socratus
Posted:
Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:21 am
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 32
Location: israel
|
|
Inertia and Spin. / My opinion./
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inertia and Spin. / My opinion./
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?
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 ) it is possible to explain the beginning
of star formation (gravitation) and later all another phenomena of
the Nature.
===============.
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. “
I don’t say about myself, I say about this article:
“This article waits for its Nobel Prize.”
Does somebody have another opinion?
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik/ Socratus.
_________________
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' hide
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.
|
|
Sylwester Kornowski
Posted:
Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:21 am
Joined: 22 Sep 2008
Posts: 8
|
|
|
|
The general theory of relativity starts from postulate saying that inertial mass of a body is equal to its gravitational mass. It suggests that origin of these masses is the same. Assume that we reduced mass of a body in such way that inside it there are not truly empty volumes. In my opinion, the mass of the body (inertial and gravitational) is directly proportional to such reduced volume of the body and is independent of the value of the G. On other hand, the closed strings have internal helicity and in my opinion, the internal helicity is responsible for curvature of spacetime. Knowing the properties of the gravitational-field/spacetime, we should assume that spacetime is composed of objects having only the inertial mass, i.e. that spacetime is composed of object without an internal helicity.
My theory leads to conclusion that the half-integral spin of the closed strings is more fundamental than the G.
See my theory on my website.
|
|
