Quantum particles and Aether.


socratus
#1

Quantum particles and Aether.
=
Maybe you know that surrounding space ( areference frame )
makes influence on the objects that existthere.
For example, the fish in the water hasanother form than
animals which live in the forest or savanna.
The same is about quantum particles andaether.
Quantum particles exist in an Aether.
Thephysical parameters of aether is near to T=0K.
This thermodynamic condition has influenceon quantum particles.
=.
According to Charleís law and theconsequence of the
third law of thermodynamics as thethermodynamic temperature
of a system approaches absolute zero thevolume of particles
approaches zero too. It means the particlesmust have flat forms.
They must have geometrical form of acircle: pi= c /d =3,14 . .
( All another geometrical forms : triangle,square, rectangle . . .etc
have angles and to create angles needforces,
without forces all geometrical forms mustturn into circle.)
#
If physicists usestring-particle (particle that has length but
hasnít thickness-volume) to understand reality
(and have some basicproblems to solve this task) then
why donít usecircle-particle for this aim ?
#
Without to understand what aether is alldebates is tautology.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
===.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#2
Mods/Admins:

Crazy filter needs looking at.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Mods/Admins:

Crazy filter needs looking at.

Then half the forum members would get the boot....
 
SLM
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Then half the forum members would get the boot....

And that would be bad because?????

Kidding, of course. What would my day be without a little forum crazy eh? lol.
 
Cliffy
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

And that would be bad because?????

Kidding, of course. What would my day be without a little forum crazy eh? lol.

I'm only 5'-6" and certifiable. Will I do?
 
petros
#6
Wow, just a little guy.

with a big heart
 
socratus
#7
We want to protect ourselves from too literally
and therefore vulgar comprehension.
/ Maybe scientific joke, maybe their motto /
 
socratus
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

We want to protect ourselves from too literally
and therefore vulgar comprehension.
/ Maybe scientific joke, maybe their motto /


What I want to say?
I want to say that the creators of quantum physics
( Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie, . . Feynman . . . and others )
wanted to understand the reality of quantum micro-world visually,
literally as in the classical physics, but , . . without success .
And today's physicists (creating many abstractions ) invented the slogan :
' We want to protectourselves from too literally
and thereforevulgar comprehension.'

Maybe this isscientific joke, maybe it is their motto but
from scientific pointof view our existence seems paradoxical.

Can the real and visual existence of everything around us
( or the beginning of existence of everything )
be paradoxical or it have logical explanation ?
==,
 
Locutus
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Mods/Admins:

Crazy filter needs looking at.

Socratus has been here for nearly 5 years. u mad?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

Socratus has been here for nearly 5 years. u mad?

Not particularly. What has his tenure to do with crazy?
 
darkbeaver
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

What I want to say?
I want to say that the creators of quantum physics
( Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie, . . Feynman . . . and others )
wanted to understand the reality of quantum micro-world visually,
literally as in the classical physics, but , . . without success .
And today's physicists (creating many abstractions ) invented the slogan :
' We want to protectourselves from too literally
and thereforevulgar comprehension.'

Maybe this isscientific joke, maybe it is their motto but
from scientific pointof view our existence seems paradoxical.

Can the real and visual existence of everything around us
( or the beginning of existence of everything )
be paradoxical or it have logical explanation ?
==,

I guess human logic has material limits which compel us to seek spiritual illumination near the end of the meaty experience.
Our capacities for logic are not as great as the universes perhaps, especially while we are trapped in flesh.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Not particularly. What has his tenure to do with crazy?

You think he's crazy because of your tenure.
 
Zipperfish
+3
#12  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post


Maybe this isscientific joke, maybe it is their motto but
from scientific pointof view our existence seems paradoxical.

==,

It does indeed. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe go through all this bother of existing?

In the meantime, here we are--apparently--these brief, howling back eddies in the tide of entropy, clinging to the surface of an infinitesimal speck somewhere in the middle of the granddaddy of all explosions and going, "WTF, man? W-T-F?"
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

It does indeed. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe go through all this bother of existing?

Because, according to Victor Stenger at least, "nothing" is unstable at the quantum level and eventually turns itself into something. A more interesting question to me, and a harder one, is, why is there this particular something and not something else? String theory seems to be suggesting there could be as many as 10^500 different somethings and our particular something is but a bubble in a gigantic foam of universes with different laws of physics, which pretty much takes care of the argument from design, which is lame anyway, and the anthropic principle. Conscious life could arise only a bubble where the laws and constants permit it, otherwise it won't and there won't be anyone to ask such questions. An interesting idea, I find, but it amounts to saying, if things were different then things would be different, which isn't a very satisfactory explanation.


Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

In the meantime, here we are--apparently--these brief, howling back eddies in the tide of entropy, clinging to the surface of an infinitesimal speck somewhere in the middle of the granddaddy of all explosions and going, "WTF, man? W-T-F?"

Nice turns of phrase, well put.

 
Locutus
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

I guess human logic has material limits which compel us to seek spiritual illumination near the end of the meaty experience.
Our capacities for logic are not as great as the universes perhaps, especially while we are trapped in flesh.



You think he's crazy because of your tenure.

Or her manure.
 
Zipperfish
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Because, according to Victor Stenger at least, "nothing" is unstable at the quantum level and eventually turns itself into something. A more interesting question to me, and a harder one, is, why is there this particular something and not something else? String theory seems to be suggesting there could be as many as 10^500 different somethings and our particular something is but a bubble in a gigantic foam of universes with different laws of physics, which pretty much takes care of the argument from design, which is lame anyway, and the anthropic principle. Conscious life could arise only a bubble where the laws and constants permit it, otherwise it won't and there won't be anyone to ask such questions. An interesting idea, I find, but it amounts to saying, if things were different then things would be different, which isn't a very satisfactory explanation.


Nice turns of phrase, well put.

[/FONT]

Thanks. from my blog, actually.

I would argue that string theory allows for, more than suggests, alternate universes based on different string formations.

There's a pretty goood argument to be made that we're a simulation too. I quite like that one.
 
Cliffy
#16
Is anything really real in a holographic universe? Are we just manifestations of our own imaginations? Does reality exist if we are not observing it? Can science ever recify the dicotomy of reality with or without an observer?
 
darkbeaver
#17
If it was nothing you wouldn't have asked the question.
 
Cliffy
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

If it was nothing you wouldn't have asked the question.

It is pure conscious energy. Physical reality is what I talking about. I think it is a group hallucination, a self aware programed cyborg able to convince itself it exists because it can observe itself. But is it only looking in a holographic mirror?
 
Spade
+1
#19
By the way, I'm from Aether Island. I am prepared to answer questions. So, put on your topknots and fire away!
 
Cliffy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

By the way, I'm from Aether Island. I am prepared to answer questions. So, put on your topknots and fire away!

So, answer them already!
 
Spade
#21
Knock, knock!
 
Cliffy
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

Knock, knock!

Open up man. It;s Dave.
 
Dexter Sinister
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

Thanks. from my blog, actually.

I would argue that string theory allows for, more than suggests, alternate universes based on different string formations.

Well, you know what they say: anything not forbidden is compulsory.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Is anything really real in a holographic universe? Are we just manifestations of our own imaginations? Does reality exist if we are not observing it? Can science ever recify the dicotomy of reality with or without an observer?

Quantum theory is fully consistent with an objective reality that exists with or without observers, there's no dichotomy, that's just New Age nonsense.
 
darkbeaver
+2
#24
Has that been observed?
 
Zipperfish
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Is anything really real in a holographic universe? Are we just manifestations of our own imaginations? Does reality exist if we are not observing it? Can science ever recify the dicotomy of reality with or without an observer?

I would argue that's a philosophical question, as opposed to a scientific one, unless there is some conceivable method of testing the theory.
 
Cliffy
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

I would argue that's a philosophical question, as opposed to a scientific one, unless there is some conceivable method of testing the theory.

My favourite pass time is sillyphosical mental masturbation. Science can't go there by it's very self proclaimed fixation on physical reality.
 
L Gilbert
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

It does indeed. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe go through all this bother of existing?

In the meantime, here we are--apparently--these brief, howling back eddies in the tide of entropy, clinging to the surface of an infinitesimal speck somewhere in the middle of the granddaddy of all explosions and going, "WTF, man? W-T-F?"

Cept me. I sit here and enjoy my paradoxical non-existent existence in a universe that, apparently to some wingnuts shouldn't exist, and the ponderings of wingnuts. Want a beer?
 
Zipperfish
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Cept me. I sit here and enjoy my paradoxical non-existent existence and the ponderings of wingnuts. Want a beer?

Does a one-legged duck swim in a circle?
 
L Gilbert
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

Does a one-legged duck swim in a circle?

Dunno. Never seen a one-legged duck, let alone one that swam. I'd assume it would figure out how to compensate, though.
 
Zipperfish
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Dunno. Never seen a one-legged duck, let alone one that swam. I'd assume it would figure out how to compensate, though.

Well, let's have that beer and think about it.
 

Similar Threads

3
Quantum Levitation
by Locutus | Oct 19th, 2011
17
Quantum of Light and my Parrot.
by socratus | Aug 7th, 2011
65
Quantum Entanglement
by karrie | Jan 28th, 2011
2
Quantum of Solace
by #juan | Jun 9th, 2009
7
Quantum Physics vs. Relativity
by s_lone | Jun 2nd, 2009