The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?  (Read 13194 times)

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 #25 on: 02/06/2015 03:50:04 »
Quote from: Bored chemist
"Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?"
No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Aristotle was talking about classical physics, not quantum physics. So he couldn't have meant this. This also doesn't apply to modern classical physics either. And in quantum mechanics there is no reason why a particle can't be momentarily at rest. All that means is that the observer measured the momentum of the particle to be zero.

However it should be kept in mind that rest and moving are classical terms which refer to speed and velocity, two quantities which don't have quantum mechanical counter parts.
 

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 #26 on: 02/06/2015 03:54:16 »
Quote from: evan_au
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.
I humbly disagree. What is moving in one frame is at rest in another frame. Newton had it right in his first two laws. To me the natural state of an object is that where there is no force acting on the object. It therefore doesn't accelerate or change it's state of motion.

However, the question that TB asked
Quote
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.
isn't clear to me.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #27 on: 03/06/2015 19:33:08 »
Quote from: evan_au
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.
I humbly disagree. What is moving in one frame is at rest in another frame. Newton had it right in his first two laws. To me the natural state of an object is that where there is no force acting on the object. It therefore doesn't accelerate or change it's state of motion.

However, the question that TB asked
Quote
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.
isn't clear to me.

To quickly clarify as I am tired, if a particle existed in an infinite void, even if it had mass, there would be simply nothing else to be attracted by the mass of the particle in the void. There would also be no force, so how would it logically be possible for the particle to be in motion or have any starting of motion?





 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #28 on: 03/06/2015 20:06:26 »
Quote from: The box
There would also be no force, so how would it logically be possible for the particle to be in motion or have any starting of motion?

I think you overlook at least one factor about infinity.  I your void is infinite, it must always have been infinite.  If it contains one particle, it must always have contained one particle.  As you point out, there is nothing to change the state of the particle, so there is no meaning to starting or stopping; either the particle has always been stationary, or always moving.  There is no way of knowing.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #29 on: 04/06/2015 21:33:34 »
Quote from: The box
There would also be no force, so how would it logically be possible for the particle to be in motion or have any starting of motion?

I think you overlook at least one factor about infinity.  I your void is infinite, it must always have been infinite.  If it contains one particle, it must always have contained one particle.  As you point out, there is nothing to change the state of the particle, so there is no meaning to starting or stopping; either the particle has always been stationary, or always moving.  There is no way of knowing.

great logic bill, we could never know, so if we assumed there was no particle and back to just being an infinite void, I presume the infinite void must of co-existed with an infinite something else maybe?

short list -
infinite cbmr
infinite dark energy

Although this may be seemingly off topic, I see a need to establish actions of  motion and force to fully understand the original quote.

I personally can not think of a way an infinite void could ''create'' anything unless a co-existence of something. Or  an external source is added which would conclude finite.

The Big bang can not expand into nothing, and for a big bang, there had to be centripetal force/pressure from somewhere?

Nothing existed before the big bang, I agree , a void, a blankness in thought also.  This is where thought takes us if we rewind ''time'' and think about it. A stalemate with not knowing what is beyond our vision range.

Space is infinite and finite at the same time, observers do not have infinite distance vision, an observer lives in a finite space in an infinite void.   Matter obeys the laws of observation, and all matter will vanish when it out ranges the observers finite space.

Science evidentially does not observe an expansion of space, it observes a space increase between observers.

Sorry I am tired ranting a bit.















 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • 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 #30 on: 04/06/2015 23:39:17 »
I your void is infinite, it must always have been infinite.  If it contains one particle, it must always have contained one particle.  As you point out, there is nothing to change the state of the particle, so there is no meaning to starting or stopping; either the particle has always been stationary, or always moving.  There is no way of knowing.


Moving with respect to what? Motion requires change of position, but if you have no reference popint in an empty infinite void,  "position" is meaningless.

Hence Newton's intellectual breakthrough: all bodies continue in a state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #31 on: 04/06/2015 23:49:21 »
how is electron moving around proton? what forces are at working?
 

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 #32 on: 05/06/2015 06:59:06 »
Quote from: Thebox
To quickly clarify as I am tired, if a particle existed in an infinite void, even if it had mass, there would be simply nothing else to be attracted by the mass of the particle in the void. There would also be no force, so how would it logically be possible for the particle to be in motion or have any starting of motion?
Let's take a step back first. Suppose I have a baseball and I want to know what it's mass is. I can exert a force on it and measure it's acceleration and calculate it by using the expression F = ma and therefore m = F/a or if I have another object which I can define as the standard of mass then I can collide it with the baseball at rest and contrive a method so that they stick together. Then using measurements from this experiment I can determine the mass of the baseball by assuming that momentum is conserved. In any case the baseball has that property even if I do the experiments or not. That is to say that all I did here was to measure its mass. But it has mass all along. Mass is an inherent property of matter and tells us how a body will behave when subjected to external influences.

So I guess objects have mass even in the absence of all other matter. But again, this can't be tested.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #33 on: 05/06/2015 09:20:31 »
I your void is infinite, it must always have been infinite.  If it contains one particle, it must always have contained one particle.  As you point out, there is nothing to change the state of the particle, so there is no meaning to starting or stopping; either the particle has always been stationary, or always moving.  There is no way of knowing.


Moving with respect to what? Motion requires change of position, but if you have no reference popint in an empty infinite void,  "position" is meaningless.

Hence Newton's intellectual breakthrough: all bodies continue in a state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.


I consider it is moving in respect to itself, It is displaced by force, position is not really relative, it does not matter if we were considering a single particle in a void, although we, if were the particle would not have any other reference frames, displacement would still exist.

Newtons Law's of motion states that any body in motion, will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force.  Like wise could be presumed about initial motion, a body would remain at rest unless acted upon by external forces. 

How would we describe gravitational suspension?   

A body in motion moving past or away from another body will always be under the attractive force of the body it is passing or moving away from, a body will always follow a curvature path, at any speed a body should curve into the path of gravity. I.e roll a metal ball past a really powerful magnet.


Eventually all bodies should find an orbit and remain in motion.

Now if we consider G(a)..............................equal...............................G(b)



At some point between gravitational fields there would be an equilibrium point where mass no longer applied and bodies become suspended in motion. 

A bit like centralising a pin between two magnets,

Pete- Although we could not test that there would be mass of a single particle in a void, logically I feel we could presume it with a certain of accuracy that the particle had no mass, and was a massless particle without physical body, a center of mass had to exist for us to exist,

I would think personally, that -

In the beginning there was nothing but an infinite void that contained an infinite negativity, then at a singular point of no-where, mass was born from the nothing, mass being a positiveness and being the first energy, this mass was ripped apart at an instant and expanded throughout the infinite void being attracted through the negativeness.

p.s I will PM you an analogy of the above, it is not for open public forum.

 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #34 on: 05/06/2015 21:18:00 »
Quote from: Alan
Moving with respect to what? Motion requires change of position, but if you have no reference popint in an empty infinite void,  "position" is meaningless.

Hence Newton's intellectual breakthrough: all bodies continue in a state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.

This is why I said: “there is nothing to change the state of the particle, so there is no meaning to starting or stopping”.  Logically this agrees with your post, but, although the only movement we can measure is relative motion, can we state absolutely that because we cannot measure something it cannot exist?  That seems a bit presumptuous.

If you argue that a single particle in an infinite void must be stationary, then Thebox is right; the natural state of such a particle is to be at rest, and an input would be needed to set it in motion.  Of course, your question would then have to become “At rest with respect to what?”  Then, if you “imagined” the application of a force to set it in motion, you would return to the original form of your question. 

Sometimes I think we ask too much of our thought experiments.   
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #35 on: 05/06/2015 21:39:05 »
Quote from: Thebox
I consider it is moving in respect to itself, It is displaced by force, position is not really relative, it does not matter if we were considering a single particle in a void, although we, if were the particle would not have any other reference frames, displacement would still exist.

I think the idea of movement relative to itself is of very dubious validity.  I suppose that if your particle were rotating you could argue that one part of it might be in motion relative to another, but you would still need an observer to give that motion any significance.

“…if were the particle would not have any other reference frames, displacement would still exist.”  How could you know that?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #36 on: 06/06/2015 15:15:42 »
Quote from: Jccc
how is electron moving around proton? what forces are at working?

What physical evidence do you have that the electron is actually moving?  Are you confusing a model with "reality"?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #37 on: 06/06/2015 15:25:16 »
what is reality?

how a hydrogen atom is working/modeling?

what is the correct model?

Thanks Bill.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #38 on: 06/06/2015 21:49:06 »
Quote from: Jccc
what is reality?

Some years ago I attended a lecture by the Australian psychologist Dr Dorothy Rowe.  She maintained that, for each of us, our perception of reality is, in fact, reality within our frame of reference.  It struck me that this point of view has a lot in common with relativity, and with quantum theory. 

The questions you ask are, I suspect, among the questions that scientists are asking all the time.  The answers to many of the questions change with time and scientific progress.  The best a scientist can, in all honesty, do is tell you what the current scientific wisdom is. 

In the final analysis, you have to be able to answer your own questions, because your own answers are the only ones you will actually believe.  Remember, though, that worthwhile answers are unlikely just to pop into your head, out of the blue.  You have either to do the years of work yourself, or put some trust in the people who have.  Of course, this doesn't mean you should not question what they say.  How, otherwise, could you be sure you understand it?   
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #39 on: 06/06/2015 22:03:14 »
Quote from: Thebox
In the beginning there was nothing but an infinite void that contained an infinite negativity, then at a singular point of no-where, mass was born from the nothing, mass being a positiveness and being the first energy, this mass was ripped apart at an instant and expanded throughout the infinite void being attracted through the negativeness.

I would certainly like to see the PM you mention, in the meantime, a comment or two about the above quote.

You say:” …nothing but an infinite void…” as though there were a difference between “nothing” and “an infinite void”.  How would you define the difference?

What is an “infinite negativity”?

“…mass was born from the nothing…”  Do you have a theory as to how something can come from nothing?

Is “negativeness” something?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #40 on: 06/06/2015 22:26:06 »
Quote from: Thebox
I consider it is moving in respect to itself, It is displaced by force, position is not really relative, it does not matter if we were considering a single particle in a void, although we, if were the particle would not have any other reference frames, displacement would still exist.

I think the idea of movement relative to itself is of very dubious validity.  I suppose that if your particle were rotating you could argue that one part of it might be in motion relative to another, but you would still need an observer to give that motion any significance.

“…if were the particle would not have any other reference frames, displacement would still exist.”  How could you know that?


How can I explain this?   you have to imagine the particle moving left to right except you also have to imagine that you are not there to observe it.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #41 on: 06/06/2015 22:35:12 »


You say:” …nothing but an infinite void…” as though there were a difference between “nothing” and “an infinite void”.  How would you define the difference?
Quote

an infinite void still as space where as nothing can only be the lack of something.

Quote from: bill
What is an “infinite negativity”?

''no net charge'', ''emptiness of energy'', ''a negative polarity''    I am unsure how to explain this .

Quote from: bill
“…mass was born from the nothing…”  Do you have a theory as to how something can come from nothing?

friction of nothing creating a something

Quote from: bill
Is “negativeness” something?

yes

sorry for going off track.

something like this-

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • 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 #42 on: 07/06/2015 00:47:45 »
although the only movement we can measure is relative motion, can we state absolutely that because we cannot measure something it cannot exist?  That seems a bit presumptuous.


Nothing to do with measurement. It's a matter of definition. Movement is change of position, and in the absence of an origin, "position" is undefined. Hence Newton's insight, and the basis of classical physics.
 

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 #43 on: 07/06/2015 00:58:44 »
Quote from: Bill S
...can we state absolutely that because we cannot measure something it cannot exist?
That's a good question but in actuality there are things in physics which we postulate to exist but which we cannot measure or detect. For example; we assume that there are parts of the universe so far away that its impossible for us to detect them. It's illogical to hold that those parts of the universe doesn't exist. But if someone tells me that there are unicorns which are simply undetectable and that's why we can't observe them then that'd be a different story altogether.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #44 on: 07/06/2015 02:15:09 »
Quote from: Alan
Movement is change of position, and in the absence of an origin, "position" is undefined. Hence Newton's insight, and the basis of classical physics.

Just to clarify; are you saying that in an infinite void movement is undetectable, that it is impossible or just meaningless as a concept?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #45 on: 07/06/2015 02:23:48 »
Quote from: Pete
....there are things in physics which we postulate to exist but which we cannot measure or detect.

In other words: we cannot state absolutely that because we cannot measure, or even detect, something it cannot exist; but we have to rely on understanding and experience to make judgements about the likelihood.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #46 on: 07/06/2015 08:59:05 »
I would agree with that Bill, by our understanding of localised Physics we can make with a certain certainty logical and educated guesses that are some what factual when considering existence. Like Pete explained about the Unicorns something's are not accountable and of vivid imagination.  It is not hard to visualise a single particle being displaced by motion changing position of space.
So although we would not have a relative reference frame to observe a displacement, that is not to say that the particle is not displaced of space. The logical assumption of axiom values is that indeed the particle would move through the void unless it was stationary which could also be imagined and presumed. 
Also there is consideration for Einstein and relativity in that the particle would not know it was movin or would space no the particle was moving. Relative to the virtual observer it could be the particle that is moving or the void of space moving past the particle. 
A sort of are you falling? or is space rising past you?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • 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 #47 on: 08/06/2015 00:22:59 »
Quote from: Alan
Movement is change of position, and in the absence of an origin, "position" is undefined. Hence Newton's insight, and the basis of classical physics.

Just to clarify; are you saying that in an infinite void movement is undetectable, that it is impossible or just meaningless as a concept?

The model under discussion here is of a void containing only one particle. It must be infinite otherwise it would also contain its walls, which would provide a reference for movement.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #48 on: 08/06/2015 13:52:28 »
Quote from: Alan
The model under discussion here is of a void containing only one particle. It must be infinite otherwise it would also contain its walls, which would provide a reference for movement.

Agreed; but it neatly sidesteps the question.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • 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 #49 on: 08/06/2015 14:11:42 »
No sidestep. In a universe containing more than one particle, each particle remains in a state of uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. That uniform motion can have any scalar value from 0 (Newton) to a bit less than c (Einstein).

This law seems to adequately describe the motion of everything we have ever observed.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #49 on: 08/06/2015 14:11:42 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length