On the perverted interpretation of Newton's First Law in modern physics

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the wiseacred dropouts appeared in physics, not recognizing the very methodology of scientific creativity and declaring certain “limitations” that narrowed the field of applicability of Newtonian mechanics ( I. Newton ).

Let's start with how Newton's laws are interpreted in modern textbooks on physics. For example, in the book A.V. Peryshkina and E.M. Gutnik [1] on page 42 says the following:

<...> from the point of view of modern ideas, Newton's first law is formulated as follows:

There are such reference systems with respect to which bodies retain their speed unchanged if they are not affected by other bodies or the actions of other bodies are compensated .

Let us compare this squalor with the formulation of Newton himself [2], by the way, given in the same book page earlier:

Every body continues to be kept in a state of rest or a uniform rectilinear motion, until and because it is not forced by the applied forces to change this state.

As we see, there is no question about any reference system. So what? Newton was "stupid" modern "wise men", "improving" his laws? No! Newton examines in detail the question of ...: " apparent " and " true " movements! Here is what he writes in the "Instructions" in the "Definitions" section (see the book [2]):

The reasons for the origin , which distinguish between true and apparent movements, are the forces that must be applied to the bodies in order to produce these movements . True absolute movement can neither occur nor change except from the action of forces applied directly to the moving body itself, whereas the relative movement of the body can be both produced and changed without applying forces to this body; it is sufficient that the forces are applied to the bodies in relation to which this movement is determined.

That is, Newton considered the question of reference systems very scrupulously and managed to abstract himself from seeming ( relative ) motions that prevent him from understanding the root cause of all motions and motion changes - the action of force.
')
This ability to abstract from distorting the essence of the factors lies in the genius of Newton and his predecessors, the Copernicans, who rejected the theory of the motion of the planets Ptolemy ( Πτολεμαΐος ), based only on such movements. It turns out that the "corrective" Newton try to discard us in the era of Ptolemy and Aristotle ( Αριστοτέλης ) ...

By the way, the whole theory of relativity of Einstein considers precisely relative, apparent movements, and it is not surprising that the consequences of this theory are insoluble paradoxes.

It should also be noted that in Einstein's theory, the state of rest is absolutized, which, again, is a return to the times of Aristotle and Ptolemy. And Newton, by his First Law, specifically emphasizes that v = 0 = const has no advantages over v = const > 0 .

Inclusion in the formulation of the First Law of the inertial reference system is also unacceptable in the sense that the physical law is implemented regardless of whether we observe the process or not, measure something or not ... Especially since the definition of the inertial reference system is given through Newton's First Law ( see, for example, on p.13 in [3]), and then reformulate the same law, using the concept of “inertial reference system” ... A very “scientific” approach ...

So, one of the main ideas of Newton's First Law is that the “ state of rest ” is not a special case , but quite the contrary, it is a special case of the “state of straight-line uniform motion” when the velocity is zero, i.e. any other number, equal in all respects with zero!

It is this thought - the main blow to the theory of Aristotle, which is not far gone (more precisely: it has not gone anywhere) from the ordinary idea of ​​movement, when it is considered that in order to set in motion the physical body and support this movement in the future, it is required to apply all the time effort (force). Of course, those examples of movement, such as “the flight of an abandoned stone”, “the flight of an arrow after the cessation of a bowstring”, where it is not visible, “supporting movement”, forces, confound these ideas about movement.

The second important point . It is claimed that Newton “searched” for some absolute point of reference and, in the end, “finished” these searches in the center of the Sun. Be that as it may, the First Law, as a matter of fact, denies the absolute zero speed , and, consequently, the absoluteness of any point of reference ... It is quite possible that these “searches” (if they, in fact, were ...) another manifestation of Newton himself, not as a physicist, but as a theologian. After all, the statement itself “ there are such reference systems ” is fundamentally wrong! With accurate measurements, we will always detect accelerations. Even a ship moving at a constant speed with complete calm is not an inertial reference system, because the Earth is spherical and the ship moves along a curved sea surface, not to mention that the Earth itself rotates ...

And more . No matter what “quantum mechanics” say: there is not a single experiment showing that this law is not fulfilled in the microworld! .. On the contrary, the same Brownian motion proves the “literal” (that is, without additional explanations) implementation of the law: the microparticle moves from one collision to another in a straight line and at a constant speed .

Ie, arguing above about the absence of inertial reference systems, I got a little excited? In the microworld, they exist? Looks like it!

But, at the same time, in the microcosm there are no ... accelerations (!), Because there are no "fields" as in the macrocosm and all interactions occur only through "collisions" in a very small area of ​​space in a very short time ... To confirm this thesis, I refer to the authority of Richard Feynman, asserted in [4]:

I want to especially emphasize that light exists in the form of particles - it is very important to know. This is especially important to those of you who went to school, where, perhaps, something said about the wave nature of light. I tell you how it really behaves - like particles

By the way, Feynman diagrams themselves were initially constructed as “trajectories” of particles before and after interaction in one spatial and one temporal coordinate axes, but then they “got carried away” by mathematics and “forgot” about this, again, because they decided to “limit” the applicability of Newton's Laws ...

Literature

1. Peryshkin A.V. Physics. 9 cells: textbook / A.V. Peryshkin, E.M. Gutnik. - M .: Drofa, 2014. - 319, [1] p.: Ill.
2. Newton Isaac. Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. - M .: Nauka, 1989. (translation from Latin and comments by AN Krylov).
3. Landau L.D., Lifshits E.M. Theoretical Physics: Textbook. For universities. In 10t. T. II. Field Theory. —8th ed., Stereot.-M .: FIZMATLIT, 2003.-536 p.
4. Feynman Richard. QED - a strange theory of light and matter: Trans. from English. - M .: Science. Ch. ed. Phys.-Mat. Lit., 1988. — 144s .— (B-chka “Kvant.” Vol.66.)