Does Socratus write an unintelligent garbage?

[Corduroy]

The thread title kinda answers itself.

 

[darkbeaver]

Where is the root of all elements ?
=.
An interesting stuff
(phys.org, Oct 2012)
Lithium in action: Advanced imaging method reveals fundamental reactions behind battery technology
The nano-engineering technology is grown every day,
every day a new success - new discovery.
And it seems that really all elements are magical and amazing.
==.
But . . . . .
1
Let us say that we want to write a full theory about elements.
Then we cannot begin from the lithium.
Lithium is too complex element.
The Periodic table says we need to begin from hydrogen.
But in my opinion we need to begin from helium II.
Why?
Helium II exists below at 2.19 K
We don’t know any another element that exist below this coefficient
Below is Nothingness : T=0K
The idea of the Nothingness is not a new one.
There are enough physicists who try to understand it.
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
#
And Paul Dirac wrote:
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
==.
2
Professor Yang Shao-Horn says:
"We focused on finding out what really happens during
charging and discharging,"

In my opinion there isn’t charging and discharging without photon
( electric charge)
=.
So, we come again to QED: what is happen in interaction
between photon / electron ( quantum of light) and matter.
=.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

=.

Yes it's hard to describe nothing, so when I read about nothing I feel empty. This is the next revolution
Xaturn | thunderbolts.info .

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

With the discovery of dark energy came difficult questions: What is this energy, and where does it come from? Physicists simply do not know. According to quantum mechanics, the energy of empty space comes from the virtual particles that dwell there. But when physicists use the equations of quantum theory to calculate the amount of that virtual energy, they get a ridiculously huge number—about 120 orders of magnitude too large. That much energy would literally blow the universe apart: Objects a few inches from us would be carried away to astronomical distances; the universe would literally double in size every 10-43 second, and it would keep doubling at that rate until all the vacuum energy was gone. This may be the most colossal gap between observation and theory in the history of science. And it means that physicists are missing something fundamental about the way the universe works.

I tried Socratus but I got this far and could not for the life o me read another silly word.

 

[socratus]

The answer is YES!
You attempt to proclaim your "superior knowledge",
in order to try to make others appear stupid.
You are not sharing knowledge,
you are crowing about YOUR superiority.

To your knowledge :
I am not a scientist.
I am not a philosopher.

I only posted my view on the physics after 30 years
of reading some books of physics.

And if I sure that I am right - it is only my peasant opinion.
=.
P.S.
I think, that it will be good for you don’t read socratus posts.
=.

Yes it's hard to describe nothing,
. . .
And it means that physicists are missing something
fundamental about the way the universe works.

Lee Smolin wrote the same in his book: ‘ The trouble with Physics’ :
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea?’
/ Page 308. /
=.

What idea physicists were missing ?
The idea of physical parameter of vacuum: T=0K.
socratus
==.

 

[socratus]

Bill Gill wrote:

'Once again socratus you make an elementary mistake.
The photon is the particle which transmits the electromagnetic
force. The electron is the particle which holds the negative electric
charge. The photon and the electron are 2 completely different
things.

This is the kind of mistake you make repeatedly.'
#
Socratus wrote:

What is energy of photon ?
The energy of photon is: E=h*f.
What is the energy of electron ?
The energy of an electron is: E=h*f.
What is difference between photon and electron ?
Frequency makes difference between them.
Book " Isaac Newton "
by Soviet academician S. I. Vavilov:
‘ For photons with extremely high fluctuations,
. . . ., in experience was observed the remarkable
phenomenon of transformation them in electrons.
Undoubtedly, a reverse process is also possible.’
/ page 94. /
==.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Uhm....who is "Bill Gill" above who's quoted above in post #44?

 

[socratus]

Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty principle: (ab ≠ ba) and Electron.

!!!
=.

 

[Blackleaf]

Why would you come post another forum's arguments on here?

Why? Are they too intelligent for you?

I suppose I have to bear in mind that most women's conversations with each other rarely move beyond the subject of boyfriends and nappies.