Aristotle conjecture

[BlackHole]

Newton's first law (the law of inertia) states that a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will continue in motion with constant speed in a straight line, as long as no unbalanced force acts on it.

 

Every object persists in its state of rest, or uniform motion (in a straight line); unless, it is compelled to change that state, by forces impressed on it.

 

But is it true? Do bodies stay in motion for no reason at all?

 

A change in position is an effect in need of a cause just as much as any other effect. If a particle at rest is caused to move in a certain direction, what keeps it moving in the same direction after the initial force is taken away? Can a particle move itself? Can an effect be its own cause? Of course not.

 

I think that motion is a series of quantum jumps whereby the position of a particle continually changes from one discrete value to another. If the particle is set in motion from a rest position, it must make the first jump. Suppose the cause of the initial jump is immediately removed. What causes the particle to take the next jump and the ones after that?

 

The rationale is that every jump is an effect and every effect must have a cause. This is required by the law of causality, a fundamental law of nature which can't be violated. Every motion must be casual.

 

The intrinsic properties of a particle themselves cannot cause the particle to jump from one position to the next. Something else is needed for that. That something else is an interaction with another particle.

 

The conclusion is that the motion of any particle can only be sustained by a series of discrete interactions.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Newton's first law (the law of inertia) states that a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will continue in motion with constant speed in a straight line' date=' as long as no unbalanced force acts on it.

 

 

 

But is it true? Do bodies stay in motion for no reason at all?

 

A change in position is an effect in need of a cause just as much as any other effect. If a particle at rest is caused to move in a certain direction, what keeps it moving in the same direction after the initial force is taken away? Can a particle move itself? Can an effect be its own cause? Of course not.

 

I think that motion is a series of quantum jumps whereby the position of a particle continually changes from one discrete value to another. If the particle is set in motion from a rest position, it must make the first jump. Suppose the cause of the initial jump is immediately removed. What causes the particle to take the next jump and the ones after that?

 

The rationale is that every jump is an effect and every effect must have a cause. This is required by the law of causality, a fundamental law of nature which can't be violated. Every motion must be casual.

 

The intrinsic properties of a particle themselves cannot cause the particle to jump from one position to the next. Something else is needed for that. That something else is an interaction with another particle.

 

The conclusion is that the motion of any particle can only be sustained by a series of discrete interactions.[/quote']

 

You seem to be assuming an absolute frame of rest.

[BlackHole]

You seem to be assuming an absolute frame of rest.

 

Every motion is absolute by virtue of being intrinsic to particles and their positional properties. That's what quantum mechanics (non-relativistic) says. We live in a sea of energetic particles, photons to be exact.

[swansont]

But photons don't have or define a rest frame. You always measure them to be traveling at c, if you are in an inertial frame. As JC said, if objects didn't behave as Newton's first law says, there would be an absolute rest frame.

[BlackHole]

If there is no space, existing seperately from matter-energy then there is no absolute frame of reference also.

[geistkiesel]

If a particle at rest is caused to move in a certain direction, what keeps it moving in the same direction after the initial force is taken away? Can a particle move itself? Can an effect be its own cause? Of course not.

 

Electrons that are filtered through two hole diffraction arrangments exhibit intrinsic and ordered motion capability upon exiting the transition through the holes. Particles on an elementary level are assumed to have intrinsic vibration states, that is internal motion capability.

 

Also, in beta decay, are there not reactions to the radiated particles in beta decay?

 

Likewise, particles exhibiting spin attributes certainly have intrinsic direction correcting potential.

 

Geistkiesel

[BlackHole]

I think gravity is an effect caused by the ground state of the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum is not empty of energy. If it were empty then how could matter move through the vacuum? How could stars shine? What triggers star formation? What's the origin of the speed demons?