Modifying Newton's First Law of Motion

No. There is no such issue posed by either Newton or Hansda. It is simply a point about the mathematics of continuous functions, so far as I can see.

But, while we are it is, it is meaningless to speak of "energy" changing direction. Energy is not "stuff" or an object. It is a property of a physical entity or system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In Newton's Law of Inertia, particle photon's change of motion can not be explained because it does not follow F=ma. This can be explained with my "Instantaneous Law of Inertia".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why don't you look up for IMPULSE.

Then you will realise the importance of dt. The effect of force depends on for how long (dt) the force is applied.

I am out of this thread, it is even lacking the basic physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What "change of motion" of a photon do you have in mind, please? Give us an example and we can go through how it is modelled.

 

When it is reflected in a mirror.

 

I can try to give you a hand-waving version. The electric vector of the incident photon stimulates oscillation in the free electrons of the metal surface, which borrow energy from it, and their coherent oscillation creates effectively a new electric vector, 180 deg out of phase with the incident one, at the angle of reflection. The momentum of the incident photon is given up to the reflector, which also recoils from the reflected one. This gives rise to what is called radiation pressure. The process is rapid but not instantaneous. The degree of penetration of the photon's electric vector into the metal is not great but finite.

It is true that the photon has no rest mass, and that it always travels at a fixed speed, c, so you cannot use F=ma, but it does have momentum, so you can use the Newtonian concepts of force and impulse (as The God suggested).

 

Like I said, "Before suggesting a modification to a concept in physics, I think it would be a good idea to at least an inkling of the concept you are hoping to modify."

 

No, don't be silly. In science, a process is said to be non-linear if an effect contributes to its own cause.

Example: the gravitational field generated by a massive object is itself a gravitational source (easily seen by inspection of the gravitational field equations.)

Similarly, the Higgs field gives mass to particles via an interaction boson, the Higgs boson, and also self-interacts with its own interaction boson to give it (the Higgs boson) mass

 

Would it be a bit of a low point in a thread if someone Googled calculus+for+hamsters in the hope of finding something helpful?

 

Oh, yes.

Quite the leap of logic there, hansda. I've never seen it done better in my lifetime, perhaps since Newton.

I was so hoping someone would find a way to noodle it out, and you did.

 

As theories of motion go, this is a rough cut. But it's good.

 

Calculus is another of Newton's inventions, so, yes, that might be helpful. Just don't take the limit of t all the way to zero just so you can relate time to space by dividing by zero the way Minkowski did, and everything else will make perfect sense.

Time and energy is all there is. I think Newton would have approved. His second law really says that. Mass, inertia, force, and acceleration all derive of relationships of energy to time. Galileo would have no doubt approved as well, even if he only managed to work out the t^2 dependence of falling projectiles.

Those other math guys (Minkowski, Hilber) just got all enamoured of their divine quadratics and the holiness of the invariant speed of light, I suppose. Just like Ptolemy got all comfortable with Earth being the center of all creation.

E=mc^2 and time dilation were both pretty cool, maybe the only bits that didn't involve a divide by zero for time is my guess. Einstein derived it using NEWTON'S MATH, you may recall. It is really just a restatement of the law of the conservation of mass / energy, so yes, it's important. In actual fact, it is the top of the hierarchy of laws in physics. Combined with hansda's insight, I think you will all find that this is a complete unified field theory, and also all the math that physics will ever really need.

So, thanks to hansda, the jig is finally up on all of the the irrelevant math of string theory and Lie groups. Hilbert was trained by Minkowski, so to heck with that random noise. Up to Newton's calculus, everything was just fine, maybe some matrix algebra, statistics thrown in for good measure. Lagrangian dynamics ONLY WORKS if you include terms for ALL of the forces. Because hansda just provided you with the idea of an instantaneous force that strictly speaking is not a "function" of time, you are going to need to add a term that is a summation of instantaneous forces in order to get a more complete picture of what is happening in atomic structure.

In the 1970s, I went to a colloquia lecture at the University of Maryland College Park (I was a student majoring in physics there) on the beginnings of String Theory given by Edward Witten of Princeton. At the time, he was gathering a consensus on combining three competing string theories into one. This guy was a failed accountant, not Sir Isaac Newton. His math, like Hilbert's and Minkowski's, had a bias toward pure math with no bindings to reality that is unbecoming of someone who claims to be a physicist, much less a "high energy" physicist, as he was. He never predicted anything like the Higgs, did he? No Nobel prizes, either. Speaks volumes, if you only listen carefully. The first part of his lecture involved Newton's law of gravitation. Then he went on about purely mathematical constructs 'strings' with no mass, inertia, or anything else anyone would recognize as being related to physical reality. This pattern seems to repeat itself ad nauseum in physics in particular. He should probably have remained an accountant, for all the good he did for his adopted field. I'm pretty certain, no one in the math or physics department at Princeton ever told him that.

We can all go back to doing our math in the bright light of Newton, illuminated by math with bindings to physical reality. Some of us will not, obviously. Math is tool, and for some of us, the tool, and not the reality it is supposed to work with, is a "thing". Nothing wrong with obsessions for the sake of a obsessions, right? Sure. I'm a basket case example of that point.

Someone needs to give hansda a good job doing something befitting the next Isaac Newton, and I don't mean minister of the Royal Mint, or an ordination at Trinity Collge. No investments in Tulips for you, hansda!!

 

I believe Newton lost his money in the South Sea Island bubble. "I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men." Ain't that the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company

 

http://blog.futureadvisor.com/investing-101-tulip-mania-and-isaac-newton/

 

From that link:

Tulip mania was a remarkable speculative bubble in the price of tulips in Holland in the 1630s. At the peak of tulip mania, in March 1637, some single tulip bulbs sold for more than 10 times the annual income of a skilled craftsman.

Newton was born in 1642. The article incorrectly used Newton's quote about his financial losses in the South Sea bubble to illustrate an event that happened before his birth.

The article you linked is flat out factually wrong. Tulips, 1637. Birth of Newton, 1642.

 

I wonder if you think this is the only thing that danshawen is wrong about?

 

Thanks to you, I now understand why earlier accounts referenced a bubble that was before Newton was born.

According to Wikipedia's article on Newton, the primary trade commodity of the South Sea Company was SLAVES, not tulips

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/.../How-not-to-invest-like-Sir-Isaac-Newton.html

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Newton died in his sleep just a few years after losing his fortune in that particular bubble.

 

Despite widespread claims to the contrary, the gravitational field is NOT a source of further gravity in GR. As seen by inspecting the EFE's, which by fiat of Einstein's aesthetic choice, excludes gravitation as source term in the RHS i.e the SET (stress-energy-momentum tensor). Paradoxically it's that absence of field self-gravitation that makes GR gravity too non-linear. As pointed out by Stan Robertson here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawking-radiation.152642/page-20#post-3338529
(note the first part actually quotes Misner)
And is elaborated on in appendices A & B here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417
It's superiority re matching accelerated cosmic expansion without any need for problematic 'Dark Energy' is explained here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809

I get tired of bringing up these correctives time and again only to have it all wasted on an audience that for the most part is uncomprehending and only here for the entertainment/emotional kick from gassing on with hand-wavy nonsense. There are notable exceptions but too few to make it worth the effort.

One member in particular literally raves misleading rubbish in nearly every post yet without any mod/admin correction. My guess being that the 'saving grace' of said member is to maybe cunningly declare adherence to all the PC orthodox ideologies. Which counts for far more here at SF than mere sound grasp of basics in the physics/mathematics etc. arena. So reminds of Orwell's 1984 - come true.

 

Extract from your linked Robertson arxiv paper. No wonder this paper could not be published anywhere. It debunks GW in present form and totally ridicules BHs.

......Although there have been indications of small things amiss with general relativity, such as the failure to have a complete correspondence limit with special relativity (Yilmaz 1975,
Alley 1995)), they have not generally led to serious consideration of rival theories. Even serious difficulties such as the failure to encompass the quadrupole gravitational radiation formula
(Wald 1984; Yu 1992, Lo 1995) have been ignored. To the contrary, astrophysicists have stretched the applications of the theory to the point of accepting the existence of black holes,
singularities and dark energy. In view of the ease with which the Yilmaz theory removes these,
they may not be necessary at all. While “black holes” have become a part of the mystique of
astrophysics that may persist as descriptive terminology even if event horizons are abandoned,
dark energy has much the same appeal as adding more epicycles. It may soon be forgotten.......

 

There's an xkcd for that.

https://xkcd.com/386/