0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Originally posted by Solvay_1927Well go on then, ghh, you've got my attention. What's your answer - and what's your agenda?Apologies Solvay, the thread had dropped so far I hadn’t noticed someone had chipped in.The “Agenda” was to try to induce some Lateral Thinking.The problem I want to address is the inability for classical mechanics to describe electro-magnetic waves. Also, on the other hand the authoritative text on “quantum mechanics” manages 900 pages without a single mention of the word “gravity”.Something is clearly rotten in the state of Physics.The reason for this silly question is to show that the problem in classical mechanics doesn’t just apply to electro-magnetism. Of course answer “b” gains you your “pass” in O level physics. The problem in providing the answer (d) – which you both alluded to, is that this answer depends upon my “honesty” in setting the question. If in my condition (a) if the moving mass is a bullet, and the static mass is a party balloon, then the balloon is going nowhere, except in bits!(don’t bother to elaborate, the “collision” is between the moving object and the skin of the balloon). For answer (c), if the moving object is a grapefruit, and the static object is a billiard ball, then you can get any answer <v. Answer (b) only works if the objects are of identical density, or within their structural limits for an elastic collision. In fact classical mechanics has been playing “epicycles” long before Maxwell. It has branched into Thermodynamics, gas dynamics, fluid dynamics, and materials science. In all these cases limits have to be set so that the classical mechanical relationships only work between certain parameters, (as in the medium remains a gas, or a liquid, or a solid, etc.). There is clearly a deficiency in “pure Newtonian mechanics”. In Quantum mechanics you have the “probability wave function”, but in this case they haven’t bothered to develop the dynamics between the parameters, but merely identify the limits of the condition at the “collapse of the wave function” when the “probability” is +/- 1. In other words the same epicyclic games!Time to move the compass point!The reason for using the particular example is that I considered whether the definition of momentum should take account of density, in which case it would become “mass x volume, per second” or in SI units Kg.m^3.sec^-1. When I applied this I got some startling results. I believe I can now show precisely why Atomic particle effects have to be in increments of 1/n^2, as a consequence of Gravity. – and there are surprises on the way!I would like to post this theory when I find out how to attach a pdf to a mail!Graham