Talk:PlanetPhysics/Cosmological Difficulties of Newton's Theory

Original TeX Content from PlanetPhysics Archive

%%% This file is part of PlanetPhysics snapshot of 2011-09-01 %%% Primary Title: Cosmological Difficulties of Newton's Theory %%% Primary Category Code: 04.20.-q %%% Filename: CosmologicalDifficultiesOfNewtonsTheory.tex %%% Version: 1 %%% Owner: bloftin %%% Author(s): bloftin %%% PlanetPhysics is released under the GNU Free Documentation License. %%% You should have received a file called fdl.txt along with this file. %%% If not, please write to gnu@gnu.org. \documentclass[12pt]{article} \pagestyle{empty} \setlength{\paperwidth}{8.5in} \setlength{\paperheight}{11in}

\setlength{\topmargin}{0.00in} \setlength{\headsep}{0.00in} \setlength{\headheight}{0.00in} \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.00in} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.00in} \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{9.00in} \setlength{\voffset}{0.00in} \setlength{\hoffset}{0.00in} \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.00in} \setlength{\marginparsep}{0.00in} \setlength{\parindent}{0.00in} \setlength{\parskip}{0.15in}

\usepackage{html}

% this is the default PlanetMath preamble. as your knowledge % of TeX increases, you will probably want to edit this, but % it should be fine as is for beginners.

% almost certainly you want these \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts}

% used for TeXing text within eps files %\usepackage{psfrag} % need this for including graphics (\includegraphics) %\usepackage{graphicx} % for neatly defining theorems and propositions %\usepackage{amsthm} % making logically defined graphics %\usepackage{xypic}

% there are many more packages, add them here as you need them

% define commands here

\begin{document}

\subsection{Cosmological Difficulties of Newton's Theory}

From \htmladdnormallink{Relativity: The Special and General Theory}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/SpecialTheoryOfRelativity.html} by \htmladdnormallink{Albert Einstein}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/AlbertEinstein.html} Part from the difficulty discussed in \htmladdnormallink{section}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/IsomorphicObjectsUnderAnIsomorphism.html} 21, there is a second fundamental difficulty attending classical celestial \htmladdnormallink{mechanics}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/Mechanics.html}, which, to the best of my knowledge, was first discussed in detail by the astronomer Seeliger. If we ponder over the question as to how the \htmladdnormallink{Universe}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/MultiVerses.html}, considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approrimately the same kind and density.

This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space \footnotemark.

This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by the stars and also individual stars of the stellar \htmladdnormallink{system}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/SimilarityAndAnalogousSystemsDynamicAdjointnessAndTopologicalEquivalence.html} are perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and without ever again coming into interaction with other \htmladdnormallink{objects}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/TrivialGroupoid.html} of nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become gradually but systematically impoverished.

In order to escape this dilemma, Seeliger suggested a modification of \htmladdnormallink{Newton's law}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/Newtons3rdLaw.html}, in which he assumes that for great distances the \htmladdnormallink{force}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/Thrust.html} of attraction between two \htmladdnormallink{masses}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/CosmologicalConstant.html} diminishes more rapidly than would result from the inverse \htmladdnormallink{square}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/PiecewiseLinear.html} law. In this way it is possible for the mean density of matter to be constant everywhere, even to infinity, without infinitely large gravitational \htmladdnormallink{fields}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/CosmologicalConstant2.html} being produced. We thus free ourselves from the distasteful conception that the material universe ought to possess something of the nature of a centre. Of course we purchase our emancipation from the fundamental difficulties mentioned, at the cost of a modification and complication of Newton's law which has neither empirical nor theoretical foundation. We can imagine innumerable laws which would serve the same purpose, without our being able to state a reason why one of them is to be preferred to the others; for any one of these laws would be founded just as little on more general theoretical principles as is the law of Newton.

\subsection{References} This article is derived from the Einstein Reference Archive (marxists.org) 1999, 2002. \htmladdnormallink{Einstein Reference Archive}{http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/index.htm} which is under the FDL copyright.

\footnotetext[1]{Proof---According to the theory of Newton, the number of ``lines of force" which come from infinity and terminate in a mass $m$ is proportional to the mass $m$. If, on the average, the Mass density $p_0$ is constant throughout tithe universe, then a sphere of volume $V$ will enclose the average mass $p_0V$. Thus the number of lines of force passing through the surface $F$ of the sphere into its interior is proportional to $p_0 V$. For unit area of the surface of the sphere the number of lines of force which enters the sphere is thus proportional to $p_0 V/F$ or to $p_0R$. Hence the intensity of the field at the surface would ultimately become infinite with increasing radius $R$ of the sphere, which is impossible.}

\end{document}