* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Solar system
Survey
Document related concepts
Definition of planet wikipedia , lookup
IAU definition of planet wikipedia , lookup
Extraterrestrial life wikipedia , lookup
Advanced Composition Explorer wikipedia , lookup
Modified Newtonian dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Satellite system (astronomy) wikipedia , lookup
History of astronomy wikipedia , lookup
Tropical year wikipedia , lookup
Observational astronomy wikipedia , lookup
Astronomical unit wikipedia , lookup
History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses wikipedia , lookup
Solar System wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical astronomy wikipedia , lookup
Formation and evolution of the Solar System wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Macroquantum Laws of Building-up the Solar System A.M. Ilyanok *Atomic and Molecular Engineering Laboratory, Belarussian State University, Minsk, RB The main hypothesis of origination of the Solar system supposes that there was a gaseous dust non-uniform cloud (protocloud) several billions years ago. Main planets have been formed during dozens of millions of years and are laid in almost the same plane because of the rotation of the protocloud. Basing on laws of hydrodynamics their orbits and other parameters were calculated. A rather satisfactory agreement between calculated and observed data was concluded1. But the problem of achieving better agreement of them is of the permanent interest. There are also several other questions which are not answered yet. For instance, there is no common view on many questions of origination of satellites of planets (for example, The Moon). Here will be shown that there are special rules to which all planets obey. Basing of empirically found combinations of only fundamental constants some so called macroquantum laws were established. The most important of them are presented in the table 12,3. Data calculated by the author coincide with experimental ones within the accuracy of astronomical observations4,5. No one theory familiar to the author can describe these laws6. The results obtained show that any adequate theory should give these results, because there are no other combinations of fundamental constants giving the same values. It is well known that the laws like Newton, Coulomb, Ampere, and Planck ones were obtained on the base of experimental data. And only later the theoretical Atomic and Molecular Engineering Laboratory, Kirova 1–50, 220050, Minsk, Belarus. 1 background was found. The author have met with an analogous situation after finding the macroquantum laws listed above. It is proposed to all interested in to attempt create a theory on the base of these new laws. This theory seems to lead to the new approach to description of astronomic objects and their interaction on the overlapping of electromagnetic and gravity laws. The author have attempted to develop such a theory. It was proposed to consider the space to be discrete with superposition of the flat, disc-like fields. These plates are formed by electromagnetic fields surrounding elementary particles. Interactions of the objects are realized by movement of longitudinal and transverse waves along these plates. In this case the Maxwell’s free magnetic wave is excluded3,7. Contrary to the Newton’s and Einstein’s approaches this model of the discrete space predicts a number of new effects, confirmed experimentally, including the following results: quantization of speeds of planets in the Solar system (tab.1, rows 1-4). So there are not possible to be to big planets between the Sun and the Mercury and the Mars and the Jupiter. Let us note that a little difference between experimental and theoretical results (tab. 1, row 2) is connected with redistribution of masses in the Solar system8. It gives possibility to restore the history of the Solar system. Earth satellites positioned on not quantized orbits relatively to the Earth should fall down quicker than satellites on quantized ones because of gravitational radiation, and quicker than calculations made taking into account the interaction with the rest gas give. The Sun is a macroquantum object (tab.1, rows 6-9). Hence, the classical hydrodynamics is not valid for it. 2 The Sun surface temperature equal to 6282,1 K (tab.1, row 7). At this temperature the hydrogen is in the basic atomic state. So the source of the solar energy is the motion of electrons relative protons in the Sun shell with their first cosmic speed (tab.1, raw 6). Therefore, thermonuclear fusion is absent in the centre of the Sun. Rotation of the planets and radii of their orbits are quantized (tab.1, rows 1012). Velocities of the stars in the Galaxy relatively to each other and its core do not exceed definite critical values (tab.1, rows 13,14). Velocity spectra round the Galaxy core have two maxima (tab.1., rows 15,16). These maxima give the limited speed of gravitational 4 8 interaction c 3,526 10 c . Conclusion Analysing laws obtained one may to conclude that the world view based on the special and general relativity and classical probability quantum mechanics does not explain macroquantum laws in astronomy. The author have attempted to create an adequate theory. The equations used3 are reduced to well known Newton equations on definite quantum orbits in the static limit. Applying similar description to the electromagnetic and gravitational fields the dynamical part equal to magnetic Lorentz force is introduced into dynamic equations for gravitational interaction. It provides elementary description anomaly movement of the Mercury perihelion and deflection light beams by the Sun3. In our view space and time are independent. 3 The macroquantum laws established above are seemed to be not sudden and should be treated. The author proposes to involve into the process to those who are interested in solving non-trivial problems of nature. References 1. Protostars and planets. 1-2. Muscon, (1978-85). 2. Ilyanok, A.M. Quantum astronomy II, Macroquantum laws in astronomy J. New Energy, USA, 6, No1, 55-79 (2001). 3. http://xxx.lanl.gov (physics/0111183) Ilyanok, A.M. Macroquantum Effects in Astronomy (2001). 4. Allen, C.W. Astrophysical quantities. The Athlone Press (1973). 5. Fizicheskie velichiny (Physical quantities). Handbook. Babichev, F.P., e.a. ed. Moscow, Energoatomizdat, 12-15 (1991). 6. Lang, K.R. Astrophysical Formulae. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. New York. (1974). 7. http://xxx.lanl.gov (physics/0111182) Ilyanok, A.M. Macroquantum effects in condensed matter (2001). 8. http://xxx.lanl.gov (physics/0201057) Ilyanok, А.М.& Timoshchenko, I.A. Quantization of masses in the solar system (2002). Acknowledgements The author is very grateful to all experimentators who carry out sometimes hidden but very important work to find correct values of next digits in quantities of physical constants. It is the high accuracy and reliability of experimental data that provide to the author to implement the research. 4 Table 1 Quantum astronomy laws N Title Theoretical formula Theoretical value Experimental value The autor Solar system 1 2 Everage orbit speed of the Mercury Macoquantum scale of large semiaxis Rn of planet orbits v1 =2c= 32c n 22m 1 Rn R1 3 2 где n= 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, m = 0,0,0,0,1,2,3,4,5. z0e 2 h = 12 m p c 2 13 m p c Ref Handbook 47.89307 km/s 47.89 km/s 2-4 R1= 57.95106 km R2 = 103.02 R3 = 160.97 R4 = 231.80 R5 = 779.11 R6 = 1648.36 R7 = 2839.57 R8 = 4352.71 R9 = 6187.81 5.795 1010 m 57.90106 km 108.20 149.6 227.9 778.3 1427.0 2869.6 4496.6 5900.0 5.7911010 m 2-4 3 Maximum value of the large semiaxis of the Mercury orbit R1 4 Maximum value of the large semiaxis of the Jupiter orbit z0e 2 h R5 11 = mec 2 12 m e c 7.7647 1011 m 7.7831011 m 2-4 5 Ratio of maximum values of the large semiaxises of the Jupiter and Mercury mp R5 R1 me 13.3987 13.442 2-4 6 The first cosmic speed for the Sun vI 436.381 km/s 436,78 km/s 2-4 7 Temperature in the centre of the Sun m v2 m T e I = e 2k 2k 6282.1K 6270.0K 2-4 8 Equatorial speed of the Sun rotation Period of rotation of the Sun round its own axis v 2c / 8 1.995525 km/s 1.9968 km/s 2-4 2 R 16 R v 2c Planets 3 v 4 c 25.364 days 25.38 days 2-4 465.981 m/s 465.10 m/s 2-4 7.16326 . 104 km 7.16326 . 104 km 2-4 12.5383 km/s 12.55 km/s 2-4 273.46 km/s 273 km/s 2-4 9 10 11 12 13 Equatorial speed of the Earth rotation Jupiter radius Equatorial speed of rotation of the Jupiter surface Maximum speed of stars round the Galaxy core c 8 The Sun c 8 2 P GM 5 N c r5 4 4 v 5 2 V1 c 2-4 2 2c 8 Galaxy 8 5 14 15 16 Maximim relative speed of closed stars Distance to the first maximum in the spectrum of star speeds relatively to the Galaxy core Distance to the second maximum in the spectrum of star speeds relatively to the Galaxy core V2 2 c RGp RGe 15.964 km/s 15.5 km/s 2-4 R1 2.0431019m = =0.6622 kps 0.5-0.8 kps 2,3,5 R5 2.7381020 m =8.87 kps 8 –10 kps 2,3,5 h 4 16 mpc h 4 15 me c There are =1/137,0360 – fine structure constant, e – elementary charge; h – Planck constant; с – electromagnetic constant; me – the electron mass; mp – the proton mass; k – Boltzmann constant, G – gravitational constant; z0- vacuum impedance, N 2 1 2 861 -introducing in our calculations the number of elementary charge electromagnetic field segments considering as a quantized object. Dear editor, Your journal is an international journal covering all the sciences and it publish original research focused on an outstanding finding whose importance means that they will be of interest to scientists in other fields. I send you the letter “Macroquantum Laws of Building-up the Solar System” to consider or publishing as correspondent to your requirements. This letter concerns the problems of physics accumulated during last 300 years, and, particularly, the problems of XX century physics. It seems to many of scientists that origination and building up the Solar system is now well developed and only some partial problems are remained to solve. But different discrepancies and only sufficient but not fine equality of calculated and observed data are the factor that impedes to review the work. I have empirically found some rules called as macroquantum laws in astronomy. They are build only on combination of fundamental constants and give very good coincidence with data observed. For demonstration of effectiveness of these rules it would be enough, in principle, to pay attention only on the formula for average orbit velocity of the Mercury: 2 z e2 GM v 3c 0 2 cdiv R1 3 2 c 47,89307 km/s R1 2h The experimental value 47,89 km/s coincides with calculated one till the last meaningful digit! From the expression the connection between the Newton gravitational constant, electromagnetic constants z0, e, c, and Planck constant h. The good coincidence of theoretical and experimental results for other data is demonstrated in the table. Let us take into account that any theory should give, at least, the same results. The problem is to find such a theory. I have made an attempt. 6 The discussion of results can show is it adequate or not. All my works referred in the letter are published in the journal “Vesti Instituta Sovremennyh Znanii” which, unfortunately, is issuing in Russian and foreign users have a little access to it. I hope, in the case you would find the opportunity to publish this letter it would open a wide scientific discussion. I consider your journal able to give the new development of physics in the XXI century. Dr. A.M. Ilyanok От: Nature Decisions [SMTP:[email protected]] Отправлено: понедельник, Февраль 25, 2002 21:05 Тема: Decision from Nature: Manuscript I02421 Dear Dr Ilyanok, Thank you for submitting your manuscript, which we regret we are unable to publish. It is Nature's policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff, often on the advice of regular advisers, when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space. Among the considerations that arise at this stage are the length of a manuscript, its likely interest to a general readership, the pressure on space in the various fields of Nature's interest and the likelihood that a manuscript would seem of great topical interest to those working in the same or related areas of science. In the present case, while your results may well be of interest to specialists, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the paper provides the sort of fundamental advance in understanding that we generally look for in a Nature paper. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in a specialist journal, rather than Nature. I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively. I hope that you will rapidly receive a more favourable response elsewhere. Please note that [email protected] does not accept return messages. Yours sincerely, Dr Leslie Sage Senior Editor Nature 7