joigus

That's not how thermodynamics or heat transfer works. A process is exo or endothermic irrespective of what the temperature of the thermal bath is. Also wrong that high-energy states 'naturally transition' to lower energy states. That depends on the temperature. And force has very little, if anything, to do with heat transfer. Starting with the fact that equations of heat transfer are irreversible, while mechanics equations are reversible --except when friction is involved. There's nothing about what you've said so far that shows any understanding of how physics works, IMO.

That is incorrect. It's the Aristotelian mistake. Aristotle thought that in order to have something move you need a force. That's now how Nature operates. You need a force in order to have something change its motion.

Gauss' law has nothing in the way of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is what the whole idea of the Higgs mechanism is based on. You need an equation with a continuous symmetry with particular solutions that break that symmetry. I haven't thought about it, but I don't think Gauss' law can accomplish that, nor have I seen it discussed anywhere.

What is c? The speed of light? Oh, OK. No, that math doesn't even start to talk about speed of light. As said by Studiot, the quantum wave function is a very different thing. For starters, it's a function, while \( \varepsilon_{0} \) and \( c \) are constants. Another thing is that \( \varepsilon_{0} \) is not really a constant of Nature. Rather, just an artifice in the choice of units for electric charge. Stick to Heaviside-Lorentz units and there's no \( \varepsilon_{0} \). It disappears!

You could call it an error. I prefer to see it as a limitation of the ideas of electrostatics when you consider charges smaller than one electron's charge, and --directly related to that-- the fact that, at some point, you need to replace classical electrodynamics with quantum electrodynamics. You cannot consider an electron as made up of elementary charges smaller than e. Capacitance is perhaps not the best way to see it, because it's not a fundamental quantity. It doesn't make a lot of sense considering an electron as infinitely many infinitesimally-small charges adding up to give an electron. You would have, I guess, to assume what the capacity of an 'incremental electron of charge dq' is. For a point-like electron (you haven't specified what spatial distribution of charge you're thinking of) it's best to use the expression, \[ \frac{\varepsilon_{0}}{2}\int\left|\boldsymbol{E}\right|^{2}dV=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{e^{2}}{32\pi^{2}\varepsilon_{0}r^{4}}4\pi r^{2}dr \] which gives you nonsense, \[ U=-\frac{e^{2}}{8\pi\varepsilon_{0}}\left(\frac{1}{\infty}-\frac{1}{0}\right)=\infty \] So, considering an electron as being made up of infinitely many (smaller) incremental charges doesn't make sense. You would like to consider a finite electron. In that case you're going to have to face even worse problems --mostly having to do with the fact that this electron cannot consistently be considered as a rigid object, nor has anybody found a way to make it elastic and be consistent with relativity --Poincaré and others tried very hard. That's why we use quantum mechanics when things get so small. And also forget about capacitance, which is a highly-derived concept. I hope that was helpful. Sorry, I misread this.I thought you meant dq<=e, which is what you need. If you integrate from zero you should add smaller charges than e, which is what Studiot is pointing out, in a way.

No, that must have been before I 1st came here. Teaching methods interest me a lot.

Lame joke on my part. I know how much you love books. You actually mentioned the human factor. I couldn't agree more.

No. You need to say what these things are.

Wonderful complement to what I was saying

Now I know @studiot is going to hit me hard. What I mean is: Look out for teachers that are putting out their material online, a lot of them for free. When the drive to learn synchs with the drive to teach, something wonderful happens, and knowledge is passed on. If the teacher does well, and the student does well, elements of criticism and analysis of how ideas are built and corrected/improved are also transferred in the process. Khan Academy --that @Phi for All already mentioned--, Stanford, MIT courseware, and a long etc. You've got plenty of university material out there. And my all-time favourite, PI (Perimeter Institute): Psi Online

Probably just a rhetorical question, but interesting nonetheless. The answer, very much having to do with the excellent points made, is all about symmetry groups --from a mathematical physics perspective. In economics, eg., you have graphs representing marginal utility --dimensionless, if I remember correctly-- plotted against number of units of goods --again, dimensionless. In electrical engineering tho, you have graphs plotting intensity against voltage --both dimensionful. But the subtle mathematical point is that in neither of those cases is there a group of symmetry relating different, but equaly valid, observational stances --classes of valid observers. In the physics of space-time, there is such class of valid observations, and the measurements of time and space of one observer are mixed up with the measurements of time and space of another, so it is natural to define the parameters of the transformation as dimensionless numbers. You could insist that (I,V) (intensity and voltage) be a 'vector', but it doesn't make much sense unless you can define transformations that take one stance to another and relate them in a linear way: I'=aI+bV V'=cI+dV with a,b,c,d being the dimensionless parameters that mix them up. That's the reason why in mathematical physics you tend to be more careful and say: Such and such quantities are a vector under SO(3) (rotations); or a vector under O(3) (rotations and inversions-reflections), etc. In the case of Minkowski vectors, it's all about inertial observers. It's what we call the 'Lorentz group'.

Ok. I'm sorry if I missed a particularly subtle point you made. The OP seems to be under the impression that special relativity demands us to admit that space 'deforms'. I was just trying to be helpful, because I think that's an unfortunate misconception. (my emphasis.) Wrong!!! That's what I'm trying to address. And believe me, we've all been there at some point. Even though I'm under heavy workload, believe me; I wanna be helpful. So I've made a little drawing that explains why that's wrong based on my analogy with foreshortening in space. Nothing is deformed. Space is not deformed. The object is not deformed. Yet, foreshortening is real enough that, if you don't take it into account, you're going to damage the paint from the frame of your garage's door, and the ladder, or worse. The explanation that special relativity gives of this is just common sense. Common sense gets you a long way. One must study special relativity and there comes a moment when you naturally understand it, and there's no looking back. That's what I meant.

Gladly, Studiot. Thank you for your interest. Here's a couple of comments from yours truly that deal on this same comparison:

An elementary particle has just one worldline, never a bunch. Unless you're considering something in the way of Feynman's path-integral approach to quantum mechanics, in which a particle 'feels around' for possible paths with its wave function. Is that what you mean, @34student? On the other hand, even from the classical point of view, an elementary particle can be considered to have a bunch of field lines (infinitely many) coming from the particle. I'm not sure what the OP really means, but I think it would save everybody a lot of time if they clarified what they mean. (Emphasis marking up literal expressions in OP that could be relevant.) Just another observation: In physics, worldlines (or worldsheets, in string theory) don't necessarily represent observers. They are theoretical constructs to represent classical histories. Feel free to keep ignoring my attempts to clarify the question.

Minkowski space-time does not need a fundamental re-think. The reason why is the very same reason why understanding foreshortening of an object's length when one's holding it in a peculiar position doesn't need a fundamental re-think. It requires us to understand the laws of perspective and observer dependence of measured quantities. Lorentz-Fitzgerald scaling laws are laws of forshortening in space-time, just because going from one inertial reference system to another is like rotating in space-time. Simple as that. Simple is one thing, easy to accomodate in daily-life intuitions is quite another. A very different thing would be asking where space-time itself comes from, why 1+3 dimensions, what the limits of validity of pseudo-Euclidean geometry, or Einstein's GR. But not the build-up of how these laws apply in the ordinary range of validity in distances, energies, times, etc.

Extraordinary talent requires extraordinary self-criticism?

Early quantum theory departed from the idea that energy states of particles in a confined space had to do with wave modes in that confined space (think of a box). Those wave modes are quantized in energy (and therefore in momentum, for free particles) when these waves are in a perfectly reflecting box. It took some time to realise that this could be formulated as due to the fact that matter, in all its forms, has a wave-like nature to it. The particular hypothesis that answers your question is due to De Broglie. Following De Broglie, a monochromatic wave of wavelength \( \lambda \) has a momentum (think just one possible direction), \[ p=\frac{h}{\lambda} \] Think also of free particles. Now, because a harmonic wave of wavelength \( \lambda \) and time period \( T \) is represented by, \[ \psi\left(x,t\right)=A\cos\left(2\pi\left(\frac{x}{\lambda}-\frac{t}{T}\right)\right) \] and as Studiot said, your “nabla” (derivatives, one for every direction, that in this case is just one, \( x \) ) have to act (differentiate) on this something (the wave), \[ \frac{h}{2\pi i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\psi\left(x,t\right)=2\pi\frac{h}{2\pi i}\frac{1}{\lambda}\sin\left(2\pi\left(\frac{x}{\lambda}-\frac{t}{T}\right)\right)=\frac{1}{i}\frac{h}{\lambda}\sin\left(2\pi\left(\frac{x}{\lambda}-\frac{t}{T}\right)\right) \] Now, it just so happens that in quantum mechanics you must complete the so-called wave function so that it has an imaginary part. This imaginary part (for the complex-number version of a monochromatic wave) is, \[ i\sin\left(2\pi\left(\frac{x}{\lambda}-\frac{t}{T}\right)\right) \] The whole simplest version of this 'wave function' would be, \[ \psi\left(x,t\right)=A\cos\left(2\pi\left(\frac{x}{\lambda}-\frac{t}{T}\right)\right)+i\sin\left(2\pi\left(\frac{x}{\lambda}-\frac{t}{T}\right)\right) \] Repeating the previous process for the whole complex (real plus imaginary parts) leads to, \[ \frac{h}{2\pi i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\psi\left(x,t\right)=2\pi\frac{h}{2\pi i}\frac{1}{\lambda}\sin\left(2\pi\left(\frac{x}{\lambda}-\frac{t}{T}\right)\right)=\frac{1}{i}\frac{h}{\lambda}i\psi\left(x,t\right)=\frac{h}{\lambda}\psi\left(x,t\right) \] So that's what your momentum operator does on states. \( \psi \) is called 'state of a quantum system' or 'wave function'; and the things to measure (momentum) are mathematical operators that extract this information from the state. I hope that was helpful.

This is dedicated to @Moontanman. What's become of you, bro?

Just skimming through this. I don't want to encourage the OP to pursue what essentially looks like a fundamental confusion between 'world line' and 'field lines' à la Faraday. But I agree that that's a good question. Although unfortunately belongs in a different category and I don't think any of us has a ready answer to it.

I've been known to act like a cretin, but I'm certainly no Cretan.

Parity is always well defined for any particle or system of particles. OTOH, parity is an involution. This means that if you apply it twice, the state goes back to itself. This, in turn, implies that quantum mechanical particle states can be either even or odd under parity, and nothing else. Given that parity is not conserved in Nature (not even parity, but parity as such), the final state could have but even or odd character under parity, but both are OK. I cannot be sure of what your mental framework is, or your level of acquaintance with the principles of quantum mechanics, but remember that several particles (think decay products) are not a sum of individual particle states, but a product. I have a feeling that's what's bothering you. Is it?

It seems that only @Ken Fabian mentioned comedy. Here's an (allegedly) underrated classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(TV_series)

Here's the quote: https://books.google.es/books?id=jJzGNl9K5SIC&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=murray+gell-mann+"close+to+a+proof"&source=bl&ots=Wsndi_9ZiJ&sig=ACfU3U1TVvvcpwOmBDk1GxpNphUqSMmSdQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNxeDZ-pL0AhVoBGMBHWRADHMQ6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q=murray gell-mann "close to a proof"&f=false https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/7101 Article: Particle Theory, from S-Matrix to Quarks The quote is: (My emphasis.)

Simple and enlightening.