What is the principle of reciprocity?

The equivalence principle is the basic starting point of Einstein's general theory of relativity, but there are still some mistakes. The theoretical structure of Newtonian mechanics needs to be readjusted, that is, the axiomatic system needs to be rebuilt. My Three Laws of Inertia Mechanics is an attempt of this new axiom system.

First, the right and wrong of the principle of reciprocity

Some people say that the "equivalence principle" violates the knowledge of mechanics, which is true. The problem is that this understanding has two results: one is to completely deny the principle of equivalence, while the original mechanical knowledge is unshakable; Second, it just shows the limitations and incompleteness of current mechanical knowledge, and it also shows that mechanical knowledge needs to be changed. The equivalence principle is independent of Newton's three laws and the law of universal gravitation. )

In my opinion, the objective phenomenon contained in the equivalence principle is undeniable, and it is an objective fact that the original mechanical knowledge (Newtonian mechanics) has not involved. So the knowledge of mechanics needs to be changed. Einstein's great achievement lies in seeing this objective fact and trying to change the understanding of Newtonian mechanics, thus establishing his "general theory of relativity". The essence of Einstein's thought is what he said in the book Introduction to Special and General Relativity: "Objects of the same nature show inertia or weight (literally, weight) according to different situations." (Note: Read it! Even the translator who translated this article avoided talking about the word "important", which shows the inertia of mechanical knowledge at the beginning. Einstein used emphasis symbols when writing this sentence, which shows that this is the essence of Einstein's thought. If "the apple landed by itself" is because of its gravity, it is tantamount to saying that Einstein's great achievement lies in linking gravity and inertia and realizing that they are one property. It is perhaps the most important embodiment of the true value of scientific research to connect different objective phenomena that many people think are irrelevant and realize that they are of the same nature. Newton's great achievement lies not in "discovering gravity", but in discovering that the phenomenon of "apple falling to the ground" and the celestial revolution "centripetal acceleration" belong to the same nature. We can't blame Newton for attributing this same property to gravity, because there were no concepts of "evolution" and "field" in Newton's time. As a serious scientist, Newton only affirmed his two achievements on this issue: 1. He affirmed the identity of "gravity" on earth and "centripetal force" on celestial bodies; This "gravity" is expressed mathematically. Newton himself always doubted the "gravitational distance". Sadly, however, people after Newton still regard gravity as Newton's great discovery. Sadly, since Newton's time, many people have taken solving the problem of transforming the "distance action" of gravity into "direct action" as their lifelong research direction. Gravity! "Leading" countless heroes to victory. If Newton used the word "gravity" to express this kind of "homogeneity" because of helplessness, people today can forgive his helplessness. But today, many people still have to admit that this "helplessness" is a great discovery, and it is really sad to rack one's brains to invent "particles" (whatever they are called) to achieve "direct effects". I am reminded of the story of the priests in the medieval church arguing about "how many angels can stand on the tip of a needle". People today must think that such a "research topic" is really meaningless. Then I can also say that the research topic "Why gravity produces the action of distance" is meaningless to later people. Since it is "gravity", according to the "opposite" thinking, some people still make a "repulsion", which is even more tragic. Of course, I don't hide my respect for them, because after all, they are people who "give up their lives and devote themselves to the cause of science", not people who live only for themselves.

I'm telling my alumni who graduated from the Physics Department of Northeast Normal University that the free fall of an object is the result of the "gravity" of the object, not the "external force", and certainly not the result of "gravity". Alumni added: Then why do objects "fall" by themselves? I replied: then why can't we think that an object can "fall" by itself because of its own "gravity" rather than external force? Someone here will laugh at me. If an object falls by itself, why should we study it? Yes! If we only know so much, why should we study it? I thought it said. It is unscientific to attribute the cause of "free fall" to "gravity". It is important that Einstein linked "gravity" and "inertia" and realized that their essence is the same. This is science and its true value. The next step is how to change the original mechanical knowledge structure. Unfortunately, Einstein had a correct starting point, but he did not complete the task of changing the original mechanical knowledge structure (that is, the reorganization of the mechanical theoretical structure). Then why didn't Einstein finish it? Of course, it was caused by his defects in understanding, and he took a big detour. Einstein said that people all over the world can understand Chaplin's humor, while Chaplin said that only a few people in this world "understand" Einstein's theory. In my opinion, only a few people "understood" Einstein's theory, which just shows that Einstein didn't really "understand" himself, let alone those people. The truth should be simple and clear. Unfortunately, however, some people don't understand (and can't understand) what was originally a "muddled account" but blame others for not understanding it. Then, they turned it into "inscrutable" and "incredible" before they thought it was the truth. What logic is this? Einstein's "situation" (see the previous sentence) is unscientific. Einstein's scientific description of the principle of equivalence is the beginning of a detour.

Einstein's equivalence principle is an empirical proposition with unclear connotation and infinite extension. It is a very immature empirical proposition, but it has not yet risen to rational understanding (in fact, it has really reached the essential understanding, and this empirical proposition has completed its historical mission. ) empirical proposition. Many books have different expressions on the principle of reciprocity, which illustrates this point. Generally speaking, the connotation expression of perceptual knowledge angle has two aspects: one is the expression of the observer's angle of "accelerometer reading"; The other is the expression of "weightlessness and heaviness" of self-feeling. Local "situation" is expressed by "elevator" and "laboratory". There is no "local situation" in the expression of "situation" in the angle of coordinate system (reference system). In order to restore this local situation, it is expressed by "neighborhood" and small "scale". However, this is not the expression of rational knowledge.

Einstein extended the equivalence principle to infinite errors, and the direct consequence was the "equivalent thinking experiment" of the speed of light. I have to give a counterexample here. Einstein said that in "free space", there is a small hole in the wall of a laboratory, which is accelerating linearly at a speed close to the speed of light, and light is injected into the laboratory from this small hole. So this beam is curved in this laboratory. Therefore, the beam in the gravitational field is also curved, which is "equivalent". As a result, black holes and gravitational lenses came out. I can also carry out a "thinking experiment": in this free space, the "uniform linear motion" beam near the speed of light in the laboratory is also deflected. If several such laboratories move side by side at a constant speed, the beams in these laboratories will also bend and deflect. How do you explain this? It turns out that the origin of "equivalence principle" is the category of "low speed" phenomenon.

Second, the negation of negation

From the age of 19, I decided to solve the essential problem in my life-gravity. I thought I basically achieved my goal in 1987 and wrote a paper of about 50,000 words. Later, without a chance to publish a paper, he turned to scientific and technological invention activities. A few years ago, in the year of my "destiny", I had the opportunity to express my views (see the references at the back of this article). I'd like to add my opinion on this website. The core of my main point is to judge whether an object is in "inertial motion" (including "gravity"). In perceptual language, if an object is in a "weightless state", it is an "inertial motion state". Therefore, the orbital motion and free fall motion of celestial bodies are inertial motion States. Objects at rest on the ground also move inertia in the horizontal direction; The weightlessness of the space laboratory means that it is in inertial motion. Objects at rest on the ground do non-inertial motion in the vertical direction.

The premise of my view is that there are two kinds of spaces, one is the space without gravity field, and the other is the space with gravity field. The inertial motion state or non-inertial motion state of objects in these two spaces are basically opposite. It only involves movement, of course, only space and time, and it also involves the relativity of movement. Then, it involves the question of frame of reference. However, people nowadays have been entangled in the issues of space and time for too long. Space and time are the "forms" of material existence, and it is really worthwhile to waste energy entangled in "forms". At present, it is generally said that Einstein's general theory of relativity attributed "gravity to geometric properties", which is just the opposite (the opposite of understanding). It should be that "geometry (space and time) is endowed with physical properties" (that is, "field"), just like many mathematical formulas in our physics have physical meanings. It should be noted that the starting point of our understanding is the objective physical world, not the mathematical formula. Always trying to find the truth in the derivation of mathematical formulas is wrong in epistemology. Some people always follow the law of "so-and-so". You don't know how accurate the expression of the physical meaning we "give" is, and you haven't considered it deeply. In other words, we should pay attention to the extent to which our mathematical formulas accurately express our understanding of the "physical world". For example, I said in my paper that the real physical meaning of Newton's law of universal gravitation is the generalized inertial force of an object, not "gravity". Mathematical formula is a better way for us to express the meaning of "physics", rather than the starting point of understanding. As our understanding of the "physical world" changes, so will our mathematical formulas. For example, I put forward three laws of inertial mechanics (different from Newtonian mechanics) in my paper, which is a change of the original basic (axiomatic) mathematical formula of mechanics. My three laws of inertia include Newton's first and second laws, the connotation of "equivalence principle" and Newton's "law of universal gravitation".

Here I would like to add that there are two kinds of mathematical formulas in physics: one is axiomatic (established) formula, such as Newton's three laws; The other is empirical formula (in the axiomatic mechanical system, empirical formula has only the meaning of reference, but not the meaning of axiomatic logic). For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation. Generally speaking, the empirical formula is always right (some people say it works), but it is not unconditionally accurate. For example, since the law of universal gravitation is so precise, if the distance between two objects, no matter how small their mass, is less than a distance unit and approaches zero, then their gravitational value should approach infinity, and then we should not open the book. Why doesn't this phenomenon appear in the real world? When the spacecraft is "free" in the solar system and there is a phenomenon of "non-free" acceleration or deceleration, it is generally asked where this extra "force" comes from. For example, Xianfeng 10 and Xianfeng 1 1 have a deceleration effect, so it is considered that there is another force at work. Why can't this question explain the experience, limitation and approximation of the law of universal gravitation? (American scientists have now begun to question Newton's law of universal gravitation and think it has limitations. See reference [6] in this paper. The thinking reason of this problem is that it takes the law of universal gravitation as the "frame of reference". Just like when measuring the rotation speed of the earth, it is found that the clock changes quickly and slowly. The conclusion of this "discovery" is that when the earth's rotation speed is used as the time reference system and the clock is used as the time reference system, it is found that the earth's rotation speed is fast or slow. It cannot be considered that the spatial local equivalence of the equivalence principle is an individual problem and a secondary problem of science. Empirical proposition is the conclusion of a large number of phenomena and facts, which is universal, and the principle of equivalence as the essence of empirical proposition is of course universal. The local totality of space and the individual universality of problems are two different things. The equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass does not mean the equivalence principle itself. Taking the equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass as the universal principle and starting point deviates from Einstein's goal of unifying the essence of inertia and gravity. The difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass itself means that there is no "unity". It is a mistake of our thinking to divide the mass of the same object into two kinds of mass, and it takes a lot of energy to prove its equality. The essence of the problem is not "quality", but the essential meaning indicated by my law of inertia mechanics.

I am here to separate the absoluteness of inertia (as long as an object is in a state of weightlessness, no matter what its motion state is) from the relativity of motion, which may be the negation of negation. Or, in Hegel's logic, it is from the problem (Newtonian mechanics) to the inverse problem (Einstein's general theory of relativity) to the combination problem (my understanding).

Because I divide space (the space endowed with physical meaning) into "entropy" space (the space endowed with mechanical physical meaning) and gravitational field space (negative entropy space), it will inevitably lead to the source problem of this gravitational field space (rather than the gravitational field caused by gravity), which is the problem we want to solve, but we must never try to solve this problem with the original mechanical knowledge. I am glad to see the papers of Mr. He Peiping and Mr. Zhu on the Internet (see the references at the back of this article). They attribute the temperature gradient phenomenon of the earth itself to the decrease of "entropy", that is, they link the narrow sense of "entropy" in thermodynamics with the temperature gradient problem of the earth. This is the value of scientific research and a new understanding of the nature of discovery. The difference in understanding between me and teachers He Laoshi and Zhu is that they attribute this "entropy reduction" to gravity. And I take this "entropy reduction" (negative entropy) space as the starting point, and the so-called "gravity phenomenon" is also the embodiment of this "entropy reduction".

Three. Comments on comments

After the publication of my second paper, Mr. Wu from the Physics Department of Sichuan University commented on my views in an article entitled "Problems and Enlightenment of Three Gravity Hypotheses-Discussion with Three Authors" (see Reference [4] in this paper). Let me start by saying that Mr. Wu has a high academic level. I agree with his comments on the views of the other two gentlemen to some extent. I don't blame Mr. Wu for calling my point of view "holism", because when Mr. Wu published an article commenting on my paper, my third paper had not been published. However, I will briefly answer the comments on my point of view here.

1. The meaning of the word "whole" I use is different from that of Mr. Wu. Teacher Wu's "whole" is still the object meaning in physics, while my "whole" is the philosophical meaning of "the whole is greater than the parts" and also refers to the whole celestial body (not the object meaning in physics textbooks). I just talked about the meaning of my "wholeness" in my thesis "Inertia Mechanics and the Whole Scientific System". I don't think Mr. Wu will have any "father-son objects" after reading my third paper. Mr. Wu said that "there is no essential difference between a large pile of sand and a handful of sand taken out of it" is correct. The earth, as a "thing" of the whole celestial body, brings the crust out of the earth, which is not essentially different from the whole earth itself.

2. In my first paper, I only said that "there is no gravitational interaction between Cavendish balls". Mr. Wu said: "The measurement of gravitational constant G can be roughly divided into three categories: geophysical method measurement, laboratory measurement and space measurement." Almost all the objects measured in these experiments are regarded as weightless fields by holism. The earth in these three types of measurement and the "object" in space measurement all have integral celestial bodies. For example, the earth is an inseparable celestial body, how can it be said that it is regarded by me as a celestial body without a gravitational field? Only the laboratory (Cavendish experiment) is my problem. Therefore, it is generally said that these three experiments irrefutably deny the idea of holism (one of my views), which is somewhat inappropriate. I think Cavendish's experiment should be re-examined. It is not made out of nothing, but derived from the generalized inertial viewpoint and the factual logic of the "gravity" measurement in the mountains (see my three published papers).

Mr. Wu admits Einstein's view that gravity is no longer a "force", and at the same time says that the effect of gravity still exists, which is a contradictory view, because "force" itself is an effect. If gravity is not a force, it means there is no force.

It is inappropriate for Mr. Wu to deny my point of view by saying that "the idea of gravity has been completely acquiesced in scientific research and philosophy". Because the "default" view is not necessarily correct, for example, in the Copernican era, the default view was geocentric theory. Can we say that geocentric theory is correct?

If I use "experiment" to deny my point of view, the best argument is to come up with the results of my own experiment. In the history of science, there are too many arguments based on the results of conformity. In the next section, I will specifically question the "gravity" experiment in the laboratory.

However, my understanding of Mr. Wu himself is very important, and I think it is also very important, because Mr. Wu said, "... let it be an instinctive tool to perceive one's own existence." This sentence is to express a view that some "actions" are attributed to attributes (that is, instinct). However, at the end of the article, Mr. Wu said that "there are some fatal problems and contradictions in the three gravity hypotheses". How to explain the fatal problems and contradictions in Mr. Wu's article? Fourth, about the Cavendish experiment.

I haven't done the Cavendish experiment, but I can question: (1) If the Cavendish experiment comes to a conclusion, why are people still designing this experimental scheme in today's high technology? (2) Newton himself put forward two kinds of measurement methods, one is the method of backing measurement, and the other is the method in the laboratory. From18th century to today, many people have used the first method to measure, and this result has been mentioned in [1]. The gravity of the mountain is zero, so there is a gravitational effect between the balls that are pitifully smaller than the mountain in the laboratory? Because some people use the hypothesis of crustal equilibrium compensation to explain the measurement results of mountains, I put forward the scheme of measuring on asteroids or Mars satellites, which is also my prediction. (3) The concept of an object in mechanics is abstract, and the specific object in the experiment must be an object of a certain material. If the ball in the experiment can be magnetized by the earth's magnetic field, there will be a weak attraction effect. Does this rule out this influence? To do this experiment again, you should use all kinds of materials. In addition, whether the interference of other factors (such as airflow disturbance, light pressure, etc.) is really ruled out. )? (4) There is a defect in people's thinking, which is the same as the allusion of "the neighbor's axe". Is the conclusion of Cavendish experiment also caused by this defect? Some books ignore the measurement results of the mountain when introducing the measurement facts, while others avoid the heavy weight and introduce it lightly, avoiding the measurement results being zero on the grounds of bad weather and not knowing the density of the mountain.

We will know how many orders of magnitude the mass gap between the objects in the laboratory and the earth is. The gravitational value of two small balls in the laboratory at unit distance will be known according to the law of universal gravitation. So, how can such a small gravitational value be measured? Newton also said at that time that it was impossible to do experiments with "gravity" in the laboratory.

Five, the physical significance of the three laws of inertia mechanics

(A) the three laws of inertial mechanics

1, generalized law of inertia: the motion state of an object when it always maintains its internal ρ uniform space.

2. Generalized law of inertia: f = within F=kmP.

3. Generalized law of inertia: p outside -p inside =1/k× a.

(2) Several situations of the three laws of inertia mechanics.

1, F =0, A =0 When P is outside =0, and P is inside =0, this is Newton's first law, that is, objects in ρ uniform space always keep static and uniform linear motion;

2. When P is equal to 0 outside and P is equal to or less than 0 inside, F is equal to F=ma, which is Newton's second law. That is to say, an object in ρ uniform space needs an external force to maintain its accelerated motion, and the reaction force of this external force is the generalized inertial force of the object.

3. when P =g and a=g, P =0 and F=0. This is Galileo's law of free fall, which shows that free fall is generalized inertial motion. It also shows that the motion of free falling body has nothing to do with mass factor.

4. When P is outside ≠0 and P is inside =0, F= 0, that is to say, the objects in the gravity field always maintain the accelerated motion state corresponding to the gravity field intensity value; The orbital motion of the planet and the motion of the comet are generalized inertial motions in the gravitational field.

5. When P is ≠0 outside and P is ≠0 inside and a=0 or a≠0, F≠0, that is, the object in the gravitational field needs an external force to maintain its stationary uniform linear motion state or its accelerated motion state that does not correspond to the strength value of the gravitational field. The reaction force of this external force is the generalized inertial force of the object.

6. Newton's law of universal gravitation can be deduced from the generalized law of inertia and the generalized law of inertia motion when P is equal to (the so-called gravitational field strength) and A is equal to 0. At this time, the physical meaning of F is not gravity, but generalized inertial force. Therefore, the physical meaning of a = 0 means that the object in the gravity field has a "standard" weight only when its motion state is stationary and uniform linear motion.

7. When P is outside = 0 and P is inside = 0, its physical meaning means that the object is in a state of free fall or revolution and weightlessness in the gravitational field, so == a is derived from the generalized law of inertia and the generalized law of inertial motion, indicating that there is no "gravity" in this state. Therefore, it is wrong to use Newton's law of gravity to calculate the "gravity" of rotating celestial bodies in the past. It also shows that the three laws of inertia I summarized contain the connotation of "equivalence principle". With the introduction of the three laws of inertia, the principle of equivalence has completed its historical mission.

(3) Examples different from the original problem solving methods

The separation between F and the law of motion shows that F "directly" corresponds to P, while the correspondence between F and A is conditional, which shows the essence of its problem. The criterion for judging whether an object is acted by real external force (combined external force) is the P(ρ gradient inside the object. The concrete manifestation is the existence of pressure gradient and stress. The difference between the original solution of dynamics exercises: 1, the original analysis of all forces, my solution also has P vector analysis; 2. My solution is to separate the force multiplied by the mass from the resultant force, which is the generalized inertial force of the object and becomes the real reaction force of the resultant force.

1, for example 1: The dynamic friction coefficient of an object with a mass of m placed on the table is μ, and an external force F acts on the object in the horizontal direction. Find the acceleration a of the object.

Solution: let the friction force be f and f = μ g.

① original solution: external force F-f=ma, a = (f-μ mg)/m)/m.

② My solution: the generalized inertia force of an object is ma and its reaction force is F-f. According to Newton's third law, F-f=ma and A = (f-μ mg)/m.

2. Example 2: If the mass of the object is m and the acceleration in the vertical direction is a, find the external force F on the object.

Solution: ① original solution: external force mg-F=ma, and F=mg-ma is obtained.

② My solution: According to the law of motion g-P=a, that is, P=g-a, the generalized inertial force of an object is f=mP =m(g-a), and its reaction force is F. According to Newton's third law F=-f, F=m(g-a) is obtained.

Note: These two solutions seem to have the same form, but their essential meanings are different. In the past, the three meanings of "mg" were all correct, except for one meaning (that is, when the object in the gravity field is at rest or moving in a straight line at a constant speed, the gravity field intensity G is equal to P inside the object, so it can be multiplied by the mass, which means that the generalized inertia force of the object is gravity). At this time, gravity is no longer the external force of the object, and the gravity field strength G with the significance of the external space of the object cannot be multiplied by the mass. The motion of free fall is also expressed by mg, and it is also wrong to think that there is an external force (gravity). My solution will show superiority in solving complex exercises.