Correction of a scientific article

Question

Dear sirsI wrote one scientific (physicsal article)http://vixra.org/pdf/1012.0006v1.pdfAre possible any hints, how to correct grammar in this article? Any hint will help. Or I should copy part of this article in this window?As independent researcher, I am not located on university, so grammar is not corrected so good as commonly.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

I'm not going to touch a link, I don't know about anyone else. You want someone to correct a .pdf? I don't think so. Good luck!

VariableGravityConst · Answer

I please for any grammar corrections of 3 sections from the above mentioned articles. I can return time with my Excel knowledge.
Best regards

A connection between matter and space-time
A remark is possible that we see larger mass inside the rocket, but from the rocket they see us that we have larger mass. Therefore it seems that increasing of mass is not realistic. But, this is exactly the same problem as in the common Lorentz equations, where relations for time show the same paradox. But, special relativity (SR) is a correct theory, and both the common interpretation of SR and the interpretation with relativistic mass (mr) are correct. In short, it is not incorrect that relation mass-time is a one-way one. It is important that the introduction of mr explains dilatation of time and connection between matter and time. It is not necessarily to look at the same time from two inertial systems, but it is enough to look at once from one inertial system and another time from another inertial system.
This slower speed of time with increasing of mr can also be generalized out of SR to big and small elementary particles. If a human body was made from the same particles, but 1000 times lighter ones, the speed of time would seem to us much smaller than now. Hence one second would seem very long. This example is not relative, because it gives the same result from both observers.
This can be generalized still further. A fly feels a longer second than an elephant, because of smaller mass of the fly brain the brain processes are faster. Although particles are not smaller, this also can be an analogy for reduction of the mass. Another example from biology is a cold lizard or a warm one. For the first one a second seems shorter. Therefore various examples of different time flows have a very similar key foundation, this is the momentum or movement.
We know from the common interpretation of SR that rest matter cannot be accelerated to v=c. It can only be approached to this speed. But, anywhere close to c this matter is moving, always we can find an inertial system, where this matter is at rest. The speed of a photon equals c. We cannot find an inertial system where it is at rest. Time flows where rest matter exists, but time does not flow for a photon. Therefore rest matter defines that time flows; hence that time is dependent of rest matter.
Interpretation of special relativity SR with mr tells us still more. It tells us that speed of time is dependent from largeness of mass. Therefore this is another clarification that space-time does not exist without rest matter. Hence, this is a simplified explanation of what it is shown with general covariance [6,page 847].
Hence formally, one time is really attributed to every point of space, but truly time flows only if rest matter is present, or differently said, that matter is a reference for this space-time. Therefore space-time without rest matter does not exist.
But one detail should be clarified still. Seemingly, time flows for a photon because

it has some frequency,

if it is calculated for rest matter that time does not flow at v=c, this does not mean automatically that time does not flow for a photon.

Precisely said, it means only that time does not flow for rest matter if it is accelerated to v=c. And, of course, it never reaches this speed.
Indeed, frequency of a photon is dependent from rest matter, or from inertial system, where this matter is at rest. But, privileged inertial system does not exist. Therefore rest matter cannot be ignored where the existence of photons is mentioned. Thus, photons exist because of rest matter. It is similarly in general relativity, where it is claimed that gravitational waves exist independently of matter. But indirectly they are connected with matter.
Connection between elementary particles and space-time was indirectly found also by Cramer's Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics [10]. Namely, a photon does not fly into empty space, but checks with hand-shaking if there is any other particle, and then flies.
Let us think in the approximation, where space-time is continuous, therefore it is not grained. In the continuous area, points can never build up a straight line, because always is valid
0 X x=0, despite even when x = oo.
{This is different as limits, for instance, \lim_{x ->0} sin(x)/x=1, because x=0 is never reached.}
Therefore three-dimensional space can be partitioned to smaller pieces of three-dimensional space, but it cannot be partitioned to two-dimensional objects. Hence space-time is not built up from rest pictures of space, but it also includes time transition between these pictures. Therefore we always have five dimensional volume, hence matter is another dimension. But it seems that space-time is not continuous, but is grained. Despite of this, the smallest cell also implicitly includes matter.
Oas [10] commented that acceleration gives rise to energy but not to a larger number of particles. (So, by him, mr does not tell us anything new according to energy.) But, this also tells us that mr is increased inside of elementary particles, therefore elementary particles are these essential things.{Rest matter is built up from elementary particles, but it can be built up also from black holes. Maybe those two things are the same. The answer is hidden in a quantum gravity theory.} So, dimensionless numbers mu_i's are generators of all space-time.
\mu_i^2=m_i^2 G/(\hbar c),
where m_i are masses of various elementary particles, G is the Newton gravitational constant, and hbar is the Planck constant. Fotini Markopoulou claims similarly [11]. Hence again, elementary particles are necessity for the existence of space-time.
Hence energy shows a property of matter, this is inertia, what is expressed with the momentum. Energy also shows another property of matter that can be at rest. Of course, energy inside of photons is not at rest, but regarding all above, space-time does not exist without rest matter, therefore energy of photons also does not exist without rest matter.

Influence of mr on Duff's claims
Duff [7,8] claims for physical non-existence of c, G and hbar (PND),but [7] claims contrary. One of provocative Duff's questions is also why precisely three elementary units (m, s and kg) exist, why not, for instance, two or seven ones. But, in the example above it is evident that those three units form almost a complete set, because time does not exist without matter and it is part of space. We can also see that this is connected with conservation of the momentum. At the same time we can conclude, that the Cube theory [7] is not an appropriate answer for Duff question and that its connection with Duff's question is only an accident.
The common interpretation of SR assumes that c is equal inside of all inertial systems. This agrees with Okun's supposition [7] that dimensionful quantities are also physically important, not only dimensionless quantities. But, the above derivation shows an example, where constancy of c is no more so important.
We can also include the mentioned example where masses of all particles are 1000 times smaller. In this case c would seem much smaller to us.
Therefore constant c is valid only if mu_i are constant and also if the common interpretation of SR is used. Hence these two conditions considerably lower universality of constancy of c. Of course, constancy of c is a consequence of relativity of inertial systems. So, constancy of c is still ever physically important.
The both interpretations also show that foundation of everything is rest matter. Hence also such an efficiency of the common interpretation of SR with the constant c.
The connection of matter and space-time in this paper and description of mu_i's as carriers of everything help us to debate about the importance of dimensionful quantities.
So, the example of derivation with mr is more realistic, because it really exists, it has some purpose and it is more imaginable than Duff's examples [7,8]. It is also shown that dimensionful quantities (as c) are also relative. In the common interpretation of SR, c is such as it is felt by an observer in any inertial system. The interpretation of SR with mr gives c in a neighbouring inertial system, as it is felt by observer in our inertial system. At examples with the small particles and with the animals, the speed of light is such as it is felt by an observer in this inertial system. But, speed of light c''' calculated by Schrodinger's units
c'''=c/alpha, (19)
is not felt by anyone. This example in unnatural, forced and with small realistic purpose.
Duff's main objection is that dimensionless quantities occur in physical calculations, and that dimensioful quantities are only mathematical tools, but they are not physically real. This can be answered with a comparison with the quantum mechanics. Let us look at, for instance, Feynman's derivation in [12]. Complex amplitudes here are summed up, and probability for one event is proportional to the square of this sum. Differently said, their linear impact is important. We can ask ourselves, if those imaginary numbers are physically real. In the above example they are indirectly physically real, because they are used in mathematical procedure. Use of imaginary numbers means also that the partial result of calculation is not physically real. If any derivation without imaginary numbers exists, still ever it will be a conclusion that a partial result is not physically real. One example of a view from a different aspect is Zeilinger-Brunkner's one [13].
The physical units behave similarly as amplitudes. For instance:
ln(2 kg) - ln(1 kg) = ln(2)-ln(1)+ln(kg)-ln(kg) = ln(2)-ln(1) (20)
ln(kg) is not defined (is not directly physically real), but it cancels in the calculation, similarly as imaginary numbers cancel with squaring.
Duff has also not shown any example where the physical units are not necessary to use in a derivation.
Duff also asserts for PND; this means also physical existence of c, G and hbar. c means one relation between time and length. Therefore analogically, we can say that the radian is approximately a relation between rectangular lengths, the analogous question is ifthe radian is physically non-existent. But the answer is that it exits physically.
Of course, the above examples do not finish the debate in the trialogue. Duff gives much more arguments.
One of key Duff's arguments is that dimensionful constants are redundant regarding dimensionless constants \mu_i and alpha.
An answer on this one demands a special article. But, in short, physics needs more parameters than only dimensionless particle masses (\mu_i) and charge (alpha). He also used examples with variable dimensionless and dimensionful elementary constansts [7,8], what need more precise treatment. This article can also be introduction for more precise treatment of Duff's claims.

Conclusion
It is not easy to visualize SR with only c=constant. But the additional presentation with mr helps us to visualize it better. The presentation with mr together with a more precise common interpretation of SR also opposes that SR is only the theory of space-time geometry.
It is not enough to show the symmetry of four-momentum to space-time, it should also be shown why this symmetry exists. The connection of space-time and mass shows that kg, m and s form one triplet. This is used to oppose Duff's claims for PND.
For a theory of everything we need to go to foundations. The postulates are also foundations of physics, not only formulae. A property of the equations in SR is that they are hyperbolic. But this is a consequence of the postulates, it is not a fundamental property. Some dimensionless constants are also foundations of physics. It is beneficial that they appear already in pre-theories of theory of everything, such as in SR.
Such many sided interpretations of formulae should also be written in other fundamental physical theories, for instance in quantum mechanics. One example, where this is done, is Zeilinger-Brukner interpretation of quantum mechanics [13]. Generalization of a new aspect of a known theory can give new cognitions.
The author is unsatisfied, because SR was not presented to him in school also in this way. This feeling is one example which shows on incompleteness of the common interpretation of SR. It is a trend in teaching of fundamental physics, that it should be as abstract as possible. For instance, it is known that our closed universe exists without any space out of universe. But, although external space does not exist, it is easier to visualize it. Similarly, it is better to visualize mr.

Clive · Answer

Hi,
This is extremely long. I doubt that anyone will be interested in editing the whole thing.
Here is my version of the first paragraph, bearing in mind that my knowledge of this technical topic is weak.

A connection between matter and space-time
It is possible to say that we see a larger mass inside the rocket, but from the rocket they see that we have a larger mass. Therefore, it seems that increasing mass is not realistic. However, this is exactly the same problem as in the common Lorentz equations, where relations for time show the same paradox. Yet, special relativity (SR) is a correct theory, and both the common interpretation of SR and the interpretation with relativistic mass (mr) are correct. In short, it is not incorrect that the mass-time relationship is only one-way. It is important that the introduction of mr explains the dilatation of time and the connection between matter and time. It is not necessary to look at the same time from two inertial systems; it is enough to look at one time from one inertial system and at another time from another inertial system.

Clive

VariableGravityConst · Answer

Thanks, Clive. Every sentcnce is helpful for me.
I have still some questions.
1. You wrote "we see a larger mass". Mass is not countable. But these rules have exceptions. Are you sure, that in this case article "a" is appropriate?
2. "mass-time relationship": In Wikipedia I found "mass-energy relationship". (for equation E=mc2) I hope that Wikipedia is grammarly correct? I found also:

written by rightondev
But for mass-time I am not sure, if it is similar to "mass-energy relationship"?
3. "It is not necessary to look"
Necessary is adjective. "Necessarily" is adverb. Are you sure, that your option is better?
You reduced my "but"s, what is fine.

BTW:
If some non-physicist wish to better understand relativity theory, this article is suitable. I can also help at this, because article is more suitable for physicists. At the end of section 2 ("Now it is seen, how it is with conservation of the momentum...") is the most simple and interesting part for non-physicists.

Clive · Answer

Hi,
A connection between matter and space-time
It is possible to say that we see a larger mass inside the rocket, but from the rocket they see that we have a larger mass. Therefore, it seems that increasing mass is not realistic. However, this is exactly the same problem as in the common Lorentz equations, where relations for time show the same paradox. Yet, special relativity (SR) is a correct theory, and both the common interpretation of SR and the interpretation with relativistic mass (mr) are correct. In short, it is not incorrect that the mass-time relationship is only one-way. It is important that the introduction of mr explains the dilatation of time and the connection between matter and time. It is not necessary to look at the same time from two inertial systems; it is enough to look at one time from one inertial system and at another time from another inertial system.
Thanks, Clive. Every sentcnce is helpful for me.
I have still some questions.
1. You wrote "we see a larger mass". Mass is not countable. But these rules have exceptions. Are you sure, that in this case article "a" is appropriate? Yes. When you use 'larger' with 'mass', you are starting to talk about diferent kinds of 'mass'. 'Mass' can be countable in some contexts.If that makes you uncomortable, you might say 'more mass'. Or, if you really want to stick with 'greater mass', just go ahead, as the meaning seems clear.
2. "mass-time relationship": In Wikipedia I found "mass-energy relationship". (for equation E=mc2) I hope that Wikipedia is grammarly correct? I found also:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=29820
written by rightondev
But for mass-time I am not sure, if it is similar to "mass-energy relationship"? Theese are physics questions, not grammar questions.
3. "It is not necessary to look"
Necessary is adjective. "Necessarily" is adverb. Are you sure, that your option is better?
I put 'it is necessary' to match 'it is enough' which you say later in the sentence. Bear in mind that I don't understand your actual meaning.

You reduced my "but"s, what is fine.

Clive

Correction of a scientific article

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions