Tweet
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.
==================
===
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.
==================
Comment