Elio Fabri wrote:
>
> Giancarlo Rizza ha scritto:
> > ... basti ricordare che lo stesso Maxwell era contrario
> > all'idea di un mondo composto da atomi, preferendo invece una
> > visione "continua" dello spazio.
> Sei proprio sicuro? Il teorema di equipartizione non e' di Maxwell? E
> l'applicazione ai calori speicifici dei gas?
Il problema e' piu' sottile. Poiche' non sono sicuro di essere
sufficientemente chiaro nella spiegazione, riporto cio' che ha scritto
S. Brush in "The kind of motion we call heat"
Noth Holland Publishing company (1976) (pag.92)
The question was only patially, "is matter continuous or
heterogeneous?", - or, " is there a sharp distinction between matter
and empty space?" In fact there were two popular atomic theories
based on continuos space-filling entities;
i) the vortex atom of Helmotz, Rakine and Kelvin, in wich atoms
were treated as permanent wortex motions in ether. This theory had
the great advantage, from the viewpoint of scientists such as
Maxwell, that it was based on nothing more then "matter and motion",
no occult forces or action at a distance were needed. Since only
one kind of ultimate ether-matter was permitted, and the
properties distinguishing different kinds of observable matter were
to be explained
--
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing
its opponents and making them see the light, but
rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new
generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Planck rule
Received on Fri Jun 22 2001 - 15:05:04 CEST