Crisis in Cosmology

[socratus]

Vacuum and virtual particles.
#
What is the basic substratum which can produce Energy
in the Universe ?
The simplest answer is:
According to Quantum Physics it is some kind of
Infinite/ Eternal Energy Space of Vacuum.
#
Where does the mass of the particle come from?
The simplest answer is:
According to Quantum Physics from virtual particles.
#
Einstein said,
/… we have not proven that the Aether does not exist, we
have merely proven that we do not need it (for computations) /

It is correct ‘that we do not need it (for computations) ‘.
But to understand behavior of elephant we must study savanna.
To understand behavior of whale we must study ocean.
And to study ‘ virtual energetic particles ‘ in Vacuum we must
know characteristics of Vacuum.

What are Vacuum’s characteristics ?
a)
The Universe as whole is Vacuum a Kingdom of Coldness.
Now the physicists think that this Kingdom of Coldness as
an Absolute Reference Frame in a state of T=2,7K
( after big bang). But if somebody belief in “ big bang”,
he must take in calculation that T=2,7K expands and therefore
T=2,7K is temporary parameter and with time it will go to T= 0K.
b)
According to Quantum Physics the Vacuum (T= 0K) is some kind
of Homogeneous Space of the lowest ( the background ) level
of Energy: E= 0.
#
So, we have two parameters of Vacuum.
Is it enough to understand all parameters of ‘ virtual particles’
in the Vacuum without to spend money on searching the
‘ Higgs boson’ ?
( In 1964 Higgs had “one big idea”, which could hold a clue
to how matter in the universe got its mass in the billionth
of a second after the Big Bang.
At the European Centre for Nuclear Research
(CERN) in Switzerland the first Higgs boson
- nicknamed the ‘God particle’ will actually observe . )


In my opinion these two parameters of Vacuum is enough
to understand the all parameters of ‘ virtual particles’.
!!!

First .

If the Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space, so according
to the Quantum Theory it must contains only
the physical - quantum - energetic particles.
The ’ virtual energetic particles’ is not a ‘ pure philosophical
concept’ that is never observed in practice.
The Quantum Theory says that :
‘ Its effects can be observed in various phenomena
(such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the
van der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought
to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe
on cosmological scales. ‘
/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy /.


Second.

The Vacuum is also the Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
If the Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space with the
lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K, then all the
‘ Laws of the Theory of Ideal Gas’ we can apply to Vacuum.
‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ is not abstract theory.
It is impossible from abstract ‘ Theory of Ideal Gas’ to create real
‘ Theory of Thermodynamics’.
Here is one of our ‘ paradoxes ‘ in Physics.

My conclusion.
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite/ Eternal
Energy Space create ‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta’.
They are in the rest/ potential condition and they have following
physical parameters:
Geometrical form : C/D = pi ,
Potential energy ( a dark energy, positron, . . .etc ): E= Mc^2,
Potential mass ( a mass-lees, dark mass , . . . .etc ): R/N=k ,
Inner impulse : h = 0 ,
Mathematical formula : i^2= -1 .
================== . .
#
Electron has infinity energy after
interaction with Vacuum: E= ∞
Why?
Maybe it is because the Electron only changed its visual
parameters on the unseen parameters and therefore
we call him ‘ virtual’ . . . ?
#
What does ‘The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass ‘ mean according to one single electron ?


What does ‘The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass’ mean according to ‘ the natural
virtual energetic particle’ ?.
#
Without Aether/ Vacuum physics makes no sense.
========== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

 

[darkbeaver]

Those are difficult questions for the layman. How many of these virtual particles have we observed?

 

[GreenFish66]

Dark energy is like all the stuff no one understands , yet has a huge affect on the "Big picture."/"the whole"(hole?)

Like reading a book not remembering or understanding every word, yet gettin the idea enough to enjoy the story ..Happily ever after...8O;-)

It's mulit-dimesional..:smile:

Like being a writer ..The stars get credit for your work...

on and on it goes..Where it stops nobdy knows?

O.K. O.K. I'll stop...

4 now!...

ttyl

 

[darkbeaver]

"At the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Chicago in 1992, there was a panel presentation of a new field called 'zoopharmacognosy,' which is a term describing the use of medicinal plants by animals. The panel got a laudatory review in a Newsweek article, which described fearless scientists spying on sick animals and observing them using certain plants to cure themselves. A Duke University primatologist was quoted as saying, 'If these work for primates, then they are potential treatments for humans,' this insight apparently being a startling departure from ordinary scientific logic. The article quoted Harvard ethnobotanist Shawn Sigstedt suggesting that bears may have taught the Navajos to use a species of the Ligusticum plant, just as they had claimed! For Western peoples, the announcemnet of zoopharmacognosy may be an exciting breakthrough on the frontiers of science, but getting information from birds and animals regarding plants is an absurdly self-evident propostion for American Indians. It gives substance to the idea that all things are related, and it is the basis for many tribal traditions regarding medicinal uses of plants. The excitement illustrates a point made above: Why didn't people take Indians seriously when we said that animals and birds give us information on medicinal plants? Why is such knowledge only valid and valuable when white scientists document and articulate it?" -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

 

[socratus]

======= .
1.
Now the physicists think that Vacuum as
an Absolute Reference Frame in a state of T=2,7K
( after big bang). But if somebody belief in “ big bang”,
he must take in calculation that T=2,7K expands and
therefore the T=2,7K is temporary parameter and with
time it will go to T= 0K.
2.
The ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ speculate with temperature parameter T=0K.

Question.
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?
================== .

 

[socratus]

Comment.
alexandris nikos:
in my paper it seems that 2,73K is a temperature of thermodynamical
balance in a universe with limits and open .2,73K is the less
temperature if the universal constants are stable.
If the temperature of universe will be 0K the rest mass
of electron must be zero.

Sadovnik.
Is better to say:
If the temperature of universe will be 0K the potential energy
of electron must be E= Mc^2, and
the potential rest mass of electron must be R/N=k.

it means:
the condition of virtual electron/positron/frozen quantum
of light can be written also with formula : E= kc^2.
!!! ??? !!!
=================== . .
Best wishes.
S.
============ . .

 

[darkbeaver]

Fusion falters under soaring costs

An international plan to build a nuclear fusion reactor is being threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges.
Tip - research cold fusion:

 

[socratus]

1.
In physics, a black body is an idealized object that absorbs all
electromagnetic radiation that falls on it. No electromagnetic
radiation passes through it and none is reflected. Because no
light (visible electromagnetic radiation) is reflected or transmitted,
the object appears black when it is cold. However, a black body
emits a temperature-dependent spectrum of light. This
thermal radiation from a black body is termed black-body radiation.
#
Studying the laws of the black body historically led to quantum mechanics
#
Blackbody radiation is light in thermal equilibrium, light radiation with
a given temperature. It is the basic thermodynamic state of light. Because
light is the oscillation of a continuous electromagnetic field, the study
of blackbody radiation reveals how continuous fields can have a
temperature, something which contradicts classical physics. Because
the thermal state of light was so confusing before the advent of
quantum mechanics, the 19th century arguments that light has a
thermal equilibrium state were made very carefully.
#
Today the black-body cavity may be thought of as containing a gas of photons
#
An almost perfect black-body spectrum is exhibited by the
cosmic microwave background radiation., Hawking radiation is the
hypothetical black-body radiation emitted by black holes.
!!!
#
Super black is an example of such a material, made from a
nickel-phosphorusalloy. More recently, a team of Japanese scientists
discovered a material even closer to a black body, based on
single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs), which absorbs between
97% and 99% of the wavelengths of the light that hits it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

2.
Max Laue (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1914 )
called the model of a black body as the ‘ Kirchhoff's vacuum.’
3.
And I have naive question:
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
========== .

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

In the 1990s or so, when globalization was successfully raging, the universe seemed to be happily expanding. Yet it was also the time when the idea of the end of sicence and history came on the scene. The doubters seem to be winning.

 

[darkbeaver]

picture of the day

chronological archive subject archive

Nebula RCW49. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/E. Churchwell (University of Wisconsin)


Nebular Currents
Jun 22, 2009

Electric Universe theory proposes that most of the Universe is behaving according to the laws of plasma dynamics.In every science journal discussing the behavior of planetary nebulae, the prevailing description of regions like RWW49 usually involves gases and dust "blowing" through them, as well as "winds" created by "shock waves" from exploding stars. In many cases, such as RCW49, the nebula is described as "star forming," because intense points of x-ray radiation, or extreme ultraviolet, indicate to astronomers that new thermonuclear fusion reactions have begun within the cloud.

The Electric Universe sees things differently. Plasma, not hot gas, is flowing through space. The physics of electric currents apply, not the physics of winds. Within the shell of a planetary nebula are one or more plasma sheaths, or "double layers," that act like capacitors, alternately storing and releasing electrical energy. The current flow alternately increases and decreases within the sheaths inside and outside the shell.

Charged particles in motion constitute an electric current. An electric current is accompanied by a magnetic field that wraps around the current and diminishes with the distance from it. The magnetic field gets stronger when more charged particles move in the same direction or when they move faster. Ions moving through the magnetic field are squeezed toward the axis. Plasma physicists refer to this as the “Bennett pinch."

An electric discharge in a plasma cloud creates a double layer along its axis. Positive charge builds up on one side and negative charge on the other. A strong e-field exists between the sides and if enough current is applied the double layer will glow, but it is otherwise invisible. Double layers and current filaments also respond to the interstellar electric currents in the circuit that threads through the galaxy. They are mostly invisible because of their low current density, but the magnetic fields they produce are apparent and detectable in the z-pinch (Bennett pinch) zones that arise because of them.

A neon lamp that emits light only at the excitation frequency of a specific gas is a more correct model for nebulae. Electricity passing through neon gas causes it to form a plasma and to glow a pale yellow. Other gases, such as oxygen or hydrogen, produce blue and red light, while heavier elements emit their own colors.

Plasma behavior is unfamiliar in many ways. It is often difficult to see plasma as completely different from a gas. Plasma's similarities to gas are overshadowed by its failure to correspond with gas kinetics. Since more than 90% of the light frequencies from planetary nebulae are in the ionized oxygen range, they should be thought of as oxygen discharge tubes and not balls of gas.

Ideas like this are unfamiliar to astronomers who think in absolute terms of gravity and mass—they seldom think about charges. They think of moving charges from the Sun as a “solar wind” instead of an electric current. They think of charged particles impacting a planet or moon as a “rain” instead of an electrical discharge. They think of charged particles moving along a magnetic field as a “jet” instead of a field-aligned Birkeland current. They think of abrupt changes in the density and speed of charged particles as a “shock wave” instead of a double layer that can even explode.

As astronomer Amy Acheson wrote:

"It’s been over 300 years since Newton encountered his apple, and his conception of gravity, now modified by Einstein and supplemented with similar mechanical theories of solids, liquids and gasses, has become the popular vision of space—an almost-empty universe of self-contained bodies. And now it’s been 100 years since Birkeland encountered his aurora, and his conception of electric currents in space, developed by such pioneers as Irving Langmuir and Hannes Alfven, has been a footnote to standard theory, rarely called upon except to explain the occasional curiosity in space."

It's about time that the simple more straightforward explanations are remembered and not the arcane, overly complex hyperbole that seems to be the standard for scientific papers today.

Stephen Smith

​

 

[darkbeaver]

I read a book called 'The Big Bang Never Happened' several years ago which also pointed out in detail the gaping holes in Big Bang theory. It also drew up a thesis as to how speculative cosmology like this has a high correpondence to the social conditions in which it was developed.

The inflation theory, which completely undermined the accepted physical properties of light, was developed in the hyper inflationary economic period of the 1980s. In a broader sense other developments in cosmology, notably superstring and multidimensionl theory, have occurred in periods that have seen a growing loss of homogenaity and trust in the supernatural and of faith in general.

The author's postulate was that there in an direct relationship between the conception of a infinite universe, one of continual creation, and the vibrancy and optimism of the society of which it is a part.

Oswald Spengler in a broader way, made the same observations in'Decline of the West' of the condition of science in a declining civilization. He predicted that science would lose its confidence and practicality in its empiricism.. and utility.. and manifest boundless belief systems as a replacement for a fragmented religious sensibility.

Hence we have cosmology, the pinnacle of science, now represented in the concepts of unprovable and utterly unuselful concepts like superstrings, and the deeply pessimistic and terminal prospect of an entropic universe of the Big Bang.

To maintain the cost benefit curve of financial interests it has been necessary to steer science away from public efficiencies which are not productive of cash profit. Money has become the master of all, again. It is no surprize whatever that science should become bent to it's (monies) demands and not those of pure science. The failed institutionalization of the construct of globalization as Dumpthemonarchy has mentioned is and was an attempt to stretch the one size fits all paradigm over every aspect of humanity in the grand attempt at some perverted financial stranglehold. Capital ultimately dictates which direction the scientific fragment of the establishment will take, to suppose otherwise is crazy. This leads to bankers and the most important human question of this era or any other. Humanity has a come to a fork in the road, not many forks, just one, one that we see sucking the life out of every human endeavour. That in of itself is bad science.

 

[darkbeaver]

Solar Electricity

subject archive

Latest image of the quiet Sun from the SOHO satellite. Credit: ESA/NASA

Solar Electricity
Jun 24, 2009

Ideas about the Sun based on fusion reactions in a dense core do not fit the observations as well as those based on electricity.

In a recent Picture of the Day about Solar Cycle 24 and the lack of sunspots in a relatively quiet solar disk, it was noted that sunspots are not well understood by astronomers. Furthermore, their bizarre electromagnetic displays are not readily explainable by models of solar activity that rely on radiant emissions from thermonuclear energy. The Sun demonstrates that electrical and magnetic properties dominate its behavior.

Almost 70 years ago, Dr. C. E. R. Bruce offered a new hypothesis about the Sun. Being an electrical researcher, as well as an astronomer, Bruce proposed that the Sun was a discharge phenomenon:​

"It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it is an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel. These arcs quickly result in the neutralization of the accumulated space charge in their neighbourhood and go out. They are not therefore stable discharges, but may rather be looked upon as transient sparks. Arcs thus continually appear and disappear. It is this coming and going which accounts for the observed granulation of the solar surface." (A New Approach in Astrophysics and Cosmogony By C. E. R. Bruce)

 

[hermanntrude]

This statement in the original post is true:

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation.

However, I think I can explain why it is tolerated, although please note I am not stating that it should be tolerated in the future, but simply explaining why it has been so far:

The field of cosmology is a field of unusual size. In a universe of unknown size, larger than any of us can even begin to imagine, the likelihood that there is matter and energy and phenomena that we havent been able (or even will ever be able to) observe is greater than in, for instance, geology, or chemistry.

 

[GreenFish66]

electrifying !

 

[socratus]

Saturday, June 27, 2009 .
Lecture: Neutrino Lesson for Dissidents.

/ by David de Hilster /

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/events/FriendlyLetter.pdf
/ World Science Database. /
================================= .

My opinion.
1.
Trying to save ‘ The law of conservation and transformation energy ‘
Wolfgang Pauli discover ( theorized) neutrino ‘on the end of his pen.’
2.
According to QED Electron has infinity energy in interaction
with vacuum: E= ∞.
But according to ‘ The law of conservation
and transformation energy ‘ it is impossible.
3.
So. How to understand this situation?
What does ’ The law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass’
mean according to one single electron or photon or neutrino ?
======= .
P.S.
#
Robert Milliken in his Nobel speech ( 1923) told, that he knew
nothing about the ‘last essence of electron ‘.
#
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.
/ From an article./
#
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.
( Albert Einstein, 1954)

The same Einstein’s words is possible to say about electron.
#
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.

/ book ‘ What is the Electron? ‘
Volodimir Simulik
Montreal, Canada. 2005. /
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm

And it is possible to find 100 more models of electron in the internet.
============== .
So. My conclusion.
1.
The neutrino problem was raised from the wish to keep (preserve !)
‘ The law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass’.
2.
We don’t know what electron and photon are and therefore
we don’t know what neutrino is.
3.
In my opinion the discussion about neutrino, photon, electron
and others micro particles must be connected with
‘ The law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass’.
Without this connection every dispute is tautology.
====== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
===================== . .

 

[darkbeaver]

If the BB is not then we may find that we are dreaming the material world into existence purely for comfort. In my very simple opinion there was or is no beginning or end. We do not live on a stick and we do not live between anything except life and death and even that we cannot prove. haha Maybe we need the idea of separation only to provide self worship of the one. In this interglacial period thus far we have found ourselves to be a slowly recovering remnant of ancient cultivation. Thankyou for the links.

 

[darkbeaver]

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Superatoms may lead to smaller, faster, powerful computers

Computers may soon become faster, smaller and more powerful as scientists said they have discovered magnetic superatoms which can provide a way to design novel nano-scale structures.

A team of researchers, including two from Allahabad-based Harish-Chandra Research Institute (HRI), have discovered the 'magnetic superatom' -- a stable cluster of atoms that can mimic different elements of the periodic table.

The cluster, consisting of one Vanadium and eight Cesium atoms, acts like a tiny magnet that can mimic a single Manganese atom in magnetic strength while preferentially allowing electrons of specific spin orientation to flow through the surrounding shell of Cesium atoms.

"A combination such as the one we have created can lead to significant developments in the area of molecular electronics, a field where researchers study electric currents through small molecules," the scientists said reporting their findings in British science journal 'Nature'.

 

[socratus]

The mixed Electron from Wikipedia .

Electron.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

a)
The electron is a subatomic particle that . . . . . .
is believed to be a point particle . . (!!! ??? )
and belong to the first-generation of fundamental particles
b)
The classical electron radius is 2.8179 × 10 - 15 m . (!!!)
c)
The electron has no known substructure. (!!! )
d)
electrons can act as waves.
This is called the wave–particle duality (!!!)
e)
An isolated electron that is not undergoing acceleration is unable
to emit or absorb a real photon ( !!! ) ; doing so would violate
conservation of energy and momentum . ( !!!)
==== .
My conclusion:
#
Electron is the point particle with the
classical electron radius 2.8179 × 10 - 15 m,
( the radius shows that electron must have a form .)
which has no known substructure but can emit or absorb a real
photon ( where does electron hide the real photon? In its pocket ?),
and electron can be a corpuscular and can be a wave,
and belong to the first-generation of fundamental particles.
#
And according to SRT the point particle or classical electron radius
cannot all time keep firm form, the electron’s form must be elastic
. . . .variable.
#
When electrons and positrons collide, they annihilate each other . .
(!!! ???)
And when electron interact with vacuum its parameters became infinity .
(!!! What does it mean ??? )
The experimental lower bound for the electron's mean lifetime
is 4.6 × 10^ 26 years, . . . .
! !!
And trying to understand the birth of an electron
we search for his mother a ‘ Higgs boson ‘.
======= .
We have two possibilities:
To believe that electron looks like the Wikipedia says
or, maybe, to understand and agree that our intellect
looks a little strange.
====== . .
My opinion about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
#
Half truth can be falsehood.
Half answer can be not truthful answer.
========== .
S.

 

[darkbeaver]

Some people believe the search for Mr boson Higgs is a monumental waste of time others who sell giant magnets and miles of copper believe, with good reason, that the exercise is the finest proof of the love of god herself. Yesterday MT steered me to this Vedic sight where there is a tiny bit about the electron and its fuzzy orbit.
Spiritual Secrets in the Carbon Atom

 

[socratus]

Interesting opinion about electron.

Socratus.
Yes, this response makes sense on me.
Now I can understand more clear, what physicists
don't understand that they say about Physics / Electron.

Andy.
What is it that we don't understand about what we say?
Except, when we say we don't understand something completely?
Do you mean that YOU don't understand what we are saying?

For example, when I say that an electron is an electron –
I guess you think that I don't understand anything about an electron?

Imagine for a moment, that we find some furry little animal on Mars.
We might try to tell other earthlings what it 'is'.
We might say, well, it is sort of a cat, but also like a fox. But it isn't a cat,
it isn't a fox, it isn't anything we have on earth. It comes from Mars,
and is completely different from anything on earth. It is a furry little
animal from Mars. In all honesty, that is all we can say about it.
To say it has some characteristics of a cat, and some characteristics of a fox,
might convey some insight to other earthlings, but it is neither a cat nor a fox.

Would that mean that biologists don't understand anything they say
about biology? I don't think so.

Likewise, we can discuss the properties of an electron - it has a mass,
a charge, a magnetic moment, an angular momentum. But what it really IS,
I don't think we understand. We know some things about it, but not everything.
That doesn't mean we know everything, or even pretend to - I've NEVER heard
a physicist say he thinks we know everything; have you?
Nor does it mean we know nothing.

I await your answers to my questions.

Andy

Northern Arizona University
Physics-Astronomy Dept
United States
============ === .

Interesting opinion about electron, isn’t it?
Our Electron as an animal from Mars. (!!!)

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.