Length – EthnoPhysics

Outline

The notion of length is deeply interwoven with ideas about counting and mensuration. Historically, measurement is even a very important part of geometry. In 1637 the inventor of analytic geometry René Descartes wrote¹Here is a translation of the foregoing text by David Eugene Smith and Marcia L. Latham.

“I could give here several other ways of tracing and conceiving a series of curved lines, each curve more complex than any preceding one, but I think the best way to group together all such curves and then classify them in order, is by recognizing the fact that all points of those curves which we may call geometric, that is, those which admit of precise and exact measurement, must bear a definite relation to all points of a straight line, and that this relation must be expressed by means of a single equation.

If this equation contains no term of higher degree than the rectangle of two unknown quantities, or the square of one, the curve belongs to the first and simplest class, which contains only the circle, the parabola, the hyperbola, and the ellipse ; but when the equation contains one or more terms of the third or fourth degree in one or both of the two unknown quantities (for it requires two unknown quantities to express the relation between two points) the curve belongs to the second class ; and if the equation contains a term of the fifth or sixth degree in either or both of the unknown quantities the curve belongs to the third class, and so on indefinitely”.

From The Geometry of René Descartes, Open Court Publishing Company, page 48. La Salle Illinois, 1952. that

... all points of those curves which we may call geometric are those which admit of precise and exact measurement ...

— René Descartes

These days mathematicians are less constrained and many nontraditional geometries are studied. But Descartes is clear about his geometry; it presumes measurement. This also seems to have agreed with Sir Isaac Newton as he set down the laws of motion fifty years later. He wrote²Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, page xvii in the preface to the first edition. Translated by Andrew Motte and Florian Cajori. University of California Press, 1934. that

... geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring ...

— Sir Isaac Newton

Thus measurement is an essential concept in both Newtonian mechanics and Cartesian geometry. So next we carefully specify what it means to measure a length.

Definition of Length

To ensure that measurement is theoretically well founded, EthnoPhysics defines a length as the distance between two atoms. Let these two atoms be noted by $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ . Then the length $\ell$ of the distance between them is

$\ell \equiv \left\| \, \bar{r}^{\, \mathbf{B}} - \bar{r}^{\, \mathbf{A}} \rule{0px}{10px} \right\|$

where $\bar{r}$ notes the position. Recall that the distance between any two events is determined by their positions. So this definition of length just adds the requirement that positions are anchored by atoms thus guaranteeing that they are fully three-dimensional quantities. A length is a distance that is well-defined, and potentially measurable. This implies that some minimum amount of sensory detail is required to logically discuss length: There must be enough quarks to form at least two atoms.

This restrictive definition of length is important because as the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot has remarked; if the scale of a length measurement is not limited, then as it is made smaller and smaller every approximate length tends to increase steadily without bound.³Benoit B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, page 26. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York 1977. So the foregoing definition safeguards the possibility of answering questions like: How long is the coast of Britain?

But, logical protection comes with a significant consequence. Photons are not atoms. So photons cannot serve as the end-point for a length measurement. The position of a solitary photon cannot be measured because a length between the photon and the spatial-origin cannot be rationally established. So a solitary photon cannot be logically placed in a Cartesian framework. The only situation for which we can precisely locate a photon, is when it has been absorbed by an atom. Thus the EthnoPhysics definition of length abandons the possibility of pinpointing a location for a free photon.

Measuring Length

Length has been measured at least since ancient Egyptians stretched cords and knotted ropes to survey agricultural fields and construct pyramids. For the last few hundred years, calibrated measurement techniques have usually required some kind of a measuring rod. An ideal measuring rod is rigid so its own length is presumably constant.

To measure the length $\ell$ between $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ count the least number of rods that fit between them. Lengths are conventionally expressed in metres and abbreviated as (m). The requirement for a least number is based on the historical practice of stretching a rope or surveyor’s chain.

Length Contraction

More recently an optical method has been adopted to measure length. It requires a clock to determine an elapsed time $\Delta t$ . To optically measure a length in meters, first measure the elapsed time in seconds for a photon to travel from $\mathbf{A}$ to $\mathbf{B}$ . Then

$\ell = 299,792,458 \cdot \Delta t$

The elapsed time depends on the frame of reference F. So the length depends on the frame too. If F is chosen so that the atoms being measured are at rest, then the elapsed time is the proper elapsed time and noted by $\Delta t^{\ast} .$ The two increments are related as $\Delta t^{\ast} \! = \! \gamma \Delta t$ where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor. Similarly, when $\gamma \! = \! 1$ then the length is called a proper length, noted by $\ell ^{\ast}$ and given by $\ell^{\ast} \equiv \, 299,792,458 \cdot \Delta t^{\ast} .$ So these lengths are related as

$\ell^{\ast} = \gamma \ell$

The Lorentz factor for a particle in motion is always greater than one, $\gamma > 1$ . So observations of moving atoms always measure a smaller length than between stationary atoms, $\ell < \ell^{\ast}$ . This effect is called length contraction.

Cartesian Coordinate Systems

Cartesian coordinates were invented by René Descartes who is pictured in this engraving.

We have previously defined Cartesian coordinates. Now we discuss how to assemble these numbers into coordinate systems.

As we objectify descriptions, and apply the hypothesis of spatial isotropy, we stop referring directly to chromatic visual sensation. Physics becomes color-blind by changing the descriptive framework from quark space $\mathbb{Q}$ , to a new, almost-Euclidean space called $\mathbb{E}$ . In $\mathbb{E}$ , particles are rotating. Their electric and magnetic axes turn around the central-axis. And in $\mathbb{E}$ we can construct a Cartesian coordinate system as follows.

The algebraic vector space $\mathbb{E}$ is a set of position vectors $\overline{r}$ for some collection of atoms $\mathbf{A}_{1}$ , $\mathbf{A}_{2}$ , $\mathbf{A}_{3}$ … $\mathbf{A}_{N}$ . This mathematical construction is generically written as

$\mathbb{E} = \left\{ \rule{0px}{12px} \, \bar{r}_{1}, \, \bar{r}_{2}, \, \bar{r}_{3} \, \ldots \, \bar{r}_{N} \right\}$

The following basis vectors are used to make general descriptions; the axis of the abscissa is directed by $\widehat{x} \equiv (1, 0, 0)$ , the axis of the ordinate from $\widehat{y} \equiv (0, 1, 0)$ and the central-axis by $\widehat{z} \equiv (0, 0, 1).$ Then, any position vector in $\mathbb{E}$ can be expressed in terms of $x$ , $y$ and $z$ , its Cartesian coordinates as

$\bar{r} = x \widehat{x} + y \widehat{y} + z \widehat{z}$

The new space $\mathbb{E}$ is closer than $\mathbb{Q}$ to the ordinary space of everyday experience. And we use a Euclidean metric to determine vector norms. But some other details such as spatial continuity have to be assessed before we could say that $\mathbb{E}$ is a Euclidean space.

A Linear Coordinate

Let the $z$ -axis be associated with the proton inside an atom of hydrogen $\mathrm{H} .$ When in its ground-state, the proton is at rest in any inertial frame of reference. And it is extremely stable. So it is a good place to start constructing a coordinate system. The location of $\mathrm{H}$ on the $z$ -axis is specified by the numeric value $z=0$ . This position is called the spatial-origin. So by definition, this special hydrogen atom is always located at the spatial-origin.

We use the same spatial-origin in other coordinate-systems to be discussed next. So the special atom is called $\mathrm{H}_{\mathsf{o}}$ to distinguish it from other hydrogen atoms.

Both $\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{E}$ use the same basis vector $\widehat{z} \equiv (0, 0, 1).$ So they share the same $z$ -axis. And this axis can be parameterized using the same $z$ -coordinate that was used for the one dimensional space discussed earlier.

A Cartesian Plane

As descriptions are objectified, we stop referring directly to sensations. This is done partly by shifting the focus to particles that are larger than quarks. For example, we next use two atoms to define a two-dimensional space, the Cartesian plane.

A two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system defined by the two atoms that form a hydroxide ion. The red ball represents oxygen.

Let us combine an atom of oxygen $\mathrm{O}$ with the hydrogen atom $\mathrm{H}_{\mathsf{o}}$ shown above, to make a hydroxide anion, $\mathrm{OH}^{-} .$ The description is again centered on the proton inside $\mathrm{H}_{\mathsf{o}} .$

The $x$ -axis is defined in $\mathbb{Q}$ by sensation, but for $\mathbb{E}$ more conventional details are required. So in this Cartesian coordinate system, the direction of the unit vector $\widehat{x} \equiv (1, 0, 0)$ is chosen to align with the O–H chemical bond called $\mathbb{B} \mathsf{(2)}$ , and ultimately fixed by the material presence of atomic oxygen.

The $x$ -axis is also chosen to be orthogonal to $\widehat{z}.$ The position of oxygen is then described by the coordinates $z=0$ and $x = \ell$ where $\ell$ notes the distance between hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

The key detail about this arrangement is that it involves two atoms. So $\ell$ is measurable and can meet the definition for being a length. Indeed $\ell$ is observed⁴Computational Chemistry Comparison and Benchmark Database Edited by Russell D. Johnson III, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Database Number 101, Release 18, Department of Commerce USA, October 2016. to be 96.4 ± 0.1 (pm).

Note that the foregoing coordinate system uses the atom of hydrogen to furnish a descriptive context for the atom of oxygen, and also for any other atoms that may be included. So $\mathrm{H}_{\mathsf{o}}$ is functioning as a frame of reference.

A 3-Dimensional Cartesian System

A three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system defined by the three atoms that make a molecule of water.

Next we use three atoms to make a three-dimensional Cartesian system. Let us combine another atom of hydrogen with the hydroxide anion $\mathrm{OH}^{-}$ to make $\mathrm{H}_{\mathsf{2}} {\mathrm{O}}$ a molecule of water. The $z$ -axis, $x$ -axis and spatial-origin are as before, but the $y$ -axis still needs to be established. We choose it to be orthogonal to both the $x$ and $z$ -axes, and in the same plane as the chemical bonds in water.

There are two possible orientations, identified by $\delta_{\! R} = \pm 1 .$ The number $\delta_{\! R}$ is called the handedness of the coordinate system. The water bonds are called $\mathbb{B} \sf{(aqueous)} .$ They make an angle of $\vartheta$ with each other. So for example, the position of the new hydrogen atom might be given by the coordinates $\bar{r} ( \mathrm{H} ) = \ell ( 1-\cos\vartheta, \; \delta_{\! R} \sin\vartheta, \; 0 ) .$

The material presence of three atoms ensures that the three-dimensional framework is scientifically well-founded: Lengths and angles can actually be measured. In fact they are reported⁵Computational Chemistry Comparison and Benchmark Database Edited by Russell D. Johnson III, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Database Number 101, Release 18, Department of Commerce USA, October 2016. to be

$\ell = 95.8 \pm 0.1 \; \mathsf{\text{(pm)}}$ and

$\vartheta = 104.4776 \pm 0.0019 \; \mathsf{\text{(degrees)}}$

Thus a physical three-dimensional coordinate system is established in principle. And, it may be extended to include other atoms just by making more measurements. Different atoms are assigned different coordinates, that algebraically represent different geometric positions.

This water-based coordinate system is not very practical. But it demonstrates that we can finally put aside some concerns about Pauli’s exclusion principle. From now on, when considering a bundle of particles, we assume that Pauli’s principle is satisfied if they all have different Cartesian coordinates.

Atomic Models

Here are some models of atoms that bring the notion of shape to their description. Aggregations of chemical and thermodynamic quarks are represented as cylinders, spheres and even a morsel of pasta.

Cylindrical Atomic Models

Consider an atom $\mathbf{A}$ described by a repetitive chain of events written as

$\Psi^{\mathbf{A}} = \left( \mathsf{\Omega}_{1}, \, \mathsf{\Omega}_{2}, \, \mathsf{\Omega}_{3} \, \ldots \, \right)$

where each repeated cycle $\mathsf{\Omega}$ is a space-time event. Let this particle be characterized by its orbital radius $R$ and wavelength $\lambda$ . These properties are related to position and we can use them to make a simple geometric model of P that is shaped like a cylinder. Or to be more exact; like a finite section of a right circular cylinder with its ends closed to form two circular surfaces, oriented along the $z$ -axis, similar to the one shown in the accompanying diagram. The cross sectional area $\mathscr{A}$ of the cylinder is given by

$\mathscr{A} \equiv \pi R^{2}$

This is just a statement of ancient knowledge about circles going back at least to Archimedes . And to restate another traditional mensuration formula, the volume $V$ of the cylinder is

$V \equiv \lambda \mathscr{A} = \pi \lambda R^{2}$

We use this model to visualize one atomic event. Then it is easy to imagine the chain of events $\Psi$ as a row of cylinders strung-out end-to-end, like a tube or wire.

Spheroidal Atomic Models

Spheroidal Shapes
a perfect sphere	$3 \lambda = 4 R$
a prolate spheroid	$3 \lambda > 4 R$
a oblate spheroid	$3 \lambda < 4 R$

The French mathematician René Descartes certainly thought that atoms were like little balls whirling around and bumping into each other.⁶For example he writes that; “The material, as I said, is composed of many small balls which are in mutual contact; and we have sensory awareness of two kinds of motion which these balls have. One is the motion by which they approach our eyes in a straight line, which gives us the sensation of light; and the other is the motion whereby they turn about their own centers as they approach us.

If the speed at which they turn is much smaller than that of their rectilinear motion, the body from which they come appears blue to us; while if the turning speed is much greater than that of their rectilinear motion, the body appears red to us. But the only type of body which could possibly make their turning motion faster is one whose tiny parts have such slender strands, and ones which are so close together (as I have shown those of the blood to be), that the only material revolving round them is that of the first element.

The little balls of the second element encounter this material of the first element on the surface of the blood; this material of the first element then passes with a continuous, very rapid, oblique motion from one gap between the balls to another, thus moving in an opposite direction to the balls, so that they are forced by it to turn about their centres.”

From A Description of the Human Body published in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume I, page 323. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge University Press, 1985. So also let atom $\mathbf{A}$ be described by its wavenumber $\kappa$ . Then we can model $\mathbf{A}$ as a spheroid that is mathematically represented in Cartesian coordinates using the equation

$\dfrac{x^{2} + y^{2}}{R^{2}} + \left( \dfrac{2\kappa}{3\pi} \rule{0px}{14px} \right)^{2} z^{2} = 1$

This shape is also known as an ellipsoid of revolution about the atom’s central-axis. If $\mathbf{A}$ is in its ground-state then $\kappa=0$ and the sphere collapses into a circle

$x^{2} + y^{2} = R^{2}$

However if $\mathbf{A}$ is an excited atom then its wavelength is $\lambda =2 \pi /\kappa$ and its shape can be represented as

$\dfrac{x^{2} + y^{2}}{R^{2}} + \left( \dfrac{4}{3\lambda} \rule{0px}{14px} \right)^{2} z^{2} = 1$

Traditional mensuration formulae give the volume enclosed by this curve as $V = \pi \lambda R^{2} .$ So the spheroidal model has been scaled to give $\mathbf{A}$ exactly the same volume as the cylindrical atomic model. A variety of spheroidal shapes are specified in the accompanying table.

A Rotini Model of an Atom

Here are some rotinis drawn by René Descartes. — *Principia Philosophiae* by René Descartes, page 271. Amsterdam 1644.

Let the events of atom $\mathbf{A}$ be described by their time coordinates $t .$ Our first spatial conception of such an atom was as a compound quark in quark space. But to implement the hypothesis of spatial isotropy our next view is set in a Cartesian coordinate system where $\mathbf{A}$ is represented as a rotating atomic clock with a phase angle $\theta$ given by

$\theta \! \left( t \right) = \theta_{\mathsf{o}} + \omega t$

such that $\mathbf{A}$ is whirling about its central-axis with an angular frequency of $\omega$ . The rotation supposedly averages-out variations in the electric and magnetic radii leaving an effective orbital radius $R$ that is then used to represent the atom as a rotating cylinder. This rotating cylinder model smooths out some rough edges, but it is still amiss because the electromagnetic part of the terrestrial metric is larger than the other radial components. So one radial direction is predominant and the atom is shaped more like a piece of rotini pasta than a solid cylinder. This corkscrew spiral can be approximated by a geometric curve called a helicoid . It is described mathematically by radii of

$\rho_{x} = R \cos{\! 2 \theta}$

$\rho_{y} = R \sin{\! 2 \theta }$

$\rho_{z} = \dfrac{ \lambda \theta}{2\pi}$

An example of a conveyor mechanism called an Archimedian screw.

When moving, the rotini model looks a lot like a machine called the Archimedean screw . Humans have been thinking about screw conveyor mechanisms like this for thousands of years. They were reportedly used to irrigate the Hanging Gardens of Babylon as early as 600 BC. This atomic model is good for understanding Euclidean ideas about the ordinary spaces in our laboratories and classrooms.

Euclidean Length

This article extends an earlier, more general discussion of metrics that considered a particle’s shape as described by its radius vector $\overline{\rho} \, .$ Initially, the radius was established from a particle’s quark content, and a vector space $\mathbb{Q}$ was defined from sets of particles and their radii. $\mathbb{Q}$ was characterised using statistical averages $\widetilde{\rho}_{\alpha} \, ,$ standard deviations $\sigma_{\alpha} \, ,$ and the covariance $\mathrm{cov}_{\alpha \beta}$ between radial components that are identified by $\alpha$ or $\beta .$ These quantities have already been discussed.

Now let us consider that $\mathbb{Q}$ might be filled with a more restricted set of particles that have special attributes. Specifically we examine collections of atoms. Then radius vectors may be expressed in Cartesian coordinates and $\alpha \in \{ x, \, y, \, z \}.$ Particles are characterized using their orbital radius $R ,$ a wavelength $\lambda$ and their phase angle $\theta .$ A vector space like this is noted by $\mathbb{E} .$

We say that $\mathbb{E}$ has a Euclidean metric if it can satisfy the following conditions.

$\mathbb{E}$ must be well-stirred. We require spatial homogeneity at an atomic level so that $\sigma_{ \! x} = \sigma_{ \! y} = \sigma_{ \! z} \, .$
Particles must have some variation in their shapes so that $\sigma_{\! \alpha} \ne 0 .$
Particles must have random variation in their phase-angles so that $\sigma_{\! \theta} \ne 0 .$

For a specific example consider a big collection of $N$ atoms noted by $\mathsf{P}^{1}, \; \mathsf{P}^{2}, \; \mathsf{P}^{3} \ldots \mathsf{P}^{N} .$ Their radius vectors are written in Cartesian coordinates as $\overline{\rho} \equiv \left( \, \rho_{x}, \rho_{y}, \rho_{z} \right) .$ And the space $\mathbb{E}$ is mathematically presented as

$\mathbb{E} = \left\{ \overline{\rho}^{ 1 }, \, \overline{\rho}^{2}, \, \overline{\rho}^{3} \, \ldots \, \overline{\rho}^{\, i} \, \ldots \, \overline{\rho}^{\, N} \right\}$

Let these atoms be described using a rotini model where shapes are like a corkscrew spiral. They approximate a geometric curve called a helicoid so that atomic radii can be mathematically expressed as

$\rho_{x} = R \cos{\! 2\theta}$

$\rho_{y} = R \sin{\! 2\theta}$

$\rho_{z} = \dfrac{ \lambda \theta}{2\pi}$

Then the average radii are given by

$\displaystyle \widetilde{\rho}_{x} = \frac{R}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \cos{2\theta^{i}}$

$\displaystyle \widetilde{\rho}_{y} = \frac{R}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sin{2\theta^{i}}$

$\displaystyle \widetilde{\rho}_{z} = \frac{\lambda}{2\pi} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \theta^{i} = \frac{\lambda \widetilde{\theta}}{2\pi}$

We presume that the atoms in $\mathbb{E}$ have randomly distributed phase-angles. Then odd powers of the circular trigonometric functions, sine and cosine, have numerical values that vary randomly between +1 and -1. So large sums of these terms add-up to zero. Thus $\widetilde{\rho}_{x} \! = 0$ and $\widetilde{\rho}_{y} \! = 0 .$ To assess the covariance between these radii, recall that $\mathbb{E}$ is assumed to be well-stirred. So $\sigma_{ \! x} = \sigma_{ \! y} = \sigma_{ \! z}$ and therefore $\sigma_{ \! x}^{2} = \sigma_{ \! y}^{2} = \sigma_{ \! z}^{2} .$ But by definition $\mathrm{cov}_{\alpha \alpha} \! = \sigma_{ \! \alpha}^{2} ,$ so

$\mathrm{cov}_{xx} = \mathrm{cov}_{yy} = \mathrm{cov}_{zz}$

The value of these three terms cannot be zero because we have assumed that $\sigma_{\! z } \ne 0 .$ As for the other three terms, substituting $\widetilde{\rho}_{x} \! = \widetilde{\rho}_{y} \! = 0$ into the definition of covariance yields

$\displaystyle \mathrm{cov}_{xy} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \rho_{x}^{i} \rho_{y}^{i} = \frac{R^{2}}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( \cos{2\theta^{i}} \right) \left(\sin{2\theta^{i}} \right) = \frac{R^{2}}{2N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sin{4\theta^{i}}$

$\displaystyle \mathrm{cov}_{xz} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \rho_{x}^{i} \left( \rho_{z}^{i} - \widetilde{\rho}_{z} \right) = \frac{R}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( \rho_{z}^{i} - \widetilde{\rho}_{z} \right) \cos{2\theta^{i}}$

$\displaystyle \mathrm{cov}_{yz} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \rho_{y}^{i} \left( \rho_{z}^{i} - \widetilde{\rho}_{z} \right) = \frac{R}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( \rho_{z}^{i} - \widetilde{\rho}_{z} \right) \sin{2\theta^{i}}$

But these last three terms are negligible because the atoms in $\mathbb{E}$ are assumed to have random phase angles. So large sums over odd powers of the trigonometric functions add-up to zero. Thus

$\mathrm{cov}_{xy} = \mathrm{cov}_{xz} = \mathrm{cov}_{yz} = 0$

Finally, to determine a metric for $\mathbb{E}$ , note that the atoms it contains are all composite quarks. So ultimately $\mathbb{E}$ is a quark space and its metric is a quark metric written as

The Euclidean Metric
$k_{zz} \equiv \mathsf{1}$	$k_{xy} = \mathsf{0}$
$k_{xx} = \mathsf{1}$	$k_{xz} = \mathsf{0}$
$k_{yy} = \mathsf{1}$	$k_{yz} = \mathsf{0}$

$k_{\alpha \beta} = \dfrac{ \; \mathrm{cov}_{\alpha \beta} \; }{ \mathrm{cov}_{zz} }$

Then substitution yields the Euclidean metric shown in the adjacent table.

an icon showing tools to indicate work in progress

Construction Zone

Pythagoras’ Theorem

$\widehat{A} = \overline{\rho}^{2}$

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} \widehat{A} & \equiv k_{mm} \rho_{m}^{2} + k_{ee} \rho_{e}^{2} + k_{zz} \rho_{z}^{2} \\ & \hspace{20px} + 2 k_{em} \rho_{e} \rho_{m} + 2k_{mz}\rho_{m} \rho_{z} \\ & \hspace{40px} + 2 k_{ez}\rho_{e} \rho_{z} \end{split} \end{equation*}$

?Factor of $\pi$ or $k_{zz}$ or $\mathrm{cov}^{\mathsf{Earth}}_{zz}$ ?

…

A German engraving of algae showing rotary symmetries. — *Melethallia*, Ernst Haeckel, Kunstformen der Natur. Chromolithograph 32 x 40 cm, Verlag des Bibliographischen Instituts, Leipzig 1899-1904. Photograph by D Dunlop.

Atomic Motion

Consider an atom $\mathbf{ A}$ that is described by some repetitive chain of events written as

$\Psi^{\mathbf{A}} = \left( \mathsf{\Omega}_{1}^{\mathbf{A}}, \, \mathsf{\Omega}_{2}^{\mathbf{A}}, \, \mathsf{\Omega}_{3}^{\mathbf{A}} \, \ldots \, \right)$

where each orbit $\mathsf{\Omega}$ is represented by a bundle of quarks that can be parsed into eight orbital components

$\mathsf{\Omega}^{\mathbf{A}} = \left(\mathsf{P}_{1}, \mathsf{P}_{2}, \mathsf{P}_{3}, \mathsf{P}_{4}, \mathsf{P}_{5}, \mathsf{P}_{6}, \mathsf{P}_{7}, \mathsf{P}_{8} \right)$

Let $\Delta r \! \left( \mathsf{\Omega}^{\mathbf{A}} \right)$ note the distance that $\mathbf{ A}$ moves during one complete orbit. We can assess this quantity as follows. Since there are eight orbital components, the phase angle $\theta$ of the $k^{\mathsf{th}}$ component is given by

$\theta_{k} = \theta_{0} + \dfrac{k\pi}{4}$

Without loss of generality let $\theta_{\mathsf{0}} = 0$ so that

$\sin{2\theta} = \begin{cases} \; +1 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 1 \; \sf{\text{or}} \; 5 \\ \; \; 0 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 2, \; 4, \; 6 \; \mathsf{\text{or}} \; 8 \\ \; -1 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 3 \; \mathsf{\text{or}} \; 7 \end{cases}$

and

$\cos{2\theta} = \begin{cases} \; +1 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 4 \; \sf{\text{or}} \; 8 \\ \; \; 0 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 1, \; 3, \; 5 \; \mathsf{\text{or}} \; 7 \\ \; -1 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 2 \; \mathsf{\text{or}} \; 6 \end{cases}$

Then by substitution the displacement of $\mathbf{ A}$ is given by

$d \! x = \delta_{\hat{m}} \dfrac{R}{8} \begin{cases} \; +1 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 1 \; \mathsf{\text{or}} \; 5 \\ \; \; 0 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 2, \; 4, \; 6 \; \mathsf{\text{or}} \; 8 \\ \; -1 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 3 \; \mathsf{\text{or}} \; 7 \end{cases}$

$d \! y = \delta_{\hat{e}} \dfrac{R}{8} \begin{cases} \; +1 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 4 \; \mathsf{\text{or}} \; 8 \\ \; \; 0 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 1, \; 3, \; 5 \; \mathsf{\text{or}} \; 7 \\ \; -1 \; &\mathsf{\text{if}} \; k = 2 \; \mathsf{\text{or}} \; 6 \end{cases}$

and

$d \! z = \delta_{\mathsf{o}} \dfrac{\lambda}{\, 8 \,}$

where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of $\mathbf{A} ,$ $R$ is its orbital radius, $\delta_{\hat{m}}$ is the magnetic polarity, $\delta_{\hat{e}}$ is the electric polarity and $\delta_{\mathsf{o}}$ is the chirality. These displacements can be used to evaluate changes in the position of $\mathbf{ A} .$ The variation in the abscissa during one atomic cycle is

$\begin{align*} \Delta x \! \left( \mathsf{\Omega}^{\mathbf{A}} \right) &= \sum_{k=1}^{8} d \! x_{k} \\ &= \delta_{\hat{m}} \frac{R}{8} \left(1+0-1+0+1+0-1+0 \rule{0px}{11px} \right) \\ &=0 \end{align*}$

The change in the ordinate is

$\begin{align*} \Delta y \! \left( \mathsf{\Omega}^{\mathbf{A}} \right) &= \sum_{k=1}^{8} d \! y_{k} \\ &= \delta_{\hat{e}} \frac{R}{8} \left(0-1+0+1+0-1+0+1 \rule{0px}{11px} \right) \\ &=0 \end{align*}$

And the change in position along the central-axis is

$\begin{align*} \Delta z \! \left( \mathsf{\Omega}^{\mathbf{A}} \right) &= \sum_{k=1}^{8} d \! z_{k} \\ &= \delta_{\mathsf{o}} \frac{\lambda}{8} \left(1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 \rule{0px}{11px} \right) \\ &= \delta_{\mathsf{o}} \lambda \end{align*}$

So over one full atomic cycle, the separation vector between initial and final events is

$\Delta \bar{r} \! \left( \mathsf{\Omega}^{\mathbf{A}} \right) = \left( \Delta x, \, \Delta y, \, \Delta z \rule{0px}{10px} \right) = \left( 0, \, 0, \, \delta_{\mathsf{o}} \lambda \rule{0px}{10px} \right)$

The distance between events is given by the norm of their separation, $\Delta r \equiv \left\| \, \Delta \bar{r} \, \right\|$ . So consecutive atomic cycles are separated from each other by one wavelength

$\Delta r \! \left( \mathsf{\Omega}^{\mathbf{A}} \right) = \lambda^{\mathbf{A}}$

Newtonian Mechanics

Newtonian mechanics brings forward ancient knowledge about cause and effect. Linearity and force are defined by the 1st and 2nd laws of motion.

Footnotes

A photograph of Cartesian text. — René Descartes, La Géométrie, book 2 page 319, Paris 1637. Roman font with archaic ligatures.

 [+]

References
1	Here is a translation of the foregoing text by David Eugene Smith and Marcia L. Latham. “I could give here several other ways of tracing and conceiving a series of curved lines, each curve more complex than any preceding one, but I think the best way to group together all such curves and then classify them in order, is by recognizing the fact that all points of those curves which we may call geometric, that is, those which admit of precise and exact measurement, must bear a definite relation to all points of a straight line, and that this relation must be expressed by means of a single equation. If this equation contains no term of higher degree than the rectangle of two unknown quantities, or the square of one, the curve belongs to the first and simplest class, which contains only the circle, the parabola, the hyperbola, and the ellipse ; but when the equation contains one or more terms of the third or fourth degree in one or both of the two unknown quantities (for it requires two unknown quantities to express the relation between two points) the curve belongs to the second class ; and if the equation contains a term of the fifth or sixth degree in either or both of the unknown quantities the curve belongs to the third class, and so on indefinitely”. From The Geometry of René Descartes, Open Court Publishing Company, page 48. La Salle Illinois, 1952.
2	Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, page xvii in the preface to the first edition. Translated by Andrew Motte and Florian Cajori. University of California Press, 1934.
3	Benoit B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, page 26. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York 1977.
4	Computational Chemistry Comparison and Benchmark Database Edited by Russell D. Johnson III, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Database Number 101, Release 18, Department of Commerce USA, October 2016.
5	Computational Chemistry Comparison and Benchmark Database Edited by Russell D. Johnson III, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Database Number 101, Release 18, Department of Commerce USA, October 2016.
6	For example he writes that; “The material, as I said, is composed of many small balls which are in mutual contact; and we have sensory awareness of two kinds of motion which these balls have. One is the motion by which they approach our eyes in a straight line, which gives us the sensation of light; and the other is the motion whereby they turn about their own centers as they approach us. If the speed at which they turn is much smaller than that of their rectilinear motion, the body from which they come appears blue to us; while if the turning speed is much greater than that of their rectilinear motion, the body appears red to us. But the only type of body which could possibly make their turning motion faster is one whose tiny parts have such slender strands, and ones which are so close together (as I have shown those of the blood to be), that the only material revolving round them is that of the first element. The little balls of the second element encounter this material of the first element on the surface of the blood; this material of the first element then passes with a continuous, very rapid, oblique motion from one gap between the balls to another, thus moving in an opposite direction to the balls, so that they are forced by it to turn about their centres.” From A Description of the Human Body published in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume I, page 323. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge University Press, 1985.