Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/14/04
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Help with a Moon question"
- Previous message: Henri Wilson: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Maybe in reply to: Lester Zick: "Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:01:42 GMT
On 14 Dec 2004 09:28:12 -0800, "stlbl" <wjgreen1@verizon.net> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>One thing you may not be aware of in the history of quantum (or what
>they used to call , atomic) physics, is that the theoreticians were
>forced to change their descriptions of the atomic and subatomic world
>(mathematical and otherwise, like Dirac delta functions) because of the
>theretofore unexplainable observations from the laboratory, i.e.
>absorption and emission spectra, radiative decay, etc. So I'm not sure
>of what "from scratch" means. And also particles behave as particles
>sometimes and waves other times, depending on how they are constrained.
>The wave/particle duality we always hear about. All we can do is
>describe---"no stinkin reason" is the frustrated exclamation of "no
>reason I can see!".
Of course. My primary complaint is the kind of philosophizing quantum
theorists are willing to accept as a substitute for knowledge and as
collateral for their ignorance.
By the phrase "from scratch" what I have in mind is the definition of
an ideal particle and the deduction of Planck's Constant from that
definition and the further deduction of Heisenberg's Uncertainty
relation from it. I posted my analysis of the first over a year ago
and will append a copy. If you're interested, take a gander.
>My favorite bit of prose---whoever can identify its source get the
>kewpie doll:
>The lofty prize,
>Of Science lies
>Hidden today as ever.
>Who, with no thought-
>To him it's brought,
>To own without endeavor!
>on the flip side...
>stlbl
>
As I've received no analytical objections to the following post I'm
appending several historical observations.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 15:33:42 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:
>
> Planck's Constant
>
>Previously in the thread Angular Momentum in Rotating Bodies, I
>presented an analytical framework for the interpretation of dr/dt in
>circular rotation of a point mass m at velocity v and radius r. No one
>I know of agrees with my interpretation of dr/dt. However, in the
>interests of further establishing this general framework, I would like
>to pursue general developement of the idea which culminates in the
>analytical definition of Planck's constant.
>
>We begin by noting that in cases of circular rotation at constant
>angular velocity we have a centripetally directed dr/dt acting on
>point mass m of a magnitude equal to tangential velocity v. This is
>what causes the rotation of v and produces r as a consequence of
>rotation.
>
>We then integrate dr/dt along r which produces 1/2 mvr/2pi with units
>of measure equal to rr/t. Now, I have been cautioned on several
>occasions not to suggest that this quantity represents angular
>momentum in conventional terms and I agree. Perhaps we should simply
>call it rotational momentum to prevent confusion.
>
>What we notice immediately however is that it bears the same form as
>what is conventionally referred to as particle angular momentum, with
>the quantity mvr corresponding to Planck's constant. However, we have
>to straighten certain things out in this connection.
>
>In conventional macro angular rotation such as flywheels we have a
>centripetal dr/dt and tangential v which are equal to each other. They
>are effectively bound up through tensile forces internal to the body
>undergoing rotation. In celestial angular mechanics on the other hand
>we have a wide variety of potential dr/dt's and tangential orbital
>velocities operating in various combinations.
>
>But in the context of particle rotational dynamics we have a somewhat
>different situation. The tangential velocity of rotation v is constant
>under all circumstances. In other words, v = c. Thus dr/dt operates
>centripetally on tangential velocity v to produce elementary particles
>of different radii and in the process acts as an index to particle
>mass.
>
>Therefore we can index particle mass to a rotational frequency, n (per
>second) times an analytical masslet, m0 (kg-sec) and interpret the
>quantity mvr as a multiple of nm0vr. Further we can interpret r as a
>function of c/n such that Planck's constant = m0cc. In other words, m0
>is roughly on the order of 10^-50 kg-sec in magnitude and Planck's
>constant corresponds to the multiple of m0 and the square of the
>velocity of light.
>
>We notice several things about rotational momentum. In linear motion
>at constant velocity rotational momentum is zero because dr/dt and mvr
>are both zero. And in circular rotation at a constant angular velocity
>rotational momentum is constant because mvr is constant. This
>represents the analytical distinction between circular and linear
>motion.
>
>Further we notice that dr/dt can be of any magnitude. It is not bound
>by the constancy of the velocity of light as an upper limit because it
>doesn't go anywhere. It only produces rotation in relation to actual
>tangential motion v = c.
>
>And because particle mass and dr/dt share a conjugal relationship, it
>should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that particle
>mass and radius of rotation are inversely proportional, that is that
>the more massive a particle the smaller it is.
>
>
>Regards - Lester
>
>remove DEL in address for email
Linear versus Analytical Mechanics
One of the really unfortunate aspects of Newton's choice of a linear
frame of reference for the analysis of mechanics is that r is poorly
defined and t is not defined at all. In other words, r is only defined
in direction and t is not defined by any consideration pertinent to
the analytical frame of reference.
And this had a pernicious impact on the subsequent development of
angular mechanics as well as relativistic considerations and quantum
mechanics in the twentieth century.
The problem is that r and t and their combinations are all we have to
work with. Taken to the second level of compounding we have six
combinations: r, 1/t, r/t, r/tt, rr/t, and rr/tt. However, in the
linear analytical frame of reference the next to last combination rr/t
was overlooked because there is no apparent application for it in
linear mechanical contexts.
On the other hand, in angular frames of reference we have applications
for all combinations and all the elements are well defined. The radius
of rotation is well defined in terms of direction and magnitude and
time is well defined in analytical terms as whatever time is needed
for 2pi radians of rotation.
The rr/t combination is also well defined in angular terms. However,
in extrapolating the idea of rr/t from linear to angular contexts in
classical mechanics, whoever devised the analytical approach made the
mistake of trying to emulate linear mechanics in the sense of
explaining rotation as a linear progression of r instead of a simple
radial v in combination with tangential v.
This is more akin to an anachronistic pre Newtonian view of mechanics.
Kepler thought that some force of angels was needed to keep planets in
orbit around the sun and regarded that force as tangential in
direction. Newton on the other hand recognized that the only force
needed was centripetal in nature and not tangential. But whoever
devised the analytical considerations underlying angular mechanics
apparently never considered the Newtonian perspective and presumably
relied on the pre Newtonian rationale.
Thus we wind up with a conceptual schism among the various realms of
angular mechanics. On the one hand we have orbital angular mechanics,
the macro realm of ordinary angular mechanics, and the micro realm of
quantum effects. And unfortunately there is no conceptual integration
among them. We are convinced that all represent mechanical realms but
we have no basis for comprehending each in terms of the others.
Orbital angular mechanics represents the realm of remote interactions
dealt with in terms of inverse square centripetal forces and
tangential orbital velocities. Whereas the macro realm of ordinary
angular mechanics deals with linear analogs such as moments of inertia
instead of mass, torque instead of force, and angular acceleration and
velocity instead of their linear analogs.
The micro realm of angular mechanics on the other hand is dealt with
on the merely descriptive basis of formalisms. This is the realm of
quantum mechanics - QM - or as I prefer to call it quantum magic where
things don't seem to happen for any definite mechanical reason at all.
However with the redefinition of macro angular momentum and Planck's
constant in circular rotation we are at last in a position to
understand the mechanical differences among the realms in conceptual
terms.
The micro realm of quantum effects is one of constant tangential
velocity of rotation v = c and a variable radial dr/dt.
The macro realm of ordinary angular mechanics on the other hand is one
in which the tangential velocity of rotation is variable but
tangential v = radial dr/dt and both are kept in strict
synchronization by internal tensile forces.
And finally orbital angular mechanics is defined by various
combinations of tangential v and radial dr/dt. This is normally
thought of in celestial terms but in point of fact applies equally to
the atomic realm as well.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Help with a Moon question"
- Previous message: Henri Wilson: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Maybe in reply to: Lester Zick: "Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
