How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ?

[socratus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[darkbeaver]

"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]

There are so many TERRA INCOGNITA in the SUCCESSFUL PHYSICS
that is hard to find the right words to explain this paradox.
==..

 

[darkbeaver]

We are mostly empty only the pressure of space holds us together. My dog ate the math.

 

[socratus]

[/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.
Doesn’t it mean that Pi ( a circle ) can be changed into sphere?
Doesn’t Euler’s equation cosx + isinx in = e^ix can explain
this transformation / fluctuation of quant particle ?
You say:
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.
=.

But this ‘a fundamental relationship between numbers and
shapes on a two-dimensional plane’ can really exist
in two-dimensional vacuum.

All the best.
socratus.

==…..

 

[darkbeaver]

I can't visualize a two dimensional plane. Even a cigarrette paper has a third d. It's my problem I'm sure. enjoy the day

 

[socratus]

The unity of geometry and physics.
=..
My questions are:
Can ‘dirac’s virtual particles’ have geometrical form of circle?
Can we use Euler equation to this circle- particle ?
Which physical laws can we use to this circle- particle ?
How can be tied Euler equation, physical laws and
circle- particle into one theory ?
==..
I say that there is circle-particle that can change /
transformed into sphere-particle and vice versa
and Euler’s equation cosx + isinx in = e^ix can explain
this transformation / fluctuation of quantum particle
I try to understand more details.
I have circle- particle with two infinite numbers: (pi) and (e).
I say that this circle-particle that can change into sphere-particle
and vice versa. Then I need third number for these changes.
The third number, in my opinion, is infinite a=1/137
( the fine structure constant = the limited volume coefficient)
This coefficient (a=1/137) is the border between two
conditions of quantum particle. This coefficient (a=1/137) is
responsible for these changes. This coefficient (a=1/137) unite
geometry with the physics ( e^2=ah*c)
=..
If physicists use string-particle (particle that has length but
hasn’t thickness -volume) to understand reality
(and have some basic problems to solve this task) then why don’t
use circle-particle for this aim.
It is a pity that I am not physicist or mathematician.
If I were mathematician or physicist I wouldn’t lost the chance
to test this hypothesis.
=..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

==…

 

[darkbeaver]

What prevents you from being a physicist and a mathematician? A guy who builds a birdhouse isn't a carpenter, but the birds still get a roof over their heads. Every sphere describes two cubes, and every cube describes two spheres. I will read some more, I still can't grasp two dimensional matter.

 

[socratus]

I can't visualize a two dimensional plane. Even a cigarrette paper has a third d. It's my problem I'm sure. enjoy the day

=.
. . . two dimensional space is an Euclidian space,
. . . two dimensional negative (!) space is Pseudo-Euclidian space,
that is also Minkovski -4D spacetime continuum, that is also
Minkowski cone- space ( in the theory of relativity)
The beautiful picture of Minkowski cone- space you can see
on the site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

You have many possibilities for choose.
==.

 

[socratus]

What prevents you from being a physicist and a mathematician?
A guy who builds a birdhouse isn't a carpenter,
but the birds still get a roof over their heads.
Every sphere describes two cubes, and every cube describes two spheres.
I will read some more,
I still can't grasp two dimensional matter.

I still can't grasp two dimensional matter.
/ darkbeaver /
=====.
I think that once I posted this article on this site.
Special for you I will post it again.
Not sure if it will help you to understand 'two dimensional matter'
but . . . . .but who knows?
=.
Occam's Razor and the Scheme of the primary conditions of existence. ==.
At first I take the simplest reference frame –
- the Euclidean space ( 2D).
Now I will put a virtual - ideal particle in this 2D.
The 2D is a very thin and flat homogeneous space,
so my particle also must be thin and flat and symmetrical.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited line- string?
No. In my opinion even this very thin and tiny line
under good microscope will be looked as a rectangle.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited loop?
No. The geometrical form of a loop is too complex,
needs supplementary forces to create it.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited circle?
Yes.
From all geometrical forms the circle is the most symmetrical.
The surface of a circle takes up the minimal area it can and
I will write it by formula: C/D= pi= 3.14. (!)
But I can put many particles there, for example,
Avogadro’s number of particles: N(a). (!)
#
What is my next step?
If I were a mathematician I would say nothing.
But if I were a physicist I would say that 2D must have
some physical parameters like: volume (V), temperature (T)
and density (P). Yes, it seems the idea is right.
Then, volume (V) is zero,
temperature (T) is zero
but . . but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real space
then its density can approximately be zero.
#
What can I do with these three parameters?
I have only one possibility, to write the simplest formula:
VP/T=R ( Clausius Clapeyron formula ! )
What is R? R is some kind of physical state of my 2D.
And if I divide the whole space R by Avogadro’s
numbers of particles then I have a formula R/ N(a) = k,
then k ( as a Boltzmann constant) is some kind of
physical state of one single virtual- ideal particle. (!)
#
But all creators of Quantum theory said that this space,
as a whole, must have some kind of background energy (E).
And its value must be enormous.
But the background mass of every Avogadro’s particles
in 2D has approximately zero mass, it is approximately
massless (M).
Fact.
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^-30 g/sm^3) that physicists say: ‘ More than 90% of the matter
in the Universe is unseen.’
And nobody knows what this unseen ‘dark matter’ is.
So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately dark
massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single
virtual- ideal particle ( according to Einstein and Dirac) is
E/M=c^2 (potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 ! )
( I don’t know why physicists call E/M= c^2 ‘rest mass’
and never say potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .)

In potential state my particle doesn’t move,
so its impulse is h = 0.
#
My conclusion.
I have virtual- ideal- massless particle which has
geometrical and physical parameters:
C/D= pi= 3.14 . . . . , R/ N(a) = k, E/M=c^2, h=0.
All my virtual- ideal- massless particles are possible to call
‘ bosons’ or ‘antiparticles’ . These bosons are approximately
massless but have huge potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .
But I have no fermions, no electric charge, no tachyons,
no time, no mass, no movement at this picture.
#
===================..
Now, thinking logically, I must explain all the effects of
motions. And. . . and I cannot say it better than Newton:
‘For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces.’
#
How can one single virtual- ideal particle start its movement?
At first, it will be right to think about some simple kind of
movement, for example: my particle will move in straight line
along 2D surface from some point A to the point B.
What is possible to say now?
According to the Michelson-Morley experiment my particle
must move with constant speed: c=1 and its speed is independent.
Its speed doesn’t depend on any other object or subject, it means
the reason of its speed is hidden in itself, it is its inner impulse.
This impulse doesn’t come from any formulas or equations.
And when Planck introduced this inner impulse(h) to physicists,
he took it from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this inner impulse (h) intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced his unit (h) phenomenologically.
At any way, having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my
particle flies with speed c=1. We call it photon now.
Photon’s movement from some point A to the point B
doesn’t change the flat and homogeneous 2D surface.
Of course, my photon must be careful, because in some local
place some sun’s gravitation can catch and change its trajectory
I hope it will be lucky to escape from the sun’s gravity love.
#
My photon can have other possibility to move. This second
possibility was discover by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck
in 1925. They said the elementary particle can rotate
around its diameter using its own angular inner impulse:
h * = h /2pi. So, when photon rotates around its diameter
it looks like a string ( open string) and this string vibrates.
My god, that is a strange technical terminology the physicists
use: ‘ vibrate, vibration’.
If I were a physicist I would say no ‘ vibrate, vibration’ but
‘ frequency’, ‘the particle rotates with high frequency’.
The frequency is a key to every particle, by frequency we know
the radiation spectrum of various kinds of waves.
Now I can say: then my photon starts to curl its rotation
goes with enormous frequency, faster than constant speed
of photon. Now its speed is c>1. We call it ‘tachyon’.
The tachyon’s spinning creates electric charge and
electrical waves and now we call it ‘electron’ or ‘fermions’.
So, in my opinion, virtual- ideal particle, photon, tachyon
and electron are only different names of one and the same
particle – quantum of light.
#
My particle is a circle. When this circle started to curl around
itself its form changed. Now it has volume and looks like a sphere.
What is the law between particle’s volume and energy?
I think: big volume – low energy, small volume – high energy.
The more speed / impulse ----> the more particle (as a volume)
compress ----> the more energy .
And when the speed decrease – - the energy decrease too –
but the volume of particle will increase.
My particle behaves like ‘ a springy circle’ (!)
This springy circle can curl into small sphere which must
have volume and therefore can be describe as a
‘stringlike particle with vibrations’ only approximately .
Springy particle - it means the particle is able to spring back
into its former position. In my opinion this is the meaning of
‘ The Law of mass/energy conservation and transformation’
#
Once more.
Quantum of light has potential energy (- E=Mc^2 ).
When it starts to curl around its diameter the potential energy
(- E=Mc^2 ) is hidden and we can observe its electronic
energy ( E=h*f).
But there is situation when this hidden potential energy goes
out and we can see its great active power ( + E=Mc^2 )
looking the destroyed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In my opinion the particle’s transformation from one state into
the other was legalized as ‘ The Law of mass/energy
conservation and transformation’.
#
Different conditions of particles are also reason of new
situation in 2D. Now the surface of 2D is changed.
On the one hand we have the spinning electron ( E=h*f)
On the other hand there are masses of Avogadro’s particles.
( kT logW )
The spinning electron changes the temperature of the
surface in this local area.
Now this local area has Debye temperature: Q(d)= h*f(max) / k.
In this space a grain of quantum gravity theory is hidden.
The scheme of quantum gravity is:
1. h*f = kT logW.
2. h*f > kT logW.
3. h*f < kT.

At first the temperature is going from T=0K to 2.18 K (−271 °C)
( at first kT logW is Helium II ).
Then the temperature is going from T=2.18 K to T= 4.2 K,
( kT logW is Helium I ).
And then the protons are created. . . . etc.

E=h*f - - -> He II - - -> He I -- -> . . . . - - > H . . . – - >
Plasma reaction... --> Thermonuclear reactions ...-->......etc.
( P. Kapitza , L. Landau , E.L. Andronikashvili theories).
(Superconductivity, superfluidity.)
#
Now on the one hand we have quantum of light/ electron.
On the other hand we have proton.
Their interaction creates atom.
This interaction is evolving process.
#
The conception of Time appears as a period of these two actions.
( star formation and atom creation}.
==================..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=======================.

 

[socratus]

By the way:
According to Charle’s law and the consequence of the
third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
approaches zero too. It means the particles must have flat forms.
They must have geometrical form of a circle: pi= c /d =3,14 . .
( All another geometrical forms : triangle, rectangle . . . etc
have angles and to create angles needs a force, without force
all geometrical forms must turn into circle.)
=.

 

[socratus]

One wrote: ' Universe inside black holes'
Other wrote: ' our universe came from a supermassive black hole'
Third wrote: ' black holes is a mother for . . . another universes'
I say that that all these sentences are equal to the sentence:
'All universes are inside vacuum'.
Why?
Because black holes and vacuum have one and the same temperature
near to absolute zero ( or absolute zero T=0K ).
Because they all can radiate energy . .. . . .
and this radiation changes the surrounding space
and this radiation can create new universes ( material universes).
=.
And if someone would ask ' the conditions BEFORE the big bang'
the answer is given as 'it was nothing- no time, no space'
it means ' it was no gravity time, it was no gravity space',
it was 'nothingness' ,
it means: it was only an eternal, infinite absolute vacuum: T=0K
. ====,,,