into the complex domain and complex classical mechanics exhibits behaviors very similar to quantum mechanics.
However, the remarkable achievements of the prominent scientists do not signify that the problem of validity of classical mechanics is now completely solved or the foundations of classical mechanics are not in need of analysis within the framework of the correct methodological basis: the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics. In my opinion, classical mechanics can be considered as a correct theory (scientific truth) if and only if it relies on the correct methodological basis. But there is no formal-logical and dialectical substantiation of classical mechanics in the scientific literature.98–110
In my opinion, the foundations of classical mechanics are not free from scientific objection. The purpose of this work is to propose the critical analysis of the starting point of classical mechanics. The methodological basis for the analysis is the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics.
As is known, correct methodological basis of sciences is the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics. Use the correct methodological basis is a necessary condition for correct analysis to make distinction between truth and falsehood. However, this fact is ignored by majority of scientists until now. Therefore, the main statements of formal logic and of materialistic dialectics which are used in the present work must be stated.
E ( isolated system ) = const
(the qualitative determinacy of the system) = (the qualitative determinacy of the system).
(the qualitative determinacy of the element) = (the qualitative determinacy of the element).
Mechanics is the science of the mechanical movement and interactions of material bodies. The mechanical interactions represent such actions of bodies on each other, which lead to a change in speeds of these bodies, deformations or attractions of these bodies. Classical mechanics is based on three of Newton’s laws which constitute the basis of mechanics.
The following questions arise: What is the cause (source) movement (as a change)? What are the essential features of the movement as the property of the interaction between the material objects?
Kinematics
As is known, kinematics is the part of mechanics, devoted to the study of the geometrical properties of the motion of material bodies without taking into consideration of their masses and forces acting on them. In other words, kinematics studies motion of material bodies without taking into consideration of causes of the motion. The main task of kinematics is the establishment (determination) of methods of representation of the motion of the material points or of bodies and the determination of the relevant kinematic characteristics of the motions (i.e., trajectory, speed, and acceleration of moving points; the angular velocity and the angular acceleration of the rotating bodies, etc.).
lM ( t) − lM ( t0)Δ t0 ≡ vM ( Δ t0)
Is rate of change in the quantitylM . In other words, speed of motion of point M is rate of change in quantitylM ( t) . (Movement is change in general). By definition, the speed of the motion of point M is the average speed over timeΔ t0 . There is no “instantaneous speed” (i.e., speed at point of timet ).60 The speed of the motion is the essential feature (property, characteristic) of motion: speed is the rate of the change in number. The rate of the change in the quantity lM ( t) has no a graphical representation in systemXOY because the quantity of the rate has no the dimension of “meter (m)”. The rate of the change in the quantitylM ( t) is not defined and is not characterized by any direction because the quantity lM ( t) is not defined and is not characterized by a direction of the motion of the point M in the systemXOY . Thus, the rate of the change in the path length is independent of a direction of the motion of the pointM .
(Length of line segmentxM ) = (length of line segment xO ' ) + (length of line segmentx ' M )
WherexM ,xO ' and x ' M are functions of timet . In this case, the following relationships are valid:
(Length of line segmentxM
)/t
= (length of line segment xO '
)/t
+ (length of line segmentx ' M
)/t
,
lM= lO ' + l′M
, lM/t = lO '/t + l′M/t
,
vM= VO ' + v′M
, v′M= vM− VO '
vM − v′M = VM ≡ VO '
WherevM is the speed of the object M in the system XOY ; v′M is the speed of the object M in the system X′O′Y′ ; VO ' ≡ VM is the speed of the relative motion of the systems XOY and X′O′Y′ ; VM≡ VO ' is also the speed of the relative motion of the object M in the systems XOY and X′O′Y′ . These relationships represent the correct formulation of the Galilean principle of relativity, i.e., the principle of relative motion of the classical (macroscopic) objects. These relationships do not impose restrictions on the values of the speedsvM , v′M andVO ' ≡ VM . The Galilean principle of relativity in the coordinate representation has the following form:
x′ M( t) = xM( t) − VO ' t ; VO ' ≡ VM .
This relationship is called Galilean transformation.
vL = v ' L , vL− v ' L≡ VL = 0 ; vL t = v ' L t ,lL = l′L
Where vL and v ' L are the speeds of the motion of photon in the systems XOY andX′O′Y′ , respectively;lL and l′L are the lengths of the paths traveled by the photon in the systemsXOY andX′O′Y′ , respectively. These relationships have the following form in the coordinate representation:
xL = x′ L
, xL = vL t
, x′ L = v′ L t
;
vL = v ' L
, vL − v ' L ≡ VL = 0
.
Consequently, the correct formula of transformation of coordinates of photon in the systemsXOY and X′O′Y′ is as follows:
xL( t) = x′ L( t) .
The correct formula contains neitherVO ' nort′ . Thus, the motion of photon (quantum particle) obeys neither the Galilean relativity principle nor the mathematical formulations of the Lorentz relativity principle. This means that the Lorentz transformations represent a logical error.3–5,10,19,20,34,38,48,49
x′M ( t′)= xM ( t) − VO 't , y′M = yM , z′M = zM ;VO ' ≡ VM ;t′ ≠ t ,
Into the equation of the front of the light wave in the system X′O′Y′ (in standard notations),
x′ 2L ( t′ ) + y′ 2L ( t′ ) + z′ 2L ( t′ ) = c2 t′ 2 ; t′ ≠ t ,
WherecXOY is the speed of the light (photons) in the systems andX′O′Y′ ;
x 2L + y 2L + z 2L = c2 t 2
.
The founded conditions are called Lorentz transformations and read as follows: the equation
x′ 2L + y′ 2L + z′ 2L = c2 t′ 2
Is invariant under the Lorentz transformations. (The concept of “invariance” signifies that the equation describing the wave front has the identical forms in the systemsXOY andX′O′Y′ ).
xM − V t = c t′ , c t − V t = c t′ , t′ = t ( 1 − Vc) ,t′ = t − V xLc2 .
But, in my view,3–5,10,19,20,34,38,48,49 the Lorentz transformations are not free from the following objections.
Figure 1 Coordinate representation of moving material pointsL ,M and O ' in the inertial systemsXOY andX′O′Y′ . Systems XOY and X′O′Y′ represent “resting” and “moving” systems, respectively;x are coordinates of points.
Objection 1.
In formal-logical point of view, the relationshipx′M( t′) = xM ( t) − V t ,V ≡ VO ' ,t′ ≠ t is not the Galilean transformation,x′M ( t ) = xM ( t) − V t ,V ≡ VO ' , becausex′M ( t ) ≠ x′M ( t′) , i.e.,x′M ( t′) ≠ xM( t) − V t ,V ≡ VO ' ,t′ ≠ t .
Objection 2.
In mathematical point of view, the relationships (i.e., substitutions)x′M ( t′) = x′L ( t′) , xM ( t) = xL( t) signify intersection of non-identical mathematical objects (i.e., equations) at any point of time. In physical point of view, these relationships signify: (a) coincidence of the mutually independent and non-identical material objectsM andL (which are moved at different speeds!) at any point of time; (b) formation of the systemM + L (i.e., formation of bond, formation of connection, formation of the material unity of objectsM and L ). In other words, the coincidence means that the coincident (bonded, connected) objectsM and L are moved at different speeds at any point of time. But this contradicts to actual practice and, therefore, formal logic. In addition, it is contrary to the condition that the material objectsM andL is mutually independent ones.
Objection 3.
By the condition, the systemsXOY andX′O′Y′ are identical ones:t = t′ . But the substitutionx′M ( t′) = x′L ( t′) , xM ( t) = xL( t) , t′ ≠ t leads to the following relationship:
t′ = t ( 1 − Vc) , t′ ≠ t .
This relationship contradicts to the condition of identity of the systems XOY and X′O′Y′ : t = t′ . Really, the relationship t′ ≠ t signifies connection of the independent material objectsM andL . Thus, formal-logical error is that the binding (connecting, conjunction) of the independent material objects M and L leads to the effect (action) on the clockC′ in the systemX′O′Y′ and does not lead to the effect (action) on the clockC in the systemXOY .
The above objections lead to the following conclusion: the standard mathematical formulation of the Lorentz principle of relativity (i.e., the Lorentz transformations) is mathematical, physical, and formal-logical errors. The only correct formulation of the principle of relative motion of light in the coordinate representation is as follows:
x′ L ( t′ ) = xL( t) , y′ L ( t′ ) = yL ( t ) , z′ L ( t′ ) = zL ( t ) , t′ = t ; v′L = vL ≡ c .
Thus, the Lorentz transformations – the essence of the special theory of relativity – represent the gross error.3–5,10,19,20,34,38,48,49 Elimination of this error leads inherently to the abolition of the special theory of relativity.
Dynamics
As is known, dynamics is the part of mechanics devoted to the study of the motion of the bodies under action of the forces applied to them. In other words, dynamics studies the motion of the material bodies, taking into consideration of the cause of the motion (i.e., interaction between the bodies). The quantity of the interaction between the bodies is measured by the use of a dynamometer. (Dynamometer is the device for measurement of force, consisting of the force link (elastic element) and measuring indicator). The basic concepts of dynamics are mass and force.
pM ( Δ t0 ) ≡ mM × vM ( Δ t0)
Where the physical quantity pM ( Δ t0 ) is called momentum of objectM . The dimension of the quantity of the momentum iskg m s−1 . This definition of the momentum satisfies the formal-logical law of identity:
(Property of the moving objectM ) = (property of the moving objectM ).
In addition, the definition of the momentum satisfies the formal-logical law of lack (absence) of contradiction:
(Property of the moving objectM ) ≠ (Property of the moving objectnon−M )
pM ( Δ t0 ) − pM1 ( Δ t0 )Δ t0 = mM × [ vM ( Δ t0) − vM1 ( Δ t0)]Δ t0 ,
pM ( Δ t0 ) − pM1 ( Δ t0 )Δ t0 = mM × aM
Where pM1 ( Δ t0) is a certain value of the momentum, which is determined experimentally? The dimension of the quantity of the rate of change in the momentum iskg m s−2 . The dimension kg m s−2 characterizes the qualitative determinacy of the quantity of rate of change in the momentum. The definition of the rate of change in the momentum of the moving object satisfies the formal-logical law of identity:
(Property of the moving objectM )= (property of the moving objectM ).
In addition, the definition of the rate of change in the momentum satisfies the formal-logical law of lack (absence) of contradiction:
(Property of the moving objectM
) ≠
(property of the moving object non−M
)
FD − FD1FD1 = aM − aM1aM1 , i.e.,
FD = (FD1aM1) × aM ,FD= (FD1mM × aM1) × ( mM× aM)
Where FD1 is a certain value of variable quantityFD , which is the reading of the dynamometer; the quantity FD characterizes the structure of the system and has the dimension ofkgf ; the quantity ( mM × aM) characterizes the elementM of the system and has dimension ofkg m s−2 . The dimensions of kgf and kg m s−2 characterizing the structure and element of the system have different qualitative determinacy and are non-identical ones:
(qualitative determinacy of force) ≠ (qualitative determinacy of rate of change in momentum).
Therefore, the concept of force does not represent the system of concepts of “kilogram”, “meter”, and “square second”. In other words, the concept of force and the concept of “rate of change in momentum” are in conflict with each other.
FD− FD1FD1 = lM − lM1lM1 ,
FD − FD1FD1 = vM − vM1vM1 ,
FD − FD1FD1 = mM − mM1mM1 .
Thus, force is a property of the material structure of the system of the material elements (material objects). This property of structure does not depend on the properties of the elements of the system (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Illustration of the material structure of the system of the interacting material objectsN andM . The force of the interaction is a property of the structure (i.e., the property of the connection of the objects N andM ). The arrows depict the directions of the force.
FN M ≡ FM N≡ F ( interaction ) ,
Which cannot be decomposed into two independent (opposite) components: the action forceF ( action ) and the counteraction forceF ( counteraction ) . The action force does not exist without the counteraction force; the counteraction force does not exist without the action force.
Mathematical expression
FN M − FM N ≡ 0
Signifies the complete extermination (or absence) of the interaction force, i.e.,
F ( interaction ) ≡ 0 .
Therefore, the standard relationship
→F ( action ) = − →F ( counteraction )
Represents an error.
(action) ≠ (counteraction).
The relationship
FN M ≡ FM N≡ F ( interaction )
Satisfies the formal-logical law of identity:
(interaction force) = (interaction force).
Consequently, the standard assertion that
(action force) = (interaction force)
Represents violation of the formal-logical law of lack (absence) of contradiction. Thus, Newton's doctrine of force is incorrect.
The law of gravitational interaction
If interaction between material objectsA andB represents the gravitational interaction, then one must consider the complete system S = A + G A B + B (Figure 3) within the framework of the system approach (i.e., within the framework of the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics).
The system analysis consists in the following steps: detection of the elements of the system; detection of the connections between the elements; and finding of relationships between the physical quantities characterizing elements and connections.
Figure 3 The gravitational interaction of the macroscopic objects A andB . Material objects G A and G B are the gravitational fields of the objectsA andB ; material object G A B (shaded region) is the region of the overlap of the gravitational fields G A andG B .
m G A B ∝ ( m A+ m B ) ;
m G A B ∝ exp (− r A Br G A + r G B) .
(Remark: Inverse proportional functiony = 1/x is not manifested (i.e., graph does not exist) in the metrical system XOY becausey has no dimension of length (“meter”) if x have the dimension of length (“meter”).89–94 In addition, y is an unbounded function which has no physical meaning);
F G A B∝m G A B
F G A B − F G A B 1F G A B 1 = m G A B − m G A B 1m G A B 1 ;
F G A B − F G A B 1F G A B 1 = ( m A + m B ) − ( m A 1 + m B 1)( m A 1 + m B 1 ) ;
F G A B − F G A B 1F G A B 1 = exp (− r A Br G A + r G B) − exp (− r A B 1r G A 1 + r G B 1)exp (− r A B 1r G A 1 + r G B 1) ,
Where:
F G A B 1
is a certain value of the force of the gravitational interaction;
m G A B 1
is a certain value of the mass of the regionG A B
of the gravitational interaction;
m A 1
andm B 1
are certain values of the masses of the objectsA
and B
, respectively;
r A B 1
is a certain value of the distance between the objectsA
and B
;
r G A 1
andr G B 1
are certain values of the radii of the gravitational fields of the objectsA
and B
respectively.
These values of the physical quantities are determined experimentally. The system of the proportions represents a system of mutually complementary relationships which satisfy the formal-logical and dialectical laws.
F G A B= (F G A B 1m GA B 1) m G A B ,
F G A B = ( F G A B 1m A 1 + m B 1 ) ( m A + m B) ,
F G A B = [ F G A B 1exp (− r A B 1r G A 1 + r G B 1 ) ] exp (− r A Br G A + r G B ) .
The law of gravity can be expressed in the following equivalent form:
F G A B = (F G A B 1m GA B 1) m G A B ,
m G A B = ( m G A B 1m A 1 + m B 1 ) ( m A + m B) ,
m G A B = [m G A B 1exp (− r A B 1r G A 1 + r G B 1 ) ] exp (− r A Br G A + r G B ) .
Remark: The system of the proportions is analogous (but not identical) to the following differential form:
dF ( M, R ) = ( ∂ F∂ M )Rd M + (∂ F∂ R )Md R
WhereM ≡ m A + m B , R ≡ r A B are the arguments of the functionF = F ( M, R ) . The difference between the differential form and the system of the proportions is that the differential and integral calculus is a false theory). 52–55,57,61,89,90‒94
F A B = γ m A m B( r A B ) 2
Whereγ is the gravitational constant. But Newton’s formulation is not free from the following objections:
Thus, Newton’s law of gravitation is incorrect because it does not satisfy the formal-logical and dialectical laws
In this connection, the problem of critical analysis of the foundations of theoretical physics and of mathematics within the framework of the correct methodological basis (i.e., the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics) arises. This methodological basis represents the system of logical laws and of general-scientific methods of cognition of reality: observation and experiment, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, analogy and hypothesis, logical and historical aspects, abstraction and idealization, generalization and limitation, ascension from concrete concepts to abstract concepts, comparison, modeling, etc.
The necessity of application of general-scientific methods for the critical analysis of theoretical physics and of mathematics is also stipulated by the fact that the foundations of theoretical physics and of mathematics contain vagueness which cannot be clear comprehend and formulated in the standard physical and mathematical terms because physics and mathematics do not contain many universal (general-scientific, philosophical) concepts; moreover, origin of vagueness is often manifestation of “thoughtless use of mathematics” (L. Boltzmann). In this case, formal-logical errors exist and come into mathematics and natural-scientific theories so far. In my opinion, the errors in theoretical physics and mmathematics are the inevitable consequence of the inductive method of cognition.
This gives possibility to elicit, to reveal, to recognize errors done by the great scientists of the past time. Deletion of the errors leads to the abolishment (elimination) of a set of standard theories. But even the mistakes done by the great scientists contribute to progress in science: “false hypotheses often rendered more services than the true ones” (H. Poincare) because mistakes extend the consciousness of scientists. Such is the dialectics of truth and of lie in science. Today this fact signifies that one should call the great scientific achievements in question within the framework of the correct methodological basis: the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics.
Thus, the correct scientific analysis of the generally accepted foundations of classical mechanics is possible only within the framework of the correct methodological basis: the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics. The results of the scientific-critical analysis are as follows.
None.
Author declares there is no conflict of interest.
©2018 Kalanov. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.