Genesis and Evolution.

[socratus]

​

Genesis and Evolution.
1
Vacuum: T=0K
2
Dirac’s Virtual particles = Energy = Information = Consciousness.
3
Particles Evolution: from Virtual to Real.
=.
P.S.
There is - Evolutionary Biology
There isn’t conception of Evolution in Particle physics.

We have part of science which we call ‘ biophysics ‘.
Is it possible what one part of this science ‘ bio’ has
evolution and the other part of the same knowledge
‘ physics’ has not conception of evolution?
===========.
Israel Socratus.
=.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

In the Darwinian sense no, there's no evolution in physics. For that you need self-replicating entities with a very high fidelity but not quite perfect copying algorithm, and competition among them for resources in the environment.

 

[socratus]

In the Darwinian sense no, there's no evolution in physics.
For that you need self-replicating entities with a very high fidelity but not quite
perfect copying algorithm, and competition among them for resources in the environment.

Book: What is your dangerous idea?
/ Edited by John Brockman /
Article:
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein;
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin.
/ by Lee Smolin. /
===.
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that
natural selection could act not only on living things
but on the properties defining the various species
of elementary particles.
/ Page 115 /
We physicists have now to understand Darwin’s lesson:
The only way to understand how one out of a vast number
of choices was made, which favors improbable structure,
is that is the result of evolution by natural selection.
/ Page 117 /
Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature,
and for uniformity in general, is to suppose them results of evolution.
/ Page 117 /
And I believe that once this is achieved, Einstein and Darwin
will be understood as partners in the greatest revolution
yet in science, . . .
/ Page 118 /
=====================.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

That's just a redefinition of natural selection chosen to make the claim true, it's not consistent with Darwin's original explication of it.

 

[socratus]

Elementary particles . . . . ?.
#
The world of electron.
#
But maybe these electrons are World,
where there are five continents:
the art,
knowledge,
wars,
thrones
and the memory of forty centuries.
/ Valery Brusov. /
#
‘ . . , to start with every molecule as s living thing, ..’
/ Samuel Butler. /
===.
Is every electron, atom, molecule a living thing?
Does Every electron, atom, molecule have consciousness ?
Molecular biology and molecular evolution.
Can an electron, atom, molecule evolve?
Does evolution of life begin on electron’s ( atom’s ) level?
Does somebody have doubts that Genesis begin on electron’s ( atom’s ) level?
===.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yes, molecules evolve, the basis of biological evolution is the preferential survival of the molecules of heredity based on their effects on the phenotype and its interactions with its environment. There's no evidence electrons or atoms evolve, or that consciousness exists at that level, or at the level of molecules. And yes, there's at least one person who strongly doubts that Genesis (whatever you mean by that) begins at the electronic or atomic level (they're not the same thing). Do you have a point here, or do you just like asking these fanciful questions?

 

[socratus]

Yes, molecules evolve,
the basis of biological evolution is the preferential survival of the molecules
of heredity based on their effects on the phenotype and its interactions with its environment.
There's no evidence electrons or atoms evolve,
or that consciousness exists at that level,
or at the level of molecules.
And yes, there's at least one person who strongly doubts that Genesis
(whatever you mean by that) begins at the electronic or atomic level (they're not the same thing).
Do you have a point here, or do you just like asking these fanciful questions?

=.
Does evolution begin on ‘big bang’ level?
Does evolution begin on the quarks or leptons - bosons level?
#
The origin of life is a natural result of the physical laws that govern the Universe.
Electron takes important part in this work.
If the Universe evolves, can electron evolve too?
===.
P.S.
In our earthly world there is only one elementary fundamental particle.
And it is quantum of light / photon / electron.
The quantum of light / photon / electron is not as simple as we think.
==========.
I. Socratus.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Don't you know that photons and electrons are quite different? Photons carry no electric charge, electrons have mass and thus cannot travel at light speed. I don't think you know what you're talking about. This conversation's over for me.

 

[socratus]

Don't you know that photons and electrons are quite different?
Photons carry no electric charge, electrons have mass and thus cannot travel at light speed.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
This conversation's over for me.

========.
Of course I know the comman opinion about photon and electron.
But I also know that Einstein wrote:
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
I also know that nobody knows what electron is.
#
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Questions.
Why does electron have five ( 5 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey four ( 4) Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) The Fermi-Dirac statistics
#
In the internet we can read hundreds theories of electron.
For example.
More than ten (10 ) different models of the electron are presented here.
More than twenty ( 20 ) models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking ( traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.
/ The book "What is the Electron?"
Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
All of these theories are problematical.
We don’t know what electron is.
We call an electron a simple elementary particle but it looks not very simple ?
We can read hundreds books and magazines about philosophy of physics
but how can we trust them if we don’t understand the Electron ?
Therefore I don’t believe that the common opinion
about photon and electron is correct.

=====================.
#
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein./
#
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody./
==============.
1.
In Physics we trust.
/ Tarun Biswas /
2.
Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.
/ Michael Talbot. /
#
‘ In Physics we trust.’
Is it correct ? Of course, it is correct.
Because only Physics can logically explain the Ultimate Nature of Reality.
But . . . but . . . as Einstein said:
“ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike –
and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
============ .