Since former definition of work done by any radial/center-bound (central) force field (and consequently thus also of the corresponding to it expense of potential energy of the field) was incompletely defined (so that these two basic notions were valid only for purely radial phenomena), some indirect estimations of those linear magnitudes that relied on the former (incomplete yet always presumed as total) potential energy may have been overestimated. New, operationally complete and thus mathematically lawful definition of total rate of work done by the field implies presence of a certain (experimentally observed but formerly quite unanticipated and thus routinely unaccounted for) nonradial angular contribution to the total potential energy. Hence some previous calculations of those linear magnitudes, which were indirectly estimated via expense of potential energy spent on the work done, may have been quite inadvertently overrated by over 3.48 %. This was because the extra potential energy that is spent on twisting the path that is deflected by the source of the field was disregarded in the former, incomplete definition of work done, even though such nonradial twisting is generally required by proven Frenet-Serret formulas of differential geometry. This present assessment is based upon purely mathematical premises, but similar prior nonradial angular formula utilized here has already retrodicted the 10.56 % excess over Einstein‟s prediction of deflection of light that was observed in several unbiased experiments, and it has reconciled some other experiments that could neither be explained nor reconciled by general theory of relativity, which, as radial by design, does not account for nonradial or mixed phenomena

Periodical:

International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy (Volume 32)

Pages:

32-41

DOI:

10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILCPA.32.32

Citation:

J. Czajko "Linear Magnitudes Estimated via Expense of Incompletely Defined Potential Energy were Likely Overestimated by over 3.48 %", International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, Vol. 32, pp. 32-41, 2014

Online since:

Apr 2014

Authors:

Distribution:

Open Access

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References:

Czajko J., Stud. Math. Sci. 7(2) (2013) 25-39.

Czajko J., Stud. Math. Sci. 7(2) (2013) 40-54.

Czajko J., Chaos Solit. Fract. 11 (2000) 2001-(2016).

Lord Kelvin, Guthrie P., Treatise on natural philosophy. Cambridge: At the Univ. Press, 1903, p. 238f.

Beiser A., Concepts of modern physics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973, p. 67ff.

Czajko J., Chaos, Solit. Fract. 11 (2000) 1983-(1992).

Sokolnikoff I. S., Sokolnikoff E. S., Higher mathematics for engineers and physicists. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1941, p.218.

Struik D. J., Lectures on classical differential geometry. Dover, New York 1988, p. 18f.

Sauer R., Differenzgeometrie. Berlin: Springer, 1970, p.160.

Czajko J., International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy 11(2) (2014) 89-105.

Czajko J., Appl. Phys. Res. 3(1) (2011) 2-7.

Padgett M. J., Allen L., Opt. Quantum Electron. 31 (1999) 1-12.

Newton R. G., Thinking about physics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2000, p.77.

Choquet G., Geometry in modern setting. Paris: Hermann, 1969, p.14.

Poincaré H., On the foundations of geometry. [pp.117-146 in Pesic P. (Ed. ) Beyond geometry. Classic papers from Riemann to Einstein. Mineola, NY: Dover, 2007, see p.135, 144].

Gell-Mann M., The quark and the jaguar. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1994, p.108.

Bohr N., Phys. Rev. 48 (1935) 696-702.

Tegmark M. Our mathematical universe. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014, p.260, 280.

Czajko J., Chaos Solit. Fract. 19 (2004) 479-502.

Bers L., Calculus I. New York: Holt, 1967, p. 216f.

Sadeh D., Knowles S. H., Yaplee B. S., Science 159 (1968) 307-308.

Sadeh D., Knowles S., Au B., Science 161 (1968) 567-569.

Merat P., Astron. Astrophys. 32 (1974) 471-475.

Einstein A., The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity. [pp.111-164 in: H.A. Lorentz et al. The principle of relativity. Dover, New York 1923, see p.161].

Kellog O. D., Foundations of potential theory. Berlin: Springer, 1929, p. 77f.

Mercier A., Analytical and canonical formalism in physics. North-Holland, Amsterdam 1959, p.122.

Mercier A., Speculative remarks on physics in general and relativity in particular.

Antognini A., et al. Science 339(6118) (2013) 417-420.

Margolis H. S., Science 339(6118) (2013) 405-406. ( Received 01 April2014; accepted 08 April 2014 ).