|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: socratussocratus Date: Jul 11, 2008 05:44
Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
--------------------.
The Classic Physics was started from two points:
thermodynamics and light.
1.
By studying the effect of thermodynamics, physicists came to the
opinion that the physical parameters like volume, temperature and
density (of particles mass) are enough to discover the laws of
thermodynamics, and they didn’t need to know something
concrete about single particle. But then, soon or later, all mass of
this
particles will stop it’s moving and the thermal/ radiation death
will come. Is it possible? No, it isn’t , some particles will radiate
and then QT evolved from this idea. Now the situation radically
change.
From studying mass of particles in thermodynamics Planck and Einstein
began to study one individual particle (quantum of energy). It seams
that
it was logical to think about geometrical form of this particle, but
this ...
|
| Show full article (4.79Kb) |
|
| | 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: Leon HoeneveldLeon Hoeneveld Date: Jul 11, 2008 05:55
socratus schreef:
> Questions:
> 1) Where does the Planck/Einstein factor h come from?
> 2) Where does the Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck factor h=h/2pi come from?
> 3) What is the physical difference between h and h=h/2pi in the
> Nature.
> 4) Can the process of evolution go without geometrical changes?
> Without the physical/ geometrical theory we cannot answer these
> questions.
> -----------------------.
> The Natural world is not a “mathematical point”.
> Even the smallest object must have a geometrical form.
> And on my opinion, only when we begin to think about light quanta as
> a particle with a geometrical form we come from image to reality.
Do you really expect sensible answers?
A choice of units has consequences. Making another choice will lead to a
different world, a different vision. It will not solve problems.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: Jul 11, 2008 14:34
socratus wrote:
> 4.
> Between the XIX and XX century, many physicists such Abraham,
> Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein came to the conclusion that the
> particle
> (electron) does not have constant mass, energy and length. This means
> that an electron is not a firm particle. The electron is an elastic
> particle
> and therefore his geometrical form can change.
I thought that
1. A particle could have mass without having volume, and
2. Only the *distance between particles* experiences length contraction, not
the particles themselves.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Leon HoeneveldLeon Hoeneveld Date: Jul 12, 2008 00:18
Scott H schreef:
> socratus wrote:
>> 4.
>> Between the XIX and XX century, many physicists such Abraham,
>> Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein came to the conclusion that the
>> particle
>> (electron) does not have constant mass, energy and length. This means
>> that an electron is not a firm particle. The electron is an elastic
>> particle
>> and therefore his geometrical form can change.
>
> I thought that
>
> 1. A particle could have mass without having volume, and
> 2. Only the *distance between particles* experiences length contraction, not
> the particles themselves.
>
>
Strange, but I feel the other way around.
|
| Show full article (0.74Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jul 12, 2008 07:01
Leon Hoeneveld wrote:
> Scott H schreef:
>> I thought that
>>
>> 1. A particle could have mass without having volume, and
>> 2. Only the *distance between particles* experiences length
>> contraction, not the particles themselves.
>>
>>
> Strange, but I feel the other way around.
>
> Philosophically speaking the impact (of a particle, if you need to
> think in particles) describes it's volume.
And I thought that the impact of one particle on another was made possible
not by actual collision (on the atomic scale) but by the electromagnetic
field.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Leon HoeneveldLeon Hoeneveld Date: Jul 12, 2008 07:21
Scott H schreef:
> Leon Hoeneveld wrote:
>> Scott H schreef:
>>> I thought that
>>>
>>> 1. A particle could have mass without having volume, and
>>> 2. Only the *distance between particles* experiences length
>>> contraction, not the particles themselves.
>>>
>>>
>> Strange, but I feel the other way around.
>>
>> Philosophically speaking the impact (of a particle, if you need to
>> think in particles) describes it's volume.
>
> And I thought that the impact of one particle on another was made possible
> not by actual collision (on the atomic scale) but by the electromagnetic
> field.
>
> ...
|
| Show full article (0.73Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
