Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008

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.
===================..