Page 4

Chapter 2 - Not Quite Right Physics

What is really wrong with the world? Why are there so many problems?

Many people will say many things.

As far as I am concerned, there is just one main reason: Not Quite Right Physics!

Yes, the physics we believe in, is not quite correct. Physics that has given us so many wonders, by forming the basis for all modern engineering involving use of force for human welfare, can do far, far more for us, with just one very small change in Newton's first law of motion.

In my experience, the professors who presided over studies and experiments in science and engineering considered Newton first law of motion to be inviolate, even sacred. It is a natural law after all. It just had to be right - any event that seemed to violate it just had to have some alternative explanation.

No one could make some object move without application of external force. So nothing could just move by itself. Which was why lunch boxes remained static on desks, and did not fall off, unless someone gave it a push.

Well, suppose someday someone did something to make a lunch box fall off a desk, without applying external force, what then? Would that not be a violation of Newton's first law of motion?

Well, do that first, I expect they would say, and then we will see. We will also believe in levitation, and ha-ha, flying saucers!

They might just do that, actually.

First let us look at Newton's Laws of Motion in detail. We should also see the historical context. They were formulated in the 17^th century, long before other developments in science and engineering took place, following such laws. Today they are taught in high school, and presented as laws of nature, never to be questioned. Like everyone else, I too grew up never questioning them. In my engineering studies, not one among all my brilliant teachers and co-students ever questioned their sanctity. The vintage of such laws, and the successful mechanical engineering producing great power and wealth for those employing those laws, have only confirmed their authenticity.

Newton's First Law of Motion says that every object remains at rest or moves in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled otherwise by an externally applied force. The Second Law of Motion defines this externally applied force, as the rate of change of momentum, or difference in the velocities of the body divided by the time for such change in velocity, multiplied by the mass of the body. The Third Law of Motion says that for every applied force (action) there arises an equal opposing force (reaction).

The First Law of Motion puts an end to the possibilities about moving lunch boxes and rocket-less space ships. We have gone to the moon using rocket engines, that thrust backwards a part of the mass of the whole body at very high speed (action) which causes the rest of the body to move in the opposite direction (reaction), following the Third Law of Motion.

But is the First Law of Motion really correct? Do we not negate it with every move of the hand, every blink of the eye? Where is the externally applied force behind such body movements? Are not the forces required to move the hand, to shut the eye, generated within the body?

Yes, the physicist will say, but these forces come from life - something we physicists do not quite understand. There are bio-chemical processes involved, which lead to such physical movements. True, such processes are internal, but they are outside the scope of physicists. For us, it is enough to note that you cannot move on ice. Because the ice is slippery there are no frictional forces that will push you forward as you push backwards. A car apparently moves by itself, but if you put it on ice it will not be able to move the wheels will just keep on rotating. Internally of course there will be moving parts, just as you have moving hands and eyes. Believe us, there is nothing there in such movements, complicated though they are, that violate Newton's First Law of Motion.

And they are perfectly correct. So what chance is there for moving lunch-boxes, or space ships?

Let us look at the First Law more closely. It refers to an object, or body. What about the nature of this body does it have any life? Evidently, no. Living things can move of their own volition - dead things can not. Also, the body being dead, there can be no internal force generated by the body. Only external forces can act upon it.

The key issue, then, is life. If we can impart the quality of life to an object, or a system of objects, we may have movement for the object or system without externally applied force.

I thought of a mental experiment. Suppose a robot in an enclosed container in outer space hurls a heavy ball at one of the walls. The ball makes elastic contact with the wall and bounces back, hitting the opposite wall with equal force, assuming no energy losses upon impacts. What happens to the container? Using equations following from the laws of conservation of energy and momentum, we can show that the container moves backwards and forwards. There is no net forward motion.

Now let the robot try to stop the ball from hitting the rear wall, by using some absorbing system to stop the ball before it hits it. Like a spring, a mattress, or something. Or the robot just catches the returning ball, and uses the friction between his heels and the floor of the container to stop itself from hitting the rear wall. Then what happens? Should not the container keep on moving in outer space forever, as a result of the first collision? Now if the robot repeats the above function, the net speed of the container should increase as it increased before. With continuous hits, the container should take on a pretty high speed! (Actually, the matter is not quite so simple; we shall go into details later.)

Note that the concept of a robot was not there in Newton's time, so he could never have thought about the above experiment. The physical conception of outer space, too, was probably not so clear to him as it is to us today. In short, Newton could not think of any internal force propelling a body.

I tried to think of any evidence of internal force driving a body on this world of ours. I failed. Then suddenly one night I thought of my elder daughter as a baby, how powerfully she would try to get out of her crib, trying so hard to push it forwards along with herself. I asked Durba, my wife, who works in the local primary school, "Can a small child, sitting on a chair, push herself forward along with the chair?"

"Oh, they do it all the time. The chair should not be too heavy, that is all," was the reply.

I did not know it then, but she had just described the fundamental principles of Internal Force Engines that will give us unlimited energy and take us to the stars.

A few days later, we went on a one-day trip to Sydney on the strength of a lottery win. We visited the aquarium, and we saw the huge fish move so cleanly and beautifully. I observed them carefully. Did they push the water back to move so well, as swimmers do? Or did they simply drive themselves forward under the influence of such laws of motion that we do not understand? Being effectively weightless, they were in a space-like situation. How was it that humans even with large flippers for pushing back water could never swim so well?

Animals, perhaps, know things we do not. I feel sure that Mmmbop, our aristocratic and devastatingly good-looking albino rabbit, and Bertie, our beloved dog of mixed ancestry, converse according to the following lines:

Of all kennels that did ever host

The most abominable

Of all dogs you are the most

Pathetic and pitiable.

Thirty dollars they paid for me,

Certified well bred.

They got you for absolutely free

Mutt better dead.

Nay, I lie, they did have to pay

For an operation

To improve the world, in the best way

By a separation.