Entropy. / My opinion /.
1.
Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "
as a " surprising abstract ".
2.
L. Landau (Dau) wrote:
" A question about the physical basis of the
entropy monotonous increasing law remains open ".
3.
The famous mathematician John von Neumann said to
"the father of information theory" Claude Shannon:
" Name it "entropy" then in discussions
you will receive solid advantage, because
nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".
=============..
1.
Between 1850 - 1865 Rudolf Clausius published a paper
in which he called " The energy conservation law" as
" The first law of thermodynamics". But in our nature the
heat always flows from the higher temperature to the
lower one and never back. In our everyday life we don't see
the heat itself rises from cold to hot. So, it seemed that
in thermodynamics " The energy conservation law"
wasn’t kept, this law was broken. But Clausius had another
opinion. He thought: I know people believe that this process is
irreversible, but I am sure that " The energy conservation law"
is universal law and it must be correct also for thermodynamic
process. So, how can I save this law ?
Probably, in the thermodynamic process there is something
that we don't know. Maybe, there is some degradation
of the total energy in the system which never disappears .
Perhaps, there is some non-useful heat, some unseen process ,
some unknown dark energy , some another form of potential
energy/heat itself which can transform heat from the cold
body to the warm one. I will call this conception as " entropy"
and as it is not a law I take it as " The second principle
of thermodynamics " which says that " the entropy of an isolated
system always increases ". Another version: " No process is possible
in which the only result is the transfer of heat from a hotter to a
colder body. It is possible some reversible process which is
unknown now ."
2.
Between 1870 - 1880 Ludwig Boltzmann said:
" Clausius is right. But I can add more to his entropy conception.
First.
According to Classic physics when an isolated thermodynamic
system comes to a thermal equilibrium all particles stop their
moving. From one hand it is correct. But the system cannot be
at thermal equilibrium (in the state of death) all the time.
The situation in the system must change.
Therefore I say that at the thermal equilibrium the entropy
(some unknown dark/potential energy ) of the system will
reach maximum and as a result , the thermal equilibrium
of the system will change.
Second.
I don't know how exactly the thermal equilibrium of the system
changes. But I can give probabilistic / statistical interpretation
of this changing process. I can write " The second principle of
thermodynamics" by a formula: S= k log W and this formula
says:" the entropy of the system is the collective result of
mechanical motions of all the particles (k)."
I will call it as " The second law of Thermodynamics."
3
In 1900 Max Planck said:
Clausius and Boltzmann are both right.
But all my life I worked almost exclusively on problems
related to thermodynamics. And I am sure that the " The second
law of Thermodynamics" , concerning entropy, is deeper and it
says more than is generally accepted. I am sure the Boltzmann's
probabilistic /statistical version of "The second law of
Thermodynamics " is not completed, is not final.
Please, look at the graph of the radiation curves of the " black body".
They are very similar to those curves which are calculated
by Maxwell for the velocity (i.e. energy) distribution of gas
molecules in a closed container. Could this black body radiation
problem be studied in the same way as Maxwell's ideal gas....
...electromagnetic waves ? This problem of connection between
radiation of black body and Maxwell's Electrodynamics theory
doesn't give me peace. Maxwell's theory can tell everything
about the emission, absorption and propagation of the radiation,
but nothing about the energy distribution at thermal
equilibrium. What to do? How to be ?
After trying every possible approach using traditional
classical applications of the laws of thermodynamics
I was desperated. And I was forced to consider that the
relation between entropy, Boltzmann's probability version
and Maxwell's theory is possible to solve by suggestion ,
that energy is radiated and absorbed with discrete
individual quanta particle (E= hv). So, now I must write
" The second law of Thermodynamics " by formula:
hv = k log W.
But I was so surprised and sceptical of such interpretation the
entropy that I spent years trying to explain this result
in another , less revolutionary way. It was difficult for me
to accept this formula and to understand it essence .
It was hard for me to believe in my own discovery.
==================..
My conclusion.
How to understand this formula?
Which process does formula (hv = k logW ) describe ?
1.
In 1877 Boltzmann suggested that the energy/mass state
of a physical system (of ideal gas ) could be discreted.
This idea was written with formula: R/N=k. It means:
there are particles with energy/mass state (k) in physical
system of ideal gas . They dont move, they are in the
state of rest.
2.
In 1900 Planck followed Boltzmann's method of dividing.
Planck suggested that energy was radiated and absorbed
with discrete "energy elements" - " quantum of energy"-
- " Planck's action constant"- (h) . Its energy is: E=hv.
3.
In which reference frame does this process take place?
In thermodynamical reference frame of ideal gas and
black body (Laue called this model as Kirchhoff,s vacuum).
Now it is considered that these models are abstract ones which
do not exist in nature. On my opinion these models explain
the situation in the real Vacuum (T=0K) very well.
4.
For my opinion the formula (hv = k logW ) says:
a)
The reason of " entropy" , the source of thermal equilibrium's
fluctuation , the source of Vacuum fluctuation is an action of
the particle /electron, which has energy: E = hv.

The process of Vacuum fluctuation depends on collective
motions of all particles (k) and will be successful if enough
statistical quantity of Boltzmann's particles ( k logW)
surround the electron.
c)
Which process does the formula (hv = k logW ) say about ?
This formula explains the beginning conditions of gravitation,
the beginning conditions of star formation.
( The article of star formation is posted on this site.)
d)
One physicist said :" The entropy is only a shadow of energy“.
Maybe now somebody can understand why entropy is a shadow.
And maybe now somebody will understand why
" The Law of conservation and transformation of energy"
is also correct for thermodynamic system.
===========..
P.S.
It took me only two month to write this brief article.
Plus about three years searching for the key of entropy problem.
Plus about twenty-three years trying to understand the essence
of physical laws and formulas.
==============..
Best wishes.

============================
Vacuum and Gravity.

Now it is considered that Newton / Einstein's laws
of gravitation are basis of physics, the first laws of the Universe.
But the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
is so small (the average density of all substances in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that gravitation
field, as whole, is broken , it doesn't work, as whole, in the Universe.
So, the Newton / Einstein's laws of gravitation are correct only
in the small and local part of Universe and we cannot take them
as the first ones. What can the first law of the Universe be?
All galaxies , all gravitation fields exist in Vacuum (T=0K).
Therefore the Vacuum can be “The first law of the Universe.”
Question:
How can the hot process of star formation in cold Vacuum begin?
===========..
P.S.
Sorry, I forgot that it is possible also to take
a" Big bang" as the first law of Universe,
as the basis of physics. Everything is possible
in the mad Orwell's house.
============================

Entropy. / My opinion./ One comment.

# [A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its
premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and
the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep
impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only
physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that
within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never
be overthrown.

Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, Thermodynamics in Einstein's
Universe, in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509.

# The law that entropy always increases -- the second law of
thermodynamics -- holds I think, the supreme position among the laws
of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the
universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much
worse for Maxwell equations. If it is found to be contradicted by
observation - well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
But if your theory is found to be against the second law of
Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to
collapse in deepest humiliation.

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, in The Nature of the Physical World.
Maxmillan, New York, 1948, p. 74.

As a father of objective information physics your painstaking analysis
of entropy has been a great torment to me. It took you three months
and a lifetime to figure it out and it has been my obsession as well.

Planck resented that entropy could not be taken as a first principle
of the universe and had to eat the fact that is is fully accounted for
by statistical emergence. But the root of his consternation was, I
believe, in that the equation hv = k log W energy and entropy are
shown to be equivalent despite the obvious contradiction.

there is no contradiction that as the internal energy of a system
increases, so does the entropy. The contradiction lies in the basic
principles, energy is considered the ability to do work, and entropy
is the loss of the ability to do work. clearly they must be opposite,
they cannot be the same.

There is a similar discrepancy in Shannon, calling the measure of
information entropy (S) as it echoed the equation, S = k log W. This
issue is, in my view, one of the two good reasons why nobody would
erase "energy=information " from the board as the Santa Fe Institute
for many years. Clearly entropy is the loss of useful information.
Information cannot be the loss of information. They must be opposite.

In classical philosophy this is an undecidable problem, induction does
not serve us, thus our consternation. Static truth cannot explain the
problem. We are forced to resort to dynamical logic to discover the
truth.

I explain this in terms of the information cycle. In dynamical
systems order emerges from a disordered substrate. Information
increases as order emerges. Once the order becomes so complicated
that if is incomprehensible, it becomes disorder relatively in the big
picture and just noise from which simple order emerges becoming more
complex until is becomes noise again.

My issue with hv = k log W is the quantization that it represents,
clearly it is the discrete integer increments of energy that prevents
the ultraviolet catastrophe and accounts for observed spectra. But
most all authors write this a nhv, or an integer n, times Planks
constant, times the frequency. And while the value is clearly very
small why should it be exactly h in satisfaction of human units of
measurement?

It seems to me that nature clearly contradicts the notion that energy
is only present in hv increments. All energy is shown accurately to
be determined by the change in momentum state. We know momentum
states only exist in integer multiples of hbar, h/2pi, the difference
in momentum between any two states. Since double the momentum is four
times the energy, the possible energies are not discrete by a constant
value, but increase in granularity to a singularity at the Plank
energy.

Furthermore, given hbar, h/2pi increments in momentum, and that hbar
represents a single bit of measurable information in the quantum, it
is the natural unit of entropy for physical systems.

It may take me another lifetime to fully comprehend hv = k log W as
each week it offers a new revelation. The anthropic principle is
exhibited for our existence itself, by the simple fact, that pi can
only be approximated and that space time systems in general tend to hv
= k log W, the impossibility of which, insures our increasing
diversity, and negative entropy in our realm, contrernating not only
the spirits of Einstein and Eddington but also that of Aristotle and
Plato.

The simple truth is that nature herself is evidence of the violation
of the second law and Philosophy itself can do nothing but to collapse
in deepest humiliation as the spirit of Socrates laughs, we do not
know what we think we know.

Jim

I have received an email ( comment on my article
Entropy / My opinion / ) from " HFAL"
heronfrancisco@yahoo.com

" about entropia mail "

hi israsad.
I saw your email and thought very good and important.
In the formula that s = klogW, you put entropy like energy..
But if you look to the Clausius inequality you see that entropy is energy
divided per temperature.
So the formula hv = klogW is hv = kT logW I think.
............................................
.........................................
HFAL
===========..
My answer:
The formula hv = klogW --> hv = kT logW
describes the possibility of realization of macro state from
micro state. This formula explains the beginning conditions
of gravitation, the beginning conditions of star formation.
1.
hv = klogW.
hv > kT logW.
hv < kT.
2.
hv --> He II --> He I -->
( P. Kapitza , L. Landau , E.L. Andronikashvili theories).
3.
Plasma reaction... -->
4.
Thermonuclear reactions ...-->......etc.
============..
Best wishes.

Two different opinions about Entropy.
===============================
I have received two emails.
1.
Dear Socratus,
I realize that you sent a brief attempt to describe your search
for understanding of a difficult subject.

I am knowledgeable about Nonequilibrium Superconductivity
from my work in the 1970's. There was a thirty year gap
between my studying Statistical Mechanics in graduate school
and teaching it to upper-level undergraduates. I am teaching
thermodynamics right now as three chapters of an introductory sequence.
........................................
...................................
With the development of quantum mechanics, we have both theory
and experiments that show that E=hf is the energy delivered in
packets by wavelike particles of frequency f.
(The frequency is often written as "nu" which I take to be your "v".)
This energy is a different kind of quantity than Boltzmann's
expression for the entropy S = k_B log(*Omega*).
You should NOT set them equal.
E has units of Joules and S has units of Joules/Kelvin.
(Note the 1/T in the thermodynamic definition of S.)
Don't try to understand a relationship that is not correct!

B. S.
Professor of Physics
Boston University
2.
Dear Israel Sadovnik,
..............................................
....................................................
I am, at this moment, working on a statistical mechanics section of a text.
At the core of this is, of course, the second law.
I learn more about the second law almost my the day.
I find it particularly distasteful when people try to reduce this
to a statement about the number of quantum states,
as American advocates of "Thermal Physics" try to.
.....................................
...........................
C. H.
Professor of Physics
Goshen College
=================....
I want to explain these two classic opinions.


1.
So, B. S. says to me:
The solution of entropy (its reversion: when heat can go from
cold to hot ) is only probabilistic/statistical: S= k log W.
Don't try to understand it in another way.
You should NOT set E=hv (E=hf) equal to the klogW.
Don't try to understand a relationship that is not correct!
In another words B. S. says:
We shall never know what was before: an egg or a hen.
It is only probabilistic/statistical solution.
I don't agree with this opinion. Why?
Take, for example, the " big bang " theory.
According to this theory our Universe exists for 13 ( +)
billion years. But to create a child from a cell (zigota)
in only 280 days according to probabilistic/statistical
theory is not possible. This process will take, maybe,
more then 13 ( +) billion years. So, we can understand
what the pregnant woman was before the " big bang ". And
to answer on the question:" what was before: an egg or a hen ?"
we must only look at the beginning, in the Vacuum.
2.
C. H. hopes that there is a dipper explanation of the Entropy.
My opinion.
In 1915 Einstein has finished his GRT.
In 1916 K. Schwarzschild described gravitational field,
creating with static sphere having constant mass.
In 1963 P. P. Kerr described gravitational field, creating
with static rotating sphere having constant mass.
In 1965 P.P. Kerr and E.T. Newman described gravitational
field, creating with static rotating sphere having constant
mass and electrical charge.
So, when I put E=hv (hf) in the Boltzmann's expression for
the entropy S = k logW (*Omega*) it is not heretical idea.
So, the relationship between hv (hf) and k logW is possible
and correct.
================...
Questions:
1.
What is heat?
Heat is the collective result of mechanical motion
and friction of all the particles .
This process is described with Boltzmann's
probabilistic /statistical formula: S= k log W.
2.
What produces heat?
The energy E=hv (hf) produces heat, setting in mechanical
motion and friction of all particles. This fact is described with
Planck formula: hv = klogW.
3.
Thanks to Entropy the homogeneous Vacuum is broken.
Thanks to Entropy the micro process changes into
macro process.
Thanks to Entropy the stars formation takes place.
Thanks to Entropy the process of creating elements is take place.
Thanks to Entropy the process of evolution is going.
4.
Why is " The second law of Thermodynamics"
so universal? Because it is based on
" The Law of conservation and transformation of energy"
And this law is not the simple accounting solution of debit and credit.
The sense of this law is dipper and it says more than is usually accepted.
========================..
============..
Best wishes.

the big bang was just in our local area. Space is endless and goes on forever in all directions. What ever is mathematical possible , is, because space is endless.

Thanks to: " HFAL", " Bored chemist", Bill Skocpol and
Jim Whitescarver I corrected and wrote this article.

Entropy. / My opinion /.
=======...
1.
Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "
as a " surprising abstract ".
2.
Lev Landau (Dau) wrote:
" A question about the physical basis of the
entropy monotonous increasing law remains open ".
3.
The famous mathematician John von Neumann said to
"the father of information theory" Claude Shannon:
" Name it "entropy" then in discussions
you will receive solid advantage, because
nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".
=============..
1.
Between 1850 - 1865 Rudolf Clausius published a paper
in which he called " The energy conservation law" as
" The first law of thermodynamics". But in our nature the
heat always flows from the higher temperature to the
lower one and never back. In our everyday life we don't see
the heat itself rises from cold to hot. So, it seemed that
in thermodynamics " The energy conservation law"
wasn’t kept, this law was broken. But Clausius had another
opinion. He thought: I know people believe that this process is
irreversible, but I am sure that " The energy conservation law"
is universal law and it must be correct also for thermodynamic
process. So, how can I save this law ?
Probably, in the thermodynamic process there is something
that we don't know. Maybe, there is some degradation
of the total energy in the system which never disappears .
Perhaps, there is some non-useful heat, some unseen process ,
some unknown dark energy , some another form of potential
energy/heat itself which can transform heat from the cold
body to the warm one. I will call this conception as " entropy"
and it will mean that changes of entropy (dS) may be defined
as the ratio of the quantity of energy taken up (dQ) to the
thermodynamic temperature (T), i.e. dS=dQ/T.
And because I don,t know how this process goes I won,t call
it as a law but as " The second principle of thermodynamics "
which says that " the entropy of an isolated system always
increases ". Another version: " No process is possible
in which the only result is the transfer of heat from a
hotter to a colder body. It is possible some reversible
process which is unknown now ."
2.
Between 1870 - 1880 Ludwig Boltzmann said:
" Clausius is right. But I can add more to his entropy conception.
First.
According to Classic physics when an isolated thermodynamic
system comes to a thermal equilibrium all particles stop their
moving. From one hand it is correct. But the system cannot be
at thermal equilibrium (in the state of thermo death) all the time.
The situation in the system must change.
Therefore I say that at the thermal equilibrium the entropy
(some unknown dark/potential energy ) of the system will
reach maximum and as a result , the thermal equilibrium
of the system will change.
Second.
I don't know how exactly the thermal equilibrium of the system
changes. But I can give probabilistic / statistical interpretation
of this changing process. I can write " The second principle of
thermodynamics" by a formula: S= k log W and this formula
says:" the entropy ( heat) of the system is the collective result of
mechanical motion and friction of all the particles (k)."
I will call it as " The second law of Thermodynamics."
3
In 1900 Max Planck said:
Clausius and Boltzmann are both right.
But all my life I worked almost exclusively on problems
related to thermodynamics. And I am sure that the " The second
law of Thermodynamics" , concerning entropy, is deeper and it
says more than is generally accepted. I am sure the Boltzmann's
probabilistic /statistical version of "The second law of
Thermodynamics " is not completed, is not final.
Please, look at the graph of the radiation curves of the " black body".
They are very similar to those curves which are calculated
by Maxwell for the velocity (i.e. energy) distribution of gas
molecules in a closed container. Could this black body radiation
problem be studied in the same way as Maxwell's ideal gas....
...electromagnetic waves ? This problem of connection between
radiation of black body and Maxwell's Electrodynamics theory
doesn't give me peace. Maxwell's theory can tell everything
about the emission, absorption and propagation of the radiation,
but nothing about the energy distribution at thermal
equilibrium. What to do? How to be ?
After trying every possible approach using traditional
classical applications of the laws of thermodynamics
I was desperated. And I was forced to consider that the
relation between entropy, Boltzmann's probability version
and Maxwell's theory is possible to solve by suggestion ,
that energy is radiated and absorbed with discrete
individual quanta particle (E= hv). So, now I must write
" The second law of Thermodynamics " by formula:
hv = k log W.
But if I look to the Clausius inequality I see that entropy
is energy divided per temperature.
So the formula hv = klogW is hv = kT logW I think.

I was so surprised and sceptical of such interpretation the
entropy that I spent years trying to explain this result
in another , less revolutionary way. It was difficult for me
to accept this formula and to understand it essence .
It was hard for me to believe in my own discovery.
==================..
My conclusion.
How to understand this formula?
Which process does formula (hv = kT logW ) describe ?
1.
In 1877 Boltzmann suggested that the energy/mass state
of a physical system (of ideal gas ) could be discreted.
This idea was written with formula: R/N=k. It means:
there are particles with energy/mass state (k) in physical
system of ideal gas . They dont move, they are in the
state of rest.
2.
In 1900 Planck followed Boltzmann's method of dividing.
Planck suggested that energy was radiated and absorbed
with discrete "energy elements" - " quantum of energy"-
- " Planck's action constant"- (h) . This fact means:
electron produces heat, setting in mechanical motion and
friction all particles. This fact is described with Planck's
formula: hv = kTlogW.
3.
In which reference frame does this process take place?
In thermodynamical reference frame of ideal gas and
black body (M. Laue called this model as Kirchhoff,s vacuum).
Now it is considered that these models are abstract ones which
do not exist in nature. On my opinion these models explain
the situation in the real Vacuum (T=0K) very well.
4.
For my opinion the formula (hv = kT logW ) says:
a)
The reason of " entropy" , the source of thermal equilibrium's
fluctuation , the source of Vacuum fluctuation is an action of
the particle /electron, which has energy: E = hv (hf).

The process of Vacuum fluctuation depends on collective
motions of all particles (k) and will be successful if enough
statistical quantity of Boltzmann's particles ( kT logW)
surround the electron.
c)
Which process does the formula (hv = kT logW ) say about ?
This formula describes the possibility of realization of
macro state from micro state. This formula explains
the beginning conditions of gravitation,
the beginning conditions of star formation.
1.
hv = kT logW.
hv > kT logW.
hv < kT.
2.
hv --> He II --> He I -->
( P. Kapitza , L. Landau , E.L. Andronikashvili theories).
(Superconductivity, superfluidity.)
3.
Plasma reaction... -->
4.
Thermonuclear reactions ...-->......etc.

d)
Thanks to Entropy the homogeneous Vacuum is broken.
Thanks to Entropy the micro process changes into
macro process.
Thanks to Entropy the stars formation takes place.
Thanks to Entropy " the ultraviolet catastrophe" is absent.
Thanks to Entropy our Milky Way doesn't change into radiation.
Thanks to Entropy the process of creating elements takes place.
Thanks to Entropy the process of evolution is going.
e)
One physicist said :" The entropy is only a shadow of energy“.
Maybe now somebody can understand why entropy is a shadow.
And maybe now somebody will understand why
" The Law of conservation and transformation of energy"
is also correct for thermodynamic system.
f)
Why is " The second law of Thermodynamics"
so universal? Because it is based on
" The Law of conservation and transformation of energy"
And this law is not the simple accounting solution of debit and credit.
The sense of this law is dipper and it says more than is usually accepted.
===========..
P.S.
It took me about three months to write this brief article.
Plus about three years searching for the key of entropy problem.
Plus about twenty-three years trying to understand the essence
of physical laws and formulas.
==============..
Best wishes.
Israel Socratus.
===========================================
# [A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its
premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and
the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep
impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only
physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that
within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never
be overthrown.
/ Albert Einstein/

# The law that entropy always increases -- the second law of
thermodynamics -- holds I think, the supreme position among the laws
of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the
universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much
worse for Maxwell equations. If it is found to be contradicted by
observation - well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
But if your theory is found to be against the second law of
Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to
collapse in deepest humiliation.
/ Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington /
=========================================...

To: s0cratus

there is the answer on the question - "What is Nothing" and how from Nothing something appears...

- see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 ,V4 (may be useful a couple first pages of V1)

Mr. B. wrote:
If you are looking for support, at most you will find paranoid
and/or confused individuals who want to take shelter in your
us-vs.-them state of mind.

Who is who?
=================....
1.
The speed of Light quantum is constant: c=1,
no matter how the source or the observer moves.
/ Michelson’s experiment. 1881. SRT. 1905. /
2.
But .. .. in every book and textbook is written that
there isn’t absolute speed. For example in the book
“ Relative theory- actual” by Prof. Ernst Schmutzer.
Part 3.2.2.page 122. and
Part 3.2.4. page 130.

Another book “Relativity for the layman”
By James A. Coleman.
Part 3 pages 47 -48

Another book “The materialistic essence of Einstein’s
Relative theory” by Mostepanenko M. B.
Page 37.

Another book “ Einstein and development of physical/
mathematical thought.” by Science Academy of
USSR. Article “ Physics and Relative theory”
by M. Born. On the pages 74 and 81.
And article “ Relative theory and some questions
about the optic of moving bodies” by Francfurt U. I.
and Frenk A.M. Page 224: “ Relative theory
doesn’t know absolute moving”.
etc….
3.
From the school days I cannot understand how
it is possible to say that the speed of photon is
absolute constant c=1 and in the same time to say :
“ All motion is relative (hence ,the theory of relativity).
We can never speak of absolute motion as such,…..”
…etc.
Maybe somebody can explain me this paradox.
==========..
It is very difficult to prove the correctness
in our Orwell's mad house.

====================...
Best wishes.
Israel.

Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
--------------------.
The Classic Physics was started from two points:
thermodynamics and light.
1.
By studying the effect of thermodynamics, physicists came to the
opinion that the physical parameters like volume, temperature and
density (of particles mass) are enough to discover the laws of
thermodynamics, and they didn’t need to know something
concrete about single particle. But then, soon or later, all mass of this
particles will stop it’s moving and the thermal/ radiation death
will come. Is it possible? No, it isn’t , some particles will radiate
and then QT evolved from this idea. Now the situation radically change.
From studying mass of particles in thermodynamics Planck and Einstein
began to study one individual particle (quantum of energy). It seams that
it was logical to think about geometrical form of this particle, but this
did not happen. And still now physicists do not think about concrete
particles, they are concerned about the “mathematical point”.
2.
When physicists studied the behavior of light, they came to the
conclusion that light ( light quanta) can sometime be a particle as a
“ mathematical point” and sometime a wave as a “ mathematical
wave". From behavior of light the SRT was born and here the particle
is also “ mathematical point”. It is hard to understand, why nobody think
about geometrical form of light quanta if it is real particle.
3.
For many years, physicists used Euclidian (static and firm ) geometry
for solving physical problems, and they thought there was only one geometry.
But Lobachevsky and Bolyai had another opinion.
They thought that to use only Euclidian geometry was not enough to
explain all the effects in the Universe. Why, because our Universe is not
static and firm. The physical processes in Universe change all the time
so the Euclidian geometry also has to change. This lead Lobachevsky and
Bolyai to discover Non-Euclidian geometry which is not static but elastic.
4.
Between the XIX and XX century, many physicists such Abraham,
Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein came to the conclusion that the particle
(electron) does not have constant mass, energy and length. This means
that an electron is not a firm particle. The electron is an elastic particle
and therefore his geometrical form can change. All physicists know about
this fact and took this fact in their calculations. But which conclusion can
be done from this fact? They have no answer. Nobody interested about
the borders of this changes.
5.
In 1915 Einstein said the mass and speed (moving mass) can change the
geometry of space. (GRT). It means the physics without geometry is a
limited part of science. It means the physics without geometry is not
complete (whole) part of science.
6.
The situation we see today is similar to the years between 1900 and
1928 when QT was created. Nothing changes.
Mathematicians use Non- Euclidian geometry and they do not know
the power of these changes from Euclidian to Non-Euclidian geometry.
They do not interested how these changes came.
And physicists use forces (energy, impulse, …etc) without know
anything about geometrical changes of particles. They do not think about
this. For them the particle is only represented by a “mathematical point”.
After all, they say the situation in QT is crazy, the Nature is paradoxical.
I know why they say this, because one hand “physical” doesn’t know that
the other hand “geometrical” does.
7.
Can we understand our “ paradoxical” world?
The answer is clear. In the Natural world, physics and geometry
are one unit part in the evolutionary process, and this fact must be
reflected in any future theory of the evolution of matter (as a mass
an as a individual particle).
8.
There are two ways to reflect this process.
One way explained by Einstein in GRT as a man who observed
the situation from outside.
Another way can be explained by Lobachevsky / Bolyai geometry
using it in conjunction with the inner (!) impulse of Planck-Einstein (h)
and the inner (!) impulse of Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck (h=h/2pi)..

Questions:
1) Where does the Planck/Einstein factor h come from?
2) Where does the Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck factor h=h/2pi come from?
3) What is the physical difference between h and h=h/2pi in the Nature.
4) Can the process of evolution go without geometrical changes?
Without the physical/ geometrical theory we cannot answer these questions.
-----------------------.
The Natural world is not a “mathematical point”.
Even the smallest object must have a geometrical form.
And on my opinion, only when we begin to think about light quanta as
a particle with a geometrical form we come from image to reality.
===================..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik /Socratus,

Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything .
====================.
Could the vacuum contain dark energy, gravity particles,
and frictionless gears?
by Tim Folger
published online July 18, 2008

When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void.

http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-no...y-of-everything

There are two kinds of spaces and time:
Relative and Absolute.
1.
One is the Newtonian space.
The space on our planet – Earth is Newtonian space and it
has 3-D, On our planet – Earth the space is an
independent structure and time is an independent factor.
It is possible to say:
“ If we take Descartes coordinates ( Newtonian space )
plus time, then we live in the 4-D = 3-D space + 1-D time.
But that is important that the mathematical calculation with
space and time is possible to do separately, independently.
Time can be separated from the space.

Our planet Earth has its own time and its own space
and for us they are absolute.
But according to SRT and GRT the space and the time are
relative substance. Then we have question:
“ Where does the Newtonian space and time came from ? “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time_and_space

2.
There is another space: negative four-dimensional
Minkowski space, which combines the dimension
of time with the three dimensions of space. This space is
absolute different from Newtonian space because mathematical
calculation with space and time must be done only unrequited.
Time cannot be separated from the space.
Herman Minkowski said about this spacetime continuum:
“ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will
preserve an independent reality.”
Question. What is the “a kind of union of the two “?
There are many abstract mathematical constructions ( models)
that try to explain the Minkowski space , but nobody knows
what really Minkowski space is .
Nobody knows if Minkowski space is infinity or limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

3.
In Wikipedia we can read:
“ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well defined,
resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of space,
how can we characterize either? “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

4.
My opinion about Minkowski spacetime continuum.

4-D Minkowski space is part of SRT.
The SRT is a real theory. But " 4-D Minkowski space "
is an abstract theory. There isn't any proof of its existence.
And if we mix these two theories then we are surprised
with its paradox. What does the man usually do in such
situation? It is clear, he must understand what
“ 4-D Minkowski space " is. It is impossible SRT to be the
right theory and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D Minkowski
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real
interpretation to “ 4-D Minkowski space ".
==============..
I say that “ 4-D Minkowski space " is Vacuum.
Why?
1.
Minkowski space has no gravity field, but has negative
parameter. And only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
but has negative thermal parameter.
2.
The negative parameter is united with space/ time , which are
joined together absolutely and this unit we can see only in Vacuum .
3.
The second SRT postulate tells about constant moving
light quanta in Vacuum. In another words the SRT must be
connected with Vacuum and the SRT processes must go in Vacuum.
I don’t know why the physicists scorn this fact.
======================.

Which does negative thermal parameter have Vacuum?
a)
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single point”.
The answer is : EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
b)
Once there was a “Big Bang”. But in what space had the Big Bang
taken place and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
c)
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
and its temperature will decrease. What temperature can this radiation
reach? Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
d)
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-29 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law ( as to whole Universe )
doesn't work. The Newton/ Einstein's gravitation laws are correct only
in the local parts of Vacuum. The Universe / Vacuum as a whole
must be endless .
3.
And when the Infinity comes nobody knows what to do
with the infinity.
One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely
on a straight line, never encountering any barrier.
The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the
numbers infinitely (atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3,
… … … etc, always adding one point to the number already counted.
G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.
Hegel thought, that in contrast to " bad" should exist also the
“Reasonable infinity “. By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY
should be something positive and concrete.
At the same time he demanded to specify the following:
a) A сconnection between the infinite and the concrete.
b) A сconnection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality.
c) To explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and
the concreteness.
For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order
to explain this interrelation. But Hegel would like to find more rational,
scientific explanation.
And how does the modern science refer to this question?
The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing to a scientists.
They do not understand how they could draw any real, concrete
conclusions from these characteristics. A notions of "more", "less",
"equally, "similar" could not be conformed to a word infinity
or eternity. The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the infinity/eternity
defies to a physical and mathematical definition and cannot be considered
in real processes. Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities, all intellectual energy
to the elimination of infinity. Useless work.
Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY? Yes. It is possible.
It is Vacuum which /who can create “ virtual particles”.
================.
Of course it is very hard to take that the Universe is infinite.
And this infinity is REASONABLE INFINITY.
It is no easy matter to give up a lifetime of habit.
But Every epoch has its own delusion. For example:
Maxwell and Boltzmann tried to explain electromagnetic
Fields using balls, wheels, cog-wheels, springs…etc. H. Hertz,
who demonstrated the existence of the electromagnetic waves,
wrote that the electromagnetic waves didn’t have practice use. Etc….
Now we try to compare electron/photon abilities with “ trains “,
“ ships”, “balls”, “ astronauts “ and “twins’ ” opportunities.
It is mistaken, but what to do? We do it because this is our way
of cognition: ” From vague wish to the bright thought”.
================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

On Aug 25, 3:27 am, socratus <israel...@bezeqint.net> wrote:

I say that “ 4-D Minkowski space " is Vacuum.
Why?
1.
Minkowski space has no gravity field, but has negative
parameter. And only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
but has negative thermal parameter.
2.
The negative parameter is united with space/ time , which are
joined together absolutely and this unit we can see only in Vacuum .
3.
The second SRT postulate tells about constant moving
light quanta in Vacuum. In another words the SRT must be
connected with Vacuum and the SRT processes must go in Vacuum.
I don’t know why the physicists scorn this fact.
======================.

Comment by Sue….suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au
===============.

You are re-inventing the wheel. But at least it is not
a square wheel.
<<One of the more fascinating approaches to
“quantum gravity” is the suggestion, typically
attributed to Sakharov, that gravity itself may
not be “fundamental physics”. Indeed it is now a
relatively common opinion, maybe not mainstream but
definitely a strong minority opinion, that gravity
(and in particular the whole notion of spacetime
and spacetime geometry) might be no more “fundamental”
than is fluid dynamics. The word “fundamental” is
here used in a rather technical sense - fluid
mechanics is not fundamental because there is a
known underlying microphysics, that of molecular
dynamics, of which fluid mechanics is only the
low-energy low-momentum limit. Indeed the very
concepts of density and velocity field, which
are so central to the Euler and continuity equations,
make no sense at the microphysical level and emerge only
as one averages over timescales and distance-scales
larger than the mean free time and mean free path.
In the same way, it is plausible (even though no
specific and compelling model of the relevant
microphysics has yet emerged) that the spacetime
manifold and spacetime metric might arise only once
one averages over suitable microphysical degrees
of freedom. >>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl.../articlesu25....
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
--Matt Visser
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Sue...
======================..

========================..
6.3 Emergent gravity

One of the more fascinating approaches to “quantum gravity” is the suggestion, typically attributed to Sakharov [332 , 393 ],
that gravity itself may not be “fundamental physics”. ( !!! )


http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...ml#x34-720006.3
===================.

How can“ The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass” be keeping?
=================

Higgs boson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
and
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...10/1357334.aspx

It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed.
An experimental observation of it would help to explain
how otherwise massless elementary particles cause matter to have mass.

Question:
How can “ The law of conservation and transformation
energy/ mass” be keeping if the mass was zero before?
=============.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

Fermilab and symmetry breaking
Source:
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/10/08/ fermilab-and-symmetry-breaking/

My comment.
Quotations from: Fermilab and symmetry breaking

Yoichiro Nambu, Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa won the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on symmetry breaking in the world of elementary particles and forces.
Nambu’s formulation of symmetry breaking allows physicists to explain why there is matter in the universe,
while the work of Kobayashi and Maskawa provides the theoretical tools to explain why the universe contains no antimatter.
When physicists discuss symmetries, they refer to things that appear identical.
Symmetry breaking is a way of explaining why things look different from each other.
=========.
Sadovnik.
How is possible to speak about antimatter if nobody knows what antimatter is?
==========.
From the combination of spontaneous symmetry breaking and electroweak
unification comes an exciting prediction: a new particle called the Higgs boson.
The Higgs is the hammer that breaks the symmetry and gives different particles
different masses.
===============.
Sadovnik.
Does “the combination of spontaneous symmetry” describe
Physical or pure Mathematical process?
Does anybody find “ the Higgs boson “?
=========.

Currently, close to a thousand physicists from around the world are searching
for the Higgs boson in collisions produced by the Tevatron accelerator at Fermilab.
Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa formulated a mechanism to explain symmetry breaking between matter and antimatter, typically called CP violation.
===============.
Sadovnik.
This mechanism explains symmetry breaking between {matter and antimatter),
Between things which we don’t know.
==========.
In 1963, Nicola Cabibbo made a modification to Enrico Fermi’s theory of the weak interactions to explain the observed decay rates of heavy quarks into light quarks. Cabibbo showed that the strength of the weak force differs for different quarks.
Kobayashi and Maskawa expanded upon these ideas and made further modifications to allow for a difference in the interactions between quarks and those between antiquarks.
The combined picture, the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, describes all the interactions of quarks.
The CKM picture of the universe allows for the difference in the behavior of matter and antimatter that allowed matter to survive after the Big Bang, while antimatter disappeared from the universe.
================.
Sadovnik.
Nobody saw quark.

Comment:
Years ago, I attended a lecture at Caltech by Gell-Mann in which he
explained why he developed the THEORY of the quark. He was looking for
a common denomenator to the atomic zoo -- a common denominator of
characteristics. He found some (3) and didn't know what they really
were so he called them Quarks. Later he found more, so he had 6. From
there the theory grew like topsey and develped colors -- BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY WERE. Some theory.
(Then there's "up" "down" --- and I'm waiting for "sideways" :-) )
The quark has never been isolated. So instead of admitting there was no
such thing, it was pronounced that it could not escape the nucleus. How
convenient..
Bill uses as an argument that the rest of humanity believes in the
quark. Humanity believed in Ptolemy's universe for FOURTEEN CENTURIES.
And more recently, practically all of humanity celebrated New Year 2000
as the beginning of a new milleniuim while the FACT is the new
millenium started with the year 2001.
"Humanity" can be very stupid at times.
A more apropos story for the non-existent quarks is the fable about the
King who wore no clothes. Everybody commented on how COLORFUL his
clothes were (the same colors as have quarks) but, alas, the king was
naked.
If anyone wants to read a theory of the sub-particle structure of the
universe, they can go to http://www.wbabin.net (The General Science
Journal) --find the list of authors pull down -- click on Vertner
Vergon and read the monograph, "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity".

VERGON

Is “the Big Bang “ real, complete theory?
================.
Besides helping to explain the absence of antimatter, Kobayashi and Maskawa’s
theories make many other predictions that experimental discoveries
at Fermilab have shown to be true.
The KM mechanism predicted the existence of a third generation of elementary particles.
Of the particles in this third generation, 75 percent have been discovered at Fermilab: the bottom quark, the top quark, and the tau neutrino.
==========.
Sadovnik.
So, we must search new “a third generation of elementary particles. “
My opinion.

In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists
to enlarge the target. Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping
to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with
the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not
relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature.
But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure
of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
========= .. ========.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
========== .. ===============.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
========== . ======== .
The Nature works very economical.
For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in
accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 )
proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature.
All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends - antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…etc)
are dead end of evolution.
============.
What was before - “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “
Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator.
They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction
between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the
“big bang”. They didn’t make this process in the reverse.
So, what was prior in the Universe: “ big bang” or vacuum?
===========================..
The Universe as whole is Vacuum, first of all.
========.

In 1964, Cronin and Fitch discovered CP violation in K mesons. The KM mechanism, formulated to explain Cronin and Fitch’s discovery, also predicted still further differences in the way matter and antimatter relate to each other. This led to the discovery of a new type of CP violation in kaons at Fermilab and to the discovery of matter-antimatter oscillations in Bs mesons at the Tevatron. Another prediction pointed to a new way to produce heavy particles, a mechanism also discovered at Tevatron experiments through the observation of single top quarks.
As in the case of matter generation, physicists expect to find the Higgs boson at the heart of matter–antimatter asymmetry. With a lot of work and a little luck, the Higgs boson may be the next great discovery at Fermilab to grow out of the work of these latest Nobel laureates and many other great physicists of our times.
===================.
Sadovnik.
Now mathematics goes ahead of science and physics follows it.
Mathematicians carry the posters:“Forward to abstraction”,
“Forward to the absurd” and we all follow them.
We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.
================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

Dr. Nambu's work is very interesting.
The following discussion is from the New York Times:

Ever since Galileo, physicists have been guided in their quest for the ultimate laws of nature by the search for symmetries, or properties of nature that appear the same under different circumstances. “It’s the lamppost we search under,” said Michael Turner, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago.
One example of an obvious symmetry is a snowflake, which looks the same when you rotate it one-sixth of a turn. Another is Einstein’s theory of relativity, which says the laws of physics are the same no matter what speed. However, in the 1960s, Dr. Nambu, inspired by studies of superconductivity, suggested that some symmetries in the laws of elementary particle physics might be hidden, or “broken” in actual practice. “You have to look for symmetries even when you can’t see them,” Dr. Turner said.
The principle of symmetry breaking is now embedded in all of modern particle physics. The $8 billion Large Hadron Collider, a giant particle accelerator soon to go into operation outside Geneva, was designed largely to find a particle known as the Higgs boson, which is theorized to be responsible for breaking the symmetry between electromagnetism and the so-called weak nuclear force, imparting mass to many particles that in theory are massless.
Imagine a pencil balanced on its point on a table — one of physicists’ favorite examples. To the pencil while it is still on its point, all directions along the table are the same. But the standing pencil is unstable and will eventually fall onto the table pointing in only one direction.
Applying this notion to a puzzle in the subatomic realm, Dr. Nambu explained why a particle known as the pion, which carries the strong nuclear force that holds atomic nuclei together, was much lighter than the protons and neutrons inside it. If it were not so light, the strong force would not extend far enough to stick nuclei heavier than hydrogen together, said Daniel Friedan, a physicist at Rutgers.
The fact that the pion is light, he said, explains why there is a variety of atoms in the world. “There is a variety of atoms because there is a variety of nuclei,” Dr. Friedan wrote in an e-mail message.
In 1972, Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Maskawa, extending work by the Italian physicist Nicola Cabibbo, showed that if there were three generations of the elementary particles called quarks, the constituents of protons and neutrons, the principle of symmetry breaking would explain a puzzling asymmetry known as CP violation.
At the time, only three kinds of quarks were known: the up and down quarks, which make up most ordinary matter, and the strange quark. In 1974, the so-called charmed quarks were discovered. The last pair, the bottom and top quarks, were discovered in 1977 and 1994, completing the three generations of two quarks each predicted by Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Maskawa.
The CP violation — C and P stand for charge and parity, or “handedness” — was discovered in 1964 by the American physicists James W. Cronin and Val L. Fitch — a discovery that also won a Nobel Prize. Until then, physicists had assumed that exchanging positive for negative and left-handed for right-handed in the equations of elementary particles would result in the same answer.
The fact that nature operates otherwise, physicists hope, is a step toward explaining why the universe is made of matter and not antimatter, one of the questions that the Large Hadron Collider is also designed to explore.
=======================

Comment by Ivan Gorelik.
====================
What will LHC give us: the particle of God, or magnetic trap of Devil?

Magnetic trap is an axial-symmetric magnetic analogue of a black hole.
It is 10^36 stronger than gravitational black hole.
CERNs specialists do not know about the magnetic trap yet. If
microscopic magnetic trap will be made in CERN's LHC, the Earth will
be transformed into an infinitely thin emptiness, surrounded by
circular current of 6 meter radius. Compare: Schwarzschild radius of
such mass is 0,009 meters.


Minimal possible magnetic trap has mass, which is equivalent to 1 TeV,
or about 1055 masses of neutrons. It has magnetic field, which is
equal to 3*10^16 teslas. Magnetic trap is a magnetic dipole, which can
be imagined as an infinitely thin coil, creating the critical magnetic
field.
Neutrons are smallest neutral magnets and they can be captured by
magnetic trap, ejecting neutrino. Protons are also magnets and they
can also be captured by the trap, ejecting positrons. Neutrons and
protons are fermions, but after neutrino or positron ejection, they
become bosons, - the quanta of stationery magnetic field of neutron
hole.
Half of mass of captured particles goes to the energy of ejected
particles, and the second half goes to the magnetic trap’s magnetic
field. As a result of particle capture the radius of magnetic trap
becomes bigger. It looks as widespreading magnetic soliton.
If magnetic trap of Devil will be made on collider, if the process of
it’s growth will be slow (months, years), you will cry from pane, and
your aggression towards big-bangers, who had made the experiment, will
be much more, than mine aggression now. You will want to cut sir
Hawking and other crazy big-bangers on small pieces.


Now I am forced to convince the prosecutor’s department to open the
criminal case against Rubakov V.A. If you will make the same in your
countries against arrant big-bangers, we will survive. Otherwise we’ll
die, with probability about 50%.


Only crazy people can try to create particles with the rest mass more
then 1000 masses of nucleon. It is possible that in the region from
1000 to 7000 aum, there can be created hundreds types of particles and
resonances. It is clear, that the most of them will decay. But some of
them will grow, capturing the ordinary matter.


Different types of growing particles will work on different forces,
and on combinations of forces.
I hope that mBHs, connected by gravity force, are impossible and safe.
But magnetic traps are 10^36 stronger, and they are the most probable
candidates to explain the majority of cosmic catastrophes – novae,
supernovae... I had understood this only this September.
Academician Migdal wrote 30 years ago about pion condensation in
strong fields. As a result he had come to conclusion that neutron
stars can have any masses. My approximate computation shows that the
minimal possible neutron star has a mass, equal to 1055 masses of
nucleons, and such embryo of neutron star can by made in collider.


A month ago the article were published that new strange unexpected
particle was discovered at Tevatron. It decays at several muons, up to
eight units. Somebody had already named it the Halloween particle. I
named it the muon hole.


What will be made the next, the magnetic trap of Devil? It will not
decay, but it will transform us into it’s magnetic field.


Those persons, with high ranks and high scientific degrees, who cry
about the safety of LHC must be arrested now, because they are
committing the global terrorist crime now.


Stop Tevatron and close the LHC. Throw out big-bangers from
universities. Big Bang never was. The Universe is ever young.


Hubble constant (H, Hbar) is the mirror reflection of Plank constant
(h, hbar). These both constants are describing the 4d-rotation on
opposite scales relatively us. Precise value of Hubble constant you
can find on my web-site. http://darkenergy.narod.ru/ That is my Steady
State model of Universe. I worked with this model more than 30 years,
and I did not receive any cent for my work. And now big-bangers want
to kill me, my children, and all of you. Big-bangers want to touch the
particle of God, but thus, they lead all of us into the magnetic trap
of Devil.

/ Ivan Gorelik /.
==========================

Where does the mass of the particle come from?

Now the physicists use the Higgs mechanism to give all the
elementary particles masses.

The mechanism requires the Higgs field to be nonzero in the vacuum,
exactly like spontaneous symmetry breaking. In this case, the broken
symmetry is gauged, meaning that the field which fills all of space,
the Higgs condensate, is charged. Gauge fields become massive
when there is a charged condensate, this is called superconductivity.

/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism /

My comment.
1.
We have Vacuum.
The Vacuum is the homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
The Vacuum is also the homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
The question is: “ How can the homogeneous Vacuum be broken?”.
2.
If the Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space, so according
to the Quantum Theory it must contains only
the physical - quantum - energetic particles. We named them
“ virtual particles”. The “ virtual particles” is not a “ pure
philosophical concept “ that is never observed in practice.
The Quantum Theory says that :
“ Its effects can be observed in various phenomena
(such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the
van der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought
to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe
on cosmological scales. “

/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy /.

3.
Question:
How can “ the virtual particles” change the homogeneous Vacuum?

The Higgs mechanism. !!!???

In 1964 Higgs had “one big idea”, which could hold a clue
to how matter in the universe got its mass in the billionth
of a second after the Big Bang.
Higgs eventually came up with his theory of the Higgs boson,
a boson that gives mass to all other subatomic particles that
happen to interact with it in a ‘Higgs field’.
The more they interact, the heavier they become.
And the ones that don’t interact don’t gather mass.
The theory could not only throw further light on the creation
of the universe, but also help explain the shape of it.
At the European Centre for Nuclear Research
(CERN) in Switzerland the protons will be smashed against
each other at great speed and as result the first Higgs boson
- nicknamed the ‘God particle’ will actually observe .
#
In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists
to enlarge the target. Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping
to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with
the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not
relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature.
But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure
of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
========= .. ========.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
========== .. ===============.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
========== . ======== .
The Nature works very economical.
For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in
accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 )
proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature.
All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends - antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…etc)
are dead end of evolution.
============.
What was before - “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “
Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator.
They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction
between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the
“big bang”. They didn’t make this process in the reverse.
So, what was prior in the Universe: “ big bang” or vacuum?

#
The Higgs mechanism can be considered as the superconductivity
in the Vacuum.
/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism /


My question:
How can “ the natural virtual particles” create superconductivity
space in Vacuum?
On my opinion this process in Vacuum connected with
gravity’s creation, with star’s creation.
===========================..
Question:
How can the homogeneous Vacuum be broken without using
“ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “ (not by compulsions )
but using “the natural virtual particles” ?

On my opinion to solve this problem we must understand
only three thing:
1.
What Vacuum is
2.
That physical and geometrical parameters have
“the natural virtual particles” in Vacuum.
3.
What „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to “ the natural virtual particles” .
============ . .
P.S.
Many years M. Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls
in area of absolutely black body ( Kirchhoff’s Vacuum
radiation /Max Laue / ) and does not radiate back,
then “ terminal dead “ comes. In order to save the
quantum of light from death Planck decided that
it is possible that quantum of light will radiate this
quantum of light back with quantum unit h=Et.
Physicists say, that Planck’s unit is one: h=1.
Having this unit h=1 photon flies with speed c=1.
This unit doesn’t come from formulas or equations.
Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced unit h phenomenologically
So, where does the Planck’s constant ( h) come from?
#
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have
no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture
that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. ”
(Feynman. 1987)
============ . .

A little more about superconductivity.

#
The Higgs mechanism can be considered as the superconductivity
in the Vacuum.
/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism /


My question:
How can “ the natural virtual particles” create superconductivity
space in Vacuum?
My answer:
Because “ the natural virtual particles” itself is energetic particles
and they create the superconductivity space therefore we are surprise
to see that this space haven’t electrical resistance.
And on my opinion this process in Vacuum connected with
gravity’s creation, with star’s creation.
===========================..

#
God has to be a real fool to think
that the >99% Hidden Universe
has no control of his <1% Visible Universe. And if he
knew this then he would not be a god but a physicist.

And if he was a smart physicist he would be laughing
at just how much less than 1% a universe really needs
to appear really real.
/ O'no /
===============