# Has Physics Lost Its Way?

#### socratus

##### socratus
Quantum spin is an intrinsic property of quantum particles.
Quantum particles have dualistic nature and geometric forms “point”
Dualistic point particles lead to huge logic difficulties.
Real quantum particle must have a geometric form.
If quantum particle has form, then:
how quantum spin as an “intrinsic property" works?
#
Quantum spin refers to the rotation required to return the wave to original state.
There are two kinds of spinning. (angular spin and linear spin)
1 - The photon (linear spin 1) needs one rotation to return to the original orientation.
(1 wavelength - 1 rotation)
And for photon at constant speed (c) the wavelength is infinite.
2 - An electron (angular spin ½ ) needs two rotations to return to the original orientation.
(1 wavelength - 2 rotation)
----
Maybe solution can be tied with geometrical form of quantum particles.
The number (π) is constantly present in quantum physics and it belongs
to the geometric shape of a circle (disk, membrane) and sphere.
To create angular spin or linear spin, is needed different angles of momentum to influence these forms.

#### Attachments

• God-runs-EM-Duality.jpg
15.7 KB · Views: 0

#### socratus

##### socratus
Quantum particle has dualistic nature (wave & corpuscular)
QFT successfully explain the wave nature of quantum particle.
Can particle physics explain how does point quantum particle work?
#
The dualistic behaviour of particle is a function of dualistic spin (h & ħ=h/2π)
1 - By intrinsic spin (h) the particle behaves as a corpuscular.
2 - By intrinsic spin (ħ=h/2π) the particle behaves as a wave.
Of course, if I use this idea for a quantum point particle, then my reasoning is pointless.

#### Attachments

• Spin-Quantum-Mechanics.png
6.4 KB · Views: 0

#### DaSleeper

##### Trolling Hypocrites
Am I the only one here who doesn't know what the f*ck Socratus is talking about all the time???

taxslave

#### Dexter Sinister

##### Unspecified Specialist
No. Even those of us with a degree in physics, like me, often don't know what he's talking about, and personally I suspect he often doesn't either, he's just reporting what he's read somewhere without really understanding it. Beats me why he keeps repeating T=0K, for instance, it always appears without context and I've not a clue what he thinks its significance is, because as far as we know there's no place in the cosmos where the temperature is 0 degrees Kelvin.

DaSleeper

#### socratus

##### socratus
No. Even those of us with a degree in physics, like me, often don't know what he's talking about, and personally I suspect he often doesn't either, he's just reporting what he's read somewhere without really understanding it. Beats me why he keeps repeating T=0K, for instance, it always appears without context and I've not a clue what he thinks its significance is, because as far as we know there's no place in the cosmos where the temperature is 0 degrees Kelvin.

What is a true, absolute vacuum?
⁠⁠A true vacuum is a state of T=0K.
⁠⁠A true vacuum is not stable; it is dynamic and filled ⁠with Dirac’s virtual particles
⁠⁠These Dirac's virtual particles constantly destroy smooth structure of T=0K
⁠⁠#
⁠⁠Waves fluctuate on the surface of the ocean,
⁠⁠but the depth of the ocean is calm and motionless.
⁠⁠The same with the structure of the absolute T=0K.
⁠⁠#
⁠⁠The structure of ideal zero T=0K can be understood
⁠⁠by the theory of an IDEAL GAS.
⁠⁠#
⁠Attempting to understand nature, physicists miss one subject:
⁠⁠the infinite and eternal Cosmic Vacuum T=0K
⁠⁠============

#### socratus

##### socratus
DUALISM OF NATURE.
It is known that everything in the world –
both living and nonliving - consists of atoms and molecules.
#
All particles can be in motion.
In chaotic motion they can attract, repel and collide each
with other and the result can be creation of temperature.
Temperature is some kind of thermal radiation.
#
There are another kind of particles.
These particles behave in an unusually strange way.
They don't like interact each with other.
And sometime they are not even particles, but EM waves.
Researchers say - they have a double nature.
When it's convenient, they say it is a particle.
When it’s uncomfortable, they say that it’s wave.
Or vice versa.
Researchers called this agreement with the word "dualism".
A kind of teaching about the holy twin.
#
Not everything has "double" nature.
Not all quantum particles have "dualistic" nature.
"Dualistic" nature has only particles that can create EM waves.
Particles that create thermal radiation don't have “dualistic" nature.
#
Turning to atom (electron + proton)
An electron has "dualistic", active nature
(can be as a wave, as a particle, as an antielectron)
A passive proton doesn't have "dualistic" nature
(cannot be as a wave, cannot be as an antiproton)
=========….

#### Attachments

• Dualism.jpg
5.9 KB · Views: 0

#### socratus

##### socratus
Quantum particles have been defined as a "Point"
Duality of the quantum “Point”
"Figaro here, Figaro there,
Figaro up, Figaro down,
Swifter and swifter I'm like a spark:
I'm the handyman of the city.
Ah, bravo Figaro! Bravo, very good;
Fortunately for you I will not fail.”
#
“Figaro! Figaro! Figaro!, Etc..
Alas, what frenzy!”
/ Rossini, opera 'The Barber of Seville'/
According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
===========…

#### socratus

##### socratus
Point or Geometrical Figure
For most physicists, each quantum particle is a "point", which in the laboratory
can be manipulated at their will and then create modern technology tools.
Thank you for this work.
But in Nature this "point" existed before the first physicist was born.
If this "point" does not work - no problem,
it is a dead "point" and physicists are right.
But if this "point" acts (for example, like a Planck quantum of action)
then in Nature it must have a geometric shape.
Quantum physics works very well in the box-lab, but without
geometric form of quantum particles the philosophy of science is tautology.
#
The result of accepting the quantum particle as a “point”.
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."
/ Niels Bohr /
“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”
/ Werner Heisenberg /
‘’I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics.’’
/ Richard Feynman /
==============

#### Attachments

• Bohr-Niels.jpg
29.8 KB · Views: 1

#### socratus

##### socratus
SRT crossword:
Lorentz transformation and Special Relativity Theory
------.
Question:
"DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?"
/ By A. EINSTEIN. September 27, 1905/
The answer was: yes, the energy / mass (E = mc ^ 2) is the force
what causes the "inertial" speed of the “body".
#
Question:
How does E=MC² link to the Lorentz transformations?
=====.

#### Attachments

• E=MC2.jpg
13.2 KB · Views: 0

#### DaSleeper

##### Trolling Hypocrites
SRT crossword:
Lorentz transformation and Special Relativity Theory
------.
Question:
"DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?"
/ By A. EINSTEIN. September 27, 1905/
The answer was: yes, the energy / mass (E = mc ^ 2) is the force
what causes the "inertial" speed of the “body".
#
Question:
How does E=MC² link to the Lorentz transformations?
=====.
Isin atipam li ronucut pal. Tarec amorerop egir dacorog six; ahele sibo sepir ageseye onutusien va hafidur nute cos setelo. Oroce so ofec eno riniyi sin, sol ros wanab yid pa halapo ahim foremir. Uhan beceb borala dos ehicena yeb loh rume tanusieg. Fieme ro kase arekatet vah. Abe eginin le? Oses itobet ta ata usala wa, yil fate remo lep lomased pezirop. Lepide afoler isopal moti gutom nar riew ma mecohot. Obem tu iceh yiekor lecet ituyiha rieci iyihiere.

#### Dexter Sinister

##### Unspecified Specialist
Question:
How does E=MC² link to the Lorentz transformations?
Any elementary textbook on special relativity will give you that. It arises from a consideration of the conservation laws as seen by different observers. The Lorentz transformations are required to work out their differing views of velocities and times so both observers will see momentum and energy as being conserved.

DaSleeper

#### socratus

##### socratus
Chapter 32
THE MASS, MATTER AND ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS
Section:
F. Who really discovered the mass-matter-energy relationship?
-----.
In 1916, Einstein attempted, ad hoc, to convert E = mc2 into a relativistic equation by adding the Lorentz transformation factor to it as a denominator, vis.:
#
According to Einstein, this new equation describes what happens when the energy, the mass and/or the velocity of a material object changes[71] (Einstein, Relativity, p. 50). There may be some empirical support for this conjecture by Einstein, but certainly it is not as a result of the Lorentz transformation. If the Lorentz transformation factor,
#
is ad hoc (Chapter 27); invalid for Length Contraction and for the Dilation of Time (Chapter 28); and invalid for Relativistic Mass, Relativistic Momentum and Relativistic Kinetic Energy (Chapter 31); why should we suddenly believe that it is valid with respect to mass and energy?
#
Thus, the conclusions attributed to Einstein—that the mass or matter of a material body is a direct measure of its energy content and that a body’s matter can be totally converted to energy (Ibid)—are at best misleading or hyperbole.[72]
https://relativityoflight.com/chapter-32

#### Attachments

• SRT-L-T-E=mc2.png
2.4 KB · Views: 0

#### socratus

##### socratus
I was surprised to find in internet Einstein formula of interaction
between E=mc^2 and Lorentz factor.
---
"According to Einstein, this new equation describes what happens when the energy,
the mass and/or the velocity of a material object changes[71]
(Einstein, Relativity, p. 50)"
#
I cannot understand: why Einstein formula
"certainly it is not as a result of the Lorentz transformation" ?

#### Attachments

• SRT-L-T-E=mc2.png
2.4 KB · Views: 0

#### Dexter Sinister

##### Unspecified Specialist
Okay, so I followed that link to the page about The Relativity of Light and read some of it, and a few things have become clearer to me. The author is identified as Justin Jacobs, and he's written several treatises in which he claims to have falsified special relativity, general relativity, and the accepted explanation for the null result of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. I can find no references to any Justin Jacobs with any credentials as a physicist, only the claim on his own sites that he's spent 20 years studying these things. If there was someone who had successfully falsified those things he'd have created the biggest bombshell in physics in the last hundred years. So here's what's become clearer to me:

1. Nobody named Justin Jacobs has published any papers in a legitimate physics journal.
2. This particular Justin Jacobs is a crackpot who doesn't really understand relativity.
3. You don't understand physics well enough to distinguish a crackpot from a legitimate physicist.

#### socratus

##### socratus
The original source of Einstein formula of interaction
between E=mc^2 and Lorentz factor.
Book: RELATIVITY
THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY
by ALBERT EINSTEIN
#
RELATIVITY
PA RT I
THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
Section: XV (pages 52 - 57)
GENERAL RESULTS OF THE THEORY

#### Attachments

• SRT-L-T-E=mc2.png
2.4 KB · Views: 0

#### petros

##### The Central Scrutinizer
Relativistic. That's when you(E. McTwo) end up being your own father inlaw using mentum, nursha, kin and the powers vested in NASCAR to achieve a lap time so fast you can stop on pit road to get new tars without losing any time.

I tell you what!

Last edited:

#### Gilgamesh

##### Council Member
According to Lindley, something happened in 20th-century theoretical physics
that caused some in the field to “reach back to the ancient justifications
for mathematical elegance as a criterion for knowledge, even truth.”
In 1963, the great English quantum physicist Paul Dirac famously wrote,
“It is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit an experiment.”
To be fair, Dirac was a rather special individual,
since many of his mathematical predictions turned out to be correct,
such as the existence of antimatter, which was discovered a few years
after his equation predicted it.
But other physicists took this view to an extreme.
The Hungarian Hermann Weyl went as far as to say,
“My work always tried to unite the truth with the beautiful,
and when I had to choose one or the other, I usually chose the beautiful.”
Lindley argues that this attitude is prevalent among many researchers working
at the forefront of fundamental physics today and asks whether these physicists
are even still doing science if their theories do not make testable predictions.
After all, if we can never confirm the existence of parallel universes,
then isn’t it just metaphysics, however aesthetically pleasing it might be?
But Lindley goes further by declaring that much fundamental research,
whether in particle physics, cosmology or the quest to unify gravity
with quantum mechanics, is based purely on mathematics and should not be regarded
as science at all, but, rather, philosophy.
And this is where I think he goes too far.
Physics has always been an empirical science;
just because we don’t know how to test our latest fanciful ideas today does not mean we never will.
---
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/books/review/dream-universe-davidlindley.html
===
And of course these days, actual experiments are proving much of the weird irrational stuff predicted by the seemingly crazy physicists decades ago are turning out to be true. Which is both incredibly exciting and at the same time extremely troubling. Bells Theorem, Heisenburgs Principle, etc., even poor Schroedingers Kitty cat has been dug up yet again. Basically it seem to show that the reality we all experience every day, just does not exist!
So - what does exist?

#### socratus

##### socratus
So - what does exist?
the infinite cosmic vacuum (cosmic void, nothingness, emptiness,
aether, an absolute spacetime) that is home for:
1 - virtual particles
2 - billion and billion galaxies
3 - and everything else