|Email: Israel Sadovnik|
Israel Sadovnik, Sep. 16, 2008:
Hawking bets CERN will not find the God Particle
What was before - “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “ Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator. They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the “big bang”. They didn’t make this process in the reverse. So, what was prior in the Universe: “ big bang” or vacuum?
Israel Sadovnik, Sep. 15, 2008:
Somebody wrote to me: “You haven't completely understood what happens in those accelerators. They do not smash atoms and elementary particles to see what's inside of them (like you proposed in your "smashing a watch" example). We already know what is in a proton, for example. It's quarks by the way. What they try to do is create an environment where a collision between particles will occur, creating massive amounts of energy. That energy will CREATE new particles out of nothing, according to the E=mc^2 formula. Because of the amount of the energy in that accelerator, it has been speculated that the higgs boson will come into existence. The higgs boson is the only particle predicted by the standard model (physics) which has not yet been observed. I hope my answer has helped you, and i wish you have an open mind in your searches, best wishes “
That energy will CREATE new particles out of nothing, according to the E=mc^2 formula.
So, the process is going in the Vacuum. My question is: “ How in the Vacuum (without accelerators) can the God-particles be born according to the E=mc^2 formula, of course ? “
Israel Sadovnik, Sep. 14, 2008:
Quote: "This week's startup of Europe's Large Hadron Collider didn't generate a big bang or a black hole, but it did generate a big reaction from folks who followed our series on the "Big Bang Machine." More than 40,000 people voiced their opinion by clicking through our unscientific survey or by discussing the issues in online forums." See: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/12/1386080.aspx
The mad CERN ’s way.
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.
Nature works very economically. For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all different cells created on our planet. What are about another 80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution. The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 ) proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature. All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus, all their girlfriends - antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…etc) are dead end of evolution.
The Universe as whole is Vacuum, first of all.
Israel Sadovnik, Aug. 28, 2008:
Light quanta and consciousness / subconsciousness. What is connection between light quanta and thought ? Thought works by neurons interacting in our brain. Thought is a program creating from combinations of millions and millions neurons. So we must understand the connection between light quanta and neurons in our brain. Before to understand the connection between light quanta and brain we must know what light quanta is , how brain works and then the interaction between them.
My opinion: What is light quanta?
In wikipedia you can write: It ( QED ) describes some aspects of how electrons, positrons and photons interact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_ele...But on my opinion the QED+SRT describe that an “electron, positron and photon” are one particle – Light Quanta - in different conditions.
Everybody knows that human brain works on two levels: consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and subconsciousness from physical point of view ( interaction between billions and billions neurons ). It can only mean that the state of neurons in these two situations is different. How to understand these different states of neurons.
Every neutron has its own electric impulse.
b) In the state of subconsciousness all milliards neutrons of the brain stop their electric impulse and Light Quanta/Electron in this new condition (superconductivity) has possibility to change old and create new program of person behavior.
b) In the state of subconsciousness then all milliards neutrons of the brain stop their electric impulse the situation is different. Free Light quanta can realize its power. The realization is going with the speed c > 1.
Israel Sadovnik, Aug. 25, 2008:
Relative and Absolute:
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 come from ? “
There is another space: negative four-dimensional Minkowski space, which combines the dimension of time with the three dimensions of space. This space is absolute different from Newtonian space because mathematical calculation with space and time must be done only unrequited. Time cannot be separated from the space. Herman Minkowski said about this spacetime continuum: “Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.”
Question. What is the “a kind of union of the two “? There are many abstract mathematical constructions ( models) that try to explain the Minkowski space, but nobody knows what really Minkowski space is . Nobody knows if Minkowski space is infinity or limited.
In Wikipedia we can read: “ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well defined, resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of space, how can we characterize either? “
My opinion about Minkowski spacetime continuum is, 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 a Vacuum. Why?
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.
And when Infinity comes nobody knows what to do with 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:
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, 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 can create “virtual particles”.
Of course it is very hard to take that the Universe is infinite. And this infinity is a 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”.
Comment by Sue….suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au
On Aug 25, 3:27 am, socratus wrote:
I say that “ 4-D Minkowski space " is Vacuum. Why?
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.
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.
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
The Origin of Gravity Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
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”. ( !!! )
Israel Sadovnik, Aug. 23, 2008:
Physics and Consciousness.
Science has demonstrated unequivocally that our physical reality can not be separated from our conscious awareness of it.
Dr. Jahn is the founder of PEAR Princeton
Engineering Anomalies Research.
From that site:
"The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measureable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model."
Here is one of his articles that I found interesting: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jahn15_4.pdf where he discusses scientific problems and models. I got a chuckle out of this portion where Jahn is beginning to contemplate panpsychism:
"I once had the privilege of an interview with the Dalai Lama, during which I asked whether, from his perspective, the devices we employed in our human/machine anomalies experiments were conscious. After some reflection, he responded that if we regarded them as conscious, they were conscious. This somewhat enigmatic but probably profound criterion stimulated my subsequent rumination on the rampant anthropomorphism we practice on our childhood toys, our automobiles, and our computers, and led me to the radical proposition that all definable entities could be regarded as possessing some form of consciousness."
Same Soul, Many Bodies:
Discover the Healing Power of Future Lives through Progression Therapy (Paperback) by Brian L. Weiss (Author) "EACH OF US IS IMMORTAL..."
http://www.brianweiss.com/ Same Soul Many Bodies Progression
Consciousness and the Quantum Physics.
Dualism of consciousness.
The Problem of Knowledge.
Quantum Theory of Consciousness:
Our computer-brain works on a dualistic basis. Some psychologists compare our consciousness with iceberg. The small visible part of this iceberg is our consciousness. And the unseen (underwater) greater part of the iceberg is our subconsciousness. Therefore they say, the man uses only 10% of possibility of his brain. And if it so, why doesn’t anybody teach us how to develop our subconscious? I think it is because there are few people who understand that the processes of subconsciousness are connected with quantum processes. The subconsciousness theory closely united with quantum theory. These quantum processes which take place in lifeless (inanimate) nature also take place in our brain. Our brain can be the laboratory in which we can test the truth of quantum theory.
"The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind"
- Chuang Tzu
The conflict between right and wrong can be explained by the theory of “Quantum dualism of consciousness” .
Israel Sadovnik, Aug. 21, 2008:
A black hole is a region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, not even light, can escape its pull after having fallen past its event horizon.
But to give only such explanation of “black hole” is not complete. There is another alternative. There is another interpretation of “black hole”. A “ black hole” is not a “region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, not even light can escape its pull “but…... but a region with very small density (critical density : p = 10^-29g/sm^3).
And the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small (the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately less than p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the “ black hole” is only a model of our Universe / Vacuum as a whole.
John asks: For a non-specialist, what's the conclusion (about black body)?
In 1900 Planck found what “black body” / a model of Vacuum / can radiate. The radiation goes only by “quanta” particles (h). This kind of radiation is electromagnetic radiation.
In 1974, S. Hawking found that a “black hole” / other model of vacuum/ can radiate. This is another kind of radiation. This radiation explains the thermal spectrum radiation of the beginning of star formation ( gravitation). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
So, we have two different kinds of radiation:
If you are interesting you can read my opinion on the site:
Gravity, particles and star formation.
Entropy - My opinion.
Israel Sadovnik, Jul. 27, 2008:
Inertia and Spin - My opinion
Aristotle: Every object needs force/power/energy for its motion.
If no force, no motion.
Newton: Of course great Aristotle is right in saying that there is no motion without forces . I respect him very much and I won’t make a fool of myself quarrelling with him. However I can say more and explain Aristotle’s opinion by the formula F=ma. It means, the force of a moving object depends on acceleration which it gives to this object’s mass. But here I have two opportunities /possibilities.
Planck: Newton’s inertia is very strange, and Mach’s idea too. But if I will take that our Universe looks like a “black body “ then I can suggest that there must be some very small particle (quant) which can move “inertially“ with constant speed c=1 over a period of time. I will write this “inertial“ motion of quanta by the formula: h=Et. But really, it is hard for me to believe that I am right.
Einstein: Of course Planck is right, but I don’t like the way he reached the result. He says nothing concrete about the particle and the reason for this acceleration’s beginning. I will take another road. If I use the Boltzmann resting particle (R/N=k ) and give him Wien’s displacement constant (b), as an acceleration, then the particle will have Planck’s impulse, but now the formula is h=kb. Planck’s formulas and my own are equal, as they explain behavior of quant (light quanta) from a different point of view.
Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck:It is all well.But we can see different kinds of motion in nature. And look at Planck’s formula, h=Et. It includes time (t). And time, by its nature, is a limited parameter. It means that this particle cannot go straight at all times with constant speed c=1. This kind of motion must be temporary and can change. So, another possibility is that the particle can spin around itself and we will write this kind of moving by formula h=h/2pi.
L. de Broglie and Heisenberg: These two spins of particle are very important parameters, so we will try to explain all phenomena in the Nature using only these parameters.
But, unfortunately, they both didn’t succeed. Why did they fail? Because to use only spin parameters is not enough. The spin parameters belong to the particle who/ which have/has also other parameters: speed (c) and volume (a) and all together they can create a particle which we call the electron: e^2=ahc. Now using the electron and Boltzmann's particle (R/N=k )it is possible to explain the beginning of star formation (gravitation) and later all another phenomena of Nature.
Someone wrote to me
“An old professor of mine used to say that anyone who can answer that question what inertia is, would win a Nobel Prize. “
I don’t say this about myself, I say about this article, “This article waits for its Nobel Prize.” Does somebody have another opinion?
Israel Sadovnik, Jun. 23, 2008:
Physics and Geometry - My opinion.
Classic Physics started from two points -thermodynamics and light. 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 a single particle. But then, sooner or later, all the mass of these particles will stop moving and 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 changes. From studyingthe mass of particles in thermodynamics, Planck and Einstein began to study one individual particle (quantum of energy). It seems that it was logical to think about the geometrical form of this particle, but this did not happen. And still now physicists do not think about concrete particles, they are concerned about a “mathematical point”.
When physicists studied the behavior of light, they came to the conclusion that light ( light quanta) can sometime be a particle - a “mathematical point” and sometimes a wave as a “mathematical wave". From the behavior of light, SRT was born and here the particle is also a “mathematical point”. It is hard to understand, why nobody thought about a geometrical form of light quanta if it is a real particle.
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 the Universe change all the time so Euclidian geometry also has to change. This lead Lobachevsky and Bolyai to discover Non-Euclidian geometry which is not static but elastic.
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 made from this fact? They have no answer. Nobody is interested in the borders of this change.
In 1915 Einstein said the mass and speed (moving mass) can change the geometry of space. (GRT). It means physics without geometry is a limited part of science. It means physics without geometry is not a complete (whole) part of science.
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 are not interested how these changes came about. And physicists use forces (energy, impulse, …etc) without knowing anything about the geometrical changes of particles. They do not think about this. For them, the particle is only represented by a “mathematical point”. After all, they say the situation in QT is crazy, and Nature is paradoxical. I know why they say this, because on one hand “physical” doesn’t know that on the other hand “geometrical” does.
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 and as an individual particle).
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)..
Israel Sadovnik, Jun. 23, 2008:
Quotation: "It's not so much that there's something strange about time, the thing that's strange is what's going on inside time. We will first understand how simple the universe is when we recognize how strange time is." J. A. Wheeler, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
Jud Evans, Jun. 18, 2008:
*Time* is a reificational myth - a helpful fiction and the ideative product of the human brain. Like *number, movement, speed, appearance, being, energy, force... *time* is a metaphysical creation of mankind employed in order to enable him to interface with other causal objects (other that is - to the causal, abstracting, reificative object which is ...himself.)
Although utterly unscientific, these abstractions are required in order for science to do its business of measuring and making deterministically engendered predictions. Only when scientists grasp that it is not the * behaviour * of objects that exists - but * behaving objects* will the big TOE discoveries take place.
Put another way - *time* does not exist ... only (humanly) *timed objects* exist.
Israel Sadovnik, Jun. 19, 2008:
I have read your comment with interest. On the one hand, it seems you are right. Why? There are different definitions: * movement, speed, energy, force, charge, spin, field ...etc * The physicists take these definitions as independent physical characteristics and when some of them say: "We are always using these concepts but not a singe physicist in the world today knows what they really mean * deep down*" ABC ’s of Quantum Mechanics by V. Rydnik. Page 315.
On the other hand, it seems you aren’t correct. Why? Being a boy and a young man I was beaten many times or as a Jew, or because I was right, or it seems to me that I was right but I was a fool. So, I know by my teeth how the physical parameters like * movement, speed, energy, force, ...* are real and effective.
And now, as an old experienced man, I came to the conclusion that the physicists were never beaten and therefore they didn’t know that the physical definitions like * movement, speed, energy, force, charge, spin, field ...etc * must be bound with concrete particle (object- subject) which (who ) is a possessor of these characteristics or can produce these characteristics. When they understand this fact the situation will became clear.
Put another way - *time* does not exist ... only (humanly) *timed objects* exist. I think to solve your suggestion is like to solve equation: infinity + 1= ?
Maybe it is better to take objects like a light quanta or an electron and try to understand why they are *timed objects* If you don’t like words * movement, speed, energy, force...* change them into formulas and write them down, step by step, for explaining the Existence as I do;
Jun. 17, 2008:
There are two kinds of time:
SRT explains behavior and the proper time of light quanta /electron. Why do I think so?
b) SRT was born from Maxwell's theory and it is a continuation of the electrodynamics’ development. The electron is a main and single hero in the Maxwell's theory and SRT. There isn't the Maxwell's theory / SRT without electron. It is not correct to compare electron/ light quanta with another particles (protons…etc) and bodies (billiard balls, satellites, astronauts, “twins”) because they cannot produce electromagnetic fields. The electron and the another particles are also incommensurable quantities. They are absolutely different objects.
c) Every epoch has its own delusion. Maxwell and Boltzmann tried to explain electromagnetic fields using balls, wheels, cog-wheels, springs…etc. Now we try to compare electron/photon ability with astronaut’s 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”.
Is it possible to see the different manifestation of time in a human being? Here is an article “ Even the time is pressed from fear” by Dr. Vadim Chernobrov (collaborator of MAI - - Moscow Aviation Institute).
He wrote, that we usually think time is a constant quality. But Einstein’s relative theory says time is relative.
Question. Is it possible to check it in our life? Answer. Russian and foreign researches say it is possible. The documents (secret in the past) testify that “cataclysm of time”, “ phenomenon of time’s perversion “,” the changes (its deceleration) of time” often is observed by people whose profession connected with risk: astronauts, pilots, drivers, soldiers.
The test pilot Mark Gallay wrote in his book “The test in the sky” when his airplane was caught with fire “ the time began to go in another scale. The time almost stopped. Every second took ability of expansion, and in this situation it was possible to do many things.” He confirms that tested such feeling many times.
The test pilot Marina L. Popovich said the same, in the dangerous, catastrophic situations “ the time is stretches”.
In June 1989 the soviet airplane MIG-29 crashed near Paris, in Le Bourget airport , in the time of its air show. The notes of “the black box” showed that during the four (4)seconds the test pilot Anatoly Kvochur made as many operations as in normal situation it would take some minutes. The test pilot later said: ” the time was stretched”.
The captain N.Z.(fought in Afghanistan) remembers: “the fly of the bullet was so beautiful that I didn’t guess to evade from it, although I have enough time to do it”.
The sergeant V. Ch (fought in Afghanistan) told: “ The black barrel of gun seems very big, even enormous. Time is stopped and full silence came. And I moved slowly a step a side and the bullet passed close to me.”
His conclusions - The people in a critical situation, on the border of death, suddenly for themselves begin to see everything as in the slow down film and in this time their speed reaction and power increase in tens and hundreds times. And this explains:
It was long time ago, but writing this article I understood better what happened. In that time most neurons of my brain stopped their electric pulse (time almost stopped) and my Light Quanta/ Electron in this new condition (superconductivity) had possibility to increase my speed reaction and power on a short period of time and maybe saved my life. I must thank Him.
Jun. 16, 2008:
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?
2. But in every book and textbook it is written that there isn’t an 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 motion". etc….
3. From school days I cannot understand how it is possible to say that the speed of photon is an absolute constant c=1 and at 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 this paradox to me.
Jun. 1, 2008:
The Zeeman Effect. My opinion.
2. In 1916 Sommrfeld studying this process said that the splitting depended on some non-sizable coefficient(? ) that is equal to 1/137. It was called the “fine structure constant”. Nobody could understand what sense of this constant in the modern physics,and on Feynman’s expression , which he said with humour this quantity is "by the god given damnation to all physicists". Sommerfeld found this constant (a) using the formula a=e^2/hc. We can rewrite this formula as: e^2=hca where: h=h/2pi - is an impulse (Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck.)
4. Every electron's jump from a higher energy to a lower energy is accompanied by the birth of a photon. From where did the photon appear? I think that an electron doesn't hide a photon under its shirt, but changes into a photon according to" The the law of conservation and transformation of energy" .
Quotation from the book" ABC's of Quantum mechanics",
V. Rydnik. page 98.
"Now take the electron. Even if its velocity is close to that of light -10^10 cm/s- it will have a momentum of only about 10^17 g. cm/s. The gamma photon used for illumination has a very short wavelength (say, 6. 10^13 cm) and a momentum of 10^14, which is thousands of times that of the electron. So when a photon hits an electron, it is like a railway train smashing into a baby-carriage." I don't think that an electron would be glad to meet a photon in such catastrophic way. I don't think that Feynman’s graphics give good and clear explanation of behavior between particles. I don't think that it is possible to create complex atoms and cells in such interaction.
6. Many years, I kept this article in my library. At the end of 1983 a scientist-neurophysiologist Khose M.R. Delgado (Spain) came to Moscow and made a report there, which was published in a magazine. Here is its brief content.
"In our laboratory the investigations on the influence of magnetic fields on the living beings take place. We watched such results."
May 28, 2008:
Light quanta and its life.
Israel Sadovnic, May 20, 2008:
Vacuum, infinity, particles... etc.
Paul Dirac: "The problem of the exact description of the vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description of something more complex?"
Peter Milonni, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico:
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
1. The Third Law of Thermodynamics says that we cannot reach the absolute temperature of the Vacuum, T =0 K. This temperature is a border for us. Classic physics says that all particles in T = 0K will stop their movement. But Quantum theory doesn't agree with this statement. Dirac and other colleagues said that in the sea of the vacuum "virtual, negative, imaginary (i^2= -1)" particles live. So, the Third Law says that the border between the infinite universe and the finite world is marked by the Kelvin temperature, T = 0K. In another words, in the infinite universe, T = 0K, other objects with finite " inner borders " can exist. The question is: How can the infinite universe interact with the finite world?
2. What is the geometrical and physical parameters of particles in the vacuum, in Nothing, in T = 0K? Can we know anything about this "soup of virtual particles" in the vacuum? The physicists think about the " virtual, negative, imaginary (i^2=-1) " particles as a "point". They are mistaken, because, there are physical laws which forbid such an opinion. According to J. Charles law (1787), when the temperature falls down to 1 degree, the volume decreases by 1/273. And when the temperature reaches -273 degrees the volume disappears. Because, as a consequence of the Third Law, ( W. Nernst-1906, M. Planck-1911, A.Einstein-1925) when it is closer to zero T = 0K, the particles lose more of their volume, density, pressure. The volume of these particles aspires to infinity. And when this “infinity” comes, nobody knows what to do with it. But, according to the " Law of conservation and transformation of energy" the particles cannot disappear. So, they can only change geometrical form ands kinetic energy and become “flat particles” with potential energy. These flat particles must have the geometrical form of a circle, C/D = pi. So, it is mistaken to think about an elementary particle as a point.
3. And from another side, we know that the photon is a real particle and can move with the constant speed c = 1.In this movement, its form is a compressing circle. 4. etc.
Israel, Apr. 24, 2008:
Thanks to: " HFAL", " Bored chemist", Bill Skocpol and Jim Whitescarver, I corrected and wrote this article.
Entropy - My opinion
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 ."
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."
In 1900 Max Planck said: Clausius and Boltzmann are both right. But all my life I worked almost exclusively on problems related to thermodynamics. And I am sure that the " The second law of Thermodynamics" , concerning entropy, is deeper and it says more than is generally accepted. I am sure the Boltzmann's probabilistic /statistical version of "The second law of Thermodynamics " is not completed, is not final. Please, look at the graph of the radiation curves of the " black body". They are very similar to those curves which are calculated by Maxwell for the velocity (i.e. energy) distribution of gas molecules in a closed container. Could this black body radiation problem be studied in the same way as Maxwell's ideal gas.... ...electromagnetic waves ? This problem of connection between radiation of black body and Maxwell's Electrodynamics theory doesn't give me peace. Maxwell's theory can tell everything about the emission, absorption and propagation of the radiation, but nothing about the energy distribution at thermal equilibrium. What to do? How to be ?
After trying every possible approach using traditional classical applications of the laws of thermodynamics I was desperated. And I was forced to consider that the relation between entropy, Boltzmann's probability version and Maxwell's theory is possible to solve by suggestion , that energy is radiated and absorbed with discrete individual quanta particle (E= hv). So, now I must write " The second law of Thermodynamics " by the 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 an interpretation of 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 ?
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:
b) 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.
hv --> He II --> He I -->
( P. Kapitza , L. Landau , E.L. Andronikashvili theories). (Superconductivity, superfluidity.)
3. Plasma reaction... -->
4. Thermonuclear reactions ...-->......etc.
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.
[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
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
Israel Sadovnik, Apr. 23, 2008:
Two different opinions about Entropy. I have received two emails.
1. Dear Socratus,
I realize that you sent a brief attempt to describe your search for understanding of a difficult subject. I am knowledgeable about Nonequilibrium Superconductivity from my work in the 1970's. There was a thirty year gap between my studying Statistical Mechanics in graduate school and teaching it to upper-level undergraduates. I am teaching thermodynamics right now as three chapters of an introductory sequence.
With the development of quantum mechanics, we have both theory and experiments that show that E=hf is the energy delivered in packets by wavelike particles of frequency f. (The frequency is often written as "nu" which I take to be your "v".) This energy is a different kind of quantity than Boltzmann's expression for the entropy S = k_B log(*Omega*). You should NOT set them equal. E has units of Joules and S has units of Joules/Kelvin. (Note the 1/T in the thermodynamic definition of S.) Don't try to understand a relationship that is not correct!
B. S., Professor of Physics, Boston University
2. Dear Israel Sadovnik,
I am, at this moment, working on a statistical mechanics section of a text. At the core of this is, of course, the second law. I learn more about the second law almost by the day. I find it particularly distasteful when people try to reduce this to a statement about the number of quantum states, as American advocates of "Thermal Physics" try to.
C. H., Professor of Physics
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 deaper explanation of Entropy.
In 1915 Einstein had 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.
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 deeper and it says more than is usually accepted.
Hfal, Apr. 16, 2008:
I saw your email and thought it to be very good and important. In the formula that s = k(log)W, you put entropy like energy.. But if you look at the Clausius inequality you see that entropy is energy divided per temperature. So the formula hv = k(log)W is hv = kT (log)W, I think.
Israel Sadovnik, Apr. 17, 2008:
The formula hv = k(log)W --> hv = kT (log)W describes the possibility of realization of the macro state from the micro state. This formula explains the beginning conditions of gravitation, the beginning conditions of star formation. 1. hv = k(log)W.
4.Thermonuclear reactions ...-->......etc.
Israel Sadovnik, Mar. 30, 2008:
1.Henry Poincare named the concept of "entropy" a "surprising abstract".
2. L. Landau (Dau) wrote: "A question about the physical basis of entropy monotonous increasing law remains open".
3. The famous mathematician, John von Neumann said to "the father of information theory", Claude Shannon: " Name it "entropy" then in discussions you will receive solid advantage, because nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".
1. Between 1850-1865, Rudolf Clausius published a paper in which he called "The energy conservation law" as "The first law of thermodynamics". But in our nature the heat always flows from the higher temperature to the lower one and never back. In our everyday life we don't see that heat itself' rises from cold to hot. So, it seemed that in thermodynamics "The energy conservation law" wasn’t kept. It 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 a universal law and it must be correct also for thermodynamic processes. 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 other form of potential energy/heat itself which can transform heat from the cold body to the warm one. I will call this conception "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 hotter to a colder body. It is possible there is 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 concept.
According to Classic physics, when an isolated thermodynamic system comes to thermal equilibrium, all particles stop moving. On 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.
I don't know how exactly the thermal equilibrium of the system changes, But I can give a 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 "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 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 bodies and Maxwell's Electrodynamics theory doesn't give me peace. Maxwell's theory can tell everything about the emission, absorption and propagation of radiation, but nothing about the energy distribution at thermal equilibrium. What to do? How to be?
After trying every possible approach using traditional classical applications of the laws of thermodynamics I was desperate. And I was forced to consider that the relation between entropy, Boltzmann's probability version and Maxwell's theory is possible to solve by the 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 an 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 its essence. It was hard for me to believe in my own discovery.
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 discrete. This idea was written with formula: R/N=k. It means: there are particles with the energy/mass state (k) in a physical system of ideal gas. They don't move, they are in a 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 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 for "entropy", the source of thermal equilibrium's fluctuation, the source of Vacuum fluctuation is an action of the particle /electron, which has the energy, E = hv.
b) 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 ) talk 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 :" 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 to the entropy problem. Plus about twenty-three years trying to understand the essence of physical laws and formulas.
Marvin Kirsh, Mar. 24, 2008:
Nature, I think can be defined as a stand alone paradox-interchangeable in name with it. But can we say so and pass it around hand to hand-only to mouth to mouth. The theories of man-if he is also nature....if the mother and father of something are both paradox, anything created from it must be also. If the initial paradox cannot be held in the hand, neither can it's children. Light defines shape, it cannot be given one itself. If there is to be a physical shape important to the "paradox" it must also be present for witness. I think if one considers an egg and the form of animals, that all of the major ratios in dimensions from the egg can be found and passed around. Consider the pretty woman verses the violin bow-which is inatimate. The shape of the woman we know, but what is the shape of the bow with respect to the chemical elements that compose it? First-why do we ask when a pretty woman is around? If we do, that we do, the bow must be composed of the same things that the pretty woman is, but are not things with physical dimensions that can be passed around, are in our minds as is our concept of the woman, as are her concepts, and where in a unity to nature can only exist. The orbits of the planets, elliptical, may, over eons trace an an egg shape in their paths. This might potentially held in the had as easily as an egg from a chicken, but when we see it it is flat. The brain, the eye are all egg shaped. The factor from which they emanate are the same factors from which our thoughts emanate,..we are naturally totally blind to both together, As a living entity with certain natural traits cannot see them in another. A dog can see and know the identity of another dog, a man but has no ability to speak, much less know in actuality the actual exact likenesses to the dog and hence unlikenesses to the man. He is good friend to man, who only finds energy draining paradox that do not exist for the dog. When we discuss relative time, in the same effort we acknowledge in the same thought that time is over there, or over there... and have no actual impetus to find actual mathematical comparison ..i.e. two pursuit of the net difference of two entangled states can only result in the assumption that states are entangled also to one another, with the logical conclusion that everything in the world is entangeld in some way to everything else. What could that imply but that we would by necessity be blind to and produce nothing but incoherencies in the attempt to analyze it.
Things the same inside and out big to little, but something that we are blind to. Like the egg in the hand, we conceived of a whole, question because there exisits something lesser with the same property, that deals tangible problems to us.. implying that it is tangibly handable. The current history of approach is the only conceivable path to a solution, and one might not have an honest/authentic...(evidenced by a moral decadence that has the appearance of good reason and order-and what we should seek in some physical form (in the cosmos, here and over there) as serving a victimizing injustice instead of protest) .... way to be critical of theory if it is understood as conjecture( -it is the practice of theory arrived at earnestly where in from this perspective is is easily perceived to be diverged in course from the good and honest. Socrates, from my philosophy courses believed that "if one knows the truth, he will act accordingly....if one knows the truth he will also be unable to act other wise. "..and thus our courses to find the truth, which both has come about that it depends on what we have already accomplished that way with action that sometimes traverses this line, but have a seeking ecomomic/mechanically oriented audience that holds a second hand relationship to the philosopher and scientist, much as the learning of a doctor treating a disease learns from, but cannot hurt a patient, transmits his learning to a scientist who has no first hand medical patients or medical training/orientation/experience. Acquired learning in some cases gets rearranged and fed back in a form that still looks OK to the doctor, because they are naturally blind to the truth together, less they possess a pretty girl and a violin bow(and an expensive meeting hall at a paradise resort), and a theoretical topic to be held and be behold. This results in a failing grade, of three out of four, as I believe we knew at the outset creation not be held ,but only be behold. It is not conceived of that another matter, the same, inside and out, that can be held is the real (desired) topic. Statistical science application leads us directly away from it. (what I believe is a physical/energy disturbance existing in the cosmos, that misleads perceptually-if not at a neural nonprocessing level -we have become accustomed to, if not of such a very nebulous nature that if an cognitive awareness had come about, description is not attempted,we explore in the dark by intuition with a myriad of assembled ontologies and epistemologies without as yet a serendipidity to find a correct fact to enable us to reorder priorities and concepts-if one can envision a hologram that contains in every corner an entire picture ,we maybe at the verge of or have that, but are constantly in paradox to understand what is in it, and interpet from it only descriptive words from which a linearity/linear progression is conceived rather than a order fitting with the hologram. Absent from the picture is tangible fact to be held.
You words are very clear and help to me gain a clearer wording. Discussion of time over there and time. here, simultaneity, Evolves, at the root into some other lingual meaning than comparison by mathematical ratio. it refers to cause and effect, specific happening in a historical context involving unique particulars, and is not valid as general universal/universe theory. Einstein himself said "phenomenon observed and reconsidered" what would be the relative time between observation and reconsideration with respect to a change over time )(if certain phenomenon are not basic but undergo change).-not a potentially coherent question from one (Einstein) if he based a mathematical device for the description of universal phenomenon on those observations (quote)). The existence of Einsteins doubt and theory together provide the only coherency to my question of the relationship of human psychological time to the observed phenomenon. What could Einsteins actual refelctions concern, the topic of his thoughts? .... not a mathematical sense of psychological time.... psychological time is all that can compose a definition of time-if conceived of as a clock it can both be held and be behold, but all one may really do with time/the world is behold it). You might find interesting my paper Inversion, the Record and the Record Player: With Respect to the Science of Consciousness, Consciousness and Free Will (I am still editing) at this internet site.
P.S.-You might also be interested in the philosophy of George Berkeley (easily found in internet sites (e.g. the Wiki enclclopedia) wh dod not believe in the existence of matter-is a fact perceiving witness man or all present god. )(I interpert some of his struggles to reside in teaching in a second sense that matter is commonly perceived as only that which is hard-solid and that is only a value given in the range of gas to rock- and of the kind of things that can threaten the body as the basis of the division of self/soul -life and matter. The actual details of science become relatively unimportant over history, they are function thought and behavior-response to the environement. All are at the same time, demands of society, human thinking, becoming more over burdened and complex -laiden with an obstruction producing obstructing linear redundancy. Likenes to likeness in cognitive description that one can extend obliviously across domains of the tangible to the intangible, and at the borders of world sorenesses where in all controversary and conflict reside, and resolutions found that are in the violent range of human emotions (if not given a potentially higher standard of propensity towards from accomodation to constant irritating factors) even in the facts of his science applications("genetics needs to be fixed" -"the mites are getting the crops(which feed us in order to accomplish the same endeavors and wasteing much of the available food energy) so we'll turn them all into males"-the A-bomb of which nothing needs to be said-all are eccentrically very scheming, the schemes, the construction of devices,the interpretation in the construction of concepts relating to the life processes/all mysteries and 'appropriate' employments in this regard.
I. Sadovnik, Mar. 24, 2008:
Why is QT paradoxical? The theory which we call Quantum Mechanics is very strange. Because when we are talking about mechanics it means that we can imagine and see this process visually. But QM came with no visual aids, no model to picture in one's mind. Now this theory is a purely mathematical formalism, difficult to use and impossible to visualize. It simply gives the right answers to the most complicated theoretical question. Such situation satisfy maybe 99% of physicists. But there are few physicists who don’t agree with this situation. They want to understand QT without paradoxes. I consider that these paradoxes are connected with only one reason: " Nobody pays attention to the geometrical form of particles".
Now the physicists follow "pure" mathematicians. "Since the mathematical physicists have taken over, theoretical physics has gone to pot. The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not for the tragedy of the waste in time, manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection."- - said Richard Feynman. There is difference between "pure" mathematics and the mathematics of theoretical physics. " Pure" mathematics is infinite and the mathematics of theoretical physics is limited by natural laws. The "pure" mathematicians have all rights to create and use abstract models ( point, line …etc) Physicists must use mathematical apparatus in connection with real objects, with real particles. And they forgot about this fact. For example.
And now let's imagine the bow pressed into a "mathematical point" and the musicians speak seriously about a "mathematical point" which must produce a sound from a violin. Everybody will say I describe an idiotic situation. Well, I agree. But why doesn't anybody say it to physicists when they observe an elementary particle as a "mathematical point" , without paying attention to its geometrical form.
When Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." it was only because nobody took into consideration the geometrical form of a particle.
Jan. 8, 2008:
Questions about Life.
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?
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 lectron 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.
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.
Aug. 23, 3007:
SRT , GRT and Minkowski space
SRT doesn't have a gravity field. If there is no gravity field, 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?
If a 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 science's 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.
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 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. I say, it is a 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 God there. In another words, if we don’t know what 4-D Minkowski space is, it is impossible to take SRT as the 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.
I forgot that all the Universe began from an apparent big bang. So I must add the apparent big bang to D-space" …………..or to " God "...................... Then ...............
The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only big bang which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore we see background radiation T=2,7K now." And religious man will say: "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 the 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."
Aug. 19, 2007:
How do energy, entropy and information interact? If energy increases, information also increases. If entropy increases, information decreases. Is the interaction compatible or incompatible? But it seems to me that this scenery of explaining the beginning of creation the Universe is very hard because I explain everything in common words.
I must say: "quantity of energy", "quantity of entropy", "quantity of information". But even these words are common. I must make them more accurate. The smallest quantity of energy has an electron. And we know, there is no quantity of information transfer without a quantity of energy transfer. And the electron has the least electric charge. This means this electron has (carries) the smallest quantity of information. But what is "quantity of entropy"? Nobody knows. I know the answer.
It is Dirac’s particle - antiparticle. As entropy is a shadow of energy, so the antiparticle is a shadow of a particle. And we come to Quantum theory again, with all its paradoxes.
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 the common physicists opinion. Are they really right?
Is it really impossible to understand QM with usual, human ( classical) logic? Are the physical formulas cleverer than us? I think we say this in such a 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 mechanics"?
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.
Aug. 12, 2007:
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.) – were assembled in a "single point". This means that all information also was assembled in a "single point". And then there was " big bang " and all information flew to bits in different sides.
Suppose that every bit of a "single point", every particle of a "single point" is the owner of some information. Then there are two possibilities:
b) in the beginning every particle has zero information . Question : How does zero information further arrive to a very high informational level?"
The visible matter of world is only a small part of all mass in the Universe. More then 90% of the matter in the Universe is unseen, "dark matter". Nobody knows what it is and therefore it is possible to say that more then 90% of information is hiding and unknown to us. So our aim must be to study "dark particles" or…..
We know, there is no information transfer without energy transfer. More correct: there is no quantity of information transfer without a quantity energy transfer. And the electron has the least electric charge. This means it has some quantity of the least information. What can an electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev/Moseley periodic table. We can see at first, what the electron does. It interacts with a proton and creates an atom of hydrogen. This is the simplest design, which was created by the electron. And we can see how this information grows and reaches a high informational level. And the most complex design which was created by the electron is Man. Man is an alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences. And an atom? And atom is also a live design. A free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds. And someone a long time ago has already said that if to give sufficient time to an atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man. Really, it is not beautiful is it? Maybe it is better not to search for "dark, virtual particles" but to understand what the electron is, because even now nobody knows what electron is.
Was I mistaken? No. Because 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! Each of us has an electron, but we do not know it.
Why does only the electron have a quantity of information? Does maybe the proton also have a quantity of information? No. The single proton has no quantity of information. Why? Because information can be transfered only by electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory about proton-magnetic fields.
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was one "single point" accidentally. Then it accidentally blew up: Big Bang has taken place. It was the reason of accidental creation of some thousands of kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles. Then atom of hydrogen was formed accidentally Then complex atom was formed accidentally. Then stars were formed accidentally. Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally. Then the fauna was formed accidentally. Then the animal kingdom was formed accidentally. Then the man was created accidentally. And this man can accidentally think logically. But of course, unfortunately, not always.
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.) and has made them domestic ones. But man badly understands our four-footed friends. In 1897 J. J. Thomson found a new particle - the electron. Gradually man has accustomed the electron to work for him. But man does not understand what an electron is.
For my peasant logic at first it is better to understand the closest thing (for example an electron) and then to study faraway space and particles (for example dark, black, virtual …etc particles).
Jun. 14, 2007:
What is for whom?
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians. Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature. This simple fact has been forgotten in science.
After the war in Russia, there were many thieving gangs nd I as a boy, rotated among one of them. They had their own language, thieves' jargon. No one could understand them. Now I read some mathematical articles and they remind me of that forgotten thieves' slang. Are you laughing? Is this ridiculous? For me it isn’t ridiculous because mathematicians stole the picture of reality from us. Because they make us poor and stupid. Why do I say so? I will try to prove it and explain my point of view.
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT, (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour). Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space. Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski's interpretation, said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
It is difficult to understand SRT using 4D space. "But it is possible using my 5D space" - said Kaluza in 1921. This theory was tested and found insufficient. "Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it. But the doubts still remain. "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 intellects to solve this problem. Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But………. But there is one problem. To create new D space, mathematicians must add 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 by 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 wish 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 its surroundings, will he be successful?
If were a king, I would publish a law: every mathematician who takes part in the creation of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal "To the winner over common sense". Why? Because they have won us over using the absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
I asked some mathematician: Are there many different D spaces in the math/physicist’s works. Are there limits to these D spaces? Maybe is 123 D spaces the last and final space? He answered: "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 a need to try something else.
Maybe the time has come to try something else.
And what is mathematical opinion about the photon itself? Here is one example how mathematician tries to solve the problem. Russian scientist professor V.P. Seleznev created a "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 a possibility to understand all the natural phenomena of light, to overcome all contradictions in physics and to offer a new technology. So it is written in the book.
The secrets of Universe, 1998, V.D. Demin. Page 377
Glory to this scientist! Glory to this professor! But I have only one question - Can this toro volume ring model (like a bublik) have volume in the vacuum? The answer is NO. According to J. Charles law ( 1787), when the temperature falls down to 1 degree, the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the temperature reaches -273 degrees, the volume disappears and particles become flat figures. Charles law was confirmed by other physicists: Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein. So, according to Charles law the "toro volume ring model " is only a mathematic illusion.
There are many different models of photon. To choose the correct one, we needs to ask a question. Which geometrical form can a photon have in a vacuum?
Some scientists say: "The darkest subject in the science is light quanta." Maybe now some my readers will better understand the way which we must go. 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.
My thanks to: Jim Whitescarver, Andre Michaud, Richard Gauthier, R.A. and SI for helping me understand the alphabet of mathematical slang.
Jun. 5, 2007: About i^2= -1, pi=3,14…, e=2,71…
My question is: Can "imaginary and transcendental quantities" belong to a real particle?
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." ~ Albert Einstein.
May 6, 2007:
I have reread the Planck’s article "Scientific Autobiography". It is a small article of 10 pages, but how honest and modest, wise and beautiful it is. I cannot give a whole deep explanation in this article, therefore I will concentrate attention on a small part of it.
2. And as for the relation between "relativity and absolute" Planck wrote, that the fact of "relativity assumes the existence of something absolute"; "relativity has sense when something absolute resists it." Planck wrote that the phrase "all is relative" misleads us, because it is nonsense, because there is something absolute in SRT. And the most attractive thing in SRT was for Planck “to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3. And than Planck explained what there are absolutes in physics:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
What a pity it is. I want to hope that this sentence isn’t absolutely correct.
Does anybody know the website with Max Planck’s "Scientific Autobiography"? Thank you.
May 4, 2007:
Two views on the space and time.
We have many kinds of dimension spaces: 3D, 4D and etc. Is it hard to see three dimension. . .??? No.
2. Is it hard to see the fourth dimension. . .??? No.
There is simultaneous union of space and time
(negative four-dimensional / Minkowski / space). Herman Minkowski :
" Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
Question: What is the "a kind of union of the two "? The answer. It is the Vacuum. T=0K. It is the “empty” space between milliards of billions Galaxies.
Is there a medicine for this illness? Of course there is. On one recipe is written " Vacuum: T=0K". On the other recipe is written " Light quanta". If we don’t take this medicine our human society will remain in the state of "schizophrenia". God Save us.
Apr. 23, 2007:
Max Planck: Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920
"There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive solution could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission?"
This question still waits for its answer.
Apr. 19, 2007:
One brief thought:
2.At the interaction of the electron with the vacuum, energy and mass becomes infinite. This means that the electron disappeared into heaven. Maybe, therefore the energy of vacuum is not equal to zero.
3. Between constant h and the electron there is a fine structure constant. What does this constant mean? This constant remained unknown in modern physics and on Feynman's expression that this quantity is " given by god in damnation of all physicists ".
4. I want to say, that the constant h comes from heaven and the electron goes to heaven and still nobody knows what light quanta, electrons and vacuum are. Maybe, therefore the interpretation of physics seems paradoxical. Maybe, therefore the physicists make measurments not understanding the deep essence of the processes.
5. We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about `and'. "Sir Arthur Eddington"
The common answer is that light consists actually of two waves, an electric wave and a magnetic wave. According to Maxwell's equations, both induce and thus maintain each other mutually, and thus there is no need for a medium and the light can propagate in a vacuum.
I studied this concept 50 years ago, but ...50 years have passed... And now I cannot take the school concept seriously. Why? Because:
2.It is 100% right that " an electric wave and a magnetic wave, according to Maxwell's equations, both induce and thus maintain each other mutually". But this statement is right only according to classic ( macro) electrodynamics. When Maxwell's electrodynamics is used in the microworld, then it requires the idea of "quantum of light".
3. It is not correct to use the common word "light" in quantum theory.The word "light" is possible to use on a beach, in a market, in every another place, but not in quantum theory. Here it is necessary to say "quantum of light".
4. And now everybody knows that light quanta is a wave and particle at the same time. And when somebody says : "that light consists actually of two waves, an electric wave and a magnetic wave". He forgets the photon is a particle. The usage of only wave abilities is not enough to explain the photon’s motion. The picture of the photon's action is not complete.
I see my explanation is difficult. Maybe it is better and simpler to imagine the photon driving a bicycle when one wheel is an electric wave and another wheel is a magnetic wave.
I only want to say that to use sentences like, "light quanta is wave and particle at the same time",
"light consists actually of two waves - an electric wave and a magnetic wave in its motion in a vacuum" is not correct.
P.S. Imitating some methodology:
There are birds that can walk, fly and swim. The birds who don’t have one of these abilities are not birds, according to complementarity and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Apr. 9, 2007
About the Vacuum , Ideal Gas and Particles
To solve some difficult problem physicists create a simple abstract model. Beginning from this simple model they learned to solve practical and difficult tasks. In that time it was the right way to solve such problems.
Take, for example, the theory of an "ideal gas". The "ideal gas" represents one theoretical model of gas and the physicists say it does not exist in nature. It was found, that properties of real gases are very close to an "ideal gas". The result, "very close" was quite satisfactory for physicists. But from the time of creation of the theory, about 100 years have passed and quantum theory was created. And from the quantum theory we know that to use the expression "very close" is impossible. Why? Because very small (insignificant) changes in the microworld is a cause of radical transformation in a system. We must be very cautious, using words "very close .... almost equal".
I offer to consider the model, "ideal gas" as a real model of the vacuum. Why? Because the temperature of an "ideal gas" is equal to -273 degrees. And the temperature of the pure vacuum is the same.
Now it is considered that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is in a condition of T = 2,7K (relic radiation of the Big Bang ). But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and decrease down to T=0K, isn't this so? Now everyone knows, that absolute temperature, T=0K cannot be reached. But is it enough reason to think that space T=0K doesn't exist? If Columbus did not discover America, there was no America, was there? We have all theoretical and logical rights to investigate the vacuum T=0K.
Einstein said, "… we have not proven that the Aether does not exist, we have merely proven that we do not need it (for computations)" This is correct. The vacuum does not have any influence on the behaviour of particles. Therefore we will say nothing about vacuum.
But...What is it possible to say about particles in a vacuum?
They mean that we cannot reach the Absolute Vacuum, T=0K and we also cannot reach the density of the particle in T=0K. "Charles law" was confirmed by other physicists: Gay-Lussac ( 1802), W. Nernst ( 1910), A. Einstein ( 1925) .
These "indefinitely 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.
We can see the same situation in quantum theory too, when electron interacts with vacuum, its physical parameters become infinite. We see the "relay race" of misunderstanding in physics, which goes from one generation to another one, only because at the beginning the " ideal gas " wasn’t understood.
2. Let us take some area of the vacuum and mark it with the letter R. The number of particles in this area we will mark with letter N. Then every particle of this area has gravity/mass of rest: R/N= k.
3. Classic physics asserts, that in a Vacuum, T=0K the motion of particles stops, and the energy of the Vacuum is equal to zero. Quantum physics asserts that in a Vacuum at T=0K there is a motion of particles, and the energy of the vacuum is not zero. Therefore, let us take some energy area of the vacuum and mark it with the letter E. The mass of this energy area of the 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.)
4. As these particles are in the state of rest, their impulse is equal to zero (h=0).
5. Mathematical point. In mathematics, such a condition of the particles in a vacuum is characterized with the imaginary quantity, i^2 = -1.
Apr. 5, 2007:
There was a time when idea of a vacuum was clear to everybody because if the planets travel without friction in it, it means the vacuum is empty space. Then through practical experience it was discovered that the light waves are transverse waves. But transverse waves can propagate only in solid environments.
This is a strange situation:
Oon one hand, for light to spread in a Vacuum, there should be a complete absence of friction, i.e. space should be empty. On the other hand, the Vacuum should have a solid-as-steel structure. uch a combination of different characteristics for the vacuum are not explained logically - And then all physicists became crazy.
Because it has turned out as in an old joke:
"If on a cage of a tiger you see an inscription “the cat”, do not believe your eyes."
All physicists see, that the vacuum is an empty space, but they did not believe their eyes and composed newer and newer theories about it. All these theories have proved wrong and they are covered with dust on the shelves of the history of science. It is a pity that there was nobody who could stop them at a critical moment and say: " Listen, friend. You see, that all planets move without friction in a vacuum. It means that the vacuum is empty space. So, don't touch the vacuum. Leave it at rest. It is more clever to pay attention to light, a quantum of light. Think, of what form a quantum of light must have, how it must act in your illusion that the vacuum is a firm, steel-like space.”
If you think that the situation with the vacuum is clear and somebody understands the structure of it, you are mistaken.
Jan. 13, 2007:
Do physicists understand physics?
All the sources of physics are created by abstract ideas: inertial motion, inertial reference system, ideal gas, absolute black body, negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space, "a method of renormalization", etc.
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 aren't ashamed admit that they couldn,t understand the basis of physics. The ‘small’ physicists understand physics 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.
Sep. 2, 2006: What is the First Law of the Universe?
Now it is considered that Newton / Einstein,s laws of gravitation are the first laws of the Universe.
And then an atheistic time came.
They decided :
As God does not exist, so the all matter in Universe must gather in a " singular point".
2. Take the Universe ( cosmic distances). There is no theory about gravitation interaction between galaxies A. and Z. We don,t need it. Why? For example: Let,s imagine all apple trees on Earth are galaxies, and the apples are stars. Nobody woud be interested in the interaction between an apple tree in New York ( galaxy A.) and an apple tree in Varanasi (galaxy Z.). This means that Newton / Einstein,s laws of gravitation are local and limited. This law in large cosmic distance does not work.
3. Conclusion: Newton / Einstein,s laws of gravitation cannot be “The first law of Universe.”
What can be the first law of the Universe?
All galaxyies (gravitation fields) exist in a Vacuum (T=0K)
therefore the Vacuum can be “The first law of the Universe.”
Then we must ask the questions:
Aug. 21, 2006
A very simple question:
What is the specific formula of the electron, e-?
2. The formula for what? the speed? the density? To be more specific. If you just mean the symbol it is (e-)
3. (A very stupid question indeed!) What does one really mean by the formula for an electron? If you mean the symbol, then the answer could be e-
4. The time-independent Schrodinger wave equation in one dimension for an electron is:
d^2 Ô/ dx^2 = - (2m/h^2)[E - U(x)] Ô(x)
6. Not simple, you are actually right to expect even an electron to have a formula. But the very behaviour of a simple electron can constitute a formula occupying miles in paperwork. If one day we work out that formula even to some approximation, then a true window called science will open to us.
2. The electron is a particle. How can a particle have an equation ? Wrong question, sorry! if you are asking about representation then it is "e"
3. You can find a formula for one or another aspect of an electron, but not for all of them at the same time.
My answer is that the electron has its own formula.:
2. Einstein, Bohr wrote down the energy of an electron (in interaction with an atom) by the formula: E=hw.
3. In 1928 Dirac formulated the equation of an electron, (relativistic equation of the electron) in such way that: E = (plus, minus)mc^2
4. Why does no one analyze theinterrelation between the energy of Einstein/Bohr,s electron (E=hw) and energy of Dirac's electron (E = (plus, minus)mc^2) It means, that one electron has three (3) formulas of energy. It means that an electron is really a very complex particle and according to Hertz it is possible to say, that the formulas of an electron are cleverer than the man. If somebody will try to explain why the electron has three (3) formulas, please, recollect that an electron is not a firm figure. An electron can change its own form depending on its speed. It means that energy and form (together) of an electron depend on some kind of movement. And it is impossible that an electron can change its form, its energy but its charge will remain constant. The lectron can also change its charge. This changes of an electron depend on its impulse.
5. In 1916 Sommerfeld discovered the formula of an electron. The formula of electron is:
But nowhere, in no textbook is the formula of electron written down in this way. Why? Nobody can understand what sense of constants in Sommerfeld's formula of the electron is.
We know how whole Universe was created from the first second ( from big bang , of course). But on simple question :
“ What is an electron?”, “ What is a formula of an electron?” we don’t have an answer.