At Dr. Huck's suggestion, I have done a complete rewrite of the "Fundamental Postulates" page on the main site, to show the history of the development of Larson's postulates and how the RS2 postulates were extrapolated from them.
Here is the link: Fundamental Postulates
I would appreciate any comments on how to improve the paper, or what may need to be clarified. Please comment here, or in the comment section of the main forum.
Thanks.
History and Development of the RS/RS2 Fundamental Postulates
History and Development of the RS/RS2 Fundamental Postulates
Every dogma has its day...
More on Postulates
"Commutative" was added to counter the non-commutative mathematics becoming popular with the Relativity theory of the time. Larson was aware that conventional scientists did not comprehend the temporal nature of the atom, and he was able to approximate atomic properties quite closely with his "commutative" slide rule, so he converted it to a general statement.
The idea of non-commutativity is inherent in the physics of rotations, the moment you go to more than one axis of rotation. Just take a disc on the y-z plane, and you'll see that rotating it +90° around y axis followed by a rotation of +90° around z axis is NOT THE SAME as rotating it around z axis first, followed by y-axis. So whenever one needs to add the turns, this has to be taken into account, which gives rise to non-commutative mathematics.
Larson never had to deal with interactions of rotations per se, because the rotations were a property of the atom. Now, once we have rotations like electrons or positrons interacting with atoms, the properties appear to require quantum mechanics for its description, which in other words takes the non-commutativitiy into account. This is the same reason why quantum mechanics fails so miserably when it comes to the calculation of periodic table properties. The slide rule does contain the logarithm, so he could get the ln (t) measurements pretty well. But I do not know if he looked beyond that, it might not have been required, as there was sufficient to do with the slide rule.
The idea of non-commutativity is inherent in the physics of rotations, the moment you go to more than one axis of rotation. Just take a disc on the y-z plane, and you'll see that rotating it +90° around y axis followed by a rotation of +90° around z axis is NOT THE SAME as rotating it around z axis first, followed by y-axis. So whenever one needs to add the turns, this has to be taken into account, which gives rise to non-commutative mathematics.
Larson never had to deal with interactions of rotations per se, because the rotations were a property of the atom. Now, once we have rotations like electrons or positrons interacting with atoms, the properties appear to require quantum mechanics for its description, which in other words takes the non-commutativitiy into account. This is the same reason why quantum mechanics fails so miserably when it comes to the calculation of periodic table properties. The slide rule does contain the logarithm, so he could get the ln (t) measurements pretty well. But I do not know if he looked beyond that, it might not have been required, as there was sufficient to do with the slide rule.