Thoughts on Physics

1. Why net acting Force does NOT equal to Acceleration times Mass?
There are two routes to arrive into this conclusion. One from a microscopic perspective, another from the analog I raise the day before yesterday.
From the microscopical perspective, we need to explore the exact happening when an external contact force is acting on an object from a molecular or atomic level. When an external contact force is exerting on an object, it must be the atoms/molecular in direct contact of the force exerter experience that force first. What really is a force?
Think about when you try to move something, your hand move a location to another location, so it really is a tendency of displacement. The microscopic structure of your hand are moving from one location to another location as a whole.(Assuming the totality of your hand is still there after you move!) So when anyone/anything is exerting a force, it is a mass that moving to a location where it has already occupied by the mass we would like to move.
In the process of exerting a force, the object moved and the mover would first come into a close contact. Probably close enough for the repulsive force of the electrons from the mover and the moved to overcome any molecular/atomic attraction between them. Thus pressure is exerted by the means of electrical repulsion. Notice that if the mover is not in contact of the whole surface of the moved object, then the picture need a small modification as NOT the totality of first layer of atom/molecule is affected, ONLY those in direct contact with the mover. As the other atoms/molecules not affecting by this force try to holding the affected into their original location. We have surface tension in action. This surface would attempt to resort to its original location, thus exerting a reaction force to the mover. On the other hand, the area affected is displace to further inward of that object due to the electrical repulsion force, thus drawing the ire of yet another electrical repulsion force from the layer of atom deeper inside the object. The first layer of atom/molecule now react to this force, and the deeper layer both react and being push inward by the electrical repulsion force from the first layer. This process repeat itself until every layer of the moved is affected, which is how a
force transferring from the surface of the moved to its totality of atom. It would require time and ENERGY to overcome the attraction of the atom/molecular not directly affected by this force, thus some kinetic ENERGY of the mover is DISSIPATED in the process as heat. A bare minimum level of kinetic energy is require to cause minimum level of displacement. Thus, NOT the TOTALITY of that external force is being transferred as kinetic energy of each atom/molecular of the moved. So F does NOT equal to ma. Moreover, we rely on the intricate interaction of attraction and repulsion of the atom/molecule, or the ELECTROMAGNETIC properties of the moved object for the reaction to take place. Why would we be confident that E-M world would provide us something like F=ma when it is so dissimilar from the world of force? (The case for action at a distance is pretty similar to this picture since a field require time to reach each layer of the moved object. The first layer is always reacting first to such a force, and the second layer a little bit later, so on and on. The real disparity from contacting force is that all layer is experiencing force of various strength at the same time. Nevertheless, energy is dissipate in the process as heat and the force also rely on the electromagnetic field inside the object to conduct.)
From the perspective of that Force is merely another expression of E-M field. Remember the phenomena of inductance? It would take some minimal level of electrical energy to ‘initialize’ a conducting object into a state of conductor of certain level of current; similarly, we would expect a minimal level of kinetic energy is required to change an object from the state of movement at constant speed to the state of movement with either constant increasing/decreasing speed. That minimal level of energy is coming from the mover itself. Thus NOT all of the totality of kinetic energy of the mover is transferred to the moved object. In other words: F does NOT equal to mass times acceleration.
BTW, the only difference between solid and liquid is how attracted are the atom/molecules to each other. What phenomena we see in one state should also expect another manifestation in another state. Therefore, surface tension is existing in three different states with different parameter, and so do others.

2. It is not too difficult to explain about electrical attraction between protons and electrons. It is, however, an mysteries to explain why the proton is at the center of atom while electron is circulating it but not the vice versa. Of course, in here I only ASSUME that proton is in every way equal to the electron except charge. I know that in fact there is some dissimilarity between them, for example: mass. I am not interested to go into the question of why. I just wondering if neutron is like glue to hold all the proton together in a tightly space, why it can’t make to hold the electron instead? And if electron is held in captivity by neutron, then theoretically all is left is proton, what do we want to do with that? Of course, it would experience the first hand of what electron experience all the time: As a slave to orbit!

3. If three orthogonal field of the same nature is applied to an object, wouldn’t we capable of reducing the temperature of that object dramatically at an instant? It would be interesting to see such an experiment.

4. An interesting extension of my field-temperature interaction theory is that as we could ‘freeze’ the temperature of an object in ONLY one dimension, it follows that we can SEPARATE three orthogonal dimensions of temperature. (Temperature do have three Dimensions, as it is simply an average of kinetic energy in three dimensions. Please refer to advance Physics.) Moreover, we could even manipulate each dimension SEPARATELY by changing the shape of the container or obstacles, (Please refer to my older shape-pressure relationship.) and/or with field in different dimension to adjust the dimension of temperature separately.


2 則回應給 Thoughts on Physics

  1. L Frank Morgan 說道:

    Just in case you are interested, I have a complete new theory of physics that says the proton is simply two electrons in hellcal string tandem, or 2 times 1/h-squared Higgs particles that are formng the wave. Each Higgs particle as a mass of h-cubed so it takes 1/h-cubed of them to equal a unit of our standard-measure mass. The new standard electron has a constant mass of h grams. We onl get to measure them in multiples of 1/h in pulses parallel per the Plank relation where E = nhf and n = 1/h electrons so that antropic-measured energy and frequency are numerically synonymous.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s

%d 位部落客按了讚: