For the first time: an explanation of the Least Action Principle using Atom Totality theory

From: Archimedes Plutonium (a_plutonium_at_iw.net)
Date: 03/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:07:56 -0600

--- quoting www.physics.utoledo.edu/~ljc/bader1.html ---

 Feynman had first come on the principle of least action in Far
Rockaway, after a bored hour of high-school physics,
when his teacher, Abram Bader, took him aside. Bader drew a curve on the
blackboard, the roughly parabolic shape a
ball would take if someone threw it up to a friend at a second-floor
window. If the time for the journey can vary, there
are infinitely many such paths, from a high, slow lob to a nearly
straight, fast trajectory. But if you know how long the
journey took, the ball can have taken only one path. Bader told Feynman
to make two familiar calculations of the ball's
energy: its kinetic energy, the energy of its motion, and its potential
energy, the energy it possesses by virtue of its
presence high in a gravitational field. Like all high-school physics
students Feynman was used to adding those energies
together. An airplane, accelerating as it dives, or a roller coaster,
sliding down the gravity well, trades its potential
energy for kinetic energy: as it loses height it gains speed. On the way
back up, friction aside, the airplane or roller
coaster makes the same conversion in reverse: kinetic energy becomes
potential energy again. Either way, the total of
kinetic and potential energy never changes. The total energy is
conserved.

 Bader asked Feynman to consider a less intuitive quantity than the sum
of these energies: their difference. Subtracting
the potential energy from the kinetic energy was as easy as adding them.
It was just a matter of changing signs. But
understanding the physical meaning was harder. Far from being conserved,
this quantity the - action Bader said -
changed constantly. Bader had Feynman calculate it for the ball's entire
flight to the window. And he pointed out what
seemed to Feynman a miracle. At any particular moment the action might
rise or fall, but when the ball arrived at its
destination, the path it had followed would always be the path for which
the total action was least. For any other path
Feynman might try drawing on the blackboard - a straight line from the
ground to the window, a higher-arcing
trajectory, or a trajectory that deviated however slightly from the
fated path - he would find a greater average difference
between kinetic and potential energy.

It is almost impossible for a physicist to talk about the principle of
least action without inadvertently imputing some
kind of volition to the projectile. The ball seems to choose its path.
It seems to know all the possibilities in advance.
The natural philosophers started encountering similar minimum principles
throughout science. Lagrange himself
offered a program for computing planetary orbits. The behavior of
billiard balls crashing against each other seemed to
minimize action. So did weights swung on a lever. So, in a different
way, did light rays bent by water or glass. Fermat,
in plucking his principle of least time from a pristine mathematical
landscape, had found the same law of nature.

Where Newton's methods left scientists with a feeling of comprehension,
minimum principles left a sense of mystery.
"This is not quite the way one thinks in dynamics," the physicist David
Park has noted. One likes to think that a ball
or a planet or a ray of light makes its way instant by instant, not that
it follows a preordained path. From the
Lagrangian point of view the forces that pull and shape a ball's arc
into a gentle parabola serve a higher law.
Maupertuis wrote, "It is not in the little details . . . that we must
look for the supreme Being, but in phenomena whose
universality suffers no exception and whose simplicity lays them quite
open to our sight." The universe wills
simplicity. Newton's laws provide the mechanics; the principle of least
action ensures grace.

The hard question remained. (In fact, it would remain, disquieting the
few physicists who continued to ponder it, until
Feynman, having long since overcome his aversion to the principle of
least action, found the answer in quantum
mechanics.) Park phrased the question simply: How does the ball know
which path to choose?

James Gleich, Genius, pp 60-61

--- end quoting the above website ---

I took the liberty of quoting the above website because I wanted some
depth of conversation as to the Principle of Least Action. And I want to
pick out parts and pieces of the above conversation for future reply.

Because I am going to give the world's first explanation of the Least
Action Principle. It should not be called a principle for it comes
directly from the Coulomb Force Law.

And answering what it is, I simply answer the last sentence above. The
question in that last sentence eluded the mind of Feynman and everyone
else.

The Big Bang theory cannot answer the question. The String theories
cannot answer the question.

What does answer the question, easily and simply and straightforwardly
is the Atom Totality theory.

It answers the question in the same way it answers "What is gravity?"

Newton thought of gravity as "mass attracts other mass". Einstein
thought of gravity as mass bends space and then the path of objects
traces out that bent space.

The ATomTotality theory sees gravity as the Cosmic Coulomb force. Our
observable Universe is the last 6 electrons of 231Pu. The Sun, planets
stars galaxies are all mass pieces of those last 6 electrons. Remember
the electron dot cloud in chemistry. Well a galaxy is a dot of the dot
cloud, a piece of a Cosmic electron. So as we look at the night sky of
stars and galaxies we are looking at the last 6 electrons of 231Pu.

Those Cosmic Electrons are held in place by 94 protons in the nucleus of
the AtomTotality.

Newton thought the Sun pulls Earth and that is why the Earth revolves
around the Sun. Einstein thought the greater mass of the Sun bends space
more around the Sun so that the path of Earth must trace out this bent
space.

The Atom Totality theory sees gravity as that the Sun and Earth masses
are pieces of the 94th electron and are acted on by the 94 protons in
the nucleus of 231Pu. That action creates a highly bent space around the
Sun moreso than around Earth and so the trajectory of Earth is to
revolve around the Sun.

So gravity, in an AtomTotality is the Coulomb force on a Cosmic scale.

Where Newton was wrong is that mass does not attract mass to make
gravity, it is the fact that all mass we see in the Universe is the mass
of the electrons of 231Pu which is pulled Coulombically by the protons
of 231Pu.

Where Einstein went wrong was that he thought mass bends space. Mass
itself does not have that capability. What bends space is the Coulomb
force of the 94 Cosmic protons. That is why the mathematical form of
gravity is identical to the Coulomb force law because they are one and
the same-- a Coulomb force.

So, now, let me answer the last question concerning Least Action
Principle. "How does the ball know which path to choose?" The Big Bang
theory cannot answer it. Nor can the plethora of String theories (string
theories are the modern day version of phlogiston). The Atom Totality
theory answers simply-- The 94 Cosmic Protons tell the ball what the
least action path is because it is a Cosmic Coulomb force.

Lastly I want to restate the beautiful Occam's Razor of Physics History.
You know the history of Special Relativity where the Ether was dispelled
as nonexistant. Where Lorentz was still imagining the Ether but where
Einstein did not need it at all and pointed out that it was nonexistant.
So we have a Occam's Razor on Ether. Special Relativity does not need
it. Ether is excess baggage and baggage that does not exist.

Likewise, the idea that mass pulls other mass is excess baggage in light
of the idea of a Cosmic Coulomb. Einstein's mass bends space is excess
baggage because it is not mass that bends space but a Cosmic Coulomb
that bends space. And where Einstein relied upon Newton's 1st law which
is the law of inertia, that too is false in a Universe possessing a
Cosmic Coulomb force. Every piece of matter we see is a piece of one of
the 94 electrons which are held in space by 94 cosmic-protons in the
nucleus.

So we dispell gravity as a cosmic coulomb force. And we finally answer
the question of Principle of Least Action. How does the ball know which
path to choose? It knows because there are 94 Protons in the nucleus of
the ATom totality that set up a Coulomb force on those objects and they
thence follow that path of least action. You see, both Newton and
Einstein have nothing to guide the path of an object for least action.
The Atom Totality not only guides objects but is the force of gravity in
electron space which is our observable universe.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Relevant Pages

  • For the first time: an explanation of the Least Action Principle using Atom Totality theory
    ... Feynman had first come on the principle of least action in Far ... energy: its kinetic energy, the energy of its motion, and its potential ... Newton thought of gravity as "mass attracts other mass". ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Einsteins Sep27 1905 paper
    ... practice criticism about the conservation of energy principle or the ... 1905 Principle of Relativity! ... relating mass, momentum and energy in a single entity. ... talking about 1905 Relativity, when even the name "Special Relativity" ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Sep27 1905 paper
    ... 1905 Principle of Relativity! ... Accepting that "mass measures energy" as a universal ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Sep27 1905 paper
    ... practice criticism about the conservation of energy principle or the ... 1905 Principle of Relativity! ... Accepting that "mass measures energy" as a universal ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Oil Prices Hit $100 a Barrel
    ... Oil Futures Hit $100 a Barrel ... Yet, in retrospect, had we adopted his recommendations regarding energy usage, it very likely wouldn't matter today what the price of oil or gasoline are. ... Jimmy Carter did have a significantly forward looking energy policy, but he suffered from a general ineptness and consequently, the public didn't give his foresighted visions due consideration. ... The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices. ...
    (soc.retirement)