How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ?


socratus
#1
How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ?
==.
Physics (classical + quantum) lives under shadow of Vacuum.
I want throw light on this Vacuum.
Three theories explain the Vacuum T=0K :
a) theory of ideal gas because its temperature is T=0K,

b) QED theory because this theory explain interaction
photon / electron not only with matter but with vacuum too,

c) Euler’s equation: e^ i(pi) = - 1, because only in the
negative vacuum T=0K can exist ‘ virtual imaginaries particles’
which Euler described by his formula: e^ i(pi) + 1= 0.
=.
Without Vacuum T=0K there isn’t Physics,
there isn’t Philosophy of Physics.
====.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
==============.
 
Nuggler
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
Thanks Socratus:

Woke up this morning thinking, WTF is up with vacuum anyway ?

yanking your chain.
 
socratus
#3
Does someone want to understand
quantum theory without the vacuum ?
Does someone want to understand quantum
virtual imaginaries particles without the vacuum
and without Euler’s imaginary equation: e^ i(pi) = - 1?
Does a learned man want to understand the essence
of Existence without vacuum ?

An useless work.
=.
 
socratus
#4
Euler Identity within a new quantum theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_XZGOGvuBlI&feature=endscreen

==.
 
Dexter Sinister
#5
Euler was not describing virtual particles with that equation, it dates to the 1740s, centuries before anyone thought of virtual particles. It emerged from his analysis of Taylor series expansions of the trig functions and the definition of e.
 
socratus
#6
After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard University, stated that
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it,
and therefore we know it must be the truth."
#
Stanford University mathematics professor Keith Devlin said,
"Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence
of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human
form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches
down into the very depths of existence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity
=====..

"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, . . . . .’
. . . but . . .
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence."
===..
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#7
I understand Euler's Identity, and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it, there's nothing particularly mystical about it, it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric, and complex functions are related. Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise anyone that its various bits are connected. It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.
 
socratus
#8
Euler's Equation and Reality.
=.
Mr. Dexter Sinister wrote:
‘ I understand Euler's Identity,
and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it,
there's nothing particularly mystical about it,
it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric,
and complex functions are related.
Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise
anyone that its various bits are connected.
It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would
almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.’

Mr. Gary wrote:
Mathematics is NOT science.
Science is knowledge of the REAL world.
Mathematics is an invention of the mind.
Many aspects of mathematics have found application
in the real world, but there is no guarantee.
Any correlation must meet the ultimate test:
does it explain something about the real world?
As an electrical engineer I used the generalized
Euler's equation all the time in circuit analysis:

exp(j*theta) = cos(theta) + j*sin(theta).

So it works at that particular level in electricity.
Does it work at other levels, too?
Logic cannot prove it.
It must be determined by experiment, not by philosophizing.
====..
Thinking about theirs posts I wrote brief article:
Euler's Equation and Reality.
=.
a)
Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality.
Euler's identity is "the gold standard for mathematical beauty'.
Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics".
‘ . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo
da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo’s statue of David’
‘It is God’s equation.’, ‘ It is a mathematical icon.’
. . . . etc.
b)
Euler's Equation as a physical reality.
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, . . . . .’
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence’
‘ Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?’
‘It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process
using physics.‘
‘ Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum physics ?’
==.
My aim is to understand the reality of nature.
Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality?
To give the answer to this question I need to bind
Euler's equation with an object - particle.
Can it be math- point or string- particle or triangle-particle?
No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which says me that
the particle must be only a circle .
Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and
therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories.
These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s
movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi).
a)
Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves
( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - ‘photon’.
From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge).
b)
Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum
( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis.
In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves
( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c>1.
We call such particle - ‘ electron’ and its energy is: E=h*f.

In this way I (as a peasant ) can understand the reality of nature.
==.
I reread my post.
My God, that is a naïve peasant's explanation.
It is absolutely not scientific, not professor's explanation.
Would a learned man adopt such simple and naive explanation?
Hmm, . . . problem.
In any way, even Mr. Dexter Sinister and Mr. Gary
wouldn't agree with me, I want to say them
' Thank you for emails and cooperation’
=.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.
P.S.
' They would play a greater and greater role in mathematics –
and then, with the advent of quantum mechanics in the twentieth
century, in physics and engineering and any field that deals with
cyclical phenomena such as waves that can be represented by
complex numbers. For a complex number allows you to represent
two processes such as phase and wavelenght simultaneously –
and a complex exponential allows you to map a straight line
onto a circle in a complex plane.'

/ Book: The great equations. Chapter four.
The gold standard for mathematical beauty.
Euler’s equation. Page 104. /

#
Euler's e-iPi+1=0 is an amazing equation, not in-and-of itself,
but because it sharply points to our utter ignorance of the
simplest mathematical and scientific fundamentals.
The equation means that in flat Euclidean space, e and Pi happen
to have their particular values to satisfy any equation that relates
their mathematical constructs. In curved space, e and Pi vary.
/ Rasulkhozha S. Sharafiddinov . /
===============…
 
socratus
#9
Intuitive Understanding Of Euler’s Formula

http://betterexplained.com/articles/intuitive-understanding-of-eulers-formula/#comment-190704
=====….
 
L Gilbert
#10
Math ain't a science? Nonsense. Sciences are philosophies used to describe the universe and its contents. Math is a descriptor of these philosophies. Logically then, it is a science in itself.
I agree with Dex; all the Euler formula does is describe the relationship between trig functions and exponential functions. Nothing mystical about it.
 
darkbeaver
#11
Quote:

a)
Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves
( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - ‘photon’.
From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge).
b)
Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum
( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis.
In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves
( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c>1.
We call such particle - ‘ electron’ and its energy is: E=h*f.




An electron follows a helical path same as planets same as suns same as galaxies
 
darkbeaver
#12
what's a particle?
what's a circle?
what's a wave?

how do we get a wave out of a plane circle?
a helix makes a wave the nucleus helical electron orbit make a pulse or a blink in and out the nucleus drags the electron, something like that, motion is like a snake, you've seen the two serpent staff?
Last edited by darkbeaver; Feb 14th, 2013 at 09:52 PM..
 
socratus
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Math ain't a science? Nonsense.
Sciences are philosophies used to describe the universe and its contents.
Math is a descriptor of these philosophies.
Logically then, it is a science in itself.
I agree with Dex;
all the Euler formula does is describe the relationship between trig functions
and exponential functions. Nothing mystical about it.

The learned men confuse the mathematical tools with the
physical reality and therefore we have math-physical fairy-tales.
=.
 
darkbeaver
#14
absolute math power corrupts absolutely
 
darkbeaver
#15
Try as I might I cannot understand the deep vacuum T=0K. I keep trying to visualize deep nothing and I can't. What is space?
 
darkbeaver
#16
Mathematics is an indispensable and powerful tool where it has been demonstrated that it applies to a real world experience. However, it is inappropriate and, as Dingle points out, potentially dangerous, to give credence to deductions arising purely from the language of mathematics. The problem is that mathematicians now dominate physics and it is fashionable for them to follow Einstein’s example, with fame going to those with the most fantastic notions that defy experience and common sense. So we have the Big Bang, dark matter, black holes, cosmic strings, wormholes in space, time travel, and so on and on. It has driven practically minded students from the subject. There is an old Disney cartoon where the scientist is portrayed with eyes closed, rocking backwards in his chair and sucking on a pipe, which at intervals emits a smoke-cloud of mathematical symbols. Much of modern physics is a smoke-screen of Disneyesque fantasy. Inappropriate mathematical models are routinely used to describe the universe. Yet the physicists hand us the ash from their pipes as if it were gold dust. If only they would use the ashtrays provided.
“It seems that every practitioner of physics has had to wonder at some point why mathematics and physics have come to be so closely entwined. Opinions vary on the answer. Bertrand Russell acknowledged “Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little.” …Mathematics may be indispensable to physics, but it obviously does not constitute physics.”
- Klein & Lachièze-Rey, THE QUEST FOR UNITY – The Adventure of Physics.

Antigravity? | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe
 
Dexter Sinister
#17
Sometimes the mathematics anticipates the physics, with probably the most famous case being the discovery of anti-matter, but probably not often enough to be a good guide to where physics should go. Lee Smolin in The Trouble With Physics makes essentially that point. The quantum and general relativity theories have been spectacularly successful within their realms of applicability and demonstrably do describe real physical things and processes, but they remain fundamentally inconsistent and incomplete. That has driven a lot of effort toward unification, with some success, electromagnetism and the nuclear weak and strong forces have been brought together and their separation in the present universe explained, but I'm inclined to agree with Smolin that physics has got lost in mathematics a bit in the last generation. String theory in all its manifestations, like M-theory and branes and all that stuff, has generated some fascinating and very creative new mathematics, but no physics. It predicts and explains nothing that existing theory doesn't also predict and explain, has no known tests in physical reality, and almost seems to predict that there cannot be any, the entities involved are too small and the energy levels necessary to probe them too high. A theory that predicts there are 10^500 universes and also predicts they will forever be undetectable doesn't strike me as legitimate physics.

And for the record DB, your cherished electric universe theory doesn't resolve any of the issues, and in fact flies in the face of the evidence.
 
darkbeaver
#18
This is not a Birkeland Current

Posted on February 18, 2013 by Mel Acheson
Filaments of dust obscure starlight near the center of the Milky Way. Credit: ESO


Feb 19, 2013
It twists like a Birkeland Current; it’s stringy like a Birkeland Current; it’s dense like a Birkeland Current; but Everyone Knows (if they want to pursue a career in astronomy) that There is No Such Thing as Electricity in Space.
The press release for this new image of the Pipe Nebula recalls René Magritte’s painting of a pipe, on which he painted “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” (“This is not a pipe”). His point was that the image was not the thing. Images must be interpreted.
Aah! says the canny epistemologer, but so must sensory impressions be interpreted: even “the thing” is an interpretation in reference to some general, usually preconceived, ideas about the context (aka a theory). We become so used to interpreting things according to our familiar and habitual preconceptions that we are unaware we’re interpreting. “Obviously” (the word of the day for the unexamined mind), it’s gravity, what else could it be period. Modern consensus astronomers seem to miss that point.
Interpreted in conformity with consensus astronomy, this is another “dark” thing to display on their shelf of dark things: dark matter, dark energy, and really-really dark holes. It’s “a vast dark cloud of interstellar dust.” It’s “so thick it can block out the light from the stars beyond.” “The dust and gas will clump together under the influence of gravity and more and more material will be attracted until the star is formed.”
Did you notice the preconceived idea that darkened the interpretation? “[U]nder the influence of gravity.” Anyone familiar with Alfvén’s work might have added “or electricity,” thereby admitting a twinkle of scientific provisionality into the darkness of the Closed Gravitational Mind.
The preconceived idea of the Electric Universe is, of course, a Birkeland Current. It does have a few characteristics to recommend it: The z-pinch force along a current will attract material almost like gravity does, but with important exceptions: The z-pinch force is cylindrical, not spherical (hence attracting material into filaments). It’s also more powerful, declining with the first power of the distance, not the square. The double layers that form along the boundaries of the currents tend to produce sharply defined edges on the filaments. And it has been observed in laboratory settings to trigger instabilities that might be interpreted as star-like.
But such an idea is…unfamiliar. Maybe we can call it a “dark” idea.
Mel AchesonThis is not a Birkeland Current | thunderbolts.info




DB (please excuse the lengthy article)

I wonder what the vacuum is around that immense carpet sweeper?
 
socratus
#19
. . . the electric universe . . . ? !
=.
Vacuum energy is some kind of energy in the infinite space
between billion and billion galaxies.
In this infinite space virtual potential energy particles exist
with energy: E=Mc^2.
Using inner impulse h*=h/2pi they appears from vacuum
as phenomena with energy: E=h*f
The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed
in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission
the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.
===..
socratus
 
darkbeaver
#20
I'll read about it socratus, thankyou for the place to start.
 
socratus
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

I'll read about it socratus, thankyou for the place to start.



Can you agree that vacuum is itself some kind of energy
in the infinite space between billion and billion galaxies ?
If the answer is 'yes' , then the next question arise:
what is it physical parameter ?
Today the answer is: ' 2,7K ' and don't forget that this
temperature every second is going down.
Question:
which kind of virtual particles can exist in this super cold condition?
The Charle’s law and the consequence of the
third law of thermodynamics give answer to this question.

All the best.
==.
 
darkbeaver
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

Can you agree that vacuum is itself some kind of energy
in the infinite space between billion and billion galaxies ?
If the answer is 'yes' , then the next question arise:
what is it physical parameter ?
Today the answer is: ' 2,7K ' and don't forget that this
temperature every second is going down.
Question:
which kind of virtual particles can exist in this super cold condition?
The Charle’s law and the consequence of the
third law of thermodynamics give answer to this question.

All the best.
==.



I cannot agree because I have not advanced my picture of the universe as far or in the same direction as you have. You say vacuum and I say capacity, you say cold and I say low charge but not neutral. Entropy is as crazy as expansion. No energy is being lost. I don't believe in any physical parameters, the one and only universe is infinite. Anyway Charles law and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics I will read up.
thankyou for your help in a very interseting subject Cheers


Realtime Aurora Photo Gallery
A GREEN LEMMON: At the moment there are three significant comets plunging toward the sun: Comet ISON, Comet Pan-STARRS, and Comet Lemmon. The most beautiful so far is this one:
"Comet Lemmon has a beautiful tail with lovely fine structure," says Phil Hart of Lake Eppalock, Victoria, Australia, who photographed it on Feb. 17th.
The comet is now slightly closer to the sun than Earth. Solar heating has turned it into a binocular object (magnitude +5.5 to +6) barely visible to the human eye, but dazzling through backyard telescopes, as shown in Hart's photo above.
Comet Lemmon's verdant color comes from two of the gases boiling off its nucleus: cyanogen (CN: a poisonous gas found in many comets) and diatomic carbon (C2). Both substances glow green when illuminated by sunlight in the near-vacuum of space.
The combination of its colorful atmosphere and filamentary tail make this comet visually striking. Ultimately, Comet Pan-STARRS and especially Comet ISON could surpass it, but for now the most beautiful comet in the solar system appears to be a green Lemmon. More about Comet Lemmon: 3D orbit, ephemeris, light curves. SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids
 
darkbeaver
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

Can you agree that vacuum is itself some kind of energy
in the infinite space between billion and billion galaxies ?
If the answer is 'yes' , then the next question arise:
what is it physical parameter ?
Today the answer is: ' 2,7K ' and don't forget that this
temperature every second is going down.
Question:
which kind of virtual particles can exist in this super cold condition?
The Charle’s law and the consequence of the
third law of thermodynamics give answer to this question.

All the best.
==.




Space is a very dense solid. There is no emptiness in it.

 
socratus
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

Euler's Equation and Reality.
=.
Mr. Dexter Sinister wrote:
‘ I understand Euler's Identity,
and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it,
there's nothing particularly mystical about it,
it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric,
and complex functions are related.
Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise
anyone that its various bits are connected.
It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would
almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.’

Mr. Gary wrote:
Mathematics is NOT science.
Science is knowledge of the REAL world.
Mathematics is an invention of the mind.
Many aspects of mathematics have found application
in the real world, but there is no guarantee.
Any correlation must meet the ultimate test:
does it explain something about the real world?
As an electrical engineer I used the generalized
Euler's equation all the time in circuit analysis:

exp(j*theta) = cos(theta) + j*sin(theta).

So it works at that particular level in electricity.
Does it work at other levels, too?
Logic cannot prove it.
It must be determined by experiment, not by philosophizing.
====..
Thinking about theirs posts I wrote brief article:
Euler's Equation and Reality.
=.
a)
Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality.
Euler's identity is "the gold standard for mathematical beauty'.
Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics".
‘ . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo
da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo’s statue of David’
‘It is God’s equation.’, ‘ It is a mathematical icon.’
. . . . etc.
b)
Euler's Equation as a physical reality.
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, . . . . .’
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence’
‘ Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?’
‘It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process
using physics.‘
‘ Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum physics ?’
==.
My aim is to understand the reality of nature.
Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality?
To give the answer to this question I need to bind
Euler's equation with an object - particle.
Can it be math- point or string- particle or triangle-particle?
No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which says me that
the particle must be only a circle .
Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and
therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories.
These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s
movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi).
a)
Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves
( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - ‘photon’.
From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge).
b)
Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum
( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis.
In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves
( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c>1.
We call such particle - ‘ electron’ and its energy is: E=h*f.

In this way I (as a peasant ) can understand the reality of nature.
==.
I reread my post.
My God, that is a naïve peasant's explanation.
It is absolutely not scientific, not professor's explanation.
Would a learned man adopt such simple and naive explanation?
Hmm, . . . problem.
In any way, even Mr. Dexter Sinister and Mr. Gary
wouldn't agree with me, I want to say them
' Thank you for emails and cooperation’
=.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.
P.S.
' They would play a greater and greater role in mathematics –
and then, with the advent of quantum mechanics in the twentieth
century, in physics and engineering and any field that deals with
cyclical phenomena such as waves that can be represented by
complex numbers. For a complex number allows you to represent
two processes such as phase and wavelenght simultaneously –
and a complex exponential allows you to map a straight line
onto a circle in a complex plane.'

/ Book: The great equations. Chapter four.
The gold standard for mathematical beauty.
Euler’s equation. Page 104. /

#
Euler's e-iPi+1=0 is an amazing equation, not in-and-of itself,
but because it sharply points to our utter ignorance of the
simplest mathematical and scientific fundamentals.
The equation means that in flat Euclidean space, e and Pi happen
to have their particular values to satisfy any equation that relates
their mathematical constructs. In curved space, e and Pi vary.
/ Rasulkhozha S. Sharafiddinov . /
===============…


Euler's Equation Crackpottery
Feb 18 2013 Published by MarkCC under Bad Math, Bad Physics

One of my twitter followers sent me an interesting piece of crackpottery.
I debated whether to do anything with it. The thing about crackpottery
is that it really needs to have some content.
Total incoherence isn't amusing. This bit is, frankly, right on the line.
==.
Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
a) Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality.
Euler's identity is "the gold standard for mathematical beauty'.
Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics".
‘ . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo
da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo’s statue of David’
‘It is God’s equation’, ‘our jewel ‘, ‘ It is a mathematical icon’.
. . . . etc.
b) Euler's Equation as a physical reality.
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, . . . . .’
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence’
‘ Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?’
‘It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process
using physics.‘
‘ Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum physics ?’
My aim is to understand the reality of nature.
Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality?
To give the answer to this. question I need to bind Euler's equation
with an object – particle. Can it be math- point or string- particle
or triangle-particle? No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which
says me that the particle must be only a circle .
Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and
therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories.
These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s
movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi).
a) Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves
( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - ‘photon’.
From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally
. From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge).
b) Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum
( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis.
In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves
( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c.
1. We call such particle - ‘ electron’ and its energy is: E=h*f.
In this way I can understand the reality of nature.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.

==.
Euler's equation says that . It's an amazingly profound equation.
The way that it draws together fundamental concepts is beautiful
and surprising.
But it's not nearly as mysterious as our loonie-toon makes it out to be.
The natural logarithm-base is deeply embedded in the structure of
numbers, and we've known that, and we've known how it works
for a long time.
What Euler did was show the relationship between e and the
fundamental rotation group of the complex numbers.
There are a couple of ways of restating the definition of that
make the meaning of that relationship clearer.
For example:

That's an alternative definition of what e is. If we use that, and we
plug into it, we get:

If you work out that limit, it's -1. Also, if you take values of N,
and plot , , , and , ... on the complex plane, as N gets larger,
the resulting curve gets closer and closer to a semicircle.
An equivalent way of seeing it is that exponents of are rotations
in the complex number plane. The reason that is because if you take
the complex number (1 + 0i), and rotate it by radians, you get -1: .
That's what Euler's equation means.
It's amazing and beautiful, but it's not all that difficult to understand.
It's not mysterious in the sense that our crackpot friend thinks it is.
But what really sets me off is the idea that it must have some
meaning in physics. That's silly.
It doesn't matter what the physical laws of the universe are:
the values of and e will not change.
It's like trying to say that there must be something special about
our universe that makes 1 + 1 = 2 - or, conversely, that the fact that
1+1=2 means something special about the universe we live in
. These things are facts of numbers, which are independent
of physical reality. Create a universe with different values for all
of the fundamental constants - e and π will be exactly the same.
Create a universe with less matter - e and π will still be the same.
Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds
of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that
we see - and e and π won't change.
What things like e and π, and their relationship via Euler's equation
tell us is that there's a fundamental relationship between numbers
and shapes on a two-dimensional plane which does not and cannot
really exist in the world we live in.
Beyond that, what he's saying is utter rubbish.
For example:
These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s
movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi).
Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves ( as a wheel)
in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - ‘photon’.
From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge).

This is utterly meaningless.
It's a jumble of words that pretends to be meaningful and mathematical,
when in fact it's just a string of syllables strung together nonsensical ways.
There's a lot that we know about how photons behave.
There's also a lot that we don't know about photons.
This word salad tells us exactly nothing about photons.
In the classic phrase, it's not even wrong: what it says doesn't have
enough meaning to be wrong. What is the "inner impulse"
of a photon according to this crackpot?
We can't know: the term isn't defined.
We are pretty certain that a photon is not a wheel rolling along.
Is that what the crank is saying? We can't be sure.
And that's the problem with this kind of crankery.
As I always say: the very worst math is no math.
This is a perfect example.
He starts with a beautiful mathematical fact.
He uses it to jump to a completely non-mathematical conclusion.
But he writes a couple of mathematical symbols,
to pretend that he's using math.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2013/02/18/eulers-equation-crackpottery/

==.



 
darkbeaver
#25
Socratus, congradulations, he labeled you a crackpot. That means you're getting somewhere.

STEPHEN CROTHERS: Black Holes & Relativity, Part One | EU 2013
March 4, 2013 by B Talbott
Yes, it’s an exotic subject, but Stephen Crothers has delivered a resounding critique of the most popular dogma in the theoretical sciences, all given at a level of common sense, free from mathematical elaborations. Download a PDF of Crothers’ powerpoint … Continue reading →



Socratus, have a look at the flick below, if you get time please.


This Crothers is a scientist with a sense of humour. I think he'd be a wonderful teacher. Because of him I may actually take a math course, in an actual building.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Mar 5th, 2013 at 05:00 PM..
 
darkbeaver
#26
"Occult Chemistry" - Chapter ILet us for the moment name this substance koilon1, since it fills what we are in the habit of calling empty space. What Mûlaprakriti or "mother-matter" is to the inconceivable totality of universes, koilon is to our particular universe - not to our solar system merely, but to the vast unit which includes all visible suns. Between koilon and Mûlaprakriti there must be very many stages, but we have at present no means of estimating their number or of knowing anything whatever about them.
(fn 1 - Greek word meaning "hollow" - C. J.)

To any power of sight which we can bring to bear upon it this koilon appears homogeneous, though it is not probable that it is so in reality. It answers to scientific demands in so far that it is out of all proportion denser than any substance known to us -- quite infinitely denser -- belonging to another order and type of density altogether. For the very kernel and nexus of the whole conception is that what we call matter is not koilon, but the absence of koilon. So that to comprehend the real conditions we must modify our ideas of matter and space - modify them almost to the extent of reversing our terminology. Emptiness has become solidity and solidity emptiness.
 
socratus
#27
There are so many TERRA INCOGNITA in the SUCCESSFUL PHYSICS
that is hard to find the right words to explain this paradox.
==..
 
darkbeaver
#28
We are mostly empty only the pressure of space holds us together. My dog ate the math.
 
socratus
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Euler's Equation Crackpottery
Feb 18 2013 Published by MarkCC under Bad Math, Bad Physics
Create a universe with different values for all
of the fundamental constants - e and π will be exactly the same.
Create a universe with less matter - e and π will still be the same.
Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds
of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that
we see - and e and π won't change.
What things like e and π, and their relationship via Euler's equation
tell us is that there's a fundamental relationship between numbers
and shapes on a two-dimensional plane which does not and cannot
really exist in the world we live in.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2013/02/18/eulers-equation-crackpottery/



Dear MarkCC.
Thank you for paying attention on my crackpottery article.
I like your comment.
Very like.
==.
You say:
Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds
of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that
we see - and e and π won't change.
=..
Now Euler’s equation plays a role in quantum theory.
In quantum theory there isn’t constant firm quant particle.
The Pi says that a point-particle or string-particle cannot be
a quant particle. The Pi says that that quant particle
can be a circle and it cannot be a perfect circle.
If e and π belong to quant particle then these numbers
can mutually change.