Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?

  • 60 Replies
  • 13979 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8841
    • 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
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4175
  • 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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • ******
  • 4309
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4891
  • 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".
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2079
    • 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.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4891
  • 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).
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4891
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4891
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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.   
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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"?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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?   
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TTY50iP9cw

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4891
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4891
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • 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.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4891
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance