RE: Doubts About Modern Physics

[Transpower]

There is nothing like doing some experiments to change one's mind. As per the previous thread, Doubts About Modern Physics, I had thought that the time constant for a DC RC electrical circuit should be RC/(V/4.94), rather than simply RC. This was so because in the theoretical paradigm I work with, called the Reciprocal System, resistance has the dimensions (t^2)/(s^3) and capacitance has the dimension of space s (as in the cgs system). Therefore, it would seem to be necessary to divide by voltage, t/(s^2), in order to get time, t, as the result. The previous thread went on and on and so finally I decided to take a break from theoretical physics and do some old-fashioned experimental physics.

I purchased the necessary circuit components and a Rigol 1102E digital storage oscilloscope. I tried various ordinary and electrolytic capacitors and different resistors and voltage sources. To my astonishment, actually, I found that in all cases the time constant turned out to be RC, and not RC/(V/4.94). I'm still waiting to do a test with a vacuum capacitor--this might have a time constant inversely related to voltage. We'll see.

So now I've had to modify the deductions from the Postulates of the Reciprocal System to conclude that capacitance has the dimensions (s^3)/t. This is so because the permittivity, (s^2)/t, must be included (except possibly for a vacuum capacitor). Therefore the cgs units are wrong and Larson's previous deductions and mine in this area have to corrected. I've written the third revision of "Theory of the Capacitor" and posted it to my theoretical physics blog site, http://transpower.wordpress.com (and uploaded it here as an attachment). Please note, however, that there has been no change in the theoretical physics concepts involved: the Reciprocal System still says that massless, chargeless electrons are stored in a capacitor, not charged electrons. We also still do not agree with the conventional explanation of the two capacitor problem: which says that charge conservation holds, not energy conservation. The Reciprocal System says that energy conservation holds, and that the electrical quantity increases during the process--the electrons are derived from the second capacitor's plates and connecting wires and are pushed into the second capacitor by the voltage; the energy lost by the first capacitor is gained by the second capacitor.

[pzkpfw]

Apart from modifying your time constant, how is this new or changed over your previous thread?

[Strange]

The previous thread went on and on and so finally I decided to take a break from theoretical physics and do some old-fashioned experimental physics.

Congratulations. This is a huge step forward.

To my astonishment, actually, I found that in all cases the time constant turned out to be RC, and not RC/(V/4.94).

So you admit that reciprocal theory is completely wrong and standard physics is correct?

So now I've had to modify the deductions from the Postulates of the Reciprocal System ...

Apparently not.

[Transpower]

To clarify: the dimensions of capacitance in space-time terms are now considered to be (s^3) / t, which is different from before. The theory wasn't wrong--my deduction and Larson's deduction that capacitance would simply be s has been replaced by the deduction that it is s^3 / t. Work on the theory is self-correcting; if a contradiction arises, it's a matter of going back up the logic chain to see where the error was and correcting it. The Reciprocal System is a theory of everything and so contradictions within it cannot exist. As soon as an error is found, and we're sure it's an error, we correct it.

According to SI (see p. 25 of Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, 4th Ed.), the dimensions of capacitance are: (s^(-2)) x (m^(-1)) x (t^4) x (i^2). Conventional theory does not reduce mass and current to space and time, but in the Reciprocal System mass is (t^3)/(s^3) and current is s/t. Plugging these dimensions into the SI dimensions gives (s^3) / t, which now seems to be correct.

Those of us who work in theoretical physics know that cgs is generally closer to physical reality than SI. It is therefore somewhat surprising to us that SI is closer here.

[korjik]

To clarify: the dimensions of capacitance in space-time terms are now considered to be (s^3) / t, which is different from before. The theory wasn't wrong--my deduction and Larson's deduction that capacitance would simply be s has been replaced by the deduction that it is s^3 / t. Work on the theory is self-correcting; if a contradiction arises, it's a matter of going back up the logic chain to see where the error was and correcting it. The Reciprocal System is a theory of everything and so contradictions within it cannot exist. As soon as an error is found, and we're sure it's an error, we correct it.

According to SI (see p. 25 of Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, 4th Ed.), the dimensions of capacitance are: (s^(-2)) x (m^(-1)) x (t^4) x (i^2). Conventional theory does not reduce mass and current to space and time, but in the Reciprocal System mass is (t^3)/(s^3) and current is s/t. Plugging these dimensions into the SI dimensions gives (s^3) / t, which now seems to be correct.

Those of us who work in theoretical physics know that cgs is generally closer to physical reality than SI. It is therefore somewhat surprising to us that SI is closer here.

Units are by definition reality neutral.

You still dont seem to see that your idea is going to have to evolve into mainstream theory if you keep doing experiments. Capacitors are understood well enough that literally billions of them are used in you reading this post, and that could not happen if the theory was more than a tiny bit off.

You made a prediction that went against mainstream theory. You did an experiment which went against your theory but was spot on mainstream theory. At this point you are supposed to go 'maybe mainstream theory is on to something', not try to beat your idea into a shape that matches what you measured.

[Tensor]

Those of us who work in theoretical physics know that cgs is generally closer to physical reality than SI.

This is just plain wrong. Everyone knows the system closest to reality is the FFF system (Furlong, Firkin, Fortnight).

It is therefore somewhat surprising to us that SI is closer here.

How one choses to define the system of length, mass, time and other units to measure the different defined terms has no effect on whether the chosen system is closer to reality or not. If you get some peculiar or particular result, only due to the unit you've chosen, then the result isn't that peculiar or particular. Do you really think that it matters if you call a length 1 km, 1000 m, 100,000 cm, 1.6 miles, or 4.97 furlongs? Converting from one system to another is not difficult.

[pzkpfw]

Closed. See rule 13A.