Physics: Inertia and . . . Spin.

[Cerveny]

Is this supposed to be a philosophy of ...what? Physics? Math? The universe? Moving objects? I submit that your discussion is not philosophy but methodology.

This is perhaps a modest contribution to better understanding of the Universe and its surroundings. We are witness of great diffusion of energy and a form, great diffusion of matter and idea. We have to explore every detail of being as a chance to do at least small step towards recognizing of reality...

[Cerveny]

a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) The Fermi-Dirac statistics

a) We perceive constant energy by rather mystic way. Nobody is surprised by the same temperature or same pressure in most physical systems for example. There surely exists some inner mechanism equalizing the energy. I personally believe it somehow relates with a Universe's surface tension :)
As for energy/mass transformation: Imagine for simply example the electron is some kind of vacation and positron is just opposite interstitial. If they meet each other the both structural defect disappear and freed energy runs away as a waving, as photon, as some kind of sound…, of course: it can be more difficult case of (opposite) structural defects - let us say opposite screw dislocation...
b) Again perceived rather mystically: The more precise measuring of the impulse we need the more distance we are to follow particle (we are loosing the information about the position). The more precise measuring of the position we need the harder photons (shorter wave length) we are to use (bigger impulse we are to add to a particle). The more precise measuring of energy the more time needed.... nothing less and nothing more. Every wild “fluctuation” is fictions, speculative extrapolations... There are no singularities in physical world…
c) I personally suggest dealing with this principle rather restrainedly. By this principle should have been great difference between behavior of isotopes He4 and He3 and it is not - for example :(

[i blame blame]

Spin can be shown to be angular momentum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-de_Haas_effect

[Cerveny]

Spin can be shown to be angular momentum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-de_Haas_effect

Angular momentum of what? Is it possible such different objects as the electron is and the proton is have absolutely same the angular moment???
I am nearly certain the spin is some case of Burger vector (see the link) in appropriate defect in space structure. I am nearly certain every elementary particle is some defect in space structure. The more intricate defect the less time of its life. All defects are continuously affected, smoothened by thermal waving of space (photons/phonons)...
http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4GGL ... 59&bih=815

[i blame blame]

Angular momentum of what? Is it possible such different objects as the electron is and the proton is have absolutely same the angular moment???

According to quantum mechanics, yes. To the maximum precision with which we can measure, yes.

I am nearly certain the spin is some case of Burger vector (see the link) in appropriate defect in space structure.

Spin is a quantity of units of action, or energy times time, or momentum times length, or mass times length squared divided by time.
The Burgers vector is a quantity of units of length.

I am nearly certain every elementary particle is some defect in space structure. The more intricate defect the less time of its life. All defects are continuously affected, smoothened by thermal waving of space (photons/phonons)...
http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4GGL ... 59&bih=815

Elementary particles are sources of fields that permeate spacetime. Phonons are quasiparticles, having no momentum.

[Cerveny]

Angular momentum of what? Is it possible such different objects as the electron is and the proton is have absolutely same the angular moment???

According to quantum mechanics, yes. To the maximum precision with which we can measure, yes.

I am nearly certain the spin is some case of Burger vector (see the link) in appropriate defect in space structure.

Spin is a quantity of units of action, or energy times time, or momentum times length, or mass times length squared divided by time.
The Burgers vector is a quantity of units of length.

I am nearly certain every elementary particle is some defect in space structure. The more intricate defect the less time of its life. All defects are continuously affected, smoothened by thermal waving of space (photons/phonons)...
http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4GGL ... 59&bih=815

Elementary particles are sources of fields that permeate spacetime. Phonons are quasiparticles, having no momentum.

Sorry, your answer contains widely spread opinion only. The similar claims do not explain the essence of the phenomena that I would like to know :( For example I know what elementary particle do but I would like to know what they are :(

[socratus]

Spin.
=========.
Four physicists discovered spin :
Planck, Einstein, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck.
#
Planck explained the spin by formula: h=Et. ( 1900)
#
Einstein explained the spin by formula: h=kb. ( 1905)
#
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck wrote the spin by formula:
h = h/ 2pi. (1925)
==========.
How is possible to understand their work?

===.

[i blame blame]

Sorry, your answer contains widely spread opinion only.

The units of spin and the Burgers vector are not a matter of opinion, but of definition. The measurement results of electron spin are the result of experiment, not opinion.
If you don't want to accept scientific understandings because they clash with your prejudices about the nature of the universe, just say so, so we can both spare ourselves the trouble of continuing this conversation.

[Cerveny]

Sorry, your answer contains widely spread opinion only.

The units of spin and the Burgers vector are not a matter of opinion, but of definition. The measurement results of electron spin are the result of experiment, not opinion.
If you don't want to accept scientific understandings because they clash with your prejudices about the nature of the universe, just say so, so we can both spare ourselves the trouble of continuing this conversation.

The problem is you do not write any new idea. I know your claims well enough. As I have already written I only try to conceive what elementary particle/spin is :(

[Mike Strand]

Back to opening post of this topic: An object moving in a straight line may have constant velocity and no acceleration. In this case it still has mass but no force is acting upon it. Why did you say such an object has acceleration? Of course it may have received an initial push or force acting for a short time to accelerate it into it's present state of motion, but with the force no longer acting, the object is still moving, but with zero acceleration.

You were referring to Newton and F=ma. This equation allows both F and a to be zero. But this doesn't imply lack of motion.

As for inertia--have you considered that this is equivalent to mass? So F=ma could be written m=F/a, or Inertia = Force/acceleration. For example, the greater the inertia, or mass, the greater the force needed to get a given acceleration. This seems to me a satisfactory and intuitively appealing definition for inertia -- at least for ordinary objects. Subatomic particles may be a different story.

[Mike Strand]

To author of this topic: please be careful about paraphrasing Newton, Mach, etc. In your opening post and elsewhere, are you sure you have faithfully represented them? Direct quotes would be better. Apologies if they are direct quotes but they didn't appear so to me.

[Mike Strand]

In ordinary circumstances motion of an object has to be maintained by using force to overcome impeding forces- for example friction. A car after accelerating can coast for awhile but gradually slows down - decelerates - due to friction from parts moving against each other, tires against road, wind resistance and the like. In empty space, away from gravitational forces, an object can continue at a constant velocity for a long time - theoretically forever- in the absence of all forces.

Apologies if I misunderstood your opening post. But it appeared you confused velocity and acceleration. The latter is change in velocity, for which force is required. This is Physics 101, and I may be revealing my own misunderstanding of your discussion rather than any misunderstanding on your part of basic physics and of Newton's famous, simple, and yet profound law of motion, F=ma, relating force, mass (inertia), and acceleration (change in velocity).

[socratus]

SRT: The Essence.
1.
On the one hand Einstein used quantum of light in SRT.
According to SRT postulate:
When quantum of light moves in a straight line with speed
c=1 its geometrical form must be flat – as a circle.
We can say that its flatness has infinite density.
SRT is theory about relativity of motion, of every motion (!),
including the motion of quantum of light too. (!)
Therefore this quantum of light can change its parameters
( according to the Lorentz transformations ).
2.
On the other hand Lorentz used electron in SRT which had
geometrical spherical form and lost it, changed it during its
movement. And when it reachs speed c=1 its geometrical
form will be infinite flat ( according to the Lorentz
transformations) .

Source: / Book: The story of physics.
By Lloyd Motz and Jefferson Hane Weaver.
Chapter15. Page 254. /
‘ . . . Lorentz . . . to explain the Michelson-Morley
null-result, using his electro theory of matter. . . . .
His analysis showed that a moving spherical electron is
flattened somewhat in the direction of its motion owing
to its electrical properties, and the faster it moves,
the more it is flattened.’
3
What can be the reason of their moving and changes?
The reason of these motions and changes can be only ‘spin.’
There are three kinds of spins:
Planck’s: h=Et., Einstein’s: h=kb and
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck: h = h/ 2pi.

What is their philosophical essence?
4.
Can quantum of light and electron be one and the same
particle in different conditions.
================.
Socratus.

[Arising_uk]

...
What is their philosophical essence?
4.
Can quantum of light and electron be one and the same
particle in different conditions.
================.
Socratus.

Can you think of an experiment that could test this?

[Mike Strand]

OK, socratus and Arising_uk, I may be out of my league, you two getting away from classical Newtonian physics and into the subatomic and quantum realm. But I would still like a reaction to my earlier comments about what socratus wrote in his opening post, under 2. Newton b), as if Newton had actually said it:

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”.

I took exception to this, suggesting that an ordinary object can be moving (OK, relative to the earth's surface) with little or no force being applied -- that is, constant or zero velocity, no acceleration. I also suggested that inertia has to do with mass (m in the equation F=ma). From this equation we can see that a larger m (corresponding to greater inertia) would imply a smaller acceleration for a given force, or a greater force for a given acceleration. These agree with our intuition of inertia, a kind of "resistance" to acceleration.

If this is obvious classical physics (where relativistic effects can be ignored -- the physics we use to put men in orbit and land them on the moon), why did socratus say that a moving body must have acceleration? I think it's misleading, as is also, socratus, your way of attributing comments to famous scientists.

Forgive me if I'm interrupting a discussion of Zen quantum physics, or something.