Philosophy Now Forum

Physics: Inertia and . . . Spin.
1.
Aristotle.
Every object needs force/power/energy for its moving .
If no force, no moving.
2.
Newton.
Of course 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 quarrelling 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 which it gives to this object’s mass.
But here I have two opportunities /possibilities.
a)
The acceleration appears as a result of outside influence.
One body (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 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 “
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 is 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 movings in the real Nature And look at
Planck’s formula h=Et. It includes time (t). And time, by its nature, is a
limited 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/2pi.
7.
L. de Broglie and Heisenberg.
These two spins of particle are very important parameters, so we will
try to explain all phenomena in the Nature using only these parameters.
…………………….
But, unfortunately, they both didn’t have success. Why did they fall?
8.
In his Miracle 1905 Einstein wrote the Fourth paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
And as a postscript to his forth, the Fifth paper:
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”
As he realized the answer was:
“ Yes, it depends on its energy E= Mc^2.”
It means what SRT must be connected with E= Mc^2 .
It means what must be connection between Lorentz’s
transformation and E= Mc^2.

April 2009.
The same Einstein’s question in a little detail interpretation:
“Does the inertia of a body ( for example: of a light quanta
or of an electron) depend upon its energy content E=Mc^2 ?”
Thinking logically, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.
When new question arise:
How is possible to understand the connection
between E=Mc^2 and ‘ inertia of a body’ ?
============== . .
P.S.
Someone wrote to me:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
! !
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
=========================. .

Inertia is as a great challenge and great test of physical theory’s consistence. “There must be some disequilibrium, some compulsion, some motor... in”. Yet it must relate with a universal speed limit, with the “c”. Where is saved information about (vector) speed of elementary particle? In the particle? – nonsense (vector! compared with what!) It must be coded in a substrate, it must relate with a difference, with a shift of the present and the last Universe’s snapshots, with the present and the last universe sediments. Then two such snapshots must exit at least! Providing the (closed) surface of universe, the point “now” is elastic. The matter, the elementary particles are some defects, some irregularities on ideal space structure. Then it is possible to imagine the every force some how locally deforms, inclines such surface that causes new Universe’s shape rather differs from previous one. Imagine the force changes a proportionality of a particle hence new universe layer cannot cover the last exactly.

Certainly, study of inertia can bring new impulse to physics, certainly bigger then study of more and more complicated elementary particles, let's understand: more and more complicated defects of physical spaces structure ...

Happy new year 2011!
Zdenek

Cerveny wrote:Inertia is as a great challenge and great test of physical theory’s consistence. “There must be some disequilibrium, some compulsion, some motor... in”.
Yet it must relate with a universal speed limit, with the “c”.
Where is saved information about (vector) speed of elementary particle?
In the particle? – nonsense (vector! compared with what!)

Certainly, study of inertia can bring new impulse to physics,
Zdenek

Sentences and questions for reflection . . .

Comment by Laurent DAMOIS.
Aharonov-Bohn: inpulse (momentum) = q*A, so inertia is (q*A)*v/c²
equal to Energy/c² (Energy = q*v*A), a moving charge inside a magnetic
potential vector field is Energy, like a static charge inside an electric potential,
inertia = q*U/c² (2 definitions of inertia: static and dynamic,
like static and dynamique energy)
q = charge, A = magnetic potential vector, U = electric potential,
c = spedd of light, v = speed
Laurent DAMOIS
==================.
I cannot understand this comment.
Can somebody explain me its meaning?
What idea is hidden in formula of ‘ moment of inertia ‘?.
Thank you.
Socratus.
===============.

There is by my mean a strong potential for study of inertia in following analogy: Consider relation between electricity and magnetism. Rotated electric source generates magnetic field. Rotated electric source spins up some space's internal whirlpools that act as magnetic field. Considering of a "magnetic monopole" is not reasonable as well as considering of a monopole of angular momentum. And we are near the analogy. Inertial motion we can conceive as an analogy to electromagnetic waving. Every shift of material source rises special (dual, gravitational? field) that consequently push body to a next step that again raises next force... By the other words we are to explore relation inertia/gravity by the same way as relation magnetism/electricity It seems to be inspiring to involve in such consideration even a phenomena of precession regarding rotational motion around the material (gravity) source ...

Cerveny wrote: Inertial motion we can conceive as an analogy to electromagnetic waving.

By the other words we are to explore relation inertia/gravity
by the same way as relation magnetism/electricity ...

Can we use analogy magnetism/electricity = inertia/gravity ?

socratus wrote:

Cerveny wrote: Inertial motion we can conceive as an analogy to electromagnetic waving.

By the other words we are to explore relation inertia/gravity
by the same way as relation magnetism/electricity ...

Can we use analogy magnetism/electricity = inertia/gravity ?

In any case it is an inspiration. Let us to see at devasting uncertainty about dark energy. Besides hopeless searching of "dark mass" we should seriously consider revision of theory of gravity. Just generating gravitational field by moving matter, mainly by wheeling matter would contribute to uncover gravitational conditions inside galaxies, inside these whirlpools toward the future :)

Yet, remember Dirac's derivation of electrons/positrons. Why we are not able to derive proton/neutron/antiproton by the similar way. The theory of relativity certainly will not help us :(

Cerveny wrote: Let us to see at devasting uncertainty about dark energy.
Besides hopeless searching of "dark mass" we should seriously
consider revision of theory of gravity.

Yet, remember Dirac's derivation of electrons/positrons.
Why we are not able to derive proton/neutron/antiproton by the similar way.
The theory of relativity certainly will not help us

1
Let us to see at divesting uncertainty about dark energy.
Besides hopeless searching of "dark mass" we should
seriously consider revision of theory of gravity.
/ Cerveny /

Dark energy may be vacuum.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 011607.php
Dark mass may be Dirac’s virtual particles in the vacuum

2
Yet, remember Dirac's derivation of electrons/positrons.
Why we are not able to derive proton/neutron/antiproton by the similar way.
The theory of relativity certainly will not help us
/ Cerveny /

What is source of Dirac's electrons /positrons ?
QT+SRT ---------> Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
What is source of gravity?
Newton’s / Einstein’s theories of gravity.

Many years Einstein tried to use analogy
magnetism/electricity to explain inertia/gravity.
Without success.
Why?
Because electromagnetic process is different from gravity process.
The thought of analogy between these two processes doesn’t work.
They are different processes but we can understand their connection.
=========.

Dark energy may be vacuum.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 011607.php
Dark mass may be Dirac’s virtual particles in the vacuum

May be, but in this case we should have recognized abnormalities even in our solar system where is the nearly all mass concentrated in one "point"...

What is source of Dirac's electrons /positrons ?
QT+SRT ---------> Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
What is source of gravity?
Newton’s / Einstein’s theories of gravity.

Frankly, Einstein’s theory of gravity is not "theory" it is original representation of limited speed of gravity spreading. It does not explain any principle, any essence it brings interesting description that unluckily does not descript well the movement of stars in galaxies.
BTW: Dirac used only STR (partly) and his "linearization" was rather specific. It was done in frame and on base of QT.

Many years Einstein tried to use analogy
magnetism/electricity to explain inertia/gravity.
Without success.
Why?
Because electromagnetic process is different from gravity process.
The thought of analogy between these two processes doesn’t work.
They are different processes but we can understand their connection.

It needs a new idea, new motivation, perhaps new dimension ... Who is motivated to uproot TR? Physicist? TR became a belief. They say in our country: Carps do not empty their pond...

[quote="Cerveny"]
It needs a new idea, new motivation, perhaps new dimension ...
[quote="Cerveny"]
=============================.

Why we need new ideas?
#
Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection.
/ Richard Feynman. /
#
" I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all
if we just apply working mathematical rules;
that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with."
/ Dirac /
#
In his book ” The End of Certainty ” Nobel Laureate
Ilya Prigogine wrote: "The more we know about our
universe, the more difficult it becomes to believe
in determinism." . . . and “ The quantum paradox
is real nightmare for classic mind ”
#
In his book ‘ Quantum theory ‘ ( published in 2002 )
John Polkinghorne wrote:
‘Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising,…’
#
" It's an embarrassment to physicists to have such a conflict
between such well verified and accepted theories
(Quantum Electrodynamics and General Relativity).
In fact it is so painful, that most physicists don't even want
to think about it."
/ Prof. Jordan Maclay /.
#
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein./
#
" The electron that can be told is not the true electron."
/ David Harrison /
#
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ From an article./
Etc. . etc . . . . .
=================== .
P.S.
Conclusion from the book ‘ The Holographic Universe’
by Michael Talbot.
‘Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.’
#
Conclusion from some article:
‘ One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality.’
=========== .

May be, but in this case we should have recognized abnormalities even in our solar system where is the nearly all mass concentrated in one "point"...

Please notice that in case of galaxy system a relation between "moving" and "fixed" matter totally differs from same relation in case of solar system... it would indicate the moving matter generates some kind of gravitational field… by the similar way as a moving electric charge generates magnetic field......

socratus wrote: Why we need new ideas?
#
Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection.
/ Richard Feynman. /
...
#
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ From an article./
Etc. . etc . . . . .
=================== .
P.S.
...
#
Conclusion from some article:
‘ One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality.’
=========== .

Quite right :)

Perhaps one remark:
It is not possible to understand the electron without a context. The electron can not exist without physical space. The electron is local status of physical space, of vacuum, of aether...
It is some kind of dislocation, kind of vacation or any else structural defect...

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.

Cerveny wrote:

socratus wrote: Why we need new ideas?
#
Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection.
/ Richard Feynman. /
...
#
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ From an article./
Etc. . etc . . . . .
=================== .
P.S.
...
#
Conclusion from some article:
‘ One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality.’
=========== .

Quite right

Perhaps one remark:
It is not possible to understand the electron without a context. The electron can not exist without physical space. The electron is local status of physical space, of vacuum, of aether...
It is some kind of dislocation, kind of vacation or any else structural defect...

Electron can have different fate.
An electron is free
And an electron of an atom is tied.
Or, maybe, is better to say that an electron
sometime free and sometime tied.
===.
What is the picture of an Electron ?

lancek4 wrote: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.

1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Questions.
Why does electron have five ( 5 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey four ( 4) Laws ?
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
?
========.
Does the question about one single electron have physical meaning?
Does the question about one single electron have mathematical meaning?
Does the question about one single electron have philosophical meaning?
Does the question about one single electron have methodological meaning?
What kind of discussion is it?
#
Poet Valery Brusov wrote:
=.
But maybe these electrons are World,
where there are five continents:
the art,
knowledge,
wars,
thrones
and the memory of forty centuries.
/ The world of electron. /
=========.