Towards a New Concept of Closed System: From the Oscillating Universe to the EM-Drive

Abstract

The EM-Drive, as long as it is considered a closed system, explicitly violates the conservation of momentum and Newton's well-known third law: however, it would appear, according to several tests to date, that the device may concretely deliver a certain thrust without a detectable exhaust. The question is: can the EM-Drive be actually regarded as a closed system? We have elsewhere tried to provide a qualitative answer by resorting to a theory based, amongst other hypotheses, upon the existence of a further spatial (hidden) dimension. In this paper, the whole revised theory is step-by-step expounded, avoiding, for the sake of brevity, some aspects that, notwithstanding their undeniable relevance, do not concretely contribute to the achievement of our main goal. We consider a Universe belonging to the so-called oscillatory class. Firstly, we formally show that, as it is well known, a simple-harmonically oscillating Universe is fully compatible with General Relativity. Then, we carry out an alternative deduction of the mass-energy equivalence formula as well as of the Friedmann-Lemaître equations. Finally, by resorting to an opportune writing of the conservation of energy (carried out by taking into account the alleged extra spatial dimension), we implicitly obtain a new definition of closed system, so providing an answer to the question previously posed.

Relativity: Towards a New Interpretation

“…As it is well known, the possibility of a variable Planck "Constant", both in Redshift [3], no longer ascribable to a concrete variation of cosmological distances. [6] In particular, we have shown how an opportune space-quantization [17] [18] allows a rewriting of the first Friedmann-Lemaître Equation [2] as a function of a variable Planck Constant. The quantization may also allow to bypass the singularity at 0 t = by means of a "bounce" [8] [9] [10], herein not addressed.…”

“…The Universe we hypothesize is identifiable with a 4-Ball: the Radius, denoted by R, evolves in accordance to Equation (2.39). The corresponding boundary, that may represent the space we are allowed to perceive (at rest) [6] [12], is a three-dimensional surface (a Hyper Sphere) described by the following identity:…”

“…Finally, by superposition, we can easily write the total amount of energy related to the material segment bordered by the points defined by Equations (3.13) and (3.14): The points defined by Equations (3.13) and (3.14) are nothing but the interceptions between the material segment, the energy is provided by Equation (3.21), and the hyper surface described by Equation (3.11), which represents the Universe we are allowed to perceive (when we are at rest, as we will see later) [6] [12] [13].…”

“…Relativity, at least in its original formulation, is clearly a 3D + 1 theory[3] [4], while the Universe herein hypothesized is evidently based on a 4D + 1 model: consequently, a direct comparison turns out to be de facto impossible. In our theory, however, the Universe is considered as being "triune" (one in three): in other terms, its features are deduced by resorting to the superposition of three 3D + 1 sub-models, so bypassing the obstacle[6] [12] [18]. Time is considered as being absolute, although instruments and devices of whatever kind, commonly employed to measure it, may be significantly influenced by motion and gravity.…”

Black Holes: A Different Perspective

“…Consequently, matter is not to be regarded as evenly spread on the (Hyper)Surface of the 4-Ball, but rather as homogeneously filling the 4-Ball in its entirety. We have elsewhere [4] deduced the following identity:…”