Axiomic Newton's laws

[Sadra Jazayeri]

سلام

 

من یک مقاله ی جالبی راخواندم که قوانین نیوتون را به صورت اصول موضوع درآورده است. به نظرم جالب آمد و مثلا مسائلی از جمله تعریف جرم را که در نگاه اول دور به

نظر می رسد تا حدودی حل می کند. آدرس این مقاله که از دکتر خرمی است

 

www.mamwad.org/x1/x1-025.pdf

 

ایراداتی به ذهنم آمد از نویسنده پرسیدم سوال ها را در زیر کمی از آن چه بود عوض کرده ام ولی علی الاصول جواب ها را که خرمی داده نه 

caLAm.

> 1.Dr. man maghaleye "Newton's laws" shoma
> ra khandam. Eshkalli
> be nazaram amad. Dar morede ghanoone IIa : manzooretoon az
> mohiit
> be nazaram vazeh nist. masalan key migim 2 ta mohiit yeksan
> hastand
>
> ya na. javabe ein soal ro shoma tabeei az KHode zarre ham
> gereftid.

It is difficult to make sure that two environments are the same. The point is that a particle, apart from its position and the velocity, and its (inertial) mass, could have other intrinsic properties (like charge and gravitational mass) which are included in the environment. You can say a similar thing about an interactionaless particle. When is a particle interactionless (feels no force)? It is impossible to provide such a situation, but one can find approximate situations.

Now there are cases where it seems that intrinsic properties of the particle don't enetr the environment, at least approximately. (The case of a mass attached to a spring is one example.) Such cases help test the second law.

> nokteye diige ein ke ba ein tariif az mohiit ghannone IIb
> dorost nist. Yani baraye mohitha ya zarrate ba
> barhamkoneshe
> electromagnetic dorost nist.

As I wrote earlier, intrinsic properties of the particle are included in the environment. So for two test particles of different charges in the same place, the environments are not the same.

> 2. chera Bazi Physicist ha dide Axiomi ra doost nadaran? Yeki
> az oon ha (Dar morede soali dar ertebat ba
> postulate
> haye quantom mechanics) goft : Aslan dar physic
> Asl nadariim!

I have no idea, well I have an opinion but I cannot prove it. I think that most people when they talk about axioms feel too restricted (afterall when one is doing something based on mathematical principles, axioms, theorems, etc, he/she cannot do whatever he/she wants). Or perhaps the point is that sometimes they know the correct result but not the proof, so they try to invent something illegal (mathematically illegal) and to explain their attitude use such phrases. But I repaet, this is only an opinion (perhaps too pessimistic), and I have no proof for it.