The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?  (Read 13214 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
''Aristotle noted that objects given an initial push along the ground
(or on a tabletop) always slow down and stop. Consequently, Aristotle argued,
the natural state of an object is to be at rest. Galileo, the first true experimentalist,
reexamined horizontal motion in the 1600s. He imagined that if friction
could be eliminated, an object given an initial push along a horizontal surface
would continue to move indefinitely without stopping. He concluded that for an
object to be in motion was just as natural as for it to be at rest.
By inventing a
new way of thinking about the same data, Galileo founded our modern view of
motion (Chapters 2, 3, and 4), and he did so with a leap of the imagination.
Galileo made this leap conceptually, without actually eliminating friction.''

 Physics: principles with applications by Douglas C. Giancoli

I have placed in bold text a sentence from this book, I believe there is logical argument to assume fact that the natural state of any particle is to be at rest mass.
My conclusion for this is based on the fact , that applying force, (the ''push''), changes the natural state of rest mass and is observer effect.

''In science, the term observer effect means that the act of observing will influence the phenomenon being observed. For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron.''

A single particle in a void has no mechanism to create any force and the void can not apply any force on the particle. I conclude that the ''push'' is defining a second concept and an object in motion is not natural , but rather a Physical process and consequence of actions and interactions.

Would this be correct?




 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #1 on: 30/05/2015 14:06:10 »
Quote from: Thebox
''Aristotle noted that objects given an initial push along the ground
(or on a tabletop) always slow down and stop. Consequently, Aristotle argued,
the natural state of an object is to be at rest. Galileo, the first true experimentalist,
reexamined horizontal motion in the 1600s. He imagined that if friction
could be eliminated, an object given an initial push along a horizontal surface
would continue to move indefinitely without stopping. He concluded that for an
object to be in motion was just as natural as for it to be at rest.
By inventing a
new way of thinking about the same data, Galileo founded our modern view of
motion (Chapters 2, 3, and 4), and he did so with a leap of the imagination.
Galileo made this leap conceptually, without actually eliminating friction.''

 Physics: principles with applications by Douglas C. Giancoli

I have placed in bold text a sentence from this book, I believe there is logical argument to assume fact that the natural state of any particle is to be at rest mass.
Careful. That Aristotle. Many physicists (then called natural philosophers) came after him such as Sir Isaac Newton. To him anybody which was at rest or in uniform motion was in a "natural state" since what's at rest in one frame is moving in others.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #2 on: 30/05/2015 14:46:25 »
Quote from: Thebox
A single particle in a void has no mechanism to create any force and the void can not apply any force on the particle. I conclude that the ''push'' is defining a second concept and an object in motion is not natural , but rather a Physical process and consequence of actions and interactions.

The single particle in a void is much loved of thought experimenters, but in what sense could you say that it was either stationary or in motion?  If you can find a way to make that distinction your thought experiment has some relevance.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #3 on: 30/05/2015 15:27:26 »
Quote from: Thebox
A single particle in a void has no mechanism to create any force and the void can not apply any force on the particle. I conclude that the ''push'' is defining a second concept and an object in motion is not natural , but rather a Physical process and consequence of actions and interactions.

The single particle in a void is much loved of thought experimenters, but in what sense could you say that it was either stationary or in motion?  If you can find a way to make that distinction your thought experiment has some relevance.

I would define it as stationary by observed Physics of present , we observe an object does not move without applied force, force being an interaction rather than an entity.
We also observe this of motion, something can not be in motion unless it is forced to move.  Gravitational force being the main presence of the visual space, that forces matter to move.
Without initial force, i.e a push or pull, there is no mechanism that suggests a particle or object would have any motion, motion being a reaction to action.
Consider any stationary object around you, although relative to you the object is held fast by gravity and is stationary, relative to space, the object is occupying new space every split second, moving through ''frames of space''.
Something logically had to give the matter an initial push or pull to create motion in the first place.
The only logical assumption I can perceive, is that logically the very first motion was created by attractive force, and motion is what created everything. 

Am I correct in assuming that without motion, there can not be atoms?
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8654
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #4 on: 30/05/2015 15:54:15 »
"Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?"
No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #5 on: 30/05/2015 17:22:52 »
"Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?"
No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 Position x and momentum p can be known simultaneously but is this not suggestive that the object or particle is already in motion? 

My logical argument is that a single particle , in a void, position X, has no mechanism for motion and will remain relative to position x.  A  completely empty space has no external force to act on the particle, thus the particle itself has no force output to create any sort of thrust.

I would try to explain in maths that p=F where p is momentum and F is force?

 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #6 on: 30/05/2015 18:24:27 »
Quote from: Thebox
Position x and momentum p can be known simultaneously but is this not suggestive that the object or particle is already in motion? 
Ignore the uncertainty principle. You're learning about classical physics right now, not quantum mechanics.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #7 on: 30/05/2015 20:16:44 »
An infinite universe with only 1 particle in it and no other forces present is the only situation I can imagine where a particle can be considered at rest. Because the laws of physics describe forces inherent to matter that are both attractive and repulsive then nothing can ever be considered to be at rest in our universe. Even the concept of constant velocity is an approximation. Since the electromagnetic and gravitational fields extend to infinity and the local universe, created by the big bang, has a finite extent, then nothing within it can be unaffected by external forces.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #8 on: 30/05/2015 22:28:44 »
An infinite universe with only 1 particle in it and no other forces present is the only situation I can imagine where a particle can be considered at rest. Because the laws of physics describe forces inherent to matter that are both attractive and repulsive then nothing can ever be considered to be at rest in our universe. Even the concept of constant velocity is an approximation. Since the electromagnetic and gravitational fields extend to infinity and the local universe, created by the big bang, has a finite extent, then nothing within it can be unaffected by external forces.

Not the only situation, we could imagine a situation where some sort of centripetal force is isotropic on a centralised single particle holding it in position at rest?

or we could imagine an infinite space with a negative polarity, and a single particle being of opposite polarity, centralised by the negativity.



sort of   ----------------------+-----------------------------   but isotropic and dimensional.

A similarity to magnetic bottling and Plasma confinement.


Sorry I have strayed off topic, my apologies, and a one of those quick thoughts I mentioned.







« Last Edit: 30/05/2015 22:38:02 by Thebox »
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #9 on: 30/05/2015 22:50:19 »
Quote from: TheBox
the natural state of any particle is to be at rest
The energy involved in "creating" a subatomic particle is so high that the tiny fragments fly off at great speed in many directions. So I would suggest that the most natural state of such particles is to be in motion.

On the other hand, the energy involved in chemical reactions is lower by a factor of a million or more, and on this scale, Van de Waals forces are often effective at holding the reactants together (except for very exothermic reactions like explosions). In this case, the natural state of the reactants is to be stationary at a macroscopic scale, but still vigorously moving on a microscopic scale (Brownian motion), when viewed in the frame of reference of the original reactants.

The point of Relativity is that there is no "magical" frame of reference that is better than any other. In a randomly-selected frame of reference, a particular particle is almost certain to be seen to be in motion.
 
Of course, massless particles like photons (and the hypothetical gravitons) must be in continuous motion at the speed of light, regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #10 on: 30/05/2015 23:14:33 »
Quote from: TheBox
the natural state of any particle is to be at rest
The energy involved in "creating" a subatomic particle is so high that the tiny fragments fly off at great speed in many directions. So I would suggest that the most natural state of such particles is to be in motion.

On the other hand, the energy involved in chemical reactions is lower by a factor of a million or more, and on this scale, Van de Waals forces are often effective at holding the reactants together (except for very exothermic reactions like explosions). In this case, the natural state of the reactants is to be stationary at a macroscopic scale, but still vigorously moving on a microscopic scale (Brownian motion), when viewed in the frame of reference of the original reactants.

The point of Relativity is that there is no "magical" frame of reference that is better than any other. In a randomly-selected frame of reference, a particular particle is almost certain to be seen to be in motion.
 
Of course, massless particles like photons (and the hypothetical gravitons) must be in continuous motion at the speed of light, regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.

I agree with most of that, and some of that I do not know.

I would say an imaginary reference frame of an outer view looking in, would be the best reference frame. 

If you can imagine a glass hollow sphere in your hand and inside of this sphere is the entire Universe, you can almost imagine what is happening.

(however the glass is not real glass, it is virtual glass, the virtual glass viewed from the inside is as far as we can see).

The concept of a void with a single particle with no motion is based on imagination with no external observer, you have to visualise this from the perspective of being the single particle, (lost in space).

In thought experiment, close your eyes, and imagine you are this single particle in a void, while with your eyes still shut, try to imagine what could possibly give you motion.

There is no physical body to ''swim'' through. You do not emit thrust.

I believe this is logical argument for the natural state of a particle. This is not to say that ''now'' it is impossible in space for no motion of a particle.
 
« Last Edit: 30/05/2015 23:20:29 by Thebox »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #11 on: 30/05/2015 23:26:02 »
Quote from: Thebox
Not the only situation, we could imagine a situation where some sort of centripetal force is isotropic on a centralised single particle holding it in position at rest?

Why would you need to have a force holding the particle at rest if being at rest is its natural state?

Quote
or we could imagine an infinite space with a negative polarity, and a single particle being of opposite polarity, centralised by the negativity.

If your space is infinite, centrality is a meaningless concept.

What do you mean by "space"?  Is it empty space?  If so what is polarised?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #12 on: 30/05/2015 23:34:03 »
Quote from: Thebox
The concept of a void with a single particle with no motion is based on imagination with no external observer, you have to visualise this from the perspective of being the single particle, (lost in space).

In thought experiment, close your eyes, and imagine you are this single particle in a void, while with your eyes still shut, try to imagine what could possibly give you motion.

You still have not explained why your particle might not always have been in motion, nor how you can tell if it is in motion, or not, in an absolute void.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #13 on: 30/05/2015 23:39:08 »

Why would you need to have a force holding the particle at rest if being at rest is its natural state?


We would not need a force for natural state, I was stating a way to force a particle to be at rest.

I will try to answer your other questions tomorrow bill I am tired now sorry
« Last Edit: 30/05/2015 23:45:43 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #14 on: 31/05/2015 08:56:34 »
Given an isolated particle in an infinite empty space, the concept of velocity is meaningless since velocity is distance/time and we have no origin for "distance".
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #15 on: 31/05/2015 09:57:55 »
Given an isolated particle in an infinite empty space, the concept of velocity is meaningless since velocity is distance/time and we have no origin for "distance".

Yes indeed, we have no spacial dimensions because in empty space, we have no points to observe to gain any perspective of velocity, distance would not be ''seen'' , if we replaced the single particle with a single human, the single human would be ''blind'' and perceive weightlessness, it would be a rather strange feeling.   I mentioned before the contracting of space, except space itself does not contract, observation contracts,

when all the galaxies have left our observation range, the farthest we will observe will be the farthest radial point of the Milky way, the observation contracts but the space is still there beyond the observation contraction.

Would you agree with this?

added- and likewise an observation expansion?

added- I and you stand side by side with a single lit candle in the center of a vast warehouse that is in darkness.  we can both see

example -a  4 meter circumference.

beyond this it looks a blackness, we do not know the distance to the walls or can even percept there is walls that exist.


You then start to walk with the candle while I remain stationary, my observation starts to expand. Your observation remains the same.


However, after you have walked about 30 meters, you start to fade from my observation, eventually you vanish, space then contracts around me, I now see no distance, but the distance remains there.

My vision is narrowed.
You look towards me, you can not see me, I have expanded beyond you vision radius of 4 meters.




« Last Edit: 31/05/2015 10:29:07 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #16 on: 31/05/2015 10:01:20 »


If your space is infinite, centrality is a meaningless concept.

What do you mean by "space"?  Is it empty space?  If so what is polarised?


All observers or objects are central of their infinite space, every single person is at the center of the Universe.



and for the polarisation, sorry that was a random thought.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #17 on: 31/05/2015 22:16:45 »
Quote from: Thebox
You then start to walk with the candle while I remain stationary, my observation starts to expand. Your observation remains the same.

It makes no difference which candle is perceived as moving, both observers will have the same changing range of observation.

Quote
All observers or objects are central of their infinite space, every single person is at the center of the Universe.

Precisely; so the concept of centrality is meaningless if everywhere is the centre.  Let your imagination range a little further and ask if any location in infinity can be distinguished from any other.  Does distinction have any more meaning than centrality?
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #18 on: 31/05/2015 22:43:53 »
However, after you have walked about 30 meters, you start to fade from my observation, eventually you vanish, space then contracts around me, I now see no distance, but the distance remains there.
This is a very important observation. Even if the 2people were not there the distance would remain. Even if the warehouse and earth were not there. The distance, the dimension exists as a feature of space.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #19 on: 01/06/2015 11:02:24 »
Quote from: Thebox
You then start to walk with the candle while I remain stationary, my observation starts to expand. Your observation remains the same.

It makes no difference which candle is perceived as moving, both observers will have the same changing range of observation.

Quote
All observers or objects are central of their infinite space, every single person is at the center of the Universe.

Precisely; so the concept of centrality is meaningless if everywhere is the centre.  Let your imagination range a little further and ask if any location in infinity can be distinguished from any other.  Does distinction have any more meaning than centrality?

There is only one candle, observer (a) moving with the candle , loses sight of the stationary observer (b) over distance, and vice versus.

Observer (a) will always observe an isotropic radius of light from their reference point and perspective, observer (b) becomes blind as the light is red shifted away from them.

Observer (a) would only ever perceive a finite universe, while observer (b) would perceive no distance by observation means alone.

Logically when talking about centralised position , each centralisation expands from each individual point of matter into infinite space, the only distinctive position is the observers position. 

Both observers (a) and (b) experience their own distances of space, (a) and (b) can not occupy the same space at the same time although they can move through the same space at different ''times''.

If you can imagine you remained on Earth and for example you can see a 10 light year isotropic radius of light, you would be saying that the visual universe is 10 light years old according to the big bang and time reversal.

If I was on a distance star and the same situation, I would say the same, however if we communicated, we would change our conclusions. I could tell you I can still see ''east'', and you would explain you could see ''west''.
We both agree that I and you are both in the middle.


Where everyone see's this black background of space, I do not see that, I see more space that is simply unlit, but it is really lit, except the light is so red shifted we see darkness, and the matter is simply to small to see, relative to our position the matter is smaller than an atom, because it is far, so far it as left the vanishing point,


This is an experiment we can observe on Earth,

a bird starts to fly away from you, eventually the bird vanishes .







 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #20 on: 01/06/2015 11:06:49 »
However, after you have walked about 30 meters, you start to fade from my observation, eventually you vanish, space then contracts around me, I now see no distance, but the distance remains there.
This is a very important observation. Even if the 2people were not there the distance would remain. Even if the warehouse and earth were not there. The distance, the dimension exists as a feature of space.

Yes Colin, just because you can not see something, it does not mean that something is not there.  And great wording, dimensions are a feature of space.

« Last Edit: 01/06/2015 11:09:16 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #21 on: 01/06/2015 11:21:26 »

a bird starts to fly away from you, eventually the bird vanishes .


No, it subtends an angle smaller than the resolution of the human eye. Which is why we use telescopes. And since the bird cannot fly faster than the speed of light, it never actually vanishes from an ideal universe (i.e. one that contains only a bird with a tail light, and an observer).
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #22 on: 01/06/2015 11:28:17 »

a bird starts to fly away from you, eventually the bird vanishes .


No, it subtends an angle smaller than the resolution of the human eye. Which is why we use telescopes. And since the bird cannot fly faster than the speed of light, it never actually vanishes from an ideal universe (i.e. one that contains only a bird with a tail light, and an observer).
What happens to the bird with a tail light when it subtends an angle smaller than the resolution of the telescope?

A telescope expands vision, Hubble's telescope expanded space...which in reality is the expansion of vision.

I like to strip off all the accessories, and consider the naked science.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2015 11:41:55 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #23 on: 01/06/2015 15:06:14 »

What happens to the bird with a tail light when it subtends an angle smaller than the resolution of the telescope?


Nothing. Why should anything happen? The bird has no knowledge of the existence of the telescope.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #24 on: 01/06/2015 15:19:40 »

What happens to the bird with a tail light when it subtends an angle smaller than the resolution of the telescope?


Nothing. Why should anything happen? The bird has no knowledge of the existence of the telescope.

and we have no knowledge of the existence of the bird unless the telescope is powerful enough. The bird will vanish at a vanishing point.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #24 on: 01/06/2015 15:19:40 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums