|
|
От
|
Пуденко Сергей
|
|
|
К
|
Alex~1
|
|
|
Дата
|
20.02.2011 23:33:47
|
|
|
Рубрики
|
В стране и мире;
|
|
Re: Re:Реплика, как обычно, от троцкистов
физических
Пытаюсь разобраться
>Позитивисты это, конечно, знают. :) А вот марксисты думают по-другому
>>Уравнения свободного движения, получаемые варьированием классического действия для струны совпадают с уравнением колебанию для обычной механической струны, например от гитары:)
>
>Я в курсе. :) И что?
>>Последняя тоже в некотором приближении одномерная и колеблется:)
>
>Для уравнения - т.е. модели в сознании - конечно, достаточно.
>>Для музыки достаточно:)
>
>Для музыки нужны реальные струны, которые ну никаким боком не одномерные. :)
>>И я не понимаю почему для Вас одномерные струны хуже точечных частиц стандартной модели
>
>Для меня, как марксиста, точечные частицы - такая же абстракция, как и одномерные струны. :) Я не Мах, чтобы считать атомы точками, существующими только в сознании.
>
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=467045
In the book “Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy,” Max Jammer presents physics as resting upon three primitive concepts: space, time and mass. (Jammer focuses specifically on the notion of mass, but the following discussion is just as valid for the notion of “charge” in general.) Of particular note, he writes: “[If] if is the concept of mass that is required for the transition from kinematics to dynamics, it must contain a dynamical ingredient. A theory of mass can therefore not operate solely with kinematical conceptions. Rather, it must itself be a dynamical theory and as such somehow involve a notion of force that is defined in mechanics as the product of mass and acceleration, thus leading to a logical circle. … In order to avoid this impasse a dynamical theory of mass has to defy the commonly accepted idea that mechanics – with its notions of mass and force, whether considered as a theory of physical reality or only as a metatheory or purely mathematical formalism – is the fundament of physics.”
Since “fundamental particles” must, by definition, possess dynamical qualities, they must be embodied by extended regions of spacetime. Further, if we are to assume that particles are an objective feature of the universe, then the events which make up a single particle must be uniquely associated with one another in a way that differs from their relation to other events in general. (Otherwise, we could not make objective statements like "events x and y are a part of particle z.") But this association cannot be accomplished through any intrinsic dynamical qualities, since those qualities must also embody information, and therefore cannot be embodied by the events in question. Conversely, if the events are not uniquely associated, then neither particles, nor their properties, can be considered fundamental.
This contradiction may seem very philosophical in nature. But given that the assumption of primitive dynamical qualities is the featured component of virtually every existing paradox and problem in contemporary theory – singularities, nonlocality, flatness problem, horizon problem, etc., etc.
Max Jammer Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy
Princeton University Press | 2001 | ISBN: 1400804051 | Pages: 180 | PDF | 1.16 MB
The concept of mass is one of the most fundamental notions in physics, comparable in importance only to those of space and time. But in contrast to the latter, which are the subject of innumerable physical and philosophical studies, the concept of mass has been but rarely investigated. Here Max Jammer, a leading philosopher and historian of physics, provides a concise but comprehensive, coherent, and self-contained study of the concept of mass as it is defined, interpreted, and applied in contemporary physics and as it is critically examined in the modern philosophy of science. With its focus on theories proposed after the mid-1950s, the book is the first of its kind, covering the most recent experimental and theoretical investigations into the nature of mass and its role in modern physics, from the realm of elementary particles to the cosmology of galaxies.
The book begins with an analysis of the persistent difficulties of defining inertial mass in a noncircular manner and discusses the related question of whether mass is an observational or a theoretical concept. It then studies the notion of mass in special relativity and the delicate problem of whether the relativistic rest mass is the only legitimate notion of mass and whether it is identical with the classical (Newtonian) mass. This is followed by a critical analysis of the different derivations of the famous mass-energy relationship E = mc2 and its conflicting interpretations. Jammer then devotes a chapter to the distinction between inertial and gravitational mass and to the various versions of the so-called equivalence principle with which Newton initiated his Principia but which also became the starting point of Einstein's general relativity, which supersedes Newtonian physics. The book concludes with a presentation of recently proposed global and local dynamical theories of the origin and nature of mass.
Destined to become a much-consulted reference for philosophers and physicists, this book is also written for the nonprofessional general reader interested in the foundations of physics.
а наткнулся через цитату в конце книжки по Итсории астрологии. Берлински пошел по стопам Хоргана(видимо. как и многие) и утверждает, со ссылкой на Дженнера, что концепт силы по Ньютону из того же разряда, что и магическое "влияние" или "симпатия". И ничего _не объясняет_. И дальше эта трагическая история масонский заговро продолжается
Дженнера по-русски в сети есть две книги , но этой последней нет, по ангийски есть в сети
еврей,троцкист, что с него взять. Гадит