Аuthor – Rozanov Nikolai Nikolaevich
The translations of titles, articles, books, citations, and statements by scientists may not match the official translations word for word, if such translations exist.
Introduction.
“On the other hand, for the consistency of our physical theories it would be important to understand whether Newton’s law, modified by Einstein, must be further altered in order to be compatible with the uncertainty principle. This latter modification has not yet been made.”((42) p.141)
At the beginning of the Introduction, the author of the present work (N.N.Rozanov) offers a concise exposition of M. Gell-Mann’s lecture “Questions for the Future”, delivered at Wolfson College (Oxford) in 1980, which has not lost its relevance to this day ((1) pp.265–289).
“In this review of modern ideas and forecasts for the future, my topic will be the search for unity in our description of elementary-particle physics. Everything in the Universe, including ourselves, consists of elementary particles. Moreover, particles of each type behave in exactly the same way in every region of the Universe—as far as we can judge from the light arriving from the most distant galaxies.” …
“The laws governing the behavior of elementary particles and the forces acting among them represent the fundamental principles of microphysics.” …
“All the fundamental laws of physics underlie not only physics but also astronomy, chemistry, geology, biology—in fact, all the natural sciences.”
“In the theory of elementary particles, three principles are regarded as absolutely valid:
a) quantum mechanics—this discipline full of mysteries and paradoxes, which we do not fully understand but are able to apply… Quantum mechanics is not a theory, but rather a ‘framework’ into which, as we believe, any correct theory must fit.
b) the theory of relativity, whose validity we have no reason to doubt.
c) the principle of causality, which asserts that the cause must precede the effect.” …
“One may say that the old problem of the ‘nuclear force’ has been solved in principle. What we mean is our confidence that the ‘binding’ of neutrons and protons in nuclei is an indirect consequence of the fundamental quark–gluon interaction described by QCD.” …
“One of the problems of unified Yang–Mills theories is that the effective unification of color and flavor – whose coupling strengths differ significantly – can take place only at extremely high energies.” …
“For the strengths of the weak and strong interactions to converge, one must traverse an energy interval of roughly 10¹⁵ GeV.” …
“Do we have the courage to assume that ideas developed and confirmed up to 10 GeV may legitimately be extended to energies 1014 times greater? One may strongly doubt this!” …
“It is hard to imagine that even the combined budgets of all nations would allow us to build an accelerator capable of testing particle behavior at 1015 GeV. We are already fortunate to reach 103 GeV.” …
“In constructing a unified Yang–Mills theory for color and flavor, it is possible to allow for proton stability, although this requires significant theoretical effort. In such a theory it is more natural to suppose that the proton decays. But based on the most reliable experimental data, on our intuition, and – finally – on the very fact of our existence, we of course consider the proton practically stable. If it does decay, then so slowly that it does not contradict our picture of the World.” …
“It makes sense to undertake an experimental investigation into the possibility of proton decay and to determine whether this decay actually occurs.” …
“There is also a very serious reason to study spin-2 particles. It is connected with attempts to unite quantum mechanics with Einstein’s theory of gravitation, which he preferred to call the general theory of relativity. For such unification a graviton – the quantum of gravitation – is needed.” …
“To detect the graviton experimentally is difficult, since for small amounts of matter gravitational interaction is far too weak.” …
“Therefore the experimental discovery of the graviton must apparently be postponed to a distant future.” …
“Some theorists have begun searching for unification schemes that could include gravity in a single theory alongside the color and flavor forces. Such a theory must contain not only all quanta and quarks with leptons, but also spin-0 particles needed for spontaneous symmetry breaking. If some particles are composite, the theory must describe their fundamental constituents as well. The goal of such efforts is to encompass within one genuinely unified theory all fundamental entities, including the graviton.” …
“To establish the kinship among various elementary particles, the concept of supersymmetry is used – a symmetry relating particles of different spins. The most extensive and refined theory of this type discovered to date is N = 8 supergravity. It includes fundamental fields corresponding to:
1 graviton of spin 2;
8 new objects of spin 3/2, called gravitinos;
28 quanta of spin 1;
56 particles and antiparticles of spin 1/2;
70 objects of spin 0, possibly useful for symmetry breaking.
The spin-3/2 gravitino is a highly desirable addition from the standpoint of theoretical simplicity.
If we discuss only spins 2, 1, 1/2, and 0, we encounter an ugly gap at spin 3/2. However, if we attempt to interpret the 28 spin-1 quanta so as to include in this group the gluon, the X± and Z0 particles, and the photon, we find that the mathematics imposes overly severe constraints. At least the X± particle remains outside. Likewise, attempting to interpret all or almost all of the 56 spin-1/2 particles and antiparticles as leptons, antileptons, quarks, and antiquarks, we discover that we cannot distribute enough flavors to fill the observed list.” …
“It is worth mentioning that in supergravity the energy of effective force unification is even higher than in the previous unification scheme.” …
«“In the theory of supergravity we must extrapolate our present knowledge from energies of about 10 GeV to values of order 1019 GeV, or even higher.” …
“The following questions appear to me to be of primary importance:
How should spontaneous symmetry breaking be understood?
If spontaneous symmetry breaking is indeed caused by spinless particles, must they be elementary objects in the theory?
If so, does something akin to supersymmetry account for this?
If not, are they combinations of other particles included in the theory?
It seems to me very difficult to believe that spinless particles ad hoc can be artificially attached to the numerous arbitrary parameters needed to fit experimental data.” …
“Why do we have not only the u and d quarks, but also c, s, b, and likely t? Why do leptons again come in three flavor pairs – electron and its neutrino, muon and its neutrino, τ-lepton and its neutrino? Will this proliferation continue further?” …
“How can we explain the strange mass spectrum of quarks and leptons: light, medium, heavy families? What causes these puzzling mass relations? I think we have very little basis for answering any of these questions. Even more serious are the issues of unification and identifying the fundamental constituents.” …
“Can we understand the relation between the elementary entities proposed by a unified theory and the particles that appear elementary in experiments at present or future energies?” …
“Objects produced as solutions of fundamental equations may pretend to be elementary and cause confusion…” (For example – the neutron! N.N. Rozanov) …
“Nevertheless, we still hope to find a single elegant mathematical equation with a unified structure that explains the three colors, the required number of flavors, and all other characteristic features of elementary-particle physics. It would be an equation for a huge super-field with many components representing various elementary constituents combined by a fundamental symmetry of Nature. If our efforts succeed, simplicity will be found not in economy of particles but in economy of principles (preferably ‘in economy of particles and principles’ – N.N. Rozanov).
In conclusion, let me say that we should not imagine that we can reach the end in describing elementary particles. It is far easier to imagine an endless search, layer by layer, for the discovery of reality, than to imagine that we can solve once and for all the problem of the fundamental physical laws. How might it happen? We may describe it operationally, without resorting to philosophy. In principle, it would look like this:
- After new experimental confirmations of modern theories at accessible energies, we theoreticians propose a unified theory consistent with all known facts and predicting a number of new ones.
- Within a reasonable time, experiments are carried out – at a cost that can be justified – and they confirm this theory.
- This continues for some time, and no exceptions are found (of course this never happens, but why could it not?).
- Eventually a limit is reached to human patience and to the resources that can be spent on testing this remarkable theory. And humanity proclaims it the fundamental and final physical theory!” ((1) pp.265–289).
Now let us turn to Newton’s Principia (2).
“Thus far I have explained the celestial motions and the tides of our seas on the basis of the force of gravity, but I have not yet assigned the cause of gravity itself. This force arises from some cause that penetrates to the centre of the Sun and planets without diminishing its efficacy, and that acts not in proportion to the surface of the particles upon which it acts, but in proportion to the quantity of solid matter; moreover, its action extends everywhere over immense distances. Gravitation toward the Sun is composed of the gravitation toward the individual particles of which it consists, and decreases exactly in proportion to the squares of the distances when receding from the Sun.” …
“But I have not yet been able to deduce the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses.” ((2) pp.661–662).
“It would be desirable to deduce from the principles of mechanics the remaining phenomena of nature by a similar kind of reasoning, for much compels me to suspect that all these phenomena may depend upon certain forces with which the particles of bodies – due to causes as yet unknown – either attract one another and cohere in regular figures, or repel and recede from one another. Since these forces are unknown, the attempts of philosophers to explain the phenomena of nature have thus far been fruitless…” ((2) p.3).
– From Newton’s Preface to the first edition of the Principia, 8 May 1686.
Thus Newton asserts that gravitational interaction of material bodies is essentially interaction among the microscopic particles of those bodies, and adds:
“It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws we have set forth, and is sufficient to explain all the motions of celestial bodies and of the sea.” ((2) pp.661–662).
In Book III, On the System of the World ((2) p.502), Newton states the rules:
Rule I. “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances… Nature is pleased with simplicity and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.”
Rule II. “Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.”
Rule III. “Those qualities of bodies that cannot be intensified or diminished, and that are found to belong to all bodies upon which experiments can be made, must be regarded as qualities of all bodies whatsoever.”
Rule IV. “In experimental physics propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be held as either exactly or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until other phenomena appear, by which they may be rendered either more exact or liable to exceptions. This must be done so that the arguments of induction be not destroyed by mere hypotheses.” ((2) pp.502–504).
Concluding the introduction, it is necessary to note how Newton imagined the ether:
“I should now add something concerning a certain most subtle ether, which pervades all solid bodies and is contained within them, by whose strength and actions the particles of bodies, at very small distances, attract one another and cohere when in contact…” “But this cannot be explained briefly, and moreover there is not a sufficient stock of experiments by which the laws of action of this ether might be precisely determined and demonstrated.” ((2) p.662).
At present the theory of the physical vacuum has been developed and is reflected in the scientific works of Shipov(3), the “Polarization Model of the Inhomogeneous Physical Vacuum” by Dyatlov(4), “Extended Relativity Theory” by Recami(5), “Theory of the Physical Vacuum and Some Practical Results” by Rykov(6), Oleinik’s work (Kiev Polytechnic Institute) “Problems of Superluminal Communication, Superluminal Signals in the Electromagnetic Field and Their Physical Carrier”(7), Akimov’s “The Shape of Physics and Technology at the Beginning of the 21st Century” (8), Filimonov’s works “Neutrino as a Quantum of Torsion Radiation”(9) and “Identification of the Quantum of Torsion Radiation”(10), the work “Cosmology, Fundamental Interactions, and the Mass of the Interaction-Carrying Particle” by Zhuk (11), where the mass of an ether particle is estimated by four methods as ≈10-69 (kg), “The Distribution of Quasars in the Universe and Cosmological Models” by Zhuk, Moroz, and Varaksin(12), “Worlds and Antiworlds” by Alfvén(13), and a number of other works revealing the “mysteries” of Nature to which the author of the present study refers.
- Dear visitors, no registration is required to leave your comment.
- The set of mathematical formulas in the comments is edited in the “LATEX” system. A formula is opened with the word katex [in square brackets] and closed with /katex [in square brackets].
- If your comment contains a link, it is automatically sent to spam for verification. Without links, all comments are published without delay.