On The Conservation of Energy

Lorenzo Santini

Introduction

Energy Conservation principle (first law of thermodynamics) is today one of the cornerstones of modern physics. On the base of such principle a transversal connection between different branches of science has been established during the nineteenth century since the seminal works of Mayer, Joule and Helmholtz. Its origin is purely empirical and rooted in the mechanistic view of nature that is part of human history and soul from the earlier Greeks philosophers till the modern formalization of mechanics put in place by Galileo, Newton, Lagrange and Euler.

In Newtonian mechanics the energy conservation principle is a direct consequence of the existence of special typologies of forces, called conservative forces. Conservative forces are forces uniquely depending on the geometrical disposition of the bodies constituting a material system. Such forces, also called positional forces, allow the possibility to introduce a scalar function called potential whose gradient is the force itself. It is possible to rigorously demonstrate that in a material system subject only to conservative central forces the total sum of the kinetic and potential energies of the bodies constituting the system is constant in time (constant of motion). In these terms is set up the energy conservation principle in mechanics.

Nevertheless, The universally accepted validity of the principle of energy conservation, doesn’t have to bring the researcher in the condition to forget the conceptual foundations on which such principle is based. By shortly passing thru the words of some of the founders of last two centuries’ physics, It is easily demonstrated that such foundations are more fragile than commonly believed.

The recently rediscovered role of the active vacuum and its impact on the principle of conservation of energy is examined at the end of the paper in light of the advancement in eather theory.

1 Energy conservation in mechanics

1

All material systems can be conceptually modeled by imagining that their ultimate constituents are point masses (a good schematization of atoms or molecules) subject to two typologies of forces: internal and external forces. Internal forces are forces exchanged between the system’s constituents and are representatives of the force fields that emanates from one particle to another. The nature of such fields is fundamentally unknown even today despite the numerous empirical models attempting to schematize them (e.g. Lennard-Jones potential, Van der Vaals, Keesom, Debye, London forces etc).

External forces are forces belonging to external fields that have direct influence on the constituents of the system. Typical external forces are the gravitational force field and centrifugal fields.

For a material system constituted by a myriad of N particles it is possible to write the following equation of motion (Newton’s second law) for the i-th particle [Thornton & Marion 2004]:

∑jF ji+Fi

(e)=d Pidt

(1)

𝑖 𝑗

𝑭𝑗𝑖 𝑭𝑖𝑗 𝑭𝑖(𝑒)

Figure 1-Ensemble of N particles subjected to internal and external forces

Where F i(e) is the total external force on the i-th particle, F ji is the total internal force on the i-th

particle due to the j-th particle and Pi is the momentum (miV i) of the i-th particle.

It is possible to rigorously demonstrate that the principle of conservation of energy holds valid if and only if the system is subject to conservative external forces and conservative central internal forces.

2

The attribute “central” means that the forces are directed on the line joining the centers of the material bodies constituting the system and are equal and opposite for a pair of bodies randomly picked from the multitude. Such characteristic is mandatory to the energy conservation principle because it allows to cancel each pair of forces when the sum of the multitude is realized.

When internal forces are equal and opposite only (F ji=−F ij) it’s commonly said that they obey Newton’s third law, or the “Weak” law of action and reaction.

When internal forces are equal and opposite and directed along lines joining the particles pairs (also called Central forces), it’s commonly stated that they obey to the “Strong” law of action and reaction.

The work done by all forces in changing the material system from configuration 1 to configuration 2 is:

W 12≜∑i∫F i ∙ d S i (2)

But, F i=Fi(e)+∑

jF ji so that:

W 12=∑i∫F i(e) ∙ d Si+ ∑

i , j(i ≠ j)∫F ji ∙ d S i (3)

From Newton’s second law, F i=mi( d v idt ) and remembering that d si=v idt , it is possible to rewrite

equation (2) in the following way:

W 12≜∑i∫F i ∙ d S i=∑

i∫mi( d v idt ) ∙ v idt=∑

i∫mi ∙ v id v i=∑

i∫d ( 12mi v i

2)≜T 2−T 1 (4)

Where:

T≜ 12∑i

mi v i2 (5)

3

Is the total kinetic energy of the system. Expression (4) is the so called theorem of kinetic energy for which the variation of kinetic energy of a material system is the result of the total work done by all internal and external forces.

Now, if as supposed, external forces are conservative (depending on distance only), it is possible to write:

F i(e)=−∇iV i ( r i ) (6)

While for internal conservative and central forces (strong law of action and reaction) it is possible to write for each particles pair, I and j:

F ij=−∇ iV ij ( r ij) (7)

Where r ij=|ri−r j| is the distance between particle I and particle j.

F ij=−∇iV ij ( r ij)=∇ jV ij (rij )=−F ji=(r i−r j ) f (r ij) (8)

Where f (r ij) is a scalar function of the distance between I and j only.

So for conservative external forces it is possible to write:

∑i∫F i(e) ∙ d Si=−∑

i∫∇ iV i ∙ d Si=−∑

i(V i)2+∑

i(V i)1=(V (e))1−(V (e))2 (9)

Where V(e)≜∑

iV i is the total potential energy associated with external forces.

For conservative internal forces ( j ≠ i¿:

4

∑i , j( i ≠ j)

∫F ji ∙ d S i=12 ∑i , j (i≠ j)

∫ [F ji ∙ d Si+F ij ∙ d S j ]❑=−12 ∑

i , j ( i≠ j)∫ [∇iV ij ∙ d S i+∇ jV ij ∙ d S j ]❑

(10)

But:

∇ iV ij=−∇ jV ij=∇ijV ij ; ∇ ij≜ gradient withrespect ¿ rij; d S i−d S j=r ij

∑i , j(i ≠ j)

∫F ji ∙ d S i=−12 ∑

i , j (i≠ j)∫∇ijV ij ∙ d r ij❑=

−12 ∑

i , j(i ≠ j)(V ij)2+

12 ∑i , j (i ≠ j)

(V ij)1= (V I )1−(V I )2

(11)

Where VI≜ 12 ∑i , j(i ≠ j)

(V ij)❑is the total potential energy associated with internal forces.

For conservative external forces and conservative, central, internal forces, it is possible to define a potential energy function for the system:

V ≜V I+V e≜∑iV i+

12 ∑i , j (i ≠ j)

(V ij)❑ (12)

The total work done in a process from 1 to 2 is thus:

W 12=V 1−V 2=−∆V=T2−T1 (13)

Having used equation (4) for expressing relation (13). In conclusion it is possible to define the total mechanical energy as the sum of kinetic and potential energies:

E=T+V=constatnt (14)

So that the principle of conservation of energy for a many particles system is:5

If only conservative external forces and conservative, central internal forces are acting on a system, then the total mechanical energy of the system is conserved.

2 Helmoltz and the conservation of the force

The mandatory requirement to have central and purely positional forces for holding valid the energy conservation principle was clearly realized by Herman von Helmoltz [1821, 1894] in his seminal work “Huber die Heraltung der Kraft” (1847), where he explicitly sentences [Helmoltz 1847]:

“1. Whenever natural bodies act upon each other by attractive or repulsive forces, which are independent of time and velocity, the sum of their vires viva [i.e. kinetic energy] and tensions must be constant; the maximum quantity of work which can be obtained is therefore a limited quantity.

2.If, on the contrary, natural bodies are possessed of forces which depend upon time and velocity, or which act in other directions then the lines which unite each two separate material points, for example rotator forces, then combinations of such bodies would be possible in which force might be either lost or gained ad infinitum.

3.In the case of the equilibrium of a system of bodies under the operation of central forces, the exterior and the interior forces must, each system for itself, be in equilibrium, if we suppose that the bodies of the system cannot be displaced, the whole system only being movable in regard to bodies which lie within it. A rigid system of such bodies can therefore never be set in motion by the action of its interior forces, but only by the operation of exterior forces. If, however, other than central forces had an existence, rigid combinations of natural bodies might be formed which could move of themselves without needing any relation whatever to other bodies.”

Helmoltz, by recognizing the central importance of the principle of energy (“Force” in Helmoltz’s terminology) conservation in mechanics and acknowledging the failure of any attempt to realize any mechanical perpetuum mobile, concludes in his work that:

-energy conservation principle is universal and doesn’t apply to mechanics only

-each typology of energy is conceptually equivalent (mechanical, thermal, electrical) and transformable from one form to another

Starting From Helmoltz work on, the energy conservation principle became a cornerstone of physics and was used as a unifying principle and guiding tool for exploring all branches of science.

Maxwell in his review of Helmoltz’s achievements [Maxwell 1877], explicitly recognized that: “Whether this equation [i.e. the principle of conservation of energy] applies to actual material

6

systems is a matter which experiment alone can decide, but the search for what was called the perpetual motion has been carried on for so long, and always in vain, that we may now appeal to the united experience of a large number of most ingenious men, any one of whom, if he had once discovered a violation of the principle, would have turned it to most profitable account.

Besides this, if the principle were in any degree incorrect, the ordinary processes of nature, carried on as they are incessantly and in all possible combinations, would be certain now and then to produce observable and even startling phenomena, arising from the accumulated effects of any slight divergence from the principle of conservation.

But the scientific importance of the principle of conservation of energy does not depend merely on its accuracy as a statement of fact, nor even on the remarkable conclusions which may be deduced from it, but on the fertility of the methods founded on this principle.

Whether our work is to form a science by the colligation of known facts, or to seek for an explanation of obscure phenomena by devising a course of experiments, the principle of the conservation of energy is our unfailing guide. It gives us a scheme by which we may arrange the facts of any physical science as instances of the transformation of energy from one form to another. It also indicates that in the study of any new phenomenon our first inquiry must be, How can this phenomenon be explained as a transformation of energy? What is the original form of the energy? What is its final form? And What are the conditions of transformation?.”

3 Joule and his heating apparatus

The works of Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford) on the observation of the frictional heat generated by boring cannons at the arsenal in Munich [Rumford 1798] had a deep influence on the physics of 19th century. Rumford showed that water could be boiled by immersing cannon barrel heated by the boring process, thus establishing a potential link between mechanical and thermal energy. The fact was not new since the friction between disks moved by windmills power was used to heat the ambient air since centuries (saying nothing about rubbing the hands).

Rumford’s experiments inspired James Prescott Joule [1818-1889], son of an English wealthy brewer, that devoted a large portion of his scientific careers in precisely measuring the mechanical equivalent of heat.

In Joule’s apparatus [Joule 1845] a closed and thermally insulated barrel contains a fluid (water or mercury in Joule’s first experiments) and an impeller capable to heat the fluid by friction. The impeller is put in motion by a rope pulled by a weight free to fall vertically under the force of gravity. A thermometer allows to measure the increase of temperature of the fluid from the beginning till the end of the experiment.

7

Joule measured the variation of potential energy of the falling weight and, by neglecting the kinetic energy, he equated such variation to the increase of internal energy of the fluid in the box.

In formulas:

mg∆h=Mc p∆T (15)

Figure 2- Joule’s apparatus for the measure of the mechanical equivalent of heat

It is often mistakenly reported in modern physics books that Joule’s apparatus “demonstrated” the principle of energy conservation. Nevertheless, nothing is farer from the truth. Joule’s apparatus allowed only to quantify the specific heat at constant pressure for water (c p) in the hypothesis that energy is conserved. This crucial fact has to be kept clearly in mind each time that we perform an energy balance for a system. Equating mechanical to thermal energy in a closed system is conceptually a consequence of the a priori trust in energy conservation principle, nothing more, nothing less.

4 Maxwell and his credo in Ampere’s law

8

The work of J.C. Maxwell [1831-1879] is constantly pervaded by the omnipresence of the principle of energy conservation. His major contributions in physics (dynamics of Saturn’s rings, kinetic theory of gases, electromagnetism and so forth) were all obtained by making extensive utilization of the conservation of energy principle. It is opinion of the author that the genius and clarity of Maxwell’s writings holds unmatched in the scientific landscape of the past 2 centuries. “War es ein Gott, der diese Zeichen schrieb?1” asks Boltzmann in his lectures on Maxwell’s theory. Nevertheless Maxwell was a man of his time. His religious devotion to energy conservation principle forced him to make several crucial choices in electromagnetism theory, e.g. belief in Ampere’s law, that have still today incalculable impacts on our scientific culture and technology.

It is typically unknown to the most that Maxwell’s equations were obtained by applying Lagrange’s equations of motion thru an analogy between a mechanical and an electromagnetic system. In chapter VI of the second part of his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism Maxwell writes with his unmistakable clear style [Maxwell 1873]:

“…when an electric current exists in a conducting circuit, it has the capacity of doing a certain amount of mechanical work, and this independently of any external electromotive force maintaining the current. Now, capacity for performing work is nothing else than energy, in whatever way it arises, and all energy is the same in kind, however it may differ in form. The energy of an electric current is either of the form which consists in the actual motion of matter, or of that which consists in the capacity for being set in motion, arising from forces acting between bodies placed in certain positions relative to each other.

The first kind of energy, that of motion, is called Kinetic energy, and when once understood it appears so fundamental a fact of nature that we can hardly conceive the possibility of resolving it into anything else. The second kind of energy, that depending on position, is called Potential energy, and is due to the action of what we call forces, that is to say, tendencies toward change of relative position. With respect to these forces, thought we may accept their existence as a demonstrated fact, yet we always feel that every explanation of the mechanism by which bodies are set in motion forms a real addition to our knowledge.

The electric current cannot be conceived except as a kinetic phenomenon. Even Faraday, who constantly endeavored to emancipate his mind from the influence of those suggestions which the words “electric current” and “electric fluid” are too apt to carry with them, speaks of the electric current as “something progressive, and not a mere arrangement”. The effects of the current, such as electrolysis, and the transfer of electrification from one body to another, are all progressive actions which require time for their accomplishment, and are therefore of the nature of motions.

As to the velocity of the current, we have shown that we know nothing about it, it may be tenth of an inch in an hour, or a hundred thousand miles in a second. So far are we from knowing its absolute value in any case, that we do not even know whether what we call the positive direction

1 Was it God who wrote such signs?9

is the actual direction of the motion or the reverse. But all that we assume here is that the electric current involves motion of some kind. That which is the cause of electric currents has been called Electromotive Force. This name has long been used with great advantage, and has never led to any inconsistency in the language of science. Electromotive force is always to be understood to act on electricity only, not on the bodies in which the electricity resides. It is never to be confounded with ordinary mechanical force, which acts on bodies only, not on the electricity in them. If we ever come to know the formal relation between electricity and ordinary matter, we shall probably also know the relation between electromotive force and ordinary force.

When ordinary force acts on a body, and when the body yields to the force, the work done by the force is measured by the product of the force into the amount by which the body yields. Thus, in the case of water forced through a pipe, the work done at any section is measured by the fluid pressure at the section multiplied into the quantity of water which crosses the section.

In the same way the work done by the electromotive force is measured by the product of the electromotive force into the quantity of electricity which crosses a section of the conductor under the action of the electromotive force.

The work done by the electromotive force is of exactly the same kind as the work done by an ordinary force, and both are measured by the same standards or units.

Part of the work done by an electromotive force acting on a conducting circuit is spent in overcoming the resistance of the circuit, and this part of the work is thereby converted into heat. Another part of the work is spent in producing the electromagnetic phenomena observed by Ampere, in which conductors are made to move by electromagnetic forces. The rest of the work is spent in increasing the kinetic energy of the current, and the effects of this part of the action are shown in the phenomena of the induction of currents observed by Faraday.

We therefore know enough about electric currents to recognize, in a system of material conductors carrying currents, a dynamical system which is the seat of energy, part of which may be kinetic and part potential.

The nature of the connexions of the parts of this system is unknown to us, but has we have dynamical methods of investigation which do not require a knowledge of the mechanism of the system [i.e. Lagrange’s equations], we shall apply them to this case.”

From this point of the Treatise on, Maxwell starts applying the Lagranges’s dynamical theory to a generic system composed of circuits and currents and derives his set of famous 4 equations that are still today at the base of our electrical technology.

The above extractions from the Treatise represents the core of Maxwell dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field and clearly shows his belief in the unifying principle of energy conservation as a bridge between mechanical and electrical world.

10

Nevertheless, despite the major success of his theory and equations in describing the observed phenomena and predicting the electromagnetic nature of light, Maxwell feels the need at the end of his work to explore the long unsolved and unsatisfactorily treated problem of the Action at a Distance. In chapter XXIII of the Treatise the problem of the forces exchanged between portions of electrical circuits and charges is analyzed in the light of the works of Ampere, Gauss and Weber.

Gauss and Weber respectively obtained the following two expressions for the forces exchanged between electrical charges in movement:

FGauss=ee '

r2 [1+ 1c2 (u2−32 ( ∂ r∂ t )2)] (16)

FWeber=e e'

r2 [1+ 1c2 (r ∂2r∂ t 2−12 ( ∂r∂ t )2)] (17)

The first expression (16) discovered by Gauss in July 1835 was interpreted by him as a fundamental law of electrical action [Gauss 1835]: “two elements of electricity in a state of relative motion attract and repel one another, but not in the same way as if they are in a state of relative rest”.

Expressions (16) and (17) lead to the same results once applied to the determination of the mechanical force between two closed circuits, and the result coincide with Ampere’s law (see later). Nevertheless the two equations when applied to two electrical particles, by expressing a force as a function of velocities and accelerations, bring to an unavoidable violation of the energy conservation principle. In Maxwell’s words: “Now, in establishing the principle of the conservation of energy, it is generally assumed that the force acting between two particles is a function of the distance only, and it is commonly stated that if it is a function of anything else, such as the time, or the velocity of the particles, the proof would not hold. Hence a law of electrical action, involving the velocity of the particles, has sometimes been supposed to be inconsistent with the principle of the conservation of energy.

The formula of Gauss is inconsistent with this principle, and must therefore be abandoned, as it leads to the conclusion that energy might be indefinitely generated in a finite system by physical means….”.

The above discussion shows Maxwell’s unconditional faith in energy conservation principle that pushes him to reject aprioristically an equation even before trying to attempt to verify his

11

adherence to the physical facts, if such equation is not in compliance with such principle of conservation.

Passing from forces between moving electrical charges to the apparently more simple case of wire elements bringing currents, the position of the scientific community is even more confused and still split between several options. The dispute between Ampere’s and Grassmann’s (also called Biot-Savart) laws of currents interactions is emblematic.

Ampere’s law of force between two infinitely thin lines (ds1 and ds2) bringing currents i1 and i2 is expressed by the following formula:

d2F Amp=−μ0 i1i24 π

r 12r 123 [2 (d s1 ∙ d s2 )− 3

r122 (d s1 ∙r12 )(d s2 ∙r12)] (18)

Ampere’s formula [Ampere 1826] was deduced not from other more fundamental principles, but proceeding from 4 experimental observations including the need to respect Newton’s third law. Ampere did not give a clear and logical deduction from the empirical phenomena observed by him. This fact was also noted by Maxwell, who proposed his own deduction of Ampere’s formula on 16 pages of his Treatise. It has to be noted that Ampere’s law allows longitudinal forces along the wire bringing current.

Biot-Savart law (also known as Grassmann’s equation in its integral form) is expressed by the following equation:

d2F BS=−μ0i1 i24 π

r12r123 [d s2×(d s1)×r 12] (19)

Grassmann/Biot-Savart’s equation can be deduced from first principles passing thru Lorentz’s force between charges and magnetic fields created by other charges as was done also recently by Marinov [Marinov 1984].

Both equations (18) and (19) lead to the same law of attraction if expressing the force of a closed loop on a current element. In the words of Marinov: “Although the Biot-Savart’s and Ampere’s formulas are substantially different, the physicists, like the Buridan ass, cannot still decide which of them is adequate to physical reality. The motivation is that both formulas lead to identical results for the action of a closed loop on a current element. [….] But for the action of a current element on a closed loop both formulas lead to different results. The answer is that nobody has been able

12

to measure the action of a current element (or of a part of a loop!) on a closed loop, and for two closed loops both formulas again lead to the same result […].”

Maxwell speaks about Ampere’s formula as “one of the most brilliant achievement of science”. He declares without hesitation that “The whole theory and experiments seems as if it had leaped, full-grown and full-armed, from the brain of the “Newton of electricity”. It is perfect in form and unassailable in accuracy; and it is summed up in a formula from which all the phenomena may be deduced, and which must always remain the cardinal formula of electrodynamics.”

Heaviside, however, in 1888 expressed a different opinion and serious concerns about the validity of Ampere’s law [Heaviside 1888]: “It has been stated, on no less authority than that of the great Maxwell, that Ampere’s law of force between a pair of current elements is the cardinal formula of electrodynamics. If so, should we not be always using it? Do we ever use it? Did Maxwell in his Treatise? Surely there is some mistake. I do not in the last mean to rob Ampere of the credit of being the father of electrodynamics; I would only transfer the name of cardinal formula to another due to him, expressing the mechanical force on an element of a conductor supporting current in any magnetic field-the vector product of current and induction [i.e. Lorentz force]. There is something real about it; it is not like his force between a pair of unclosed elements; it is fundamental; and as everybody knows, it is in continual use, either actually or virtually (through electromotive force), both by theorists and practicians.”

The dispute about the validity of Ampere’s law is still open today (2018). The scientific community is in a status of visible embarrassment and conspiratorial silence. Everybody knows that renouncing to Ampere’s law for another (e.g. Grassmann) one expressing forces between electrical circuits non obeying to Newton’s third law, would force the whole scientific community to shake the foundations of physics, saying nothing about our power generation technology.

One lonely heretic thinker tried desperately such path during the nineties of the XX century, but ended his life and scientific career in brutal way.

5 Marinov, conservation laws and the Ampere’s floating bridge

Stefan Marinov [1931-1997] devoted his entire professional life in trying to demonstrate two basic facts:

-the possibility to measure absolute velocities in the universe

-the possibility to violate conservation laws

About the first point more will be said in chapter 7. For what concerns the possibility to violate conservation laws and more specifically the law of conservation of energy, Marinov considers the

13

unsolved problem of the validity of Ampere’s law by analyzing a simple experimental apparatus, the so called Ampere’s floating bridge.

Ampere’s floating bridge consists of two troughs of mercury connected with each other by a floating bridge of copper wire. When an electric current is injected into the wire as per figure 2, the bridge is set in motion in the direction indicated in the picture.

To exclude possible forces on the surface between copper and mercury, Tait substituted later the copper bridge by a glass-tube filled with mercury, the effect remained the same.

The motion shows a possible case of interaction of parts of wires in the same loop where a potential violation of Newton’s third law can be observed.

The two parallel wires create a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane on which they lie (the plane parallel to the surface of the mercury). The field by interacting with the electrons passing in the transversal wire (the bridge) created the propelling effect thru the Lorentz force.

Today there exists alternative explanations to the motion of the Ampere’s floating bridge and the debate is far away to be considered as closed [Graneau&Graneau 1996].

Figure 2 – Ampere’s floating bridge

Now, if Marinov’s explanation is valid and if Newton’s third law can be violated, also the principle of energy conservation is consequently violated. In fact, by imagining to reduce to zero all frictions and the Joule heating of the current in Ampere’s bridge, it is easily shown that the copper part would increase its kinetic energy indefinitely. From where such energy would be coming? It will be

14

shown in the next parts that either we renounce to the principle of energy conservation, or alternatively, we have to introduce a new energy pit that was neglected till today.

6 Feynman and “Dennis the Menace”

Richard Feynman [1919-1989] in his famous “Lectures” propose a very interesting metaphor for describing the nature of the principle of conservation of energy [Feynman 1963]. A child, Dennis the Menace, is playing in a room with some blocks and by counting them recognizes that their number is constant at the end of the day. By counting the blocks the day after he finds out that there are 2 blocks less, but after careful evaluation he discovers that those 2 block were just hidden under the carpet, so that the total number is unchanged. Another day he discovers that there are 5 blocks more…and after careful investigation he discovers that those 5 more blocks have been simply brought into his house by a friend. Basically he’s able to track the total number of blocks by counting what’s coming in and what’s going out: the parallel with the principle of energy conservation is immediate and doesn’t need further discussions. In Feynman’s words:

“There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.”

Now, as clearly described by Feynman’s the principle is purely abstract, because those “blocks” don’t exist in reality, we can just mathematically always find a way to calculate their number.

But this fact must force us to raise the following question: if such blocks are a pure abstraction and if we can always find the way to match the balance of a system, is this principle intrinsically “ingrained” into nature, or it’s just a human mental construction?

The question doesn’t have an answer according to the writer and it is ontologically equivalent to decide that it’s useless to count the blocks or, on the contrary, to do it for satisfying the need to match a balance. It will be shown in the following that if we decide to go for this last option and to save the principle of energy conservation, the role of the active vacuum must be imperatively taken into account in order to provide the missing source of blocks under Dennis’ carpet.

7 The new physics: M&M experiment revisited, the reformulation of action and reaction principle and the role of the vacuum

15

Maxwell founded his dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field on the firm conviction that there must be an omnipervasive fabric thru which waves and energy propagates and oscillates. Such medium, the eather, was the constant object of his research and he spent titanic efforts in creating mechanical models in line with the empirical evidences.

At the end of the Treatise he writes: “If something is transmitted from one particle to another at a distance, what is its condition after it has left the one particle and before it has reached the other? If this something is the potential energy of the two particles, as in Newman’s theory, how are we to conceive this energy as existing in a point of space, coinciding neither with the one particle nor with the other? In fact, whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other, for energy, as Torricelli remarked, “is a quintessence of so subtile a nature that it cannot be contained in any vessel except the inmost substance of material things”. Hence all these theories lead to the conception of a medium in which the propagation takes place, and if we admit this medium as an hypothesis, I think it ought to occupy a prominent place in our investigations, and that we ought to endeavor to construct a mental representation of all the details of its action, and this has been my constant aim in this treatise.”

The vacuum has been long considered as synonym of nothingness. Starting from the classical experiment of Michelson and Morely, M&M [Michelson-Morely 1887] the vacuum has entirely been voided from any physical property.

Einstein founded his “special relativity” , SR, on the outcomes of M&M experiment and appropriated the concepts of lengths contraction, time dilation and light speed constancy. The debate about eather nature and role that for long time fired the XIX century physics and that was central in Maxwell’s electromagnetism, was quickly banned by Einstein’s gospel.

Concepts like relativistic time dilation and length contractions, despite their violation of any basic logic rule [Dingle 1972], caught on and kept the scene of the whole XX’s century physics. Giants like Maxwell, Lorentz, Hertz, Poincarè and others that could have seriously challenged the validity of the “new physical revolution” quickly passed away between the end of ‘800 and the beginning of ‘900, leaving the physics destiny in the hands of a new generation of thinkers. General Relativity, GR, followed in 1916 by reintroducing from the window what was banned from the main entrance door: in a schizophrenic 180° U turn, the vacuum of GR was no longer synonym of emptiness, but a fabric at least capable of bending itself depending on the intensity of the gravitational field. GR allowed to introduce and “explain”, between the others, ideas like light rays bending, Mercury’s perihelion precession, galactic red-shifts, black holes and big bang. Such concepts are still today the daily bread of the official academia that preach them by wandering about their alleged existence and validity.

The scientific method founded by Galileo and Newton taught once for all to the world that a theory can be considered valid only if it’s possible to support it with objective empirical evidences.

16

An experiment must be unequivocally interpreted and especially reproducible. Same results must be expected from the same experiment executed under the same conditions.

A theory that doesn’t match facts has to be rejected and substituted with something better. Scientists that force facts to match a theory has to be banned from the scientific community. Furthermore another principle known as Ockham’s razor has to be kept in mind each time that arise the explanation of some phenomena: when two possible explanations of the same phenomenon are plausible, the simplest one is more likely to be accepted.

Michelson and Morley experiment outcomes, interpreted as evidence of the non existence of the eather, could have been judged differently especially considering that we have today evidences that the null 1887 result in reality wasn’t null at all [Munera 1998] and that similar later experiments unequivocally detected an absolute motion of earth (eather drift). The impact of Michelson and Morely experiment on eather’s theories is in any case ambiguous and often misinterpreted. In the words of Swenson [Swenson 1970]: “Physicists generally teach that the rise of relativity occurred after the fall of the eather, but historians must argue that the fall of eather happened after the rise of relativity.”

Today we know that phenomena like Kasimir’s effect, Lamb’s shift and vacuum birefringence can be explained only by introducing an active role of the vacuum on the physics of electric charges and fields. Furthermore apparent violations of the third law of dynamics, that if experimentally confirmed will have major impacts on our possibility to explore the universe, can be interpreted only in the light of such new eather theories [Pinheiro 2009, White 2016].

The eather concept is being reevaluated in the light of recently achieved success in unified theories [Evans 2003] that never saw the light during the last century. Modern eather is not only a medium that allows the diffusion of electromagnetic and gravitational fields, but also a plenum, energetically very dense. The debate on the possibility to tap significant portion of such energy is still underway with claims that are often very difficult to be evaluated and systematically reproduced. Whichever is the energy density of the fabric of space that pervades the universe, the possibility to tap it has to be imperatively pursued by mankind if we want to make a quantum leap in our evolutionary role in the universe.

What is certain is that every thermodynamic system can no longer be considered as a closed one, being everything existing in this universe permanently immersed in such sea of energy and very likely actively exchanging with it. If we will decide to save the first law of thermodynamics, the exchange of energy between a material system and the active vacuum can no longer be neglected in physics.

Dennis’ carpet existence is finally recognized, it’s up to us to understand how and when to fully lift it.

Bibliography

17

Ampère, A.M., Théorie des phénomènes électro-dynamiques, uniquement déduite de l'expérience, Méquignon-MarvisThornton & Marion, 1826.

Dingle, H., Science at the Crossroads, Martin Brian & O’Keefe, London, 1972.

Evans, M. W., A Generally Covariant Field Equation for Gravitation and electromagnetism, Foundations of Physics Letters. 16 (4): 369–377, 2003.

Feynman, R., Feynman’s lectures on Physics, 1963.

Gauss, K.F., Werke, vol. 5 pag 616, Gottingen Edition 1867.

Graneau, P.,Graneau N., Newtonian Electrodynamics, World Scientific Publishing Co. 1996.

Heaviside,A., Electrician, p.229; In Heaviside’s Electrical papers, ii, p.500, 1888.

Helmoltz, H. Von, Uber die Erhaltung der Kraft, 1847.

Joule, J.P., On the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat, Brit. Assoc. Rep., trans. Chemical Sect, p.31, read before the British Association at Cambridge, June 1845.

Marinov, S., On the Action and Interaction of Stationary Currents, in “The Thorny Way of Truth”, Vol. 2, International Publisher “East-West”, 1984.

Maxwell, J.C. , Nature Vol. 15, 1877.

Maxwell, J.C., A Treatise on Electricity And Magnetism, 1873.

Michelson, A. A.; Morley, E. W., On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science. 34: 333–345, 1887.

Munera, H.A., Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Different Experiments, and Compatibility with Absolute Space, Apeiron Vol. 5 Nr. 1-2, January-April 1998.

Pinheiro, M.J., On Newton’s Third Law, New Journal of Physics, 2009.

Swenson, L.S., The Michelson-Morley-Miller Experiments before and after 1905, JHA I, 56-78, 1970.

Thompson, B. , An inquiry concerning the source of the heat which is excited by friction, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 88 : 80–102, 1798.

White,H., March,P., Lawrence,J., Vera,J., Sylvester,A., Brady,D., Bailey,P., Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum, Journal of Propulsion and Power. 33 (4): 1–12, 2016.

18

19