: : 1865-90
:
: эти работы уже не актуальны.. только нумерологическая серия Бальмера и осталась (-:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/ms...
From: Aleksandr Timofeev <a_n_timof...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: "Bohr's Theory" of Solar System
Date: 2000/02/21
Message-ID: <88rnk2$850$@>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
In article <88ppok$au...@news.fsu.edu>,
j...@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> In article <887lqm$ls...@news.fsu.edu>,
> j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> |
> || None of the following would be described as a _fundamental_
discovery.
> |
> | In article <879893$9a...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> | Aleksandr Timofeev <a_n_timof...@my-deja.com> writes:
> | >
> | > What is a _fundamental_ physical discovery from your point of
view?
> | >
> | > What is there a fundamental discovery from your point of view?
> |
> | Using your list:
> |
> | | > Example 1 Kepler's laws of planetary motion
> |
> | Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, from which you can derive
> | Kepler's laws and much else -- and then General Relativity, from
> | which you can derive Newton's gravitational law.
>
> In article <88gp01$vj...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> Aleksandr Timofeev <a_n_timof...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >
> >It would be very strange, if it was not so.
>
> Then why did you even ask?
>
> >In the book:
> > MECHANICS BERKELEY PHYSICS COURSE, Volume 1
> >Charles KITTEL, Walter D. KNIGHT, Malvin A. RUDERMAN
> >We can read the following:
> >
> >" 9.9. The Kepler's laws
> > One from greatest experimental discoveries in a history of a
science
> >was the fact, established by the Kepler, that orbits of planets are
> >ellipses, inside which the Sun is. The empirical statements of the
laws
> >of motion of planets, made by the Kepler, have served as an initial
> >experimental material for deduction (conclusion) of the main laws of
a
> >mechanics and theory of universal gravitation" (Law of Universal
> >Gravitation).
>
> Which makes the point that I made, that Kepler's discovery
> was essentially empirical and not fundamental. Your other
> replies make the same point, that what you listed were
> empirical formulae that led to fundamental discoveries.
>
I shall bring here point of view P. L. Kapitsa
(http://mirror.nobel.ki.se/laureates/physics-1978-press.html) on this
theme.
Inside the following below text you will meet the following phrase:
"Whether there are still such _fundamental_ _new_ _phenomena_ in a
_nature_, which wait for the discovery?"
This is a part of report "Future of the Science" wrote by Piotr
Leontevitch Kapitsa (he was disciple of Rutherford) in 1959:
"Scientific discoveries of the future.
Now I want to stay on those areas of a science, which, as it is
possible to assume, anew will arise hereafter. Here prognosises can be
done, proceeding of different premises. I assume it to make on a
principle of an extrapolation and consequently I shall begin
consideration from an evaluation of an amount of new natural phenomena,
which were open by a science within 150 past years. I want to be
stipulated, that expression " the new phenomenon " I enclose to such
physical phenomenon, which cannot completely be predicted, to explain
because of already of being available theoretical concepts, and
consequently they open new areas of researches. To make an offered
extrapolation clearer, I shall name the main, main new phenomena in
physics, which were open for the last hundred fifty years.
First of all I want to name discovery Galvany in 1789. An
electric current, which, certainly, did not follow in any way from
existing then theoretical concepts about a nature of an electricity,
in main created by Franklin.
The following discovery approaching under the given definition,
is a discovery by Oersted in 1820 of influence of an electric current
on magnetic arrow. From our point of view, made later discovery Faradey
of a magnetic induction is not new, as the magnetic induction on the
entity represents the phenomenon, return open by Oersted and, thus, in
that time it could be foreseed. The works of Oersted and Faradey have
reduced in the law Lenc, to creation of the equations of the Maxwell and
to a number of other fundamental conclusions, but all of them were
development of main discovery of Oersted to predict which on a
theoretical basis it was completely impossible.
The following example of the new phenomenon - external
photoeffect open in 1887 by a Hertz (all of us, certainly, are greater
honour of Hertz for detection by him of electromagnetic waves). This
phenomenon also could not be foreseed theoretically. Because of studies
of a photoeffect of years a thirty after has introduced famous of the
equations by Einstein, which has determined a quantum nature this
phenomenon. Principle of indeterminacy and quantum theory were
predetermined by discovery of a photoeffect, and all remarkable
scientific development of this phenomenon make only further methodical
work.
Then it is possible to name discovery Becquerel in 1896 of a
radio-activity (which also it was impossible to foresee because of
existing then theories), nuclear physics, which has put in pawn
beginnings.
Further detection Thomson of an electron too can be considered
as discovery of the new phenomenon which has put in pawn the basis of a
modern electronics engineering.
Experiment Michelson and Morley, as it has given an outcome,
which could not be foreseed theoretically, too it is possible to name as
discovery of the new phenomena installing main principles of a
relativity theory.
It was impossible to foresee discovery Hess in 1919 of space
rays. I believe, that it is necessary to mark as new also discovery of
division of uranium made Meitner and Gan.
What is typical all former discoveries? First of all, the value
them was realized completely only in 20-30 years, when became clear,
that they cannot be explained scientific sights of that time, and
consequently under their influence varied and the new directions in the
main theoretical concepts developed.
Whether the similar discoveries hereafter are possible?
Whether all physical discoveries in a nature are settled now? Whether
there are still such fundamental new phenomena in a nature, which wait
for the discovery?
----------------------------------------------------
!!! "fundamental new phenomena in a nature"
----------------------------------------------------
If to construct a curve and on a horizontal axes to postpone
tim, and on vertical - number of discoveries and if honesty to consider
this curve of discoveries, we can see, that she has not the tendency to
drop to zero. Therefore, to extrapolate this curve, we can see, that in
the near future we shall witness not yet one of the not less important
and "new" discovery, than just listed. They will allow even deeper to
understand a nature, enclosing us, and the new possibilities for growth
our of culture will put at disposal of the people.
===========================================
Usually it is possible to see, that the people are inclined to
consider, that they already know about a nature everything, that it is
possible to know. So was always. It is enough to esteem transactionses
of the contemporaries of a Newton to see, as then many considered, that
with discovery of the classical laws of a mechanics the knowledge of a
dead nature is completed. Though it frequently also contradicts our
subjective sensation, but we should not henceforth do same an error - to
consider, that hereafter new discoveries will not be make.
===========================================
Probably, you ask me, what it there will be discoveries.
If I could them predict, thereby they would not become
unexpected and new. ..."
From my point of view the genuine physicists should create and to
develop the new physical theories. That who uses the existing physical
theories should be named as the engineer but should not be named as a
physicist.
We consider the various interpretations of a physical term
"fundamental". I have expanded modern area of application of this term
in a physics for underlining a major role of empirical discoveries in
creation and development of the new physical theories. P. L. Kapitsa
used this term in the same sense.
For creation of the new physical theory the physicist should have
some set of fundamental empirical discoveries. If this set has a
completeness, the good luck can smile a physicist. If the set of
fundamental empirical discoveries has not a completeness, at the best
physicist will create the intermediate theory or special theory.
For these reasons the full set of empirical discoveries is the base
to creation of the good physical theory. For these reasons the full set
of empirical discoveries is expedient to name as a fundamental set of
fundamental empirical discoveries. A system of the mathematical
equations being as a corollary of a fundamental set of fundamental
empirical discoveries usually name by the fundamental laws of a nature.
As we see this system of the fundamental laws of a nature is secondary
in relation to the empirical laws of a nature and for this reason fast
becomes outdated from a point of view of historical process of
development of physics.
By the way, how do you think periods of rotation of planets are
casual or not?
Best regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev |
» Альтернативный форум