Re: Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
- From: Lars Kecke <larskecke@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:26:00 +0200
Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
The Classic Physics was started from two points:
thermodynamics and light.
Nope. Mechanics came centuries before that.
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.
that's the general idea.
But then, soon or later, all mass of this
particles will stop it’s moving and the thermal/ radiation death
No. The "heat death" doesn't mean a stop of motion, but a universe in thermal equilibrium.
Is it possible? No, it isn’t , some particles will radiate
and then QT evolved from this idea.
no, the quantum theory evolved from the problem that some particles did not radiate, even though they should have done so classically.
Now the situation radically
What do you mean by this sentence?
From studying mass of particles in thermodynamics Planck and Einstein
began to study one individual particle (quantum of energy).
again, to which theories are you referring? There is no mass in Planck's radiation formula or Einstein's description of the photoelectric effect.
It seams that
it was logical to think about geometrical form of this particle, but
did not happen. And still now physicists do not think about concrete
particles, they are concerned about the “mathematical point”.
except when they are calculating structure factors.
When physicists studied the behavior of light, they came to the
conclusion that light ( light quanta) can sometime be a particle as a
“ mathematical point” and sometime a wave as a “ mathematical
wave". From behavior of light the SRT was born
But from what you described above, Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect (totally unrelated to special relativity) was born.
and here the particle
is also “ mathematical point”. It is hard to understand, why nobody
about geometrical form of light quanta if it is real particle.
what do you mean by "real particle"?
For many years, physicists used Euclidian (static and firm ) geometry
for solving physical problems, and they thought there was only one
except when they were describing large distances on the Earth's surface. So it was no wonder, foundations of differential geometry (Gauss comes to mind) were laid in the 18th century.
But Lobachevsky and Bolyai had another opinion.
They thought that to use only Euclidian geometry was not enough to
explain all the effects in the Universe. Why, because our Universe is
static and firm. The physical processes in Universe change all the
so the Euclidian geometry also has to change. This lead Lobachevsky
Bolyai to discover Non-Euclidian geometry which is not static but
can you put this in mathematical terms somehow?
Between the XIX and XX century, many physicists such Abraham,
Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein came to the conclusion that the
(electron) does not have constant mass, energy and length.
except that the mass (at least the scalar mass m²=p_0²-\vec p²) is invariant under Lorentz transformations.
that an electron is not a firm particle.
No. It just means, that its appearent mass (the one that comes up in F=m*a) is not its invariant mass, as naively expected, but its energy.
The electron is an elastic particle
and therefore his geometrical form can change.
All experiments that tried to find an electron structure factor reported negative. To our knowledge, an electron is a point.
All physicists know
this fact and took this fact in their calculations.
except that it, as you describe it, is no fact.
But which conclusion can
be done from this fact?
quite a few, leading all the way to the atom bomb.
They have no answer. Nobody interested about
the borders of this changes.
In 1915 Einstein said the mass and speed (moving mass) can change the
geometry of space. (GRT). It means the physics without geometry is a
limited part of science.
which is a trivial statement and well-known since the times of Gauss.
It means the physics without geometry is not
complete (whole) part of science.
The situation we see today is similar to the years between 1900 and
1928 when QT was created. Nothing changes.
between 1900 and 1928 there were lots of significant changes.
Mathematicians use Non- Euclidian geometry and they do not know
the power of these changes from Euclidian to Non-Euclidian geometry.
They do not interested how these changes came.
do you mean, historically?
And physicists use forces (energy, impulse, …etc) without know
anything about geometrical changes of particles.
except, as stated above, when dealing with structure factors.
They do not think about
this. For them the particle is only represented by a “mathematical
which is usually sufficient at low energies.
After all, they say the situation in QT is crazy, the Nature is
I don't know any phsicist who does. The situation may be counterintuitive, but it is ordered and well-understood.
I know why they say this, because one hand “physical” doesn’t know
that the other hand “geometrical” does.
Can we understand our “ paradoxical” world?
yes. Just ask the right questions. Where do you see an appearant paradox? Maybe I can help you.
The answer is clear. In the Natural world, physics and geometry
are one unit part in the evolutionary process, and this fact must be
reflected in any future theory of the evolution of matter (as a mass
an as a individual particle).
There are two ways to reflect this process.
One way explained by Einstein in GRT as a man who observed
the situation from outside.
Another way can be explained by Lobachevsky / Bolyai geometry
using it in conjunction with the inner (!) impulse of Planck-Einstein
and the inner (!) impulse of Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck (h=h/2pi)..
1) Where does the Planck/Einstein factor h come from?
think of it as the smallest possible change of angular momentum or the conversion factor between frequency and energy.
2) Where does the Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck factor h=h/2pi come from?
think of it as the smallest possible phase-space volume.
3) What is the physical difference between h and h=h/2pi in the
4) Can the process of evolution go without geometrical changes?
depends on which evolution and which geometry you're looking at, but usually no.
Without the physical/ geometrical theory we cannot answer these
The Natural world is not a “mathematical point”.
Even the smallest object must have a geometrical form.
no, because that would mean, it had structure and therefore constituents, which in turn would contradict its status as the smallest object.
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.
your opinion is noted.
- Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
- From: socratus
- Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
- Prev by Date: Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
- Next by Date: Re: If you could live in another place and time.
- Previous by thread: Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./