NEWTON’S FORCES, ALPHA PARTICLES AND ATOMIC STRUCTURE
There is no telling of what might have happened if Newton would have at his disposal some microscopic observations besides the astronomical ones. One thing is sure: the concept of mass would be different today, together with the law of conservation of energy. Therefore the thermodynamics would have also some other form entirely.
However, perhaps one of the most important consequences might have been that of our image of the microscopic world. Such is, for instance, the classical explanation of scattering of alpha particles, which led the scientific community to the planetary image of the atom. Within the framework of Newtonian theory of central forces it does not need a nucleus in order to be explained, but only the possibility of migration of the electric charges in the target metal. Possibly not even that.
Come to think of it: Dewey Larson was right after all! The alpha scattering experiments are indication, not of the nucleus, but of an atomic structure in its entirety. He saw this in the contradictory data on the crystalline lattices and the subsequent dimensions of different atoms deduced from these data. However, this fact can well be a fundamental theoretical one, if we take the central forces as what they are supposed to be, with no strings attached.
Hello, my dear friend!
I hope you won’t be angry with me!
I am glad seeing you continue adding material to this extraordinary web. Althought stupid, I am one of its most dedicated readers.
But my first reservations, as with Dewey Larson, arise with your questioning of central forces -with light as with gravity- and the associated problems of energy conservation. Really I believe that central forces per se don’t exist in nature, but, what about Bertrand’s theorem, which state that only central forces produce stable and closed orbits? I don’t understand clearly your position about this.
I question it humbly and sincerely, answer it for pity sake, I beg you.
Best,
Miguel
There is a fundamental misunderstanding dear Miguel. I am not angry with anybody, least of all yourself! I wish you the best luck and, by the way, thank you for the book! Forget about everything.
There is also a fundamental misunderstanding about the forces: Bertrand’s theorem from 1873 is referring to central forces with magnitude depending exclusively on the distance between the material points. The Earth, the Moon, the Sun are not material points in all instances. As a matter of fact the Moon and the Earth can never be considered material points with respect to each other. In order to better understand the point of view take a reading in the following order and - if possible - find and read the references:
1) Glaisher’s Argument on Newton
2) Yvon Villarceau on Binary Stars
3) Cassini Ovals vs Kepler Ellipse
Newton gave an expression for the central force which depends exclusively on distance only in cases where the attraction point is in special positions (focus, center of orbit and such). For double stars this is not the case anymore. One of the fundamental consequences is that such forces are not conservative anymore. Least of all are they conservative if we take the pain to think that celestial bodies are extended.
You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that a central force should have the magnitute depending exclusively on distance! But you are not alone in this! This was not what Newton “invented”. (See Principia Book I Section 2).
By the way: I have a book almost ready for English readers: “New Testament Principles of Natural Philosophy”. Still interested?!