Pages: 1, 2

s0cratus
The Structure of Nothing . Socratus.
The Structure of Nothing . According to my peasant logic: 1 + 1 = 2.
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”.
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.
* * *
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.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests in relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and 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 .
Everyone knows about the “singular point”, but nobody knows that it is
EMPTINESS- NOTHING! To understand it, it is necessary to ask a question:
What geometric and physical parameters can particles have in T=0K?
Can they have a volume?
No.
Then they must have the geometrical form of a flat circle: C/D =p= 3,14.
But what these particles do ?
Nothing.
They are in a condition of rest: h = 0. So, maybe they are dead?
In order to answer of this question, it is necessary to more clearly understand
EMPTINESS- NOTHING.
* * *
Has this EMPTINESS- NOTHING a border? No! It has no borders.
EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indefinite. Let's identify it by the formula: T=0K = ∞
And what about time in the EMPTINESS- NOTHING ?
Independent time is absent.
Time in EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indissolubly merged with infinite space.
Stop!
But you see, such space is described by Einstein in Special Relativity Theory.
In SRT, space also has a negative characteristic and there also,
time is indissolubly merged with space.
Only in SRT, this EMPTINESS- NOTHING has another name:
Negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space.
Then it is possible to conclude that SRT describes the behaviour
of the circle-particles in T=0K.
* * *
In agreement with SRT, these circle-particles can be in two conditions of movement:
To fly rectilinearly with a speed of c =1.
In this kind of movement , it is named a “quantum of light”, ”photon”.
2) To rotate around its own diameter and then its form and
physical parameters will change according to the Lorentz transformation.
In this kind of movement, it is named the “electron”.
* * *
But what is the reason for the movement of circle-particles?
In the EMPTINESS- NOTHING, nothing can influence the condition of rest.
Quantum theory gives the answer to this question.
1) The rectilinear movement of the circle-particles depends
on Planck's spin :h = 1.
2) The rotary movement of the circle-particles depends on the spin
of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: ħ = h / 2p.
* * *
Very strange particles surround the "singular point ".
These circle-particles can be in three conditions:
1) h = 0 ,
2) h = 1,
3) ) ħ = h / 2p
And they can independently decide what action to take.
So it can work only with particles that have their own consciousness,
which is not static but can develop.
The development of consciousness scale goes " from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
* * *
Best regards.
Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
"If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of time,
it should also be related to points in space:
the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time points."
from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979).
Guest
boaring
reality
is boaring actually boring with horns!!
what
QUOTE (s0cratus+Aug 7 2005, 03:06 PM)
The Structure of Nothing . Socratus.
The Structure of Nothing . According to my peasant logic: 1 + 1 = 2.
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?.
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.
* * *
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.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests in relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and 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 .
Everyone knows about the ?singular point?, but nobody knows that it is
EMPTINESS- NOTHING! To understand it, it is necessary to ask a question:
What geometric and physical parameters can particles have in T=0K?
Can they have a volume?
No.
Then they must have the geometrical form of a flat circle: C/D =p= 3,14.
But what these particles do ?
Nothing.
They are in a condition of rest: h = 0. So, maybe they are dead?
In order to answer of this question, it is necessary to more clearly understand
EMPTINESS- NOTHING.
* * *
Has this EMPTINESS- NOTHING a border? No! It has no borders.
EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indefinite. Let's identify it by the formula: T=0K = ?
And what about time in the EMPTINESS- NOTHING ?
Independent time is absent.
Time in EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indissolubly merged with infinite space.
Stop!
But you see, such space is described by Einstein in Special Relativity Theory.
In SRT, space also has a negative characteristic and there also,
time is indissolubly merged with space.
Only in SRT, this EMPTINESS- NOTHING has another name:
Negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space.
Then it is possible to conclude that SRT describes the behaviour
of the circle-particles in T=0K.
* * *
In agreement with SRT, these circle-particles can be in two conditions of movement:
To fly rectilinearly with a speed of c =1.
In this kind of movement , it is named a ?quantum of light?, ?photon?.
2) To rotate around its own diameter and then its form and
physical parameters will change according to the Lorentz transformation.
In this kind of movement, it is named the ?electron?.
* * *
But what is the reason for the movement of circle-particles?
In the EMPTINESS- NOTHING, nothing can influence the condition of rest.
Quantum theory gives the answer to this question.
1) The rectilinear movement of the circle-particles depends
on Planck's spin :h = 1.
2) The rotary movement of the circle-particles depends on the spin
of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: ? = h / 2p.
* * *
Very strange particles surround the "singular point ".
These circle-particles can be in three conditions:
1) h = 0 ,
2) h = 1,
3) ) ? = h / 2p
And they can independently decide what action to take.
So it can work only with particles that have their own consciousness,
which is not static but can develop.
The development of consciousness scale goes " from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
* * *
Best regards.
Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
"If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of time,
it should also be related to points in space:
the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time points."
from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979).

some peasant!!can you put it in peasant terms!!or ya just bein condescendin!
Guest
THere are two forms of nothingness that many people get confused with. The first one is nothingness in our space which isnt truly nothingness considering quantom mechanics and the uncertainty principle. The other nothingness is what is out of the limits of the universe. How I see it is every particle or any piece of anything caries with it the laws and rules of space therefor whereever it is, space is, so anything inside the nothingness would create space inside the nothingness.
Justavian
I read an interesting book a while back by Brian Greene (the same guy that did Elegant Universe) called "The Fabric of the Cosmos". Although it's geared towards the layman, it is has a generous amount of endnotes that discuss the math, or point you to other books and publications that will go into more detail.

As the title implies, most of the book is devoted to discussions of what the structure of space is. I found it fascinating, because i had never read any good discussions about the fabric of spacetime at the very smallest possible scales.

Well worth reading, and it seems to be relevant to this topic...
I have red a lot of old phisics from around a 100 years ago and they belived nothing was full of Ether. It wories me that to meny of todays sientists do moor maths than exsperiments. If ther is an all permeating Ether and mater and subatomic particals are all some kind of vibration or swirl in the Ether them mater in theary could be created out of thin nothing as it were if the right stimulouse is provided. Then the question would be what could stimulate the Either???
Scribe 1of11
[QUOTE=s0cratus,Aug 7 2005, 03:06 PM] The Structure of Nothing . Socratus.
The Structure of Nothing . According to my peasant logic: 1 + 1 = 2.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, .....
Scribe 1of11
QUOTE (s0cratus+Aug 7 2005, 03:06 PM)
The Structure of Nothing . Socratus.
The Structure of Nothing . According to my peasant logic: 1 + 1 = 2.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter ......

EMPTINESS-NOTHING is that which is beyond human comprehension. That is why religion was invented.
Scribe 1of11
QUOTE (Mad kite+Aug 10 2005, 09:35 PM)
... Then the question would be what could stimulate the Either??? [ether]

Personally, I believe that because we live inside human bodies, we are "hung up" on cause-and-effect relationships and relativity between objects (possibly where Einstein got his deep thinking). So, we cannot comprehend the existence of absolute nothingness, that which logically never existed before anything ever existed. Only people totally lost in religion or madness seem to be able to truthfully say "I see the point"...
Good Elf
Nothingness is Liebestraume. Liebestraume is good. Man was made to fill the void. Without man, God and his Creation are empty.

Whom does the Grail serve?.... The Grail serves the one who serves.
s0cratus
As everyone knows, GOD has created ALL.
But to create this ALL – GOD could only working in an absolute reference system
and only under physical and mathematical laws.
Now let us consider that the absolute reference system is the cosmic
microwave background radiation T = 2,7K. What particles can be in this system?
Dirac said - "antiparticles".
Quantum physics - " virtual particles ".
Astrophysics - " latent, invisible particles ", “dark- mass”.
This “dark- mass” is supposed to comprise 90 % (and more) of the matter in the Universe.
Does anybody in the world know if the “dark- mass”," virtual particles ",
"antiparticles" have volume?
No, they do not.
Hence - they are flat, invisible ghosts.
How can these flat, virtual ghost can turn in real particles?
There are two points of view:
1) with the help of " Mechanism Higgsa ".
2) under influence of "spin".
There are two kinds of spin:
a) Spin of Planck h.
Spin of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck ħ= h /2.
These two kinds of “spin” created two various kinds of movement.
Therefore, if we understand, it is the " Mechanism Higgsa ", that is the "spin",
we shall understand how GOD could create ALL.
We shall then understand the interrelation between the Science and Religion.
* * *
There cannot be a conflict between the science and religion.
Religion without the scientific proof - is not persuasive.
Science which does not take into account religious bases - is hasty.
Guest
I'm sorry socrates but if your adding god to ur massive amount of words it may be wise to put "I think" or "I believe" somewhere in there.
s0cratus
About Reference Systems: Vacuum and Space.

From times of Newton in classical physics the principle worked:
" Until the reference system is specified, any conversations on movement
are completely deprived the contents."
Newton, first of all physicists realized, what a main role a reference system has.
The choice of reference system is a central, basic question at the commencement of any task
But the founders of the “Big Bang” theory have forgotten this.
Nowhere do they write in what reference system the "Big Bang" took place,
and in what reference system the substance of the "single point " is distributed.
And consequently, the theory of the "Big Bang" is constructed on a sand.
* * *
The astronomers have established the fact of galaxy rotation
but nobody speaks of the reference system in which they rotate.
Without the inclusion of a reference system the rotation of galaxies
is deprived of any content. To avoid this problem, write:
Each Galaxy is surrounded by an "accompanying reference system",
and the "accompanying reference system" is extended.
/ The Physics of Space. is a small Soviet encyclopedia published in 1986./
This is a joke!
For example, I am at home and I am surrounded by an "accompanying reference system";
my house. Then I go to work surrounded by an "accompanying reference system";
And when I have arrived on the job, I am surrounded by an
"accompanying reference system", the university.
But if we do not understand that we work in the reference system of the Earth,
and the astronomers do not understand in what reference system
the billions of galaxies rotate, any statement is meaningless.
Only when the reference system is specified, then the words "galaxies rotate"
and "Big Bang" make sense.
The first problem in the discussion of the laws of motion is to answer the question,
"In what reference system does this motion occur?
In what reference system are the laws of motion formulated?"
This question is most unpleasant for the amateurs in abstract reasoning and conjecture.
God teaches man to think particularly and logically.
The Devil teaches man to speak with beautiful, general and abstract phrases.
By such method he easily hides the truth from the people.
Guest_Steve
I think he's read "The Field" too many times
Good Elf
Hi Guest_Steve,

You saying we have lost it... ?? To like Physics this much you need to be a little "bent". Luckily it is only my beanie that is "bent" eh!

Cheers
s0cratus
Parallel Universe.
The main problem in Physics is an opinion that the Universe only one.
From this opinion there are all paradoxes in physics.
Einstein and Infeld wrote:
“We have the laws, but are not aware what the body of reference system
they belong to, and all our physical construction appears erected on sand”.
They are right.
Essence in that now there is no precise border which divides two different
frame of reference:
1) System of Vacuum and
2) Gravitational frame of reference .
Now is consider, that these two systems as though common.
But it is completely different systems.
There, where there is a Vacuum - there is no Gravitation.
There, where there is a Gravitation - there is no Vacuum.

Best wishes.
hmmm

nothing is nothing

there is no nothing

that is the only nothing

nothing is the only nothing there is

therefore: who cares? i certainly dont care about anything!
socratus
Forces of Nature : THE SPIN.

In 1687, the book "Mathematical beginnings of natural philosophy"
by Isaac Newton was printed out. This book has become the fundamental
scientific textbook. In the foreword to this book, Newton has written:
"All the difficulty of physics, as it will be seen, is in recognizing
forces of the nature by the phenomena of motion,
and then to explain other phenomena according to these forces".
"The First Newton's law" breaks on the spot
this well formulated logical thought.
It states:
"Any body, until it remains insulated,
saves its state of rest or rectilinear motion".
This law of motion is considered fundamental in classic physics.
However, it permanently causes critics of initial positions of mechanics.
Because in earthly conditions it is defaulted.
This law does not take into consideration influence of external forces
; it also says nothing about internal forces. The reason on which the body
is moving or rests is not clear. This law is abstract.
Newton perceived illusiveness of this law. His scientific slogan was:
"I do not invent hypotheses".
He said: "I shall not mix conjectures with reliability".
He aimed to build a building of science without hypotheses.
Therefore, he wanted to correct somehow, to change his formulation.
But all attempts were unsuccessful.
However, this law is useful and necessary to explain then accelerated motion.
For this reason, this postulate of Newton
was forced and wrongfully erected to a rank of the law.
And from a school bench the person learns this postulate
as the law (unproved supposition). Here we have the paradoxical situation.
The Bible begins with the unfounded statement
"In the Beginning there was a Word ",
and classic physics begins with the unfounded statement
" In the Beginning there was the First Newton's law ".
The science states that the origin of the World according
to the religious version is not reliable, and builds the scientific
foundations based on abstraction. As a result, both formulations
(religious and scientific) are unsatisfactory from the point of view of logic.
====================================
Newton,s dream was realized by Planck.
let us analyze the discovery of quantum of light by Planck.
M. Planck in 1900 offered to examine the radiation emanating from
absolutely black body (Vacuum radiation of Kirchhoff /Max Laue / ),
as separate portions (quantum).
If the quantum of light will penetrate inside this absolute black body
and will not reflect back, the radiation and heat will die.
That it will not happen, the ideal black body should reflect
(radiate) this quantum of light back. Then and only then,
this initial (natural) radiation of quantum of light is characterized
by the constant of Planck -h .
The quantity of this particle, s impulse is h=1.
Under influence of this impulse the particle moves with speed c=1.
The particle has the form of a circle.
This quantity is described with a formula (h=Et) and has a title of
“the least quantum of action”,“ internal impulse of particle”, “spin”.
================================
Einstein realized Newton,s dream in another way
For the basic point of his argumentations, Einstein
took the constant of Boltzmann R/N = k
and coefficient ( from the formula of radiation of Wien.
The multiplication of these two quantities gives the formula
of “ internal impulse of particle”, “spin” h = kb.
================================
Quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Only the speed of a light quantum in Vacuum has
a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light flies always rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
========================================
No.
Another impulse (spin) in 1925 was found by
Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck .
They came to a conclusion, that the particle should have other impulse.
Quantity of this impulse is described with a formula : ћ = h/ 2n,
forcing a particle to rotate around his diameter.
This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
but rotates around the diameter (has the form of a sphere).
The rotation of these particle creates electrical waves.
s0cratus
THE GENESIS.
====================
The words “God”, “soul”, “religion”,
“ dualism of consciousness”, “human being”
are possible to explain with the physical formulas and laws.
===============
THE GENESIS.
==============
1.
T = 0K.
2.
C/D=pi , E=Mc^2, R/N=k , h = 0 , i^2=-1 .
3.
h = 1, c=1. ( light quanta).
4.
h = h /2pi , c>1.
E = hw, e^2 = hca ( electron).
The Lorentz transformations.
5.
Star formation:
e- - k - He II - He I - rotating He - thermonuclear reaction:
a) hw > kT
hw = kT
c) kT > hw
6.
p ( proton)
7.
Evolution of interaction:
a) electromagnetic,
nuclear,
c) biological.
8.
Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / law.
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ law.
9.
Biopsychology: dualism of consciousness.
The theory and practice.
===============================
P.S.
This model of GENESIS is so simple, logical and clear,
that GOD himself will put his signature under it .
Question:
‘Why isn,t God putting his signature now?
Now he is busy.
Some time ago He opened his palm and
a process ‘ big bang’ happened .
And now He tries to compress his palm and
to change the ‘big bang’ in the ‘singular point’.
As soon as He is free, He will sign this document.
======================
Eric England

1. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is possible

2. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is impossible
___________________

1. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING exists

2. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING does not exist
___________________

1. Does NOT lead to something

__________________

What does it lead to first?
s0cratus
To Eric England
=============
"Once I dreamed I was a butterfly,
and now I no longer know whether
I am Chuang-tzu, who dreamed I was
a butterfly, or whether I am a butterfly
dreaming that I am Chuang-tzu."
===============
Eric England
QUOTE (s0cratus+Jan 2 2007, 02:56 AM)
To Eric England
=============
"Once I dreamed I was a butterfly,
and now I no longer know whether
I am Chuang-tzu, who dreamed I was
a butterfly, or whether I am a butterfly
dreaming that I am Chuang-tzu."
===============

s0cratus,

It's beyond Chuang-tzu and the butterfly.

#1 doesn't allow for them and #2 does.

But they are not first.

Eric
s0cratus
Do physicists understand physics?
====================

All the sources of physics are created on abstract ideas:
inertial motion, inertial reference system, ideal gas,
absolute black body,
negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space,
"a method of renormalization", etc.
===========================
1.
G. Galileo has shown that natural motion is ‘inertial’
but nobody knows what is ‘ inertial motion’.
2.
J. Maxwell aspired to explain electromagnetic processes from
mechanical point of view, using cogwheels and wheels.
3.
L, Boltzmann admired the equations of Maxwell and he tried
to improve Maxwell,s mechanical model.
4.
H. Hertz practically discovered electromagnetic waves
but he has declared in writing that the electromagnetic
waves have no practical importance.
Later, he wrote about the equation of Maxwell:
"…that they are wiser than we ourselves,
even wiser than their first-discovers…"
5.
"We did more than have understood".
/Rutherford/
6.
M. Planck almost for 20 years searched arguments
against his theory of the light quanta.
7.
"The more successes the quantum physics gains,
the more senseless it looks".
/Einstein/
8.
Everything is getting along, but the deep grounds remain unclear".
/Sommerfeld /
9.
"I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics".
/Feynman/
10.
What the fine structure constant ‘a’ means nobody knows
and on Feynman,s expression this quantity is
‘by the god given damnation to all physicists’.
11.
Robert Milliken told, that he knew nothing
This remains unknown also today.
12.
etc.
=========================
How do the physicists want to solve these problems?
a)
They try to create new theories.
But if the base of the first floor (classic)
and second floor (quantum) of physics is abstract
what can we expect from the new theories?

They try to find the first, initial particle.

In 1906, Lord Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him to understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists:
‘ Bomb them stronger’.
And physicists 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 for a very little time and do not relate to our world.
Our Earth needs another constants of nature.
But physicists are proud of their work. They say:
we study the inner structure of the particles.
The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicists 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 an infinite variety of particles is contained .
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
==============
E. Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I will 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 will begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin to drill ground with 11 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
collecting cogwheels, springs and small screws, throwing ewerywhere.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists who aspire to understand the
inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not to take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
==============
Great physicists didn,t ashamed admit that they
couldn,t understand the base of physics.
The ‘small’ physicists understand the physics on 100%.
The ‘small’ physicists teach physics as dogmatically
as the priests teach theology.
There are a few men who understand that we already
live in Orwell,s ‘1984’ world.
============================
Eric England
s0cratus,

Nice post.

The universe must be real.

We'll bomb it until it bleeds to death.
s0cratus
Abridged version of Peter Russell's book 'From Science to God'
/ Reality and Consciousness:/

http://twm.co.nz/prussell.htm
=================
s0cratus
About gravitation particles & star formation.
============.
We supposed that graviton particles:
a)
Theoretically predicted but never observed ( a hypothetical
particle ) with no electric charge and no mass is supposed
to be responsible for the gravitational interaction between
matter and energy.

A hypothetical elementary particle is responsible
for the effects of gravity (the quantum of gravitation ).
It means, that the initial gravitational mass of stars
and planets is created from gravitation particles .

Nobody knows :
“What geometrical and physical parameters
can gravitation particle have ?”
The Einstein’s GRT doesn’t explain
which particles create a gravitation field.
I will try to explain it.
======.
1.
Where has the first material gravitation particle appeared from ?

Now it is considered, that reference frame which
is connected with relict isotropic radiation
T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to increase and
its temperature will decrease.
And, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years it will reach T=0K.

Therefore the gravitation particle can appears from
Nothing, from Vacuum, from Absolute Zero: T=0K?

Let us take some area of Vacuum (T=0K)
and mark it with letter R.
The number of particles in this area of Vacuum
we will mark with letter N.
Then every particle of this area has
gravity/ mass of rest: R/N= k.
2.
Can they have volume?"
No.
Because according to J. Charles law ( 1787),
when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degree the volume
disappears. The physicists say, if the particle
has completely lost its volume
the physical parameters of particles become infinite.
"Law of conservation and transformation energy".
And then we must understand that the sense of the
"Law of conservation and transformation energy" is.
We should understand and accept that
when volume of the particles disappears
they become "indefinitely flat figures ".
What do "indefinitely flat figures " mean?
They mean, that we cannot reach Absolute Vacuum T=0K
and we also cannot reach density of the particle in the T=0K.
The “ Charles law” was confirmed by other physicists:
Gay-Lussac ( 1802), W. Nernst ( 1910), A. Einstein ( 1925) .
These " flat figures " have the geometrical form
of a circle, as from all flat figures the circle has the most
optimal form: C/D= pi = 3,14.

These R/N= k particles are initial gravitational particles.
============.

Which is common condition of gravitation?
1.
Let us suppose that in some local sphere of Vacuum
the quantity of the passive particles ( k) that is equal to
the number Avogadro N was found.
Then according to the principle of Boltzmann,
the gathering of the particles in some local sphere of Vacuum
has a probable basis: S= klnW.
It is common condition of gravitation.
================.

How did from these gravitation particles (k )
the first material particles appear ?

1.
The first material particles was called “helium”, because
helium exist very – very near absolute zero: T=0K.
Nobody knows what helium is.( !)
Why?
Because the behavior of helium is absolutely different
from all another elements of Nature. ( !)
!!!!
I will try to explain, how the helium
was created from R/N=k.
2.
The helium exist very near absolute zero: T=0K.
Therefore we must take in attention the processes
of superfluids and superconductors , which require extremely
low temperatures , approximately 0K.
3.
Then , the first particles which were created
from R/N =k could be helium II ( He II ),
which created temperature 2,7K.
4.
Then , the second particles which were created
from helium II ( He II ), could be helium I ( He I ),
which created temperature 4,2K.
/ Kapitza / Landau theory./
5.
And then all the system comes to rotary movement.
But helium rotates differently from all other liquids.
If one rotates helium very strongly, it starts to behave not as liquid
but as elastic body
(experience of E.L. Àndronikashvili. /Georgia./ ).
Separate layers of helium become elastic ropes that change
the picture of quiet uniform rotation completely.
In such rotation sharp friction between different
layers of the liquid originates. From rotary elastic ropes
the slices of substance of various size come off.
Further they break to particles that received
the names of Helium-three 3He and Helium-four 4He.
The common thermal temperature in liquid increases .

Rotation and collision of the particles 3He and 4He at some
the name of the nucleus of hydrogen atom- proton (p).
Protons are initial, the smallest, material particles.

The most widespread elements in stars are helium and hydrogen.
Our Sun consists of helium to 30% and of hydrogen to 69%.
Ii was found that in external layers of our Sun on 1kg of hydrogen
it was necessary 270g of helium. In deeper layers on 1kg of hydrogen
it is necessary 590g of helium.
Thus it is deeper into Sun it is more helium.
And in the central area of Sun helium-II, helium-I are found.
The reaction between (k ) , helium and
hydrogen go basically on the Sun.
All the elements of the material substance
are created from the initial particles (k) and helium.
==============.

How does all the system come to rotary movement ?

1.
If gravitation-particles fly to different sides,
they can not create the initial gravitational mass of planets, stars.
It means, that any unknown power collects the gravitation
particles together and gives to them the movement in one direction.
As a result of this common movement of all gravitation
particles (k ) in one direction the initial gravitational mass
of planets and stars is created.
What power can gather all particles together?
2.
Classic physics asserts, that in a Vacuum T=0K the motion
of particles stops, and the energy of Vacuum is equal to zero.
The quantum physics asserts, that in a Vacuum T=0K there is
motion of particles, and the energy of Vacuum is not zero.
Therefore, let us take some energy area of Vacuum and
mark it with letter E.
The mass of this energy area of Vacuum we will
mark with letter M.
Then every particle of this area has energy/mass of rest:
E/M= c^2, ( E=Mc^2, M=Ec^2.)
3.
As this particle is in the state of rest condition
it impulse is equal to zero ( h=0).
4.
But this particle can change its state of rest condition.
If the particle has impulse of Goudsmit -Uhlenbeck h= h/2pi,
its energy will be: E=hw
The thermal balance of Vacuum will be disturbed.
The actively rotating particle with energy E=hw gibes the
movement of surrounding passive particles R/N=k and
a gravitational field begins to create.
And the source of a gravitational field is an active electron E=hw.
The remaining particles R/N=k are passive participants
(victims) of the creating gravitation field.
============.
The stars are formed by the scheme:
e- --k --He II-- He I --rotating He--thermonuclear reaction – р…
The Second law of thermodynamics doesn’t forbid this process.
======================.
http://www.socratus.com

OldWoman1904
can nothing exist without "something"

something and nothing must have popped into existence at the same "time" right?

is that right?
youre using numbers here.....1+1=2

ok.....there is no 1 without 0

right?

so they came into existence together?

does that sound right?
Nick
IT IS A PARADOX THE NOTHING: NONEXISTENCE EXISTS.

SCIENTIFICALLY IT DOESN'T EXIST AND THEREFOR CAN'T BE THOUGHT ABOUT

I IGNORE IT AS AN ERROR IN THINKING. THERE IS NO OUTSIDE TO THE UNIVERSE. IT DOESN'T EXIST.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
Eric England
There is a 1 with no 0.

You have to ask the right questions of 0, to recognize it doesn't exist.
Nick
QUOTE (Eric England+Jun 11 2007, 01:30 AM)
There is a 1 with no 0.

You have to ask the right questions of 0, to recognize it doesn't exist.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
Eric England
Forget about the 1 for now. It's what we always assume or ask questions about, which always boil down to the question of existence. Pretend it does't exist, never existed, and won't exist.

What does it repreent? It represents non-existence. Absolute(ly) Nothing.

"Mr. Absolutely Nothing, can you exist?"

"If I EXISTED, there wouldn't be absoutely nothing, now would there."

What you just did was question your assumption.

Now you know that Absolutely nothing is impossible.

Now you can begin with "something".

Mathematics takes 360 pages to get to a FINITE (beginning and end) 1 and this takes two questions to get to an ABSOLUTE (no beginning and end) 1.

PS: If you respond to this post, please don't us all caps. I'm listening to you already.
s0cratus
Who is for whom?
============.
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact is forgotten in the science now.
1.
After war, in Russia there were many thieves' gangs
And I, as a boy, rotated among one of them.
They had their own language, thieves' jargon.
Not anyone could understand them.
Now I read some mathematical articles and they
remind me forgotten thieves' slang.
Are you laughing? Is it ridiculous ?
For me it isn’t ridiculous .
Why?
Because , mathematicians stole the picture
of reality from us . Because they make us
poor and stupid.
Why do you say so?
OK. I will try to prove it and explain my point of view.
=========..
2.
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
( theory of photon/ electron’s behaviour ).
Minkowski, trying to understand SRT, used 4D space.
Poor young Einstein , reading Minkowski interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
" You are right, it is difficult to understand SRT, using 4D space.
But using my 5D space it is possible" - said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was checked up and recognized insufficient.
" Well, - said another mathematicians, - maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D
spaces will explain it". And they had done it.
But the doubts still stay.
"OK,- they say, - we have only one way to solve this problem,
we must create more complex D spaces " .
And they do it, they use all their power, all their
super intellectuals to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But……….
But there is one nuance. To create new D space, mathematicians
must take a new parameter. It is impossible to
create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
( it fixed according to his opinion not objective rules ).
The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way :
“ Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four
I can make him wiggle his trunk…”
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add :
“ with one more parameter the elephant will fly. “
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
Please, remember, many D spaces were born as a whish
to understand SRT ( theory of photon/ electron’s behaviour ).
But if someone wants to understand, for example,
a bird ( photon / electron) itself and for this he
studies only surroundings will he reach success ?

If I am a king , I will publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher - to award with a medal
" To the winner of a common sense ".
Why?
Because they have won us, using absurd ideas
of Minkowski and Kaluza.
=======..
P.S.
There are many different D spaces in the math/ physicist’s works.
Are there limits of these D spaces?
Maybe is 123 D space the last and final space ?

I think there are as many opinions on this as there
are people giving thought to the issue.

My own opinion is that since the more immediately
obvious 123D option (either parabolic, flat or hyperbolic)
did not allow, despite all efforts, reconciling the various
theories, then there is need to try something else.

Maybe has this time
“then there is need to try something else” come ?

3.
And what is mathematical opinion about photon itself ?
Here is one example how mathematician tries
to solve the problem.
Russian scientist professor V.P. Seleznev created "toro model "
of light quanta. According to this model the light quanta is a
constant volume ring ( like bublik) . The speed of it
is different and this fact gives possibility to understand
all light natural phenomenones, overcome through all
contradictions in the physics and to offer a new technology.
So it is written in the book.
/ Book “The secrets of Universe” 1998.
V.D. Demin. Page 377./
Short explanation is given on 4 pages.
Glory to this scientist .!!!!
Glory to this professor !!!!
But….
But I have only one question .
Can this "toro volume ring model "
( like bublik) have volume in Vacuum ?
The answer is “ NO “
According to J. Charles law ( 1787),
when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degrees the volume
disappears and particles become "flat figures ".
The " Charles law" was confirmed by other physicists:
Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein .
So, according to Charles law
the "toro volume ring model " is only
mathematic illusion .

There are many different models of photon.
To choose the correct one we needs to ask
a question: “ Which geometrical form can
photon have in vacuum ? “
4.
Some scientists say:
" The darkest subject in the science is light quanta."
Maybe now some my readers will understand
better the way on which we must go.
5.
Now mathematics goes ahead science and physics follows it.
Mathematicians carry the posters " Forward to abstract”,
" Forward to absurd” and we all follow them.
We go bravely on dinosaur’s path.
=============.
My thanks to gentlemen : Jim Whitescarver ,
Andre Michaud, Richard Gauthier, “ R.A.” and “ Si “
for helping me to understand the alphabet of mathematical slang.
=============.
http://www.socratus.com

Eric England
"I have no use for mathematics." –Einstein
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Eric England+Jun 14 2007, 05:25 PM)
"I have no use for mathematics." –Einstein

He said that?
MDT
Nothing is sort of relative. For example, if you had only one dollar in your pocket and you were away from civilization and a child asked you for a quarter to do a gravity experiment, you might say I have 0 quarters, even though the dollar equals four quarters. It has the value.

The universe could have began with dollars, which were all exchanged for quarters, so there are no dollars left. Without any dollars around, one may then wonder how is it possible for all these quarters appearing from a state of 0 quarters. To turn paper to metal appears to violate all the laws of nature, yet we do it daily.

ekhalom
QUOTE (s0cratus+Jun 14 2007, 10:47 AM)
Who is for whom?
============.
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact is forgotten in the science now.
1.
After war, in Russia there were many thieves' gangs
And  I, as a boy, rotated among one of them.
They had their own language, thieves' jargon.
Not anyone could understand them.
Now I read some mathematical articles and they
remind me forgotten thieves' slang.
Are you laughing?  Is it ridiculous ?
For me it isn’t ridiculous .
Why?
Because , mathematicians stole the picture
of reality from us . Because they make us
poor and stupid.
Why do you say so?
OK. I will try to prove it and explain my point of view.
=========..

Hello dear user s0cratus

It is a very nice and well written explanation on a very difficulty issue that is directly related to our inner Consciousness (individually as well as in a collective form) that will have reflexion in the way we aprehend and act upon our external world: indeed, what you have written is not only a problem and struggle in physics but in all major fields of Science, in Religion too; it is all our current-day culture and way of life, that's why these new knowledge-research faces such resistance from the 'mainstream' thought that holds the way society lives and organizes itself.

Current physics [i.e. since the "infallible" Einstein's relativity & expanding into the popular Hawking's universe] is perhaps the most notorious one because it can and has been seen as the nucleus of our Science and, along with other experimental fields, has created and molded during the last 200 years through its materialist-reductionist premises a society based in the materialism ideology. Now, when those few individuals worldwide - with an open mind and a strong will - search for Truth they enter consciously or unconsciously into the research of knowledge which goes beyond and violates the whole culture accepted premises and ideology (and this ideology protects itself in a similar way as it has happened already in the past in our western society at the end of the middle ages). That is why i am very keen of Prof. Neal Grossman clarifying words (IONS, 2002) on this issue related to his field of research:

QUOTE
« Resistance to paradigm change: Ever since the publication of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the concept of a paradigm has been a familiar, useful, albeit sometimes controversial, tool. The concept of a paradigm helps us considerably in understanding scientific revolutions, when dramatic changes occur involving deep-rooted assumptions about how things are or how things must be. All academics matriculate within the context of a specific discipline that trains its practitioners to think in terms of the currently operating paradigm. Once the operating paradigm has been internalized in the mind of the individual, other competing paradigms appear wrong and/or foolish.

To one who has internalized a paradigm, this way of approaching things appears to be right, reasonable, objective, and sensible. The paradigm itself is rarely questioned. It is the very water in which the academic philosopher swims, which is why it is so difficult for one who is immersed in the paradigm to see it as a paradigm, rather than as the way things "must be." Someone operating out of a different paradigm appears to be out of touch with reality, irrational, and so on.

Intellectual arrogance: In addition to the normal kind of resistance with which any paradigm defends itself against change, the atheist paradigm of academia generally, and philosophy in particular, feels especially threatened by the findings of paranormal research. This is because intellectuals like to regard themselves as the highest manifestation of intelligence on the planet, if not in the universe. Embracing an evolutionary model according to which consciousness is correlated with brain development, intellectuals regard the human brain as the highest development of evolutionary forces, and an educated human brain as the highest of the high. Intellectuals like to feel that they are riding atop the crest of the wave of evolution.

This intellectual smugness is greatly threatened by paranormal research, especially the NDE, the results of which strongly suggest (I am tempted to say "clearly show") that the human intellect is by no means the highest form of intelligence.  (...)

Social and cultural taboo: This is the most serious and powerful source of resistance, because it involves not only the university system but our whole culture, indeed, our whole way of life. Despite avowals to the contrary, we live in a completely atheistic and irreligious culture. To be sure, most people profess a belief in a higher power of some sort, and many people attend religious services regularly. But religion, by which I mean religious values, plays no role in shaping the economic and political forces that structure and control our culture. (...) Indeed, they are fundamentally incompatible with the values that do, in fact, drive our culture. »

&

QUOTE (->

&

« My colleague believed in materialism not as a scientific hypothesis that, qua scientific hypothesis, might be false, but rather as dogma and ideology that "must" be true, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. For him, materialism is the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else is explained, but which is not itself open to doubt. I shall coin the term "fundamaterialist" to refer to those who believe that materialism is a necessary truth, not amenable to empirical evidence. I call it fundamaterialism to make explicit comparison with fundamentalism in religion. Fundamentalism connotes an attitude of certainty towards one's core belief. Just as the fundamentalist Christian is absolutely certain that the world was created in the manner described by The Bible (fossil evidence notwithstanding), so also the fundamaterialist is absolutely certain that there exists nothing that is not made up of matter or physical energy (NDE and other evidence notwithstanding). In fact, and this is the crucial point, their respective beliefs have nothing to do with evidence. As my fundamaterialist colleague put it, "There can't be evidence for something that's false." -- With respect to (a), materialism held as an empirical hypothesis about the world, the evidence against it is overwhelming. With respect to (B), materialism held as an ideology, evidence against it is logically impossible. »

Hope this helps. I truly wish i could go in further detail and discussion, however my English language level is not yet formal enough in order to present this critical issue in such a clear way as to avoid misinterpretations. Anyway, thank you for your attention.

___________________

"As we celebrate Einstein in the centenary year since he introduced his Theory of Relativity there are those of us who see little to celebrate because we believe that Einstein blocked the way forward in our quest to tap energy from the aether. The aether is the energy source accounting for the creation of our universe but Einstein’s theory caused scientists to replace the aether by abstract mathematical notions." by Dr. Harold Aspden (author, physicist, electrical engineer and inventor)
s0cratus
"One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
/Einstein./
newton
QUOTE (s0cratus+Jan 7 2007, 04:55 PM)

There are a few men who understand that we already
live in Orwell,s ‘1984’ world.
============================

damn straight.
MDT
Understanding how the mind works is important to what one considers the the truth. For example, anyone who connects themselves exclusively to any cultural affiliation will have an innate bais that favors that culture. They can not be fully rational or objective and also maintain that narrow attachment at the same time, because it might create inner doubt. Their motivation is not truth but maintaining the vanity or self esteem of the ego. To maintain that positive state of mind for the ego may require a closed mind. The ego may generate clever logic lines to convince others to buffer their inner doubt. Or they may hang around just those who will help reinforce their beliefs. How far the ego will go to maintain self esteem is documented in history and is the inertia against progressive change.

Here is the irony. The bigot can generate more outer dynamics than someone who is more openminded. Someone with a strong political conviction is more dynamic than a moderate, even though being moderate requires knowing more data. This outer dynamics is often equated with strength, which it is. Ego strength is an important part of being a human, but ego strength is often inversely proportional to objectivity.

Here is how it works, picture a river of truth. If one can only accept part of the truth, they set up an inner dam, which only allows selective truth to come through the dam. Because other truth is dammed up, the water level behind the dam gets higher and higher, increasing the pressure on the water that is being let through. This amps up the ego. It create the hydro-electric power of the ego.

Nobody can know all the truth so we all have dams, but someone more open minded allows more water to pass such that their hydraulics never build up too much. The ego is a less impulsive. The fear of the high powered ego is, what would happen if the dam starts to leak. The water level will drop and the ego dynamics would lessen, i.e., doubt could take the wind out of your sails. Or worse yet, what would happen if the dam was to suddently fail. One would be forced to do some white water rafting. The greater the hydro-dynamics, the dam is supporting, the more the dam is constantly reinforced. But if one was to let the dam seep with additional truth, to lower the hydraulics, and then let the dam break, one might be able to survived the category 3 white water rapids. When the surge finall ends and the river level balances, one now gently floats down the lazy river.

One needs to be careful about messing with dams since many people are not prepared for category 5 rapids. That is why change is slow. Typcially forward thinkers puts cracks in the dam a little faster that they can get patched up to help lower some of the hydraulics. But not too fast where the dam fails and a whitewater surge occurs.
ekhalom
QUOTE (MDT+Jun 15 2007, 07:02 PM)
One needs to be careful (...)

Thank you dear user MDT. The most wisest words i have heard in a long time and they came indeed in the right time.

Goodbye & best wishes unto you.
s0cratus
"The formulas are cleverer than people".
H. Hertz.
===
They are ...still cleverer....us.....
Eric England
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jun 14 2007, 10:48 AM)
He said that?

Yes, Einstein said he had no use for mathematics.

He also said the entirety of physics, inluding his own theories, boil down to nothing but a house of cards, that needs an entirely new foundation.

The conclusions he came to in his last years, are what we should be paying attention to.

He left us with a question to answer.

"Can we imagine a 3D universe, that is finite, yet infinite?"

We need to scrap all of our definitions, derivations, and assumptions. All of them. They are a house of cards.
Eric England
QUOTE (s0cratus+Jun 14 2007, 03:47 AM)
Now mathematics goes ahead science and physics follows it.
Mathematicians carry the posters " Forward to abstract”,
" Forward to absurd” and we all follow them.

The real problem is that mathematics is not willing to attempt a GREATER abstraction. They work on LESSER abstractions and think they're working on greater ones.

A greater abstraction is necessary, to arrive at something concrete. Right now mathematics won't admit, it is based on no definition at all.

It arbitrarily places itself above physics and philosophy, by calling itself a "self-contained game".

It's plain old "ethical logic" first and the rest will eventually follow.
Nick
THE BIG BANG WAS ZERO.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --

hexa
To everyone,

I wish to draw your attention to a FOOL and a PEST in this Forum.
He is NICK (MITCH RAEMSCH).

He is totally shameless.

So BEWARE.

Disgusted
Nick
WIFE.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
hexa
Hi Socratus,

I only want to drive home a point to this pest called NICK (or MITCH RAEMSCH) after giving him more than TEN warnings.

QUOTE

WIFE.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --

I was quite amused by the post put up by a fellow member called Maltida which will explain the puzzle behind this post by Nick.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE WIFE.MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --

I was quite amused by the post put up by a fellow member called Maltida which will explain the puzzle behind this post by Nick.

Quote Maltida:
Hi Hexa,

Sorry to cause the misunderstanding that allows this scum to mistake me as you.
I am deeply honoured to be called Hexa. Thanks NICK for the honour. I have no quarrel with Nick if he thinks that I am Hexa, Mr Homm, Confused2, Montec, Schneibster, Dr Bremann or any of the more respectable members in this Forum. I am only a bit embarassed--thats all.

The truth is out.
Nick thinks that you are his WIFE.
He thinks that you are ANGELA.

My speculation is that he must have been such a STUPID IDIOT that his REAL WIFE DUMPED him for another man.
Now, he is BEGGING his WIFE not to divorce him.

Poor chap for hallucinating here. He is probably thinking that this is some Porn site hoping to find his mate.

What a pitiful sight of a FOOL who delude himself from reality.
He has no life other than to live and prey on others in this Forum. This explains the amount of post that he is passing out as if he is having a diarrhoea through his Prick (the male organ of insects).

Trippy has finally woke up to his senses to realise what a fool he was to pander to the urge of this NUT.

It is either we continue to hurl more insults at this lunatic (NICK) to see how he respond and use him as the subject of our investigation here.
OR, go for a holiday and let this lunatic talk to himself until the Zoo-keeper put him in a cage.

I think I am beginning to enjoy the sadistic satisfaction of seeing how stupid a creature could be. I must tell my friends doing psychiatric medicine to join in the fun to study this rare specimen. This is better than watching Mr Bean.

I think I agree with Hexa that we should change this thread to read as "THE STUDY OF A PEST named NICK" and give him ALL the ATTENTION that he is seeking.

Yours sincerely,

Maltida.

NOTES:
By the way, I don't think it is necessary for you to soil your name in posting Nick's infamous deed in other sites as you have just begun to do. It will be my pleasure to do the job for you so that I can observe how a predator would behave when the predator is the one that is being preyed upon. It is a good case study for me to learn more about the behavior of predatory animals that are themselve the prey of another predator and how his fellow predators would behave. I will gladly do this job for you.
The Institution may want to invite Nick to be their VIP subject for their study. He is a rare breed. Thanks Hexa for finding such a rare specimen.

This essentially sum up the danger you are exposed to. So Beware.

Goodluck and GoodBye until this site has been certified as free from Pest called NICK.
Nick
QUOTE (MARIANGELA LISANTI+)
Sorry to cause the misunderstanding that allows this scum to mistake me as you.
I am deeply honoured to be called Hexa. Thanks NICK for the honour. I have no quarrel with Nick if he thinks that I am Hexa, Mr Homm, Confused2, Montec, Schneibster, Dr Bremann or any of the more respectable members in this Forum. I am only a bit embarassed--thats all.

GIVE UP YOUR FIGHT WITH ME. THIS IS A PLACE FOR SCIENCE. YOU AINT GETTING YOUR WAY ANGELA.

BTW YOU CAN BACK ENGINEER THE UNIVERSE TO THIS NOTHING.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --

hexa
Hi Socratus,

Sorry again.

Tell Nick that he is needed over at my thread.
He shouldn't be messing with the serious discussion that is going on here.
Tell him that you will put him on a straight jacket and send him over to my thread.

My apology to you that this PEST that is needed at my thread is running loose here.

Cheers.
Nick
QUOTE (hexa+Jun 17 2007, 07:03 AM)
To everyone,

I wish to draw your attention to a FOOL and a PEST in this Forum.
He is NICK (MITCH RAEMSCH).

is totally shameless.

So BEWARE.

Disgusted

MY WIFE BRINGS HER PROBLEM TO ANOTHER THREAD AND NOW SHE IS TELLING THE TOPIC POSTER I AM THE ONE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE!!

I AM ONLY GOING TO DISCUSS SCIENCE THERE.
Nick
NOTHINGNESS HAS NO STRUCTURE. IT IS A SPACELESS TIMELESS "PLACE."

I REALIZED YEARS AGO THAT IT IS BEYOND THOUGHT. YOU CANNOT THINK OF WHAT WAS BEFORE TIME BECAUSE THERE IS NO TIME FOR THERE TO BE A BEFORE. YET WE THINK WE CAN. BUT IF YOU ARE TRUE HONEST YOU WILL REALIZE THAT YOU CAN'T THINK ABOUT IT BECAUSE YOU ARE IN TIME. IT IS BEYOND THOUGHT IN MY OPINION.

IT MAKES ME THINK OF THE BIRTH OF GOD.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
hexa
Hi NICK,

Yawn!
You don't belong here.
Please go back to where you are the MAIN SUBJECT.

To Socratus,

Please accept my apology for the interuption again.
yor_on
Woops Gravity as a speed?
With those gravestones sorry, gravistone awhh, whatever, being the reason/particles creating it?

Why not, maybe everything is a matter of different forces all moving at some velocity or other. Still, i like to think of gravity as something like a spatial phenomena created by our four dimensional reality. As such it is instantaneous, in that way that the reaction to matter shows itself immediately, but as with placing a weight at the middle of a stretched rubber band the propagation of the new tension in the rubber band will move in time. So it will have a measurable velocity, if somebody can find a way of measuring that 'tension' propagating.

Maybe ;)
yor_on
Sorry guys, the reply above kind of got wayward. This light up the danger of reading to many subjects at once (and even more so as we all know the attention span and ability to handle simultaneous events being male). My only excuse is that i tried to 'catch up' on my reading on this forum (I've been away for some time...)
s0cratus
QUOTE (Eric England+Jun 16 2007, 05:19 PM)
The real problem is that mathematics is not willing to attempt a GREATER abstraction. They work on LESSER abstractions and think they're working on greater ones.

A greater abstraction is necessary, to arrive at something concrete. Right now mathematics won't admit, it is based on no definition at all.

It arbitrarily places itself above physics and philosophy, by calling itself a "self-contained game".

It's plain old "ethical logic" first and the rest will eventually follow.

Once Bohr said, if a theory was right it had to be
“ crazy “ enough. “ Oh! “- another physicists said,-
No problem. We will try to create new “crazy“ theories.
quark theory, big bang theory, anti- virtual particles
theory, many D-spaces and string theories……etc
Where is the end of “crazy“ theories and the beginning
of the logical theory?
Maybe when we understand:
First – everything began from vacuum T=0K.
Second- Newton/ Einstein’s theory of gravitation
is a local, limited theory.
============..
s0cratus

Was Vacuum born from Gravity or Electric fields?
=============
socratus
Why does Physics have two different theories:
Classic and Quantum ( + SRT) ?
============ ========= ========= ======
Because:
1.
In CT time and space are two different mathematical objects,
and in QT they are one connected object (system).
2.
In CT mass and energy are two different physical parametres
and in QT they are joint parametres (in one particpe ).
3.
In CT rest energy of one particle is equal to zero,
and in QT rest energy of one particle is equal E=M^2.
4.
In CT the reason of motion is outside impulse,and
in QT the reason of motion is inner impulse of particle.
5.
The CT explains the change of position of one particle
(object)by Galileo transformation, and QT explains the change
of position of one particle by Lorentz transformation.
6.
The CT uses principles of causality and determination
to explain behaviour of one particle, and the QT uses
Heisenberg,s "Principle of Uncertainty " for this aim.

What is the reason for these differences?
The reason is one:
The QT discribes the behaviourof photon/electron
(in Vacuum and microcosm), and the CT discribes the
behaviourof of all other particles, objects
(in our 3D Earth space and macrocosm ).
The CT and QT are two breanches of one tree of Physics,
which we must understand and describe in objectiive terms
(and not be surprised by their paradoxs).
============ ========= ==
socratus
The formula E=Mc^2 continues to providethe answers to Physics.
Why? Because:
1.
Classic physics says the energy and mass are two different
parametres of particle.
2.
SRT/QT says mass and energy are equivalent parametres
of particle.
Which theory is correct?
The both theories are correct, because every of them
observes and explains different particles.
SRT/QT explains behaviour of photon/electron, and
Classic physics observes all another particles (objects).
3.
The formula E=Mc^2 belongs to some particle.
It is not importent how you call this particle.
You want, call it "energy " or "mass ".
You want, call it "daimonis "(like Socrates),
or "idea "(like Plato), or "thing in itself " (like Kant),
or "monada " (like Leibniz), or "dear friend" (like in Vedas),
or "soul" (like in religion), or "photon " (like in science).
One thing is only importent, that this particle has potential
(rest)power: c^2.But this particle cannot be at rest all the time.
Some time it must be active. How can it be active?
1.
Using one of its inner impulse (Planck,s)the particle
moves straight with speed c=1 (it is a corpuscular, which
doesn,t make waves).
2.
Using another of its inner impulse (Goudsmit/Ulenbeck)
the particle turns around its diametr and created waves.
And then we can call it an "electron" or "tachyon".
But if you want you can call it "my dog".
It is not importent. It is importent that this "dog"
or "soul" saves you, and is importent that you also
pay attention to "your dear friend".
==================================
s0cratus
Energy, entropy ,information, . …….etc.
=========
How do energy, entropy and information interact?
If the energy increases the information also increases.
If the entropy increases the information decreases.
Is the interaction compatible or incompatible?
But it seems to me that this scenery of explaining
of the beginning of creation the Universe is very hard.
Because I explain everything in common words.
I must say: “quant of energy “, “quant of entropy “,
“quant of information “. But even these words are common.
I must make them more accurate. The smallest quant of
energy has electron. And we know, there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means this electron has (carries) the smallest
quant of information. But what is “quant of entropy “?
Nobody knows. I know the answer.
It is Dirac’s particle -“ antiparticle “.
As entropy is a shadow of energy, so “ antiparticle “
is a shadow of particle. And we come to Quantum theory again
The physicist Jim Whitescarver wrote:
” QM is simply an instance of a complete mathematical
logical system unlike classical logic. It describes the universe
in terms of information which is necessarily the reality itself,
rather than representing some deeper reality.”
It is not his own opinion, it is common physicists, opinion.
Is they really right?
Is it really impossible to understand QM with usual, human
( classical) logic? Are the physical formulas cleverer us?
I think we say in such way because we don’t still understand QM.
Nearly 100 years ago the scientists tried to explain electromagnetic
theory using balls, springs, blocks …..etc. And now we have the
same situation. What to do? We must look at QM from
another point of view. We must ask ourselves again:
“ What is the sense of Quantum mechanic“?
There is still a mistake in this question.
Because QM is not a mechanical theory.
It doesn’t describe systems of balls, springs, blocks …etc.
==============================
s0cratus
SRT , GRT and “ Minkowski space “.

SRT doesn't have a gravity field.
If there is no gravity field , the space will be flat,
and this space is called “ Minkowski space “
(negative 4-D united space/time continuum).
======.
Is the “ Minkowski space “abstract continuum, as everybody says?
I think this space is a real one.
I think this space is Vacuum.
Why?
1. “ Minkowski space “has no gravity field, but negative parameter.
2. Only Vacuum space has negative parameter : T= - 273.
3. And this negative parameter is united with space/ time ,
which are joined together absolutely .
4. And the second SRT postulate tells about moving
light quanta in Vacuum.
5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
============
P.S.
a) SRT is a right theory .
" Minkowski space " is a abstract theory.
======= ========
Our planet Earth is home for us.
We live and act in this planet.
" Minkowski space " is home for SRT.
All SRT particles live and act in this
" 4-D negative continuum - Minkowski space " .
Nobody know that " Minkowski space " is.
c) These two ideas are mixed together and therefore
the interpretation of physics is paradoxical.
========= ===========
SRT has only one space - “ Minkowski space “.
But in 1915 Einstein put a “ MASS “ in the
“ Minkowski space “ and it curved.
In 1921 A. Freedman put “ TIME “ in the
“ Minkowski space “ and it also curved.
And Einstein had to agree with Freedman’s idea.
What is the reason of “ Minkowski space “ change?
==========
If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
beginning of his calculations then after some
operations it grows into a big one.
And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
then now we are surprised with its paradoxes………
……and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
but the result will be the same - paradoxical.
===========================..
http://www.socratus.com

s0cratus
The SRT is a real theory.
The bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved it.
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
What does the man usually do in such situation?
It is clear, he must understand
what “ 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.
But somebody can say: “ You are wrong,
4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.”
Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose
that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space
in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.
Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.
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 only hope that
a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.
====== =========
P.S.
Sorry.
I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".
So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"
…………..or to " the God "......................
Then ...............
The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only
big band which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore
we see background radiation T=2,7K now."
And religious man will say: " The God exists.
He sits at his “ D- home” and plays with all things.
For example.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
I don’t know who is right.
But I came to conclusion:
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
I will never gather my harvest . Because if I plant ,
for example, an electron I will get ……a positron, ….
…..quark,…baryon,…boson,…..meson,…muon,…..tau,....
.....D- spaces …. and in the future centaurs and sphinxes."
======= ======
NeoNo.1
Population: None

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all planets in the universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole universe is also zero, and that any people you meet from time-to-time are mearly the products of a deranged imagination.''

The Restaurant at The End of the Universe
NeoNo.1
Let me elaborate on this so-called ''structure of nothing.''
If you add all the particles in the universe (E=Mc^2) with all of the negative energy in the vacuum (E=-Mc^2), all matter and energy in the universe calculates to... ... ... absolute Nada. Nothing. What does this presume about our comfortable
solid world?
NeoNo.1
Quantum_Conundrum
Has anyone ever really stopped and thought about the consequences of the uncertainty principle? or quantum "probability waves"?

For example, scientists using a collider smash two atoms or particles together, creating a shower of new particles, most of which are short lived. According to the uncertainty principle and other QT related concepts, the mere act of observation affects the outcome of the experiment: the velocity and position of the particles. But if the velocity and position of the particles are changed then the forces that caused their motion must have changed. In QT energy can only be delivered in discreet packets, energy is either transferred, or it is not.

In other words, if nobody is watching, the experiment will have different results, even if everything else remains the same. So then the "spin" of an electron may only be what it is f its being observed, or a quark may only be an "up" quark if someone is "looking", but in situations where it isn't being observed, it may in fact be some other type of quark, etc.

The mere observation of an interaction changes which particles are produced, and changes the properties of those particles, at least according to the theory.

"If a tree falls in the forest, and noone is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

In the macroscopic world we can say , "Yes, it does," but even though it makes a sound, it doesn't matter because it isn't heard.

But in terms of quantum theory, we can say, "not necessarily, and even if it does, it definitely will not be the same sound as it would make if someone was around to hear it."

Subatomic particles are what they are only if someone is looking. Any other time, they are undoubtedly something else.
NeoNo.1
Thank God someone is higlighting the importance of the observer.
The observer not only changes the value, but the entire state of a quantum system.
Quantum Conundrum has it in a bag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NeoNo.1
Quantum_Conundrum
I suddenly remember a book by Isaac Azimov which had a chapter titled "Much Ado about nothing", which was basicly a book that explored mathematics. Unfortunately at the moment I dont remember a lot about it, but it seems relevant to the topic.

----

People often use Occam's razor to try to "prove" that God is an un-needed entity, to try and prove that "God doesn't answer the question" so to speak.

Well, since in terms of God, Occam's razor is really being applied to ontology and the Metaphysics of the universe, I will also apply the same reasoning to the Big Bang.

The Ontology of the Big Bang

First of all, understand I dont believe in the Big Bang, I am merely showing what the Ontology of the Big Bang would be in our hypothetical model of reality.

If all matter, energy, space and time were created by the Big Bang, then the Big Bang must not be of the same ontology as the universe itself. The universe is governed by the "laws of physics", but the Big Bang is contradictory to those laws. The Big Bang does not obey causality or conservation, hence it is not part of the universe. If the Big Bang were part of the universe it would obey the laws of the universe, but it cannot obey the laws of the universe since it supposedly created the universe. So the Big Bang cannot be in the same ontological realm of reality as the universe itself.

Physicists have refined the Big Bang theory and changed the wording somewhat even in my lifetime, but the most currently accepted version is that the Big Bang did not happen at a "given place and time", it would have happened everywhere at once, and since the Big Bang supposedly created both space and time, ti would also have happened "every when" at once as well.

But I digress, as that too is a failing of my vocabulary. If the Big Bang created matter, space, time, and energy, then it is not proper to say the Big Bang happened anywhere or any time.

Let me restate that. The Big Bang could not have happened in either space or time. It is no more proper to say the Big Bang happened "everywhere and everywhen" than it is to point to rock and say "the Big Bang happened here". The Big Bang did not happen anywhere or anywhen.

How could it have? It supposedly created the space and time, so it could not have happened in space and time at all. Hence even the scientists fail to accurately describe it.

So then we see that EVERY argument against God that uses Occams razor could equally be applied to the Big Bang, since logically the Big Bang is as much an "extra entity" as anyone has ever argued God is.

The Big Bang demands a seperate level of ontology from our own naturalistic existence, just like God, because it is not a part of our existence and is not influenced, formed, or caused by anything in our existence, hence ontologically it is not even in the same reality as our selves.

In the end, the Big Bang amounts to a "god". Philosophically there is no ontological difference between the big bang and God.

BEcause the Big Bang cannot be in our own ontological reality, and cannot have been caused by anything in our reality, we cannot understand it in terms of physics or in terms of anything or any principle inside our own reality. Trying to understand the Big Bang is just as absurd a question as trying to read the mind of God.

Edit:

In fact, it would not even be possible to say that the Big Bang happend "15 billion years ago" because that would be a contradiction, even IF the Big Bang theory were true. The Big Bang could not have happend 15 billion years ago because the Big Bang supposedly created space and time. It could not have "happened" any time. Either the Big Bang is, or it is not. The Big Bang cannot be an "event" because "event's" occur in space and time. The Big Bang cannot have occured in space and time because it supposedly created space and time. Hence it would equally be incorrect to say that the Big Bang ever stopped, that is if it existed at all. Since the Big Bang is not an event in space and time, it cannot have measure according ot our space and time. If the Big Bang ever "happened", it would still be "happening" this very instant, since the Big Bang created space and time.

----

An atheist will mock a christian for saying "God did it", and yet the athiest can no more offer an explaination than the man in the moon.

Example:

Why are their 4 forces and not one? two? ten? twenty? Why atheist, why?

Well, erm, you see, quantum this, relativity that, blah, blah, blah, because...

"TheBigBangDidit!!"

What Caused the Big Bang?

"The BigBangDidit!"

How did the Big Bang "didit"?

"The Big Bang Didit!"

That doesn't make sense!

"TheBigBangDidit!"
s0cratus
A man – animal will be create in England .
=============..

On September 4 2007 I have read on the sait:
http://kp.ru/online/news/32267/

In future a man – animal will be create in England .
Cloning of the people is forbidden all over the world.
……….. But the British government is going to permit its
scientists to create hybrid …..man - animal.
If this crossing passes successfully……… it will be
used for treatment of illness….… and traumas of a spinal cord.
.........The sociological interrogation testify .....
the inhabitants of Britain generally do not object to realization
of such experiences.
===== =========…………
My comment.

I think this British decision is connected with:
a) the British inhabitants are afraid of terrorists
so much that they need sphinxes for guard.
or maybe, the British establishment bored to ride
horses and they decided to change them into centaurs.

And they found a very good excuse for their decision:
“the cloning man – animal will help to treat people”.
And so , it will be taken as a scientific progress.

In 1945 the nazi- doctors were considered as criminal
for men’s experiments. Isn’t it the same?

Did the situation really happen by chance?
No. It happened as a result of the development of science.
It happened because paradoxical ideas were put in
the fundament of physics, in the beginning of its appearance.
And now we have a science which is full of paradoxes and
considers that there is nothing Absolute, everything in the
world is relatively. Therefore, we can wait the next logical
decision of the British government: ” Maintaining the rights
of the sexual minority………….( or, maybe, …….
…according to the wishes of British inhabitants )….to permit
the wedding between people and centaurs and sphinxes.”

Signature:
The Prime-minister………………………
The speaker of Parliament……………
Confirm:
Queen / King of Britain. ……………
==============..
I only hope that because the Universe acts by Quantum’s Laws,
so, according to " The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle "
this " logical " situation can be changed.
======== ===========
s0cratus
===========================
I read what string theory acts in 11- D space.
But if we dont know what 1+1=2
how can we know what 5+4=9 ?
And if we dont know what is 4-D space (+ Mincovski space )
how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?
=====================
s0cratus
Comic situation.
----------
On July 2007 I wrote an article:
Do mathematicians understand Physics? / What is for whom?/
The idea is:
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact has been forgotten in science.
…………………….etc
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.
========.
After enough long discussion I resaved comment from
one mathematician. Here this comment.
===================..
Do mathematicians understand Physics?
Mathematicians are NOT physicists.
Therefore, you can't expect a mathematician to understand everything a physicist knows and vice versa. Usually the two fields are closely intertwined however, so there is a lot of shared knowledge. It is just as much of a mistake to say that mathematicians understand everything about physics as it is to say mathematicians understand nothing about physics.
Mathematics is an abstract representation of the real world which is applicable
in just about every profession which makes it a fundamental skill. By using it,
you can model the real world to make accurate predictions. However, math is worthless if you can't effectively use it in the real world.
Physics uses a lot of math to model the real world.
You can't be a good physicist if you don't have math ability and reasoning skills.
To respond to the original post, I'll ask this:
Should we believe a physicist who doesn't understand mathematics?
===============..
So, it is possible to say that mathematicians not guilty.
All guilt lies on physicists.
" Should we believe a physicist who doesn't understand mathematics? "
Does anybody see the comic situation?
s0cratus
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
===== .========
Soul. Quantum of Light / Electron.
Why Light Quanta /Electron?
1.
Because.
From all particles, only and only
the Quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Only Light quantum has
the speed of absolute quantity c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
2.
Because.
The physicists said: Light Quanta has dualistic behaviour.
I say : The dualism of Light Quanta connects with its ability
to be Electron. ( according to the “ Law of conservation and
transformation energy. “ and the " Lorentz transformations")
…………..................etc
3.
Because.
According a " big bang" our Universe exist 13 (+ ) billion years.
My question :
Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zigota] only in 280
days
according to Probability theory? If " yes "it will be take time not
280 days but will take time more than our Universe exist.
If " no " so the process must have aim.
It means somebody /something must manage this process.
So, which answer is really true?
My opinion :
It is impossible, according to Probability theory , only in 280 days
to create a physical body, who we named " child ", from billions
and billions different cells. It means the Probability theory
doesn’t work in cell theory, doesn’t work in biophysics.
It means the Probability theory doesn’t work in period of woman's
pregnancy. It means somebody /something must manage
the creating of child . The religion says : " it is soul".
I say: " The privileged particle Quantum of light / Electron must
manage this process. (According my interpretation SRT + QED) "
4.
Because.
Some people that survived from clinical death,
claim that they saw light, they saw their material body
and everything happening around as from the side,
that in this moment they were not a material body.
Who were they?
=========== . ========
Somebody wrote to me:
Israel,
I’m trying to understand what you are saying here.
Are you saying that there is a single electron (or photon?),
the spiritual particle, somewhere in each of our brains
that is an antenna-like receiver for divine transmissions?
And we can acquire new forces and abilities by listening to it?

I say: Yes, exactly so.
1.
Usually ITS action is almost completely disguised with the other
forces
(mechanical, electromagnetic, nuclear, chemical ……etc),
therefore it remains unnoticed in an ordinary processes.
The situation is: hw < kT ( all another powers).
2.
But sometime ( for example in critical situation )
the energy of electron can be : hw> kT.
The small energy of electron is higher
than common electric field of brain.
All of us have the personal God / Soul
and it is Light Quanta / Electron.
===========…
Best wishes.
Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
s0cratus
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact has been forgotten in science.
................
==============================
I think the " pure " mathematicians are 100% correct.
The " pure " mathematicians have all right to create
and use abstract models ( point, line ...etc)
All guilt lies on physicists .
They cannot use abstract models ( point, line ...etc).
They must use mathematical apparatus in connection
For example.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are " mathematical point".
2.
In QT particles are " mathematical point".
3.
In SRT particles are points.
But according SRT the " mathematical point",
cannot be a firm " mathematical point" .
It means it is a " elastic point",
which can change its form. ( ?? !!! ).
4.
When this " mathematical elastic point" fly with speed c=1
its form become flat circle.
/ not a " mathematical point" fly with speed c=1./
5.
In QED electron is elastic sphere,
which can change its form. ( ?? !!! ).
6.
The power is also a " mathematical point".
7.
Then one a " mathematical point" /particle/ interact
with another a " mathematical point" / power/
the physicist say: " The micro-world is paradoxical."
Don't we need psychoanalyst to understand this situation?
8.
If physicist think about particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical.
========..
Best wishes.
=====================================...
walkingman
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 22 2005, 02:50 PM)
Nothingness is Liebestraume. Liebestraume is good. Man was made to fill the void. Without man, God and his Creation are empty.

Whom does the Grail serve?.... The Grail serves the one who serves.

I agree
OldWoman1904
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2007, 08:31 AM)

Subatomic particles are what they are only if someone is looking. Any other time, they are undoubtedly something else.

what are they when no one is looking?

i dont understand

because before the first receptor recieved......

the beginnings were still.....beginning......

are you saying that the first receptor created matter?

but didn't matter create the first receptor...?

right?
OldWoman1904

so this makes one think there could not have been a first......not ONE first...

one....one is not working here, correct?

is this right? there can't be a first singular "thing"?
s0cratus
My opinion about philosophy of Physics and Religion..
=============..
We live in modern scientific world and I think
/ The science will purify the religion of the “dross”./
I think the science will prove the truth
of the religion's base.

THE GENESIS.

What inhale the Life in formulas and equations?
What must be present in a body to make it alive?
===============
Soul. quantum of light/electron.
Why quantum of light/electron?
1.
Because, from all particles, only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Only Light quantum has the speed of an absolute quantity c = 1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
2.
Because, the physicists say: Light quanta have dualistic behaviour.
I say: The dualism of light quanta connects with its ability
to be an electron. (according to the law of conservation/transformation
of energy and the Lorentz transformations)…….. etc.
3.
Because, according the "big bang",
our Universe has existed for 13 (+) billion years.
My question:
Is it possible to create a child from a cell [zigota] in only 280 days according
to Probability theory? If yes, it will take not 280 days, but will take more
time than our Universe has existed. If no, the process must have purpose.
It means somebody/something must manage this process.
So, which answer is really true?
My opinion is, it is impossible according to Probability theory,
to create a physical body (a child) in only 280 days, from billions and billions
of different cells. It means probability theory doesn’t work in cell theory;
doesn’t work in biophysics. It means probability theory doesn’t work
in the period of a woman's pregnancy. It means somebody/something
must manage the creation of a child. Religion says, it is the soul.
I say: The privileged particle quantum of light/electron must
manage this process. (According to my interpretation of SRT + QED).
4.
Because, some people that survived clinical death, claim that they saw light.
They saw their material body and everything happening around as from aside,
that in this moment they were not a material body.
Who were they?
Somebody wrote me:
I’m trying to understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that
there is a single electron (or photon?), the spiritual particle, somewhere
in each of our brains that is an antenna-like receiver for divine
transmissions? And we can acquire new forces and abilities
by listening to it?
I say: Yes, exactly so.
1.
The brain of a man approximately consists of sixteen or more
billions neurons. All of them form the system that manages human body.
2.
According to the Pauli exclusion principle,
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom. This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron (for example - two),
this atom represents a "Siamese twin".
Save us, Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
3.
So usually, electron action is almost completely disguised
by the other forces (mechanical, electromagnetic, nuclear, chemical ……etc).
That is why, it is no wonder, that with the work of all the sixteen billion
neutrons of the brain, a man cannot catch a single impulse of an electron/
quantum of light, his own God:
(mass of electron is equal 10^-31 kg., charge of electron is equal 10^-19 k.)
It remains unnoticed in ordinary processes.
The situation is: hw < kT [ all another powers).
4.
But sometime ( for example in a critical situation)
the energy of the electron can be, hw > kT.
The small energy of Electron is higher than the common
electric field of the brain, and we can acquire new forces
and abilities by listening to it.
Once again.
An electron's mass is 10^-28gr . The size is 10^-13sm. A charge is 10^-19k .
With these characteristics it is hard for IT to appear.
Therefore it is clear, why we don't know IT in our ordinary life.
ITS cognition is achieved by a very hard, thin and laborious work.
This work (meditation) demands a person to be devoted to it.
All of us have the personal God/Soul and it is a light quanta/electron.
==============..
Maybe somebody thinks that the power of the light quanta/electron
is so weak that it is possible to scorn it. This is a mistake.
In meditation, the imperceptible power of the light quanta/electron
unusually increases.
I want to give two examples.
1.
It was during the Second World war.
A young soldier was badly wounded. The doctors said he would not live
and refused to operate on him. But only the soldier's body was wounded.
He did not lose consciousness and heard the conversation of the doctors.
He was young and wanted to live very much, but what could he do
if the body was wounded? And suddenly and unexpectedly he saw
the quantum of light which began to rotate around his body.
And the soldier became fanatic. He imagined himself as the quantum
of light that rotated round his body. Some days passed.
The doctors were surprised, seeing, that he had not died yet,
and decided to operate. And then they made a second operation,
third, ….. tenth ….
50 years have passed and the strong,
well built man told his story on Russian T.V.
2.
The doctor unsuccessfully jumped from a ski springboard,
fell and at once he understood that the backbone was broken.
It a was 100% physical inability. People with such an injury cannot move.
In this difficult time the doctor recollected the books about yoga
and eastern practices. He has imagined himself a quantum of light
and began to twist it around his body and backbone.
It was fanatical work.
After three years of this work, the doctor could move; at first on crutches,
then with a stick, and then freely. This is the story from one of the Soviet
magazines.
==============…
Maybe somebody will say that I mixed together physics, religion,
mystic, parapsychology, the theory of knowledge ………etc.
I think that all these subjects naturally enter into the theory:
THE GENESIS.
=========..
I want to explain my position briefly.
There are only two Absolute constants in Universe:
T=0K and c=1.
And I explain the Existence using only these two
Absolute constants.

THE GENESIS.
1.
T = 0K.
There is only one Absolute Reference Frame
and it is Vacuum : T=0K .
And Quantum Theory says that T=0K is not dead space.
2.
QT says the " virtual particles " exist in Vacuum: T=0K.
These " virtual particles " have following parameters.
Geometrical form = C/D=pi ,
Potential energy = E=Mc^2,
Potential mass = R/N=k ,
Inner impulse = h = 0 ,
Mathematical formula = i^2=-1 .
Their condition is rest.
3.
Then these " virtual particles " have Planck's impulse (h=1)
(or Einstein's impulse h=kb=1) they move with constant and
independent speed c=1.
We named these particle " Quantum of Light".
h = 1, c=1. ( light quanta).
4.
Then these " virtual particles " have another impulse,
Goudsmit /Uhlenbeck,s impulse (h=h/2pi) they became
" electrons ". ( E = hw, e^2 = hca ).
This situation described with " The Lorentz transformations."
h = h /2pi , c>1.
E = hw, e^2 = hca ( electron).
The Lorentz transformations.
So.
If these " virtual particles " have three conditions:
1) rest ( h=0),
2) strait ,constant, independent moving (c=1) and they can
3) rotate around its axis ( h=h/2pi) they are special particles.
And no other particles can reach their speed it means they
cannot have such ability as Light Quanta/ Electron has.
Therefore I say " Light Quanta/ Electron is privileged particle",
and it is possible to name Light Quanta/ Electron
as a " Spiritual, Conscious particle – Soul " ( !!! )
There is another question.
The " virtual particles " exist in Vacuum : T=0K.
The Vacuum created these "virtual, spiritual, conscious particles ".
Then on the question:
" What gave birth to these Spiritual, Conscious particles? " we can
understand that something more Conscious is cause of their existence .
Something more Absolute, Great, Infinite, Eternal , Conscious
which hides behind the Absolute temperature T=0K.
And then it became clear, why ancient Egyptians wrote in
sacred tractate: "The Universe is something Intellectual". ( !!! )
5.
Here I explain the process of " Star formation".
Star formation:
e- - k - He II - He I - rotating He - thermonuclear reaction:
a) hw > kT
hw = kT
c) kT > hw
6.
As the result of star formation the Material particles
(protons) turn out well.
p ( Proton.)
7.
Here I explain the process of interaction between
Light Quanta/ Electron and Proton.
The process of evolution is one of main in Universe.
Evolution of interaction:
a) electromagnetic,
nuclear,
c) biological.
8.
The main laws in Universe.
Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / law.
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ law.
9.
Every theory must be testing logically and practically.
Testing.
a) Theory and practice.
====== =======
This theory is simple, logical, clear.
Everybody can understand it.
Best wishes.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net/
OldWoman1904
QUOTE (s0cratus+Feb 2 2008, 11:24 PM)

The brain of a man approximately consists of sixteen or more
billions neurons. According to the Pauli exclusion principle,
only one single electron can be in the atom.

This electron reanimates the atom.

This theory is simple, logical, clear.
Everybody can understand it.

ok.....dude...that was really long

this part that im quoting----that is as far as i could get......

and then, i noticed at the very very very bottom... ...that you have the BALLZ to even talk about a simple, clear theory that everyone can understand....

no way....

are you a student? dude.....it's too long....

ok ?

but remember the part about the 16billion neurons? May I ask you to explain more? There's only one electron in each atom? I thought the atom had a bunch of electrons? You meant nucleus?

and what do you mean reanimates? re?
reanimates the atom....?what was the atom before?
s0cratus
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
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
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.
s0cratus
============================
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
============================
s0cratus
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
s0cratus
I have received an email ( comment on my article
Entropy / My opinion / ) from " HFAL"
heronfrancisco@yahoo.com

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
===========..
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.
s0cratus
===============================
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.
..............................................
....................................................
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 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.

monsterfarmer
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.
s0cratus
Thanks to: " HFAL", " Bored chemist", Bill Skocpol and

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
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
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 /
=========================================...
sDs
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)
s0cratus
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

====================...
Best wishes.
Israel.
s0cratus
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
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.
s0cratus
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
s0cratus
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.
“ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
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.
“ 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.
s0cratus
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
===================.
s0cratus
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.
s0cratus
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.
=========.
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.
===============.
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.
===============.
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.
================.
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.
==========.
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)
============.
What was before - “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “
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.
===================.
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.
s0cratus
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.
=======================
s0cratus
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
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
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

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.
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
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 /.
==========================

s0cratus
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)
============.
What was before - “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “
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
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)
============ . .

s0cratus

#
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?
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.
===========================..

s0cratus
#
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 /
===============
s0cratus
QUOTE (Cusa+May 1 2009, 04:50 AM)
Space has a substance. It is mathematical geometry.

Can you write the formula of this mathematical geometry.
==================================
s0cratus
QUOTE (Cusa+May 1 2009, 07:00 PM)
I can do the second best: Einstein's space curve.

Mitch Raemsch

Einstein's space curve . . . it means GRT- gravity theory.
The gravity theory is right only in a small and local place
in the Infinite Minkowski spacetime continuum.
=====================
s0cratus
QUOTE (Cusa+May 2 2009, 08:58 PM)
When the theory of gravity is complete it will still contain the space curve.

Mitch Raemsch

Of course the space curves near the Gravity mass.
But this effect take place only in small and local area ( part )
of the whole Universe ( for example near our Sun
or near others stars).
===================== .
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.