Common observations
Here are some common observations over the models, which are used in quantum mechanics and other theories.
A particle is in onedimensional square potential well. This well is not really because:
1. it is onedimensional
2. it has square form
3. walls of the well are extremely high.
Let’s speak about description of microparticles by the instrumentality of wave function. It describes propagation of oscillations (without transferring the matter) and doesn’t refer the particle. If draw analogy to the string, than wave function describes movement of the parts of the string, but the whole string stays put. That is if apply wave function concerning to the particle, than wave this function describes movement of the parts of the particle. Only in that case using of wave function is correct.
CLASSICAL MECHANICS IS NOT PERFECT TOO.
Reference frame, relative to which free material particle moves evenly and in straight lines, is called inertial reference frame.
Existence of inertial reference frames is established by experiments. It is the law of nature. It is quotation.
OBJECTIONS:
1. Definition is not logically correct. We have no evidences that other bodies don’t influence on material point, which moves evenly and in straight lines.
2. Conception of material point is abstract.
Existence of FREE material particles is impossible, because influence of gravitation and electric forces is impossible.
3. It is impossible to build reference frame with straight axes. Even the light rays curve under influence of huge masses.
5. In case of relativistic velocities no one physical entity can be considered as material point, because it is necessary to take into account their size.
6. How can we pass from one reference frame to another in case of relativistic velocities or microcosm?
IS THE PASSING FROM ONE REFERENCE FRAME TO ANOTHER CORRECT?
Here is example from classical mechanics. If we want to get to a moving reference frame, than at first we must spend energy on increasing our velocity. So we have to take this energy into account. Otherwise we break one of the most fundamental laws of nature.
When we pass from one reference frame to another in relativistic case, we use signals, which spread in vacuum with the velocity of light. Signals, which one reference frame emits and other receives, break inertiality of both systems, because this signals are the way of transferring of energy.
INERTNESS OF BODIES
It is the quality which every body has – bodies resist changing of their velocities (modulo and directionally).
In what phenomenon is it expressed in case of fall of bodies on the Earth (all bodies have the same accelerations in vacuum) or movement of planets around the Sun (squares of the rotation periods correlate as cubes of semimajor axes and mass doesn’t take part in it)?
ACCELERATION IS PRIMARY.
Force is abstraction, which we use for easy calculating. Usually we don’t take previous history into account (and break the principle of continuity) when we discuss interactions. We can make a conclusion, that accelerating always is the origin of the force. We don’t consider accelerating as forcetomass ratio. In this case accelerating is the ratio of velocity of the body in any point of space to time, which spends on reaching this velocity.
MOMENTUM CONSERVATION LAW means that impulse of closed system is constant and doesn’t change with the lapse of time.
Remarks.
1. There are no closed systems for relativistic velocities (even approximately).
2. Impulse is connected with conception of material point. But no one object can be considered as material point in relativistic case. Rotational motion is possible for microparticles (and not only for them). In this case energy of mechanical motion (that is impulse) turns into the energy of rotation (moment of momentum).
So momentum conservation law and angular momentum conservation law are not strict.
Energies which are calculated by the instrumentality of this formula can turn into each other. Here is an example.
Postulates of special theory of relativity.
1. Principle of relativity: no experiments (mechanic, electric, optic) carried out inside certain inertial reference frame give possibility to find out does this system rest or move uniformly and in straight lines. All laws of nature are invariant relatively to transitions from one inertial system to another.
2. Invariance principle of velocity of light: velocity of light in vacuum doesn’t depend on velocity of source or observer. It is the same in every inertial reference system.
I don’t want to object. Both postulates have nothing to do with reality because requires for application in inertial reference frames.
1. I pointed at lack of inertial reference frames in reality.
2. Implementation of the energy conservation law is the necessary condition otherwise this transition is incorrect.
3. For detection of noninertiality of reference frame we can always find objects which are located outside of this frame.
4. Signals applied for transition from one reference frame to another one break inertiality by its own appearance.
Let’s consider mathematical base of special theory of relativity. Such mathematical instrument is Lorentz transformations.
Objections:
1. Transition system is onedimensional. So transition is possible only in improbable for real physical processes cases. Notably in cases when motion vector of one system rests along the straight line, which unites origins of coordinates of both reference frames. But in other cases we can’t apply these transformations, in spite of fact that there is a great amount of such cases.
If make fun of this fact than application of Lorentz transformations is dangerous for life. All bodies in case of using Lorentz transformations move in the line of origin of coordinates of reference frame. But observer is just in the origin. So if we won’t leave this place in proper time, particle or something larger will hit our eye!
2. Changes of the time are calculating by the instrumentality of formula, which has only one coordinate. It contradicts with common conception of isotropy of space.
3. Consequence from Lorentz transformations affirms that movement of the body influences on its sizes only in direction of the movement. So there is nothing about isotropy too. Invariance principle of laws of nature is violated. If sizes change in moving reference frame, than appears force, which lets to these changes. But there is no such force in resting reference frame.
4. In case of V<< c Lorentz transformations don’t turn into Galilean transformations, because y ‘= y and z’ = z in Lorentz transformations and y’ = y – vt and z’ = z – vt in Galilean transformations.
5. Radical expression in formula for calculating range can possess negative value.
Equality of squares of intervals doesn’t mean equality of intervals, because negative value of one of the intervals is possible.
QUESTION: what is the physical interpretation of interval and what is the reason of its obligatory invariance in contrast to energy for example?
If one reference frame moves relatively to other one, it means that first system earlier got energy, which forced it to move. So we can put two systems on a par with each other only taking into account energy, which one of the systems possess. Taking this difference into account must be the obligatory condition of rightness of transition from one reference frame to another. It is not important are these reference frames inertial or not. Energy conservation law must be implemented always. In another case principle of continuity is violated.
Search on pages of a site
