Thread
:
Is QM a principle theory? (was: Emergent Realities)
View Single Post
#
10
December 3rd 03 posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
Alfred Einstead
external usenet poster
Posts: 586
Continuum Mechanics as a 'Principle' Theory (was: Is QM a principle theory?)
(Ken S. Tucker) wrote:
The quantity T is identitied as the stress tensor of the system,
and e as the system's internal energy. They are related by:
1/2 trace(T) = rho e.
In fact, this is true for monoatomic gases. For diatomic and
polyatomic gases, there is an additional component to e that
does not arise from the 1/2 the trace of T.
Agreed, would you say these "additional components"
are antisymmetric and or nonorthogonal components
off the trace, where the trace T solves only mono's?
e and trace(T) are invariant under Galilean transformations, and
under the "scale" or "additivity" transformation. So, the
difference (e - 1/2 trace(T)) persists at all levels: microscopic
and macroscopic, and is intrinsic.
So, if the continuum decomposes into fundamental subsystems (the
"particles") the difference (e - 1/2 trace(T)) for that
subsystem represents a source of energy arising from intrinsic
degrees of freedom OTHER than the translational degrees.
It's direct evidence of the existence of non-translational
degrees of freedom in particles (i.e., spin); and is entirely
non-classical in origin.
In fact, for polyatomic gases, the e WILL actually be
1/2 trace(T) at low enough temperatures; because the other
degrees of freedom are frozen out. For diatomic gases, it pushes
up to 5/6 trace(T) past a certain critical temperature, as the
other degrees of freedom "thaw" out; and for polyatomic gases,
up to trace(T).
Alfred Einstead
View Public Profile
View message headers
Find all posts by Alfred Einstead
Find all threads started by Alfred Einstead
Ads
Mobile Phones
-
Loans
-
Bad Credit Mortgages
-
Loans
-
Mortgages