Science > Physics > Least Action Principle is explained only in Atom Totality theory, notbig-bang and not in string theories
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Archimedes Plutonium" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 12:56:18 PM |
| Object: |
Least Action Principle is explained only in Atom Totality theory, notbig-bang and not in string theories |
--- quoting Wikipedia on Least Action Principle ---
Action (physics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In physics, the action principle is an assertion about the nature of
motion from which the trajectory of an object subject to forces
can be determined. The path of an object is the one that yields a
stationary value for a quantity called the action. Thus, instead of
thinking about an object accelerating in response to applied forces, one
might think of them picking out the path with a stationary
action.
The principle is also called the principle of stationary action and also
Hamilton's principle or (less general and in fact
incorrect) the principle of least action and the principle of minimal
action. The action is a scalar (a number) with the
dimension of energy time. The principle is a simple, general, and
powerful theory for predicting motion in classical mechanics.
Extensions of the action principle describe relativistic mechanics,
quantum mechanics, electricity and magnetism.
Although equivalent in classical mechanics with Newton's laws, the
action principle is better suited for generalizations and plays an
important role in modern physics. Indeed, this principle is one of the
great generalizations in physical science. In particular, it is fully
appreciated and best understood within quantum mechanics. Richard
Feynman's path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is
based on a stationary-action principle, using path integrals. Maxwell's
equations can be derived as conditions of stationary action.
Many problems in physics can be represented and solved in the form of an
action principle, such as finding the quickest way to run
down the beach for reaching a drowning person. Water running downhill
seeks the steepest descent, the quickest way down, and
water running into a basin distributes itself so that its surface is as
low as possible. Light finds the quickest trajectory through an
optical system (Fermat's principle of least time). The path of a body in
a gravitational field (i.e. free fall in space time, a so called
geodesic) can be found using the action principle.
Symmetries in a physical situation can better be treated with the action
principle, together with the Euler-Lagrange equations which
are derived from the action principle. For example, Noether's theorem
which states that with every continuous symmetry in a physical
situation there corresponds a conservation law. This deep connection,
however, requires that the action principle is assumed.
In classical mechanics (non-relativistic, non-quantum mechanics), the
correct choice of the action can be proven from Newton's laws
of motion. Conversely, the action principle proves Newton's equation of
motion given the correct choice of action. So in classical
mechanics the action principle is equivalent to Newton's equation of
motion. The use of the action principle often is simpler than
the direct application of Newton's equation of motion. The action
principle is a scalar theory, with derivations and applications that
employ elementary calculus.
Contents
1 History
2 Action principle in classical mechanics
3 Euler-Lagrange equations for the action integral
3.1 Example: Free particle in polar coordinates
4 See also
5 Literature
6 External links
History
The principle of least action was first formulated by Maupertuis
[1]
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cuius/idle/evolution/ref/leastact.html)
in 1746 and further developed (from 1748
onwards) by the mathematicians Euler, Lagrange, and Hamilton. Maupertuis
arrived at this principle from a feeling that the very
perfection of the universe demands a certain economy in nature and is
opposed to any needless expenditure of energy. Natural
motions must be such as to make some quantity a minimum. It was only
necessary to find that quantity, and this he proceeded to do.
It was the product of the duration (time) of movement within a system by
the "vis viva" or twice what we now call the kinetic energy
of the system.
Euler (in "Reflexions sur quelques loix generales de la nature", 1748)
adopts the least-action principle, calling the quantity "effort".
His expression corresponds to what we would now call potential energy,
so that his statement of least action in statics is equivalent to
the principle that a system of bodies at rest will adopt a configuration
that minimizes total potential energy.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Least Action Principle ---
Wikipedia is rapidly becoming, or has become, the finest encylopedia. My
old favorite was Encyc Brittanica. But Wikipedia has the ability to
network out the entries. Network them to the experts of the given topic
and thus keep them up to date almost instantly whereas the written
encycl have to wait years for revisions.
Currently I am posting as to the fact that most professors of
mathematics in colleges and universities are incapable of even rendering
a valid proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes. Professors are great at
number crunching but most would fail a test of making a watertight
logical proof. The reason I bring this up is to tell about physics
professors.
One would think that since Principle of Least Action has been around
since the 18th century that the above entry would have more to say about
the Maxwell Equations link with Principle of Least Action. It says that
Maxwell's equations can be derived from the Principle of Least Action.
So it is not surprizing since most math professors are too dumb to give
a logically sound proof of Infinitude of Primes, that most physics
professors are too dumb to look at the Maxwell Equations versus
Principle of Least Action.
If I were writing Wikipedia's entry on Principle of Least Action, other
than the history portion I would revamp the entire entry.
It should start out by saying that the Maxwell theory completely derives
the Principle of Least Action, and not the other way around.
In fact, the Principle of Least Action exists only because it exists in
the Maxwell Equations.
The above entry makes sense in a bygone era where physics professors
were under a delusion of a Big Bang theory where they had no idea that
the Universe was an AtomTotality and that gravity was a fiction. Gravity
in an Atom Totality is the bending of space by the 94 protons of the
Atom Totality on its 94 electrons of which Sun and Earth are pieces of
the last 6 electrons.
So we have a Cosmic Coulomb force that creates a force we used to call
gravity.
So if all the forces in Nature are Maxwell forces, then where does that
leave the Principle of Least Action? It leaves it as a feature, an
integral and intrinsic feature of Maxwell theory.
So the physics community needs to focus and show how the Principle of
Least Action comes directly out of Maxwell theory. And since the old
gravity force was so linked with Least Action, then the question becomes
does Newton's ideas of mass attracting mass make sense-- of course not.
Does Einstein's idea that mass bends space and other mass follows that
bent trajectory-- of course not.
The real truth is that gravity is a fiction and that the 94 Protons of
the AtomTotality bends the space of the 94 electrons in which our Sun
and Earth are part of the last 6 electrons. So it is Maxwell's Coulomb
Law that we used to call the force of gravity. And the Principle of
Least Action that "tells mass where to go" is because there are 94
protons in the Nucleus of the Atom Totality telling every piece of the
94 electron masses (galaxies and stars and planets) where to go.
I suppose when 99% of the physics professors believes in the Big Bang or
string theories they can be lazy and loco as to saying that the
Principle of Least Action can derive the Maxwell theory. Lazy and loco
as to not seeing it the other way that the Maxwell Theory is King and
that one of its tiny offshoots is to produce Action and Principle of
Least Action.
The trouble with Big Bang and especially string people is that they are
misguided and misguided importance. They stake their career and
reputation on Newton's and Einstein's old gravity and they thus make
shrift of Maxwell theory and Quantum Mechanics.
So we are overpast due on a revision of Action and Principle of Least
Action. We must show how the Maxwell theory and especially Coulombs Law
derives and yields Principle of Least Action and that Action is nothing
if not for the Maxwell theory.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
| User: "Amadeus Train-Owwell Zirconium" |
|
| Title: Re: Least Action Principle is explained only in Atom Totality theory, not big-bang and not in string theories |
28 Mar 2005 10:24:45 PM |
|
|
For an example of the same mysticism I am attacking here, I point to
the errant argument which was made by Felix Klein, and others: Klein's
false claim, that crucial features of Kepler's, Leibniz's, or Gauss's
discoveries could be replicated by the errant methods of such followers
of the Enlightenment philosophers Lagrange, Kant, and Laplace as
Cauchy, Hermite, Lindemann, et al. The fraud implicit in the latters'
attempts, is their vicious exclusion of the physical geometries of
Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann; so, the celebrated Maxwell confessed his
politically motivated complicity in this matter of suppressing what he
knew had been the crucial contributions of Amp=E8re, Weber, Gauss, and
Riemann to electrodynamics. This ethereal fraud by Maxwell et al., is
typical of widely accepted hoaxes still presented, on record, in
today's classrooms, reference works, and textbooks.[9]
That fraudulent mathematics of the reductionists is avoided, only when
the underlying epistemological issues of counting numbers, such as
those issues posed by Gauss's Disquisitiones, are situated within the
realm of an essentially constructive, "synthetic," anti-Euclidean
geometry. So, Gauss's work, employing his teacher K=E4stner's
anti-Euclidean geometry in this case, is the most crucial,
make-or-break issue of modern mathematics to be posed for the student's
competent introduction to modern mathematical physics. The exclusion of
critical consideration of the axiomatically geometric roots of the
orderings of numbers, was the premise of the relevant essential fraud
perpetrated by Euler et al., and the common mistake of the credulous
imitators of Euler's error today.
--Chairman George and Strep Throat, back in print!
http://larouchepub.com
http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
