Tweet
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
take our Universe 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?
Because to use only spin parameters is not enough. The spin
parameters belong to the particle who/ which have/has also another
parameters: speed (c) and volume (a) and all together they can create
particle which we call electron: e^2=ahc. Now using electron and
Boltzmann particle (R/N=k ) is possible to explain the beginning
of star formation (gravitation) and later all another phenomena in Nature.
===============.
And going back to the Einstein’s question.
#
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.
#.
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 E=ht or E= kb or E= hf. ?”
On my opinion " The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass" (according to one single light quanta /electron )
gives answer to this question..
The problem is that now nobody wants to ask yourself that
„The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to one single light quanta / photon /electron.
============== . .
P.S.
Inertia is a mysterious phenomena in Nature.
There isn’t any physical ‘inertia unity’ in Nature.
There isn’t any physical apparatus of measuring ‘the unity of inertia’.
The object moves and doesn’t spend energy at all.
Isn’t it strange ?
The Physics is ill with concept of ‘inertia’ for a long time.
Maybe therefore 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.
===..
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
take our Universe 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?
Because to use only spin parameters is not enough. The spin
parameters belong to the particle who/ which have/has also another
parameters: speed (c) and volume (a) and all together they can create
particle which we call electron: e^2=ahc. Now using electron and
Boltzmann particle (R/N=k ) is possible to explain the beginning
of star formation (gravitation) and later all another phenomena in Nature.
===============.
And going back to the Einstein’s question.
#
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.
#.
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 E=ht or E= kb or E= hf. ?”
On my opinion " The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass" (according to one single light quanta /electron )
gives answer to this question..
The problem is that now nobody wants to ask yourself that
„The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to one single light quanta / photon /electron.
============== . .
P.S.
Inertia is a mysterious phenomena in Nature.
There isn’t any physical ‘inertia unity’ in Nature.
There isn’t any physical apparatus of measuring ‘the unity of inertia’.
The object moves and doesn’t spend energy at all.
Isn’t it strange ?
The Physics is ill with concept of ‘inertia’ for a long time.
Maybe therefore 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.
===..