Large Hadron Collider machine may allow people from future to visit us
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Unless inertia is defined in a different manner these days . . . .
====================
Inertia and momentum (motion + acceleration).
Newton wrote that acceleration in the Nature is going
according to the formula: a= F/m.
Questions:
1.
Does Maxwell’s electrodynamics use conception “acceleration”?
2.
Does Special theory of relativity use conception “acceleration”?
( The Special Theory of Relativity uses the concept of
inertial reference frames without acceleration.)
3.
Does General theory of relativity use conception “acceleration”?
( The General Theory of Relativity uses the concepts of
gravitation and acceleration. Do you know the formula of
acceleration in GRT ? )
4.
Does Quantum theory use conception “acceleration”?
( Planck constant: h or h = h/2pi !!!
What is interaction between h and h(bar)=h/2pi ???).
5.
Does Quantum Electrodynamics use conception “acceleration”?
======= . .
#
We need acceleration to make a body to move.
After it is possible to say that a inertia force moves this body.
But once moving body , it takes an acceleration force to stop
or change direction of this moving body.
#
Where did the “acceleration” ( even in inertia frame) appear from?
#
We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two,
because one and one are two. We are finding
that we must learn a great deal more about `and'.
/Sir Arthur Eddington/
In my opinion the Eddington’s “and” is acceleration in RT+QT)
#
From an article:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
========================== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
====================
Inertia and momentum (motion + acceleration).
Newton wrote that acceleration in the Nature is going
according to the formula: a= F/m.
Questions:
1.
Does Maxwell’s electrodynamics use conception “acceleration”?
2.
Does Special theory of relativity use conception “acceleration”?
( The Special Theory of Relativity uses the concept of
inertial reference frames without acceleration.)
3.
Does General theory of relativity use conception “acceleration”?
( The General Theory of Relativity uses the concepts of
gravitation and acceleration. Do you know the formula of
acceleration in GRT ? )
4.
Does Quantum theory use conception “acceleration”?
( Planck constant: h or h = h/2pi !!!
What is interaction between h and h(bar)=h/2pi ???).
5.
Does Quantum Electrodynamics use conception “acceleration”?
======= . .
#
We need acceleration to make a body to move.
After it is possible to say that a inertia force moves this body.
But once moving body , it takes an acceleration force to stop
or change direction of this moving body.
#
Where did the “acceleration” ( even in inertia frame) appear from?
#
We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two,
because one and one are two. We are finding
that we must learn a great deal more about `and'.
/Sir Arthur Eddington/
In my opinion the Eddington’s “and” is acceleration in RT+QT)
#
From an article:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
========================== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
That is all well and good, Socrates, but how do you define inertia, if not in the manner that I have indicated?
Socrates, I have been thinking about it, and even on a physical level, this idea that inertia depends upon energy sounds doubtful.
Let us say a stone is lying on the ground. We pick it up, take it to the top of a ten storey boiling, and put it down. There is no reason why inertia will be different, whether it is sitting on a table at the ground level, or whether it is sitting on a table on tenth floor.
But the energy is clearly different. On 10th floor it has potential energy (potential energy = mgh). At least in this case, additional energy does not seem to impart it additional inertia.
Or is he saying that a stone lying on a table on 10th floor has more inertia than a stone lying on a table on the ground floor, that it is difficult to get a stone moving on the 10th floor than it, is on the ground floor (which is really the physical significance of inertia)?
Now, perhaps it may be true under relativistic conditions (approaching speed of light). But I don’t see how it can be under normal conditions.
But as I said, I ma not a physicist, I could be wrong. But then we again come down to the question, how do you define inertia?
Let us say a stone is lying on the ground. We pick it up, take it to the top of a ten storey boiling, and put it down. There is no reason why inertia will be different, whether it is sitting on a table at the ground level, or whether it is sitting on a table on tenth floor.
But the energy is clearly different. On 10th floor it has potential energy (potential energy = mgh). At least in this case, additional energy does not seem to impart it additional inertia.
Or is he saying that a stone lying on a table on 10th floor has more inertia than a stone lying on a table on the ground floor, that it is difficult to get a stone moving on the 10th floor than it, is on the ground floor (which is really the physical significance of inertia)?
Now, perhaps it may be true under relativistic conditions (approaching speed of light). But I don’t see how it can be under normal conditions.
But as I said, I ma not a physicist, I could be wrong. But then we again come down to the question, how do you define inertia?
I don't think it is the lack of energy but we lack the right type of energy to push a particle to light speed.Gravitons are massless, and so should be able to travel at the speed of light, maybe even faster, because photons are only nearly massless...let's get our mitts on a couple of those and send them round the track...see what happens...
Right now, the whole LHC project is focused on identifying the elementary particles that have spots reserved in the Standard Model, but have not been found...after that we can create all the wormholes and blackholes we want...
As I understand it though, the amount of energy needed for time travel is far beyond what all power sources on Earth combined can produce...it'll be a while yet...
Nothing physical can move at or faster than the speed of light. That would violate the laws of physics as we know them. ( I suppose we could be wrong)
All a physical object can do is approach the speed of light relative to the stationary observer. As the object approaches the speed of light it's apparent mass increases. In theory accelerating an object to the speed of light would be like trying to accelerate something which is infinitely massive. In other words, its impossible.
From the viewpoint of the object in motion, light behaves exactly the same. Sure the object in motion will observe a red shift backward and a violet shift forward, but the speed of light itself remains constant. From the viewpoint of the object in motion, light is still moving at the same speed. What's changed is the object's perception of time, which has slowed, relative to the stationary observer.
Read Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time". The principles aren't that complex, they just conflict with what we observe on our scale of speed and mass.
I'm sure some good science will come of this project.
All a physical object can do is approach the speed of light relative to the stationary observer. As the object approaches the speed of light it's apparent mass increases. In theory accelerating an object to the speed of light would be like trying to accelerate something which is infinitely massive. In other words, its impossible.
From the viewpoint of the object in motion, light behaves exactly the same. Sure the object in motion will observe a red shift backward and a violet shift forward, but the speed of light itself remains constant. From the viewpoint of the object in motion, light is still moving at the same speed. What's changed is the object's perception of time, which has slowed, relative to the stationary observer.
Read Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time". The principles aren't that complex, they just conflict with what we observe on our scale of speed and mass.
I'm sure some good science will come of this project.
To SirJosephPorter
The speed of light quanta is constant parameter c=1
( Michelson- Morley experiment ) no matter where is
Light quanta……. “ lying on a table on the ground floor
or on the 10th floor “. . . The speed of Light quanta is
independent quantity. It isn’t depend of any source…. . .
. . .not from a table, not from the ground floor,
not from the 10th floor.
To think what light quanta behaviors as a stone, a train,
an airplane, as a rocker . . . etc … . . . . is no correct.
Why?
1.
Not a stone, not a rocket can reach speed c=1.
There are two incommensurablequantities.
Is it possible to bind them together?
No.
I was taught at school from the first class that the
Incommensurable quantities cannot be compared.
To connection between these incommensurable quantities
it is similar to the decision of a problem:
“What will be if the whale attacks the elephant?”
We can see whale in a ocean and elephant in a savanna,
but they never meet and fight in the same “ frame of reference”.
And the same is about light quanta and another objects and particles.
We can meet light quanta only in SRT and no other particles in it.
2.
The light quanta can produce electromagnetic waves and
a stone, train, rocket . . .etc . . . they have another prescription.
The speed of light quanta is constant parameter c=1
( Michelson- Morley experiment ) no matter where is
Light quanta……. “ lying on a table on the ground floor
or on the 10th floor “. . . The speed of Light quanta is
independent quantity. It isn’t depend of any source…. . .
. . .not from a table, not from the ground floor,
not from the 10th floor.
To think what light quanta behaviors as a stone, a train,
an airplane, as a rocker . . . etc … . . . . is no correct.
Why?
1.
Not a stone, not a rocket can reach speed c=1.
There are two incommensurablequantities.
Is it possible to bind them together?
No.
I was taught at school from the first class that the
Incommensurable quantities cannot be compared.
To connection between these incommensurable quantities
it is similar to the decision of a problem:
“What will be if the whale attacks the elephant?”
We can see whale in a ocean and elephant in a savanna,
but they never meet and fight in the same “ frame of reference”.
And the same is about light quanta and another objects and particles.
We can meet light quanta only in SRT and no other particles in it.
2.
The light quanta can produce electromagnetic waves and
a stone, train, rocket . . .etc . . . they have another prescription.
I have no problem with anything you have aid so far, Socrates. My problem is with the contention that inertia depends upon the energy content, I don’t see it, not the way inertia is defined.
Thus a stone lying on the ground has the same inertia as the stone lying on a table on 10th floor, but they clearly have different energy content. So I don’t see how that can be.
Thus a stone lying on the ground has the same inertia as the stone lying on a table on 10th floor, but they clearly have different energy content. So I don’t see how that can be.
Hopefully the Hadron will tell us why. I'm looking forward to this.
It looks like Russia is going to lead us to the next level of science once again,
it must be nice to have no debt.
All a physical object can do is approach the speed of light relative to the stationary observer. As the object approaches the speed of light it's apparent mass increases. In theory accelerating an object to the speed of light would be like trying to accelerate something which is infinitely massive. In other words, its impossible.
There are particles, however, which move faster than light, tachyons (particles moving slower than light are called tardyons). So speed of light is not the absolute upper limit.
However, speed of light is unbreachable. A tachyon cannot slow down to speeds smaller than that of light. As tachyon slows down, its mass increases, and if it slows down to speed of light, its mass will be infinite.
So speed of light is not so much the upper limit, as an uncrossable barrier. That would be like the border between say, East and West Germany. There are people on both sides, but movement from one side to the other is totally impossible.
There are particles, however, which move faster than light, tachyons (particles moving slower than light are called tardyons). So speed of light is not the absolute upper limit.
However, speed of light is unbreachable. A tachyon cannot slow down to speeds smaller than that of light. As tachyon slows down, its mass increases, and if it slows down to speed of light, its mass will be infinite.
So speed of light is not so much the upper limit, as an uncrossable barrier. That would be like the border between say, East and West Germany. There are people on both sides, but movement from one side to the other is totally impossible.
Where does the mass of the particle come from?
Now the physicists use the Higgs mechanism to give all the
elementary particles masses.
The mechanism requires the Higgs field to be nonzero in the vacuum,
exactly like spontaneous symmetry breaking. In this case, the broken
symmetry is gauged, meaning that the field which fills all of space,
the Higgs condensate, is charged. Gauge fields become massive
when there is a charged condensate, this is called superconductivity.
/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism /
My comment.
1.
We have Vacuum.
The Vacuum is the homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
The Vacuum is also the homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
The question is: “ How can the homogeneous Vacuum be broken?”.
2.
If the Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space, so according
to the Quantum Theory it must contains only
the physical - quantum - energetic particles. We named them
“ virtual particles”. The “ virtual 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 /.
3.
Question:
How can “ the virtual particles” change the homogeneous Vacuum?
The Higgs mechanism. !!!???
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.
Higgs eventually came up with his theory of the Higgs boson,
a boson that gives mass to all other subatomic particles that
happen to interact with it in a ‘Higgs field’.
The more they interact, the heavier they become.
And the ones that don’t interact don’t gather mass.
The theory could not only throw further light on the creation
of the universe, but also help explain the shape of it.
At the European Centre for Nuclear Research
(CERN) in Switzerland the protons will be smashed against
each other at great speed and as result the first Higgs boson
nicknamed the ‘God particle’ will actually observe .
???
#
In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists
to enlarge the target. Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping
to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with
the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not
relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature.
But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure
of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
========= .. ========.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
========== .. ===============.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
========== . ======== .
The Nature works very economical.
For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in
accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 )
proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature.
All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends - antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…etc)
are dead end of evolution.
============.
What was before - “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “
Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator.
They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction
between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the
“big bang”. They didn’t make this process in the reverse.
So, what was prior in the Universe: “ big bang” or vacuum?
#
The Higgs mechanism can be considered as the superconductivity
in the Vacuum.
/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism /
My question:
How can “ the natural virtual particles” create superconductivity
space in Vacuum?
My answer:
Because “ the natural virtual particles” itself is energetic particles
and they create the superconductivity space therefore we are surprise
to see that this space haven’t electrical resistance.
And on my opinion this process in Vacuum connected with
gravity’s creation, with star’s creation.
===========================..
Question:
How can the homogeneous Vacuum be broken without using
“ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “ (not by compulsions )
but using “the natural virtual particles” ?
On my opinion to solve this problem we must understand
only three thing:
1.
What Vacuum is
2.
That physical and geometrical parameters have
“the natural virtual particles” in Vacuum.
3.
What „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to “ the natural virtual particles” .
============ . .
P.S.
Many years M. Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls
in area of absolutely black body ( Kirchhoff’s Vacuum
radiation /Max Laue / ) and does not radiate back,
then “ terminal dead “ comes. In order to save the
quantum of light from death Planck decided that
it is possible that quantum of light will radiate this
quantum of light back with quantum unit h=Et.
Physicists say, that Planck’s unit is one: h=1.
Having this unit h=1 photon flies with speed c=1.
This unit doesn’t come from formulas or equations.
Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced unit h phenomenologically
So, where does the Planck’s constant ( h) come from?
#
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have
no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture
that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. ”
(Feynman. 1987)
So, where does the energy come from?
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
================..
Now the physicists use the Higgs mechanism to give all the
elementary particles masses.
The mechanism requires the Higgs field to be nonzero in the vacuum,
exactly like spontaneous symmetry breaking. In this case, the broken
symmetry is gauged, meaning that the field which fills all of space,
the Higgs condensate, is charged. Gauge fields become massive
when there is a charged condensate, this is called superconductivity.
/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism /
My comment.
1.
We have Vacuum.
The Vacuum is the homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
The Vacuum is also the homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
The question is: “ How can the homogeneous Vacuum be broken?”.
2.
If the Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space, so according
to the Quantum Theory it must contains only
the physical - quantum - energetic particles. We named them
“ virtual particles”. The “ virtual 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 /.
3.
Question:
How can “ the virtual particles” change the homogeneous Vacuum?
The Higgs mechanism. !!!???
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.
Higgs eventually came up with his theory of the Higgs boson,
a boson that gives mass to all other subatomic particles that
happen to interact with it in a ‘Higgs field’.
The more they interact, the heavier they become.
And the ones that don’t interact don’t gather mass.
The theory could not only throw further light on the creation
of the universe, but also help explain the shape of it.
At the European Centre for Nuclear Research
(CERN) in Switzerland the protons will be smashed against
each other at great speed and as result the first Higgs boson
nicknamed the ‘God particle’ will actually observe .
???
#
In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists
to enlarge the target. Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping
to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with
the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not
relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature.
But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure
of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
========= .. ========.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
========== .. ===============.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
========== . ======== .
The Nature works very economical.
For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in
accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 )
proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature.
All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends - antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…etc)
are dead end of evolution.
============.
What was before - “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “
Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator.
They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction
between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the
“big bang”. They didn’t make this process in the reverse.
So, what was prior in the Universe: “ big bang” or vacuum?
#
The Higgs mechanism can be considered as the superconductivity
in the Vacuum.
/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism /
My question:
How can “ the natural virtual particles” create superconductivity
space in Vacuum?
My answer:
Because “ the natural virtual particles” itself is energetic particles
and they create the superconductivity space therefore we are surprise
to see that this space haven’t electrical resistance.
And on my opinion this process in Vacuum connected with
gravity’s creation, with star’s creation.
===========================..
Question:
How can the homogeneous Vacuum be broken without using
“ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “ (not by compulsions )
but using “the natural virtual particles” ?
On my opinion to solve this problem we must understand
only three thing:
1.
What Vacuum is
2.
That physical and geometrical parameters have
“the natural virtual particles” in Vacuum.
3.
What „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to “ the natural virtual particles” .
============ . .
P.S.
Many years M. Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls
in area of absolutely black body ( Kirchhoff’s Vacuum
radiation /Max Laue / ) and does not radiate back,
then “ terminal dead “ comes. In order to save the
quantum of light from death Planck decided that
it is possible that quantum of light will radiate this
quantum of light back with quantum unit h=Et.
Physicists say, that Planck’s unit is one: h=1.
Having this unit h=1 photon flies with speed c=1.
This unit doesn’t come from formulas or equations.
Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced unit h phenomenologically
So, where does the Planck’s constant ( h) come from?
#
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have
no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture
that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. ”
(Feynman. 1987)
So, where does the energy come from?
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
================..
Basic physics without words.==================== http://www.av8n.com/physics/basic_physics.html =============..============..!!!
60 years ago they said the same thing about the sound barrier. Not much of a barrier was it? More like a sound hurdle.
That indeed is my hope, Petros. If at all I have faith, it is that someday Einstein will be proved wrong and we will be able to breach the light barrier. If we can jump the barrier, faster than light travel becomes possible, and it will be possible to explore the stars.
After all, it doesn’t seem fair, does it? There is all this vast universe and no way of exploring it.
So I am with you, I hope some day we can breach the barrier. But as of today, speed of light is an unbreakable, unbreachable barrier. That is science, anything else is faith.
Incidentally, there were no theoretical reasons why sound barrier could not be breached, there were practical reasons. There are theoretical reasons why the light barrier cannot be breached, big difference.
Physics needs to think beyond the mathematics or it will be forever stuck in the realm of the numerical.
==============================================
Do mathematicians understand Physics?
== ==
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact has been forgotten in science.
==========..
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski’s interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space”
- said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
“Well”, said another mathematicians, - “maybe 6D, 7D,
8D, 9D spaces will explain it”. And they had done it.
But the doubts still remain.
“OK”,they say, “we have only one way to solve this problem.
We must create more complex D spaces”.
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But……….
But there is one problem.
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
“Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…”
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
“with one more parameter the elephant will fly.”
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
Please remember, many D spaces were born as a wish
to understand SRT (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
But if someone wants to understand, for example, a bird
(photon/electron)itself and for this he studies only
its surroundings, will he be successful?
==============..
===========================
I read what string theory acts in 11- D space.
But if we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is 4-D negative space
( 4-D positive Mincowski space )
how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?
=====================
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
“To the winner over common sense”.
Why?
Because they have won us over using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==========..
P.S.
I asked some mathematician:
Are there many different D spaces in the math/physicist’s works.
Are there limits to these D spaces?
Maybe is 123 D spaces the last and final space?
He answered:
“I think there are as many opinions on this as there are people
giving thought to the issue.” My own opinion is that since the more
immediately obvious 123 D option
(either parabolic, flat or hyperbolic) did not allow,
despite all efforts, reconciling the various theories,
then there is a need to try something else.
Maybe the time has come to try something else.
============..
And what is mathematical opinion about the photon itself?
Here is one example how mathematician tries to solve the problem.
Russian scientist professor V.P. Seleznev created a “toro model”
of light quanta. According to this model, the light quanta is a constant
volume ring (like bublik). The speed of it is different and this fact gives
a possibility to understand all the natural phenomena of light,
to overcome all contradictions in physics and to offer a new
technology. So it is written in the book .
The secrets of Universe, 1998, V.D. Demin. Page 377
Glory to this scientist!
Glory to this professor!
But I have only one question - Can this toro volume ring model
(like a bublik) have volume in the vacuum?
The answer is NO.
According to J. Charles law ( 1787), when the temperature falls down
to 1 degree, the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degrees, the volume disappears
and particles become flat figures. Charles law was confirmed by
other physicists: Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein.
So, according to Charles law the “ toro volume ring model ”
is only a mathematic illusion.
There are many different models of photon.
Some scientists say:
“The darkest subject in the science is light quanta.”
To choose the correct one, we needs to ask a question.
Which geometrical form can a photon have in a vacuum?
===================..
Now mathematics goes ahead of science and physics follows it.
Mathematicians carry the posters
“Forward to abstraction”, “Forward to the absurd”
and we all follow them. We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.
===============. .
Best wishes.
I think you have that exactly backwards. In the broadest terms, science is the search for patterns and regularities in the way nature behaves and finding useful ways to describe them. Mathematics is the study of all conceivable patterns, it's the job of physics to sort out which ones actually occur in nature.
Why is QT paradoxical?
==============..
The theory which we call Quantum Mechanics is a very
strange theory. Because when we are talking about mechanics
it means that we can imagine and see this process visual.
But the QM came with no visual aids, no model to picture
in one's mind. Now this theory is a purely mathematical
formalism, difficult to use and impossible to visualize.
It simple gives the right answers to the most complicated
theoretical question. Such situation satisfy maybe 99%
of physicists. But there are few physicists who don’t agree
with this situation. They want to understand QT without paradoxes.
I consider that these paradoxes are connected with only one reason:
" Nobody pays attention on geometrical form of particle".
===============..
Now the physicists follow " pure " mathematicians.
" Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection."-
- said Richard Feynman.
There is difference between the " pure" mathematics
and the mathematics of theoretical physics.
" Pure" mathematics is infinite and the mathematics
of theoretical physics is limited by nature laws.
The " pure " mathematicians have all right to create
and use abstract models ( point, line …etc)
Physicists must use mathematical apparatus in connection
with real object, with real particle.
and use abstract models ( point, line …etc)
Physicists must use mathematical apparatus in connection
with real object, with real particle.
And they forgot about this fact.
For example.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are " mathematical point",
2.
In QT particles are " mathematical point",
3.
In SRT particles are points.
But according SRT the " mathematical point",
cannot be a firm " mathematical point" .
It means it is a " elastic point",
which can change its form. (??!!).
4.
When this " mathematical elastic point " fly with speed c=1
its form become flat circle.
/ not a " mathematical point" fly with speed c=1./
5.
In QED electron is elastic sphere,
which can change its form. (??!!).
6.
The power, impulse, linear and angular momentum
For example.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are " mathematical point",
2.
In QT particles are " mathematical point",
3.
In SRT particles are points.
But according SRT the " mathematical point",
cannot be a firm " mathematical point" .
It means it is a " elastic point",
which can change its form. (??!!).
4.
When this " mathematical elastic point " fly with speed c=1
its form become flat circle.
/ not a " mathematical point" fly with speed c=1./
5.
In QED electron is elastic sphere,
which can change its form. (??!!).
6.
The power, impulse, linear and angular momentum
in physics is also a " mathematical point".
7.
Then one a " mathematical point" /particle/ interact
with another a " mathematical point" / power, impulse /
the physicists say: " The micro-world is paradoxical."
8.
If physicist think about particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical.
7.
Then one a " mathematical point" /particle/ interact
with another a " mathematical point" / power, impulse /
the physicists say: " The micro-world is paradoxical."
8.
If physicist think about particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical.
And I am sure if somebody takes into consideration the
geometrical form of particle the paradoxes of QT will disappear.
========..
========..
P.S.
Italy. Railway station.
It was more then two hours till the departure of the train.
I went to the café and ordered a cup of coffee. Soon two men
and a very beautiful, slim woman took place opposite me.
They ordered something to drink and one of the man opened a
case of violin and took out a bow. He began to explain something
about a bow , carefully and gently touching it. Then another man
took this bow and also enthusiastically continued this conversation.
For half an hour the bow was passed from one hands to another
following with enthusiastic discussion.
And the beautiful woman looked at bow, at both these men without
saying a word. For half an hour I watched this group with admiration
and excitement. What a class! What a cultural level! What a beauty!
=======================..
And now let's imagine the bow pressed into a "mathematical point"
and the musicians speak seriously about a " mathematical point "
which must produce a sound from a violin. Everybody will say I
describe an idiotic situation. Well, I agree.
But why don’t anybody say it to physicists when they observe the
elementary particle as a " mathematical point " , without paying
attention to its geometrical form.
==========..
P.S.
When Feynman said " I think I can safely say that nobody understands
quantum mechanics. " …( and SRT and GRT too) it was only because
nobody took into consideration the geometrical form of particles.
There isn’t Physics without particles.
There aren’t particles without geometrical forms.
===============. .Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.