ProtoQuant.com

V. Discussion and Conclusions

Concluding this work, in short we can say that we just showed how the Space acts, and what the parameters on which we can read this action are: the shape and orientation of the Kepler motion describing the motion of planets. However, let us sketch in a little more detail the basic philosophy, starting this time from the point we reached in explaining what it proposed to explain.

In the description of the gravitational field – or of every field for that matter – one has always to harmonize the omnipresence and permanence of the field (intrinsic attributes of the field concept) with the alleged contingency of events occurring in the field. At this point the usual Fourier analysis cannot help much, for the simple reason that the field is a uniform continuum: the time of evolution of apparatus is not the time of the field itself. We cannot simply say ”the apparatus selects a Fourier component from the field”. This was always a problem with the field measurements, and it occasionally turned into a big problem of the Theoretical Physics. A case in point is that of the infinite (self) energies leading to the renormalization procedure. The present work shows that, if it is to talk about planetary structure in the case of a continuum field, we have to talk some other way. This way is precisely indicated by the results of the last section. One can say that the physical parameters of the planetary motion are determined by the inertial field, so that what we observe at a certain epoch is actually a mixture between local and global properties, these last ones determined by inertia; one just has to take care about the manner in which this mixture occurs. The physical parameters of the planetary motion are, according to Newtonian description, intimately related to some ‘initial conditions’, so the action of the inertial field appears indeed as a ‘retarded action’. However the description here is not spatio-temporal but purely spatial: the cosmic time moments are geographically distributed across harmonic surfaces in space.

    Continuing with the philosophical development, one fundamental event accessible to direct human perception, and thus not involving the idea of measurement by interaction, is that of ‘particle in a point at an instant’. To this event and its relationship with the field concept, the Science of Mechanics has dedicated a considerable analysis, mainly along the idea that the field determines characteristics of the trajectory of motion, this last one conceived as a succession of events. Within Newtonian framework, a free particle has almost everything in common with the Kepler system. As a matter of fact, from geometrical point of view the trajectory of a free particle is a degenerate conic. Although this reference case needs a special discussion, we can say for now that this discussion can be carried along the same lines as before, with the very same conclusions: the inertial field is always in relationship with initial conditions of the motion. In other words the global properties of matter can be read in its past!

    One notion to be brought about is that of transition electromagnetic field, relegated by Bohr’s atomic theory to the transition between two Kepler motions. As far as our concepts here go, this determination of the electromagnetic field is one keeping with its universality. The results of present essay hint towards a logical relation between the transition electromagnetic field and the inertial field.

    The acceptance of universality as we understand it here came out historically with the second quantization, which is a kind of straightforward way to picture as accidental something that is actually permanent and omnipresent. The main idea is that the events necessarily require interaction for their very definition, and this definition amounts to the fact that a certain event does not occur if favorable field conditions are not met. It is these field conditions that can be labeled as contingent. In the specific case of gravitational field the situation remained always essentially classical. Indeed, it is hard to grasp as contingent something that seems to be the background of the everyday life. We have here as archetype the well-known anecdote with the Newton’s apple, showing how hard has the human spirit to struggle in order to escape from the chains of direct senses. It is nevertheless this background that we have to describe, starting evidently from the events composing the measurement problem. In this respect the present essay shows first that the Kepler motion has to be taken as a general event defined by an interaction, for which the free fall is just a particular case; this shows implicitly that the inertial field gets involved in arranging the Kepler motions in a certain way, so that the real motion of a planet for instance contains, in the spirit of Sciama, both inertial and gravitational effects. This way can lead to an explanation of quantization, as it certainly leads to models of known structures of the Universe, like Galaxies. Thus, inasmuch as the inertial field is equivalent to Space action, these structures of the Universe, as well as the quantization, are nothing else but the imprint of Space action upon matter.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7