Iwonderaboutthings Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) I Googled this entire title but really no luck at all... I assume no he did not? But if this is the case, then how on earth was he able to conclude so much about what we know today as " science." Perhaps it was all geometrically understood in his time? And maybe its those geometrical gaps of Euclidean Space that make our understanding of QM and Physics Clash?? Sin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions Under: Series definitions Regarding : Tangent When this series for the secant function is expressed in a form in which the denominators are the corresponding factorials, the numerators, called the "secant numbers", have a combinatorial interpretation: they enumerate alternating permutations of finite sets of even cardinality. Edited April 27, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwagen Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Newtonian mechanics deal with forces on macroscopic objects, thus it has very little, if anything, to do with electrons. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Newton did not know about electrons, they were first properly hypothesized in 1838 and then discovered by J. J. Thomson in 1897. I am sure that newton knew some properties of electricity and magnetism, but he could not have known about electrons or quantum mechanics. Newton's work in several areas are science and today we know how they fit into the modern picture as certain limits. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 The series with the secant numbers is a Taylor series. That, in turn relies on differentiation to produce it. Newton had only just come across the subject of calculus. The Taylor series was only invented/ discovered in 1715. but Newton died in 1727 and the work he did on physics was rather earlier. So, the OP is asking if Newton considered electrons (which he would never have heard of) in terms of calculus (that hadn't been invented). My guess is that he didn't. Unless there's evidence of Sir Isaac time travelling, I think that should be the end of this thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) Do you really mean electron? Not photon? Newton hypothesized that light is corpuscular (particle). And it was rather logical assumption, than discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light Edited April 27, 2014 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Newton did not know about electrons, they were first properly hypothesized in 1838 and then discovered by J. J. Thomson in 1897. I am sure that newton knew some properties of electricity and magnetism, but he could not have known about electrons or quantum mechanics. Newton's work in several areas are science and today we know how they fit into the modern picture as certain limits. So centuries ago Issac knew this in our current time? The terminal velocity of a falling object is the velocity of the object when the sum of the drag force (Fd) and buoyancy equals the downward force of gravity (FG) acting on the object. Since the net force on the object is zero, the object has zero acceleration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity certain limits? Ok I can understand that through IE: exponentially decay, singularities, periodic waves, degrees, minutes seconds, especially frequencies and periods, other sources of physical phenomena, red shifts, e^x, x^n+1 " summations " the list goes on and on, not to mention the weight phenomena on the surface of earth, let alone having other values on other planets, from terminal velocities to Special Relativity, limits appear to be everywhere. You say certain limits, but it was these limits he understood through his work centuries ago, I assume also with no microscope? and yet g and G in general seems to be more and more left in the dark, IE not really talked about anymore why bother... Maybe he simply " derived those limits?" he did invent calculus.. Yes I am aware that Newton's Equation are still used today, but they seem to clash with "electrical limits" discrete ones too, IE limits that deal with say, seconds, ie frequencies and etc light refraction. And yet g points up and down simultaneously on earth ? I am reading that Wiki Page Correctly??? Doesn't the electron have mass? I assume Issac Newton must have known about it, due to these limits we mention, I see it all the time in math and science, and yet " I see " distance is always relative to distance, its never seconds relative to seconds... If he never seen the electron, the pure geometry has the upper hand and everything we've known in the whole of science.. Newtonian mechanics deal with forces on macroscopic objects, thus it has very little, if anything, to do with electrons. Doesn't an electron microscope bring the subatomic world closer to the human eye sight??? So, you say that gravity has not connection within the atom?? The series with the secant numbers is a Taylor series. That, in turn relies on differentiation to produce it. Newton had only just come across the subject of calculus. The Taylor series was only invented/ discovered in 1715. but Newton died in 1727 and the work he did on physics was rather earlier. So, the OP is asking if Newton considered electrons (which he would never have heard of) in terms of calculus (that hadn't been invented). My guess is that he didn't. Unless there's evidence of Sir Isaac time travelling, I think that should be the end of this thread. it took me a while to figure that one out " " It makes sense! Question: Taylor Series, Sin Functions, Fourier Series , Wave Function etc, they seem to use the same " thing" and that is a curve that goes in both directions sin and cos... It gets very very frustrating, and annoying on making proper judgement as to which is which let alone to a constant limits...should be a cosmic limit! Am I the only one rethinking about sine and cosines? Do you really mean electron? Not photon? Newton hypothesized that light is corpuscular (particle). And it was rather logical assumption, than discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light I assumed something like this was the case and the mention of it now brings it back to me, I remembered reading this some years ago... But I am thinking more on the electron side, because of the original Bore Models perspective But then on the behalf of the solar system, Einstein found that light and gravity behave differently... So maybe now this link complicates things Edited April 29, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 So centuries ago Issac knew this in our current time? I'm not sure how to interpret this question. The word "not" appears quite conspicuously in that post, so newton did not know of these things that were discovered more recently. "in our current time" is something I just can't parse. Yes I am aware that Newton's Equation are still used today, but they seem to clash with "electrical limits" discrete ones too, IE limits that deal with say, seconds, ie frequencies and etc light refraction. And yet g points up and down simultaneously on earth ? I am reading that Wiki Page Correctly??? No, you aren't. Gravity is pointing down. The drag force is pointing up. Doesn't the electron have mass? I assume Issac Newton must have known about it, due to these limits we mention, I see it all the time in math and science, and yet " I see " distance is always relative to distance, its never seconds relative to seconds… No. There was no model for the atom is Newton's day, much less the idea of an electron. If he never seen the electron, the pure geometry has the upper hand and everything we've known in the whole of science.. Doesn't an electron microscope bring the subatomic world closer to the human eye sight??? Closer, yes, but still far away from the limit of resolution of an electron microscope. Atomic force microscopes can get down to the atomic level. There are no microscopes that can image below that. One source of information is from the results of scattering experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spocktorwho Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 None of Newton's work had much (if any) to do with electrons, but he did predict that light was made of particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure how to interpret this question. The word "not" appears quite conspicuously in that post, so newton did not know of these things that were discovered more recently. "in our current time" is something I just can't parse. No, you aren't. Gravity is pointing down. The drag force is pointing up. No. There was no model for the atom is Newton's day, much less the idea of an electron. Closer, yes, but still far away from the limit of resolution of an electron microscope. Atomic force microscopes can get down to the atomic level. There are no microscopes that can image below that. One source of information is from the results of scattering experiments. Drag (physics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics) The drag points up and g points down on earth, understood. Since outer space is basically an empty vacuum, how can electro magnetism travel through it and yet still be correlated with G, the Constant of Proportionality? I think somewhere in Maxwell's equation they use Force, but I am very confused on what this F is???it seems to have different values on planets, on earth's surface then in empty space, so please pardon my confusion.. Its the Force I don't understand here, what is it?????????? Maxwell's Equations and Electromagnetic Waves http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/Maxwell_Eq.html Limits to Resolution http://www.ou.edu/research/electron/bmz5364/resolutn.html Ok, I understand, What causes this limits of resolution?? Distance and Time??? Atomic force microscopy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope What is this force?? Is it still g = 9.8 m/s ? What about red shifts??? Redshift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift On another note, but closely related: Angular Size, why divide by 12??? Here is an example: A tennis ball is 2.5 inches in diameter. At what distance would it have to be so that it would have the same angular size as the Moon (about 30 minutes of arc) ? We want to solve for distance, so we click that button. Since we are going to input the angle in-minutes we click that button. Input 30 minutes and 2.5 inches, click "calculate" and your answer is 286.48 inches. Dividing this by 12, the answer is about 23.87 feet. We also could have input .5 degrees and still arrived at the same answer. What is the point to this calculation, when . 5 could have still been used??? HERE IS THE LINK: Angular Size Calculator http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm On another note, but closely related: Minkoswki Space Time, And The Center of Mass..Gravitational constant Both appear to resemble the same " form and structure of calculation" Minkoswki Space Time calculates about a fixed axis. Gravitational constant calculates about a fix point between 2 masses in empty space.. Both share relation to the center of a masses in empty space, similar as Minkoswki Space Time, about a fixed point in empty space as well..... If Issac newton never saw an electron he sure did understand many properties of " force" that are able to predict outcomes and derive results Edited May 1, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) "What causes this limits of resolution??" The size of the waves and the rest of the equipment "Distance and Time???" Not really (and especially, not time. The resolution will be the same tomorrow as it was today). "What is this force??" typically, the van der waals force between the tip of the microscope and the object being examined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force "Is it still g = 9.8 m/s ?" No, for a start g is not a force- it's an acceleration and also the 9.8 m/s should be 9.8 m/s/s The value 9.8 m/s/s applies to gravitational acceleration at, or near, the surface of the earth, but it's not anything special in the grand scheme of things. "What about red shifts???" Mercifully, these have essentially nothing to do with anything Newton would have spotted. "On another note, but closely related: Angular Size, why divide by 12???" This thread is muddled enough without throwing that into the mix. Perhaps you should start another thread about it. Edited May 1, 2014 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Since outer space is basically an empty vacuum, how can electro magnetism travel through it and yet still be correlated with G, the Constant of Proportionality? It's not correlated with G. G is associated with gravity. Electromagnetism is a separate phenomenon. I think somewhere in Maxwell's equation they use Force, but I am very confused on what this F is??? it seems to have different values on planets, on earth's surface then in empty space, so please pardon my confusion.. Its the Force I don't understand here, what is it?????????? A force is a push or pull. It's a vector, so multiple forces can cancel each other out or add together, depending on how they're combined. A net force causes an acceleration according to F=ma 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) It's not correlated with G. G is associated with gravity. Electromagnetism is a separate phenomenon. A force is a push or pull. It's a vector, so multiple forces can cancel each other out or add together, depending on how they're combined. A net force causes an acceleration according to F=ma Understood, but if Electromagnetism is a separate phenomenon. why do they refer to this as Electromagnetism, I think really its the grammar in the books and the online information, because it does seem to be totally separated... "What causes this limits of resolution??" The size of the waves and the rest of the equipment "Distance and Time???" Not really (and especially, not time. The resolution will be the same tomorrow as it was today). "What is this force??" typically, the van der waals force between the tip of the microscope and the object being examined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force "Is it still g = 9.8 m/s ?" No, for a start g is not a force- it's an acceleration and also the 9.8 m/s should be 9.8 m/s/s The value 9.8 m/s/s applies to gravitational acceleration at, or near, the surface of the earth, but it's not anything special in the grand scheme of things. "What about red shifts???" Mercifully, these have essentially nothing to do with anything Newton would have spotted. "On another note, but closely related: Angular Size, why divide by 12???" This thread is muddled enough without throwing that into the mix. Perhaps you should start another thread about it. "What causes this limits of resolution??" The size of the waves and the rest of the equipment "Distance and Time???" Not really (and especially, not time. The resolution will be the same tomorrow as it was today). "What is this force??" typically, the van der waals force between the tip of the microscope and the object being examined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force "Is it still g = 9.8 m/s ?" No, for a start g is not a force- it's an acceleration and also the 9.8 m/s should be 9.8 m/s/s The value 9.8 m/s/s applies to gravitational acceleration at, or near, the surface of the earth, but it's not anything special in the grand scheme of things. "What about red shifts???" Mercifully, these have essentially nothing to do with anything Newton would have spotted. "On another note, but closely related: Angular Size, why divide by 12???" This thread is muddled enough without throwing that into the mix. Perhaps you should start another thread about it. Hym, it seems that I have really miss- understood what g was, I always thought it to be the actual--->force.. F= ma, I think its the algebraic expression that has me " twisted" with words and insight here... However, can you say that as per the link: ""the attractive and repulsive forces"" That this force , JUST THE WORD ' force with no interaction' , is found at the atomic level??? Pardon the weird question, but I have no idea what force is,,, yes I understand about interaction with matter, what I don't get is the reasoning for force in the first place... Do we really need it??? maybe its not even there?? What proof besides what we have today, prove something that is not seen?? It is very hard to understand science dealing with something invisible its like trying to catch a ghost... Edited May 2, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) Understood, but if Electromagnetism is a separate phenomenon. why do they refer to this as Electromagnetism, I think really its the grammar in the books and the online information, because it does seem to be totally separated... Perhaps maybe because of electromagnetic induction.. ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction Flowing electrons create magnetic field surrounding wire. If wire is entwining iron, it's becoming electromagnet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet Direction of flow of electrons is defining where will be N and S (simplifying for you). XIX century ampermeter was simply magnet and electromagnet with attached arrow. Once we pass current through electromagnet wire, electromagnet is attracting or repelling from magnet, and arrow is showing on scale how much current we had. Scale had both positive and negative range (so could show direction of flow). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanometer Edited May 2, 2014 by Sensei 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Understood, but if Electromagnetism is a separate phenomenon. why do they refer to this as Electromagnetism, I think really its the grammar in the books and the online information, because it does seem to be totally separated... Electricity and magnetism are different manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon. The separate phenomenon is gravity, with which one associates the gravitational constant G and the value of acceleration at the earth's surface, g. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted May 4, 2014 Author Share Posted May 4, 2014 Perhaps maybe because of electromagnetic induction.. ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction Flowing electrons create magnetic field surrounding wire. If wire is entwining iron, it's becoming electromagnet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet Direction of flow of electrons is defining where will be N and S (simplifying for you). XIX century ampermeter was simply magnet and electromagnet with attached arrow. Once we pass current through electromagnet wire, electromagnet is attracting or repelling from magnet, and arrow is showing on scale how much current we had. Scale had both positive and negative range (so could show direction of flow). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanometer ,,,Hymm I see, I got the link thanks for the info.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrushka.googol Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 As far as conventional wisdom goes the tunneling microscope is of very recent vintage... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted May 14, 2014 Author Share Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) As far as conventional wisdom goes the tunneling microscope is of very recent vintage... Hymmm that " is " interesting... thanks... Edited May 14, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now