On the perverted interpretation of Newton's First Law in modern physics
At the beginning of the twentieth century in physics, clever nonsense students appeared who did not recognize the very methodology of scientific creativity and announced some “limitations” that narrowed down the field of applicability of Newtonian mechanics ( I. Newton ).
Let's start with how Newton’s laws are interpreted in modern physics textbooks. For example, in the book of A.V. Peryshkina and E.M. Gutnik [1] on page 42 the following is written:
The genius of Newton and his predecessors, the Copernicans, who rejected the theory of planetary motion of Ptolemy ( Πτολεμαΐος ), based only on a description of relative, apparent movements , and, therefore, powerless in determining the causes leading to this ability to abstract from distorting the essence, lies in the genius such movements. It turns out that the “correcting” Newton are trying to cast us off in the era of Ptolemy and Aristotle ( Αριστοτέλης ) ...
By the way, Einstein's whole theory of relativity considers precisely relative, apparent movements, and it is not surprising that the consequences of this theory are unsolvable paradoxes.
It should also be noted that in Einstein's theory the state of rest is absolutized, which, again, is a return to the times of Aristotle and Ptolemy. And Newton, by his First Law, specifically emphasizes that v = 0 = const has no advantages compared to v = const > 0 .
The inclusion of the inertial reference frame in the formulation of the First Law is unacceptable in the sense that the physical law is implemented regardless of whether we observe the process or not, measure something or not ... Moreover, the definition of the inertial reference frame is given through the Newton’s First Law ( see, for example, on page 13 in [3]), and then reformulate the same law using the concept of an “inertial reference frame” ... A very “scientific” approach ...
So, one of the main ideas of Newton’s First Law is that " resting state " not yavl etsya a special case , but just the opposite, it is - a special case of "state of rectilinear uniform motion" whenthe speed is zero, i.e. any other number, equal in all respects with zero!
It is this thought that is the main blow to Aristotle's theory, which has not far gone (more precisely: it hasn’t gone anywhere) from the ordinary idea of motion, when it is believed that in order to set in motion a physical body and maintain this motion in the future, it is necessary to apply all the time effort (force). Of course, those examples of movement, such as “flight of an abandoned stone”, “flight of an arrow after termination of the bowstring”, where it is not visible “supporting the movement”, forces confound these ideas about movement.
Second important point. They claim that Newton “searched” for some kind of absolute reference point and, in the end, “finished” these searches in the center of the Sun. Be that as it may, but the First Law, just, denies the absoluteness of zero speed , and, consequently, the absoluteness of any reference point ... It is quite possible that these “searches” (if they actually were ...) - another manifestation of Newton himself, not as a physicist, but as a theologian. Indeed, the very statement “ there are such reference systems ” is fundamentally wrong! With accurate measurements, we will always find accelerations. Even a ship moving at a constant speed with full calm is not an inertial reference system, because the Earth is spherical and the ship moves along the curved surface of the sea, not to mention the fact that the Earth itself rotates ...
And yet. No matter what “quantum mechanics” says: there is not a single experiment showing that this law is not fulfilled in the microworld! .. On the contrary, the same Brownian motion proves the “verbatim” (that is, without additional explanation) implementation of the law: the microparticle moves from one collision to another in a straight line and at a constant speed .
That is, arguing above about the lack of inertial reference systems, I got a little excited? Do they exist in the microworld? It seems like that!
But, at the same time, there are no accelerations in the microworld ... (!), Because there are no “fields” like in the macrocosm and all interactions occur only through “collisions” in a very small area of space in a very short time ... To confirm this thesis, I will refer to authority of Richard Feynman, who claimed in [4]:
Let's start with how Newton’s laws are interpreted in modern physics textbooks. For example, in the book of A.V. Peryshkina and E.M. Gutnik [1] on page 42 the following is written:
<...> from the point of view of modern concepts, Newton’s first law is formulated as follows:Compare this squalor with the formulation of Newton himself [2], by the way, given in the same book a page earlier:
there are such reference systems with respect to which the bodies maintain their speed unchanged if other bodies do not act on them or the actions of other bodies are compensated .
Every body continues to be kept in a state of rest or uniform rectilinear movement, until and since it is forced by the applied forces to change this state.As you can see, there is no question of any reference frame. So what? Was Newton "dumber" than modern "wise men" who "improved" his laws? No! Newton examines in detail the question of ...: " apparent " and " true " movements! Here is what he writes in the “Teaching” in the section “Definitions” (see book [2]):
The causes of origin that distinguish between true and apparent movements are the forces that must be applied to bodies in order to produce these movements . True absolute motion can neither occur nor change except by the action of forces applied directly to the moving body itself, while the relative motion of the body can be produced and changed without the application of forces to this body; it is enough that the forces are applied to the bodies in relation to which this movement is determined.That is, Newton considered the question of reference systems very scrupulously and managed to abstract from apparent ( relative ) movements that interfere with understanding the root cause of all movements and changes in movements - the action of force.
The genius of Newton and his predecessors, the Copernicans, who rejected the theory of planetary motion of Ptolemy ( Πτολεμαΐος ), based only on a description of relative, apparent movements , and, therefore, powerless in determining the causes leading to this ability to abstract from distorting the essence, lies in the genius such movements. It turns out that the “correcting” Newton are trying to cast us off in the era of Ptolemy and Aristotle ( Αριστοτέλης ) ...
By the way, Einstein's whole theory of relativity considers precisely relative, apparent movements, and it is not surprising that the consequences of this theory are unsolvable paradoxes.
It should also be noted that in Einstein's theory the state of rest is absolutized, which, again, is a return to the times of Aristotle and Ptolemy. And Newton, by his First Law, specifically emphasizes that v = 0 = const has no advantages compared to v = const > 0 .
The inclusion of the inertial reference frame in the formulation of the First Law is unacceptable in the sense that the physical law is implemented regardless of whether we observe the process or not, measure something or not ... Moreover, the definition of the inertial reference frame is given through the Newton’s First Law ( see, for example, on page 13 in [3]), and then reformulate the same law using the concept of an “inertial reference frame” ... A very “scientific” approach ...
So, one of the main ideas of Newton’s First Law is that " resting state " not yavl etsya a special case , but just the opposite, it is - a special case of "state of rectilinear uniform motion" whenthe speed is zero, i.e. any other number, equal in all respects with zero!
It is this thought that is the main blow to Aristotle's theory, which has not far gone (more precisely: it hasn’t gone anywhere) from the ordinary idea of motion, when it is believed that in order to set in motion a physical body and maintain this motion in the future, it is necessary to apply all the time effort (force). Of course, those examples of movement, such as “flight of an abandoned stone”, “flight of an arrow after termination of the bowstring”, where it is not visible “supporting the movement”, forces confound these ideas about movement.
Second important point. They claim that Newton “searched” for some kind of absolute reference point and, in the end, “finished” these searches in the center of the Sun. Be that as it may, but the First Law, just, denies the absoluteness of zero speed , and, consequently, the absoluteness of any reference point ... It is quite possible that these “searches” (if they actually were ...) - another manifestation of Newton himself, not as a physicist, but as a theologian. Indeed, the very statement “ there are such reference systems ” is fundamentally wrong! With accurate measurements, we will always find accelerations. Even a ship moving at a constant speed with full calm is not an inertial reference system, because the Earth is spherical and the ship moves along the curved surface of the sea, not to mention the fact that the Earth itself rotates ...
And yet. No matter what “quantum mechanics” says: there is not a single experiment showing that this law is not fulfilled in the microworld! .. On the contrary, the same Brownian motion proves the “verbatim” (that is, without additional explanation) implementation of the law: the microparticle moves from one collision to another in a straight line and at a constant speed .
That is, arguing above about the lack of inertial reference systems, I got a little excited? Do they exist in the microworld? It seems like that!
But, at the same time, there are no accelerations in the microworld ... (!), Because there are no “fields” like in the macrocosm and all interactions occur only through “collisions” in a very small area of space in a very short time ... To confirm this thesis, I will refer to authority of Richard Feynman, who claimed in [4]:
I want to especially emphasize that light exists in the form of particles - it is very important to know. This is especially important to know for those of you who went to school, where perhaps they were saying something about the wave nature of light. I tell you how he actually behaves - like particlesBy the way, the Feynman diagrams themselves were originally built as “trajectories” of particles before and after interaction in the same spatial and one time coordinate axes, but then they were carried away by mathematics and “forgot” about this, again, because they decided to “limit” the applicability of Newton's Laws ...
Literature
- Peryshkin A.V. Physics. 9 cl .: textbook / A.V. Peryshkin, E.M. Gutnik. - M .: Drofa, 2014. - 319, [1] p .: ill.
- Newton Isaac. Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. - M .: Nauka, 1989. (translation from Latin and comments by A.N. Krylov).
- Landau L.D., Lifshits E.M. Theoretical physics: Textbook.: For universities. In 10t. T. II. Field Theory. —8th ed., Stereot.-M.: FIZMATLIT, 2003.-536 p.
- Feynman Richard. QED - a strange theory of light and matter: Per. from English — M.: Science. Ch. ed. Phys.-Math. lit., 1988. — 144 pp .— (“Quantum” book. Issue 66.)