Inertia and Spin. (maybe a philosophical thought)

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Inertia and Spin. (maybe a philosophical thought)

Postby socrat44 on April 27th, 2018, 2:58 am 

Inertia and Spin. (maybe a philosophical thought)
===
1. Aristotle.
Every object needs force/power/energy for its moving.
No force - no movement.
2. Newton.
Of course the great Aristotle is right saying that there is
no movement without forces. I respect him very much and
I won’t make a fool myself quarreling with him.
However I can say more and explain Aristotle’s opinion
by the formula F = ma.
It means,
the force of moving object depends on acceleration of mass.
But here I have two opportunities / possibilities:
a) The acceleration appears as a result of outside influence.
One moving body interacts with another body (moving or resting).
b) But if I have only one, single body moving in the straight line
and it doesn’t interact with another body it means that this body
also must have an acceleration.
In this situation I don’t know how the acceleration appears,
I don’t know if it is inner acceleration of body,
I know nothing about this acceleration.
But this kind of acceleration must exist and I will name  it  “inertia”.
3. Mach.
Newton doesn’t know the reason of inertia, but maybe inertia
depends on all stars, on all the matter in the Universe.
4. Planck.
Newton’s inertia is very strange, and Mach’s idea is strange too.
But if I will take that our Universe looks like a “black body “ then
I can suggest that must be some very small particle (quant)
which can move “inertial body'' with constant speed c = 1
over a period of time.
I will write this “inertial” moving of quanta by formula: h = Et.
But really, it is hard for me to believe that I am right.
5. Einstein.
Of course Planck is right.
But I don’t like the way he reached the result.
He says nothing concrete about the particle and the reason
of this acceleration’s beginning.
I will take another road.
If I use the Boltzmann resting particle (R/N = k) and give him
Wien’s displacement  constant (b), as an acceleration,
then the particle will have the Planck’s impulse
but now the formula of impulse will be:  h = kb.
Planck’s formulas and my own are equal, as they explain
behavior of quant (light quanta) from different point of view.
6. Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck.
It is all well.
But we can see different kinds of movements  in the real Nature
And look at Planck’s formula h = Et. It includes time (t).
And time, by its nature, is a limited - relative parameter.
It means that this particle cannot go straight at all time
with constant speed c = 1.
This kind of moving must be temporary and can change.
So, another possibility is that the particle can ''spin'' around itself
and we will write this kind of moving by formula h = h/2π.
7.  L. de Broglie  and  W.Heisenberg.
These two spins of particle are very important parameters,
and we will try to explain all phenomena in the Nature using
only these parameters. (h and h = h/2π)
But, unfortunately, neither had success.
Why did they fail?
Because to use only ''spin''  parameters (h and h = h/2π) are not enough.
The spin parameters belong to the particle what has also another parameters:
speed (c) and volume (a) and all together they can create particle which
we call electron: e^2 = αh*c. ( Sommerfeld's fine-structure constant formula)
Now using electron (E=h*f) and Boltzmann particle (R/N = k) it is possible
to explain the beginning of star formation (gravitation) and later all another
phenomena of Nature.
==================
Attachments
Inertia.png
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Inertia and Spin. (maybe a philosophical thought)

Postby mitchellmckain on April 27th, 2018, 4:47 am 

socrat44 » April 27th, 2018, 1:58 am wrote:1. Aristotle.
Every object needs force/power/energy for its moving.
No force - no movement.

Aristotle was only correct for particular conditions such as on the surface of the earth where there is friction and air resistance.

socrat44 » April 27th, 2018, 1:58 am wrote:2. Newton.
Of course the great Aristotle is right saying that there is
no movement without forces. I respect him very much and
I won’t make a fool myself quarreling with him.
However I can say more and explain Aristotle’s opinion
by the formula F = ma.

Newton knew very well that F=ma was a correction of Aristotle and also knew that this was not the only instance where Aristotle was wrong. Galileo had already shown that Aristotle was wrong about bodies falling due to gravity at a rate proportional to their weight. So Newton observed the following in opposition to this claim of Aristotle: bodies in motion remain in motion unless acted upon by a force. Thus it is not motion which requires a force but a change in motion. But if we suppose that there is something keeping a thing in motion then we can call that inertia rather than force. F=ma implied that inertia had something to do with mass.

socrat44 » April 27th, 2018, 1:58 am wrote:3. Mach.
Newton doesn’t know the reason of inertia, but maybe inertia
depends on all stars, on all the matter in the Universe.

Mach supposed that the rest state (no motion or rotation) was defined by the collective motion of the universe as a whole.

socrat44 » April 27th, 2018, 1:58 am wrote:4. Planck.
Newton’s inertia is very strange, and Mach’s idea is strange too.
But if I will take that our Universe looks like a “black body “ then
I can suggest that must be some very small particle (quant)
which can move “inertial body'' with constant speed c = 1
over a period of time.
I will write this “inertial” moving of quanta by formula: h = Et.
But really, it is hard for me to believe that I am right.

Planck's work on black bodies had to do with the relation between heat, temperature and light not inertia.

socrat44 » April 27th, 2018, 1:58 am wrote:5. Einstein.
Of course Planck is right.
But I don’t like the way he reached the result.
He says nothing concrete about the particle and the reason
of this acceleration’s beginning.
I will take another road.
If I use the Boltzmann resting particle (R/N = k) and give him
Wien’s displacement  constant (b), as an acceleration,
then the particle will have the Planck’s impulse
but now the formula of impulse will be:  h = kb.
Planck’s formulas and my own are equal, as they explain
behavior of quanta (light quanta) from different point of view.

As far as inertia and motion goes Einstein took the next step by considering the consequences of the premise that motion was completely relative. The result was the theory of relativity.

Einstein also expanded upon Planck's idea of quanta to explain the photoelectric effect. This is what won him the Nobel prize in physics. This (Einstein and Planck) was the first step in the development of quantum physics.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1073
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Inertia and Spin. (maybe a philosophical thought)

Postby socrat44 on April 27th, 2018, 5:31 am 

''mitchellmckain''
Thank you
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 12 Dec 2015



Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests