- Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum. ’ ( Part 1.)

[socratus]

- Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
1.
In beginning was Vacuum an Infinite / Eternal continuum.
2.
Vacuum is not Empty space.
‘ Virtual particles’, ‘ dark matter’ and ‘zoo of elementary particles’
exist in the Vacuum.
3.
Now (!) the physicists think (!) that the Universe as whole has
temperature: T= 2,7K . The parameter T=2,7K is not constant.
It is temporal and goes down. In the future it will come to T= 0K.
4.
The simplest question: Which geometrical form can have
the ‘ virtual particles’, ‘ the particles of dark matter’ ,
the ‘ zoo of elementary particles’ in reference frame
T= 2,7K - –--> T= 0K ?
The answer is: ‘ They must be flat particles.’
Why?
Because 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 . . . . .
====.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========================…

 

[55Mercury]

come on, Izzy. obviously the minds of people who dream this sh*t up are one-dimensional pin-pricks. These things are impossible to calculate beyond reasonable doubt. Like God, even if you knew it was true, you couldn't prove it to anyone, except maybe a flock of sheeple that need to believe in something. Even if what you propound is true (and I extremely doubt it) it's totally useless information as there is nothing anyone could ever do about it. You seem to be suggesting that in a few trillion years, after humanity is out of existence, absolute zero will be attained and the universe will solidify into a mass. And then what? Heat generates in the core of this colossal mass from spontaneous combustion and it's the Big Bang all over again? Nice premise. Write a book. Make a low-budget movie (no actors necessary). Maybe it'll sell. But to put all your belief into this nonsense? Hell, believing in God makes more sense to me.

 

[DaSleeper]

Waiting for Part 2 with bated breath:smile:

 

[55Mercury]

I'm more interested in what the parrot has to say.

:?P

 

[AbtFet]

Is this guy a bot?

 

[55Mercury]

Is this guy a bot?

Could be. I've never noticed him engaging anyone in dialogue.

Which is why I like to rattle his cage!

;?)

 

[CDNBear]

Could be. I've never noticed him engaging anyone in dialogue.

Which is why I like to rattle his cage!

;?)

Careful you don't rattle the lock off.

 

[55Mercury]

Careful you don't rattle the lock off.

Yeah, that parrot could mean trouble!

 

[socratus]

The Models of Vacuum.
1.
A black hole is an idealized physical body ( with a mass of
three - six – ten times more than our Sun ) is a region of
spacetime from which nothing, not even light, can escape.
2.
A black body is an idealized physical body that can absorb
all incident electromagnetic radiation.

The result: from a ‘black body ‘not even light, can escape’
3.
Max Laue called ‘ Kirchhoff black body’ as ‘ Kirchhoff vacuum’
Why?
Because Vacuum is a space in which there is nothing material.
For example: according to QET then electron interacts
with vacuum he disappeared there. And therefore physicists
invented the mathematical " method of renormalization",
a method "to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./

The result: from a ‘vacuum ‘not even light, can escape’
#
My conclusion.
The ‘black body’, the ‘ black hole’ and the vacuum
can do one and the same work (completely absorb radiant
energy). It means that the ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’
are models of vacuum.

Another fact.
A black hole has a temperature within a few
millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.
/ Oxford. Dictionary./
And the vacuum has background cosmic temperature:
T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K.
The background cosmic temperature (T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K)
belongs to ‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ and therefore we can use
this theory for explaining ‘ The Theory of Vacuum’.

My conclusion.
The ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’ and
‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ are models of vacuum.
===.
P.S.
If the ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’ and the vacuum can radiate
the quantum of light and electron – then the reason is the Vacuum’s
fluctuations / transformation / polarization. And this is ‘ a song from
another opera’. Because the Vacuum’s fluctuations / transformation /
polarization explains the Origin of the Material Existence.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===.

 

[socratus]

So what is the vacuum?
Answer.
#
‘It might even give us some ground to speculate that
the vacuum itself (and hence the universe) is ‘conscious’.
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208. by Danah Zohar. /
#
‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive
of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground
state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.’
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208. by Danah Zohar. /
Danah Zohar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
================.

[img/]

 

[Cliffy]

So what is the vacuum?
Answer.
#
‘It might even give us some ground to speculate that
the vacuum itself (and hence the universe) is ‘conscious’.
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208. by Danah Zohar. /
#
‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive
of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground
state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.’
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208. by Danah Zohar. /
Danah Zohar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
================.

[img/]

Then there are those who say the Universe is god, the solar systems are the atoms of the body of god, galaxies the molecular structures of god. The Universe is an integrated system, the body of god and everything in it is part of that body. Everything is made up of god particles, the same creative energy, an inter dependent, inter related whole. Looking into the spaces between particles to find god would be like trying to capture a fart on a windy day.

 

[socratus]

About vacuum 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? ‘
We don’t know what vacuum is and therefore we are ignorant people.
And as an ignorant people we will surprised and laugh reading that the
Physical Energy Vacuum can take the functions of God.
=====.

 

[55Mercury]

How can anyone describe what isn't there other than to say, "That ain't it"?

 

[darkbeaver]

About vacuum 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? ‘
We don’t know what vacuum is and therefore we are ignorant people.
And as an ignorant people we will surprised and laugh reading that the
Physical Energy Vacuum can take the functions of God.
=====.

A more likely and directly observable candidate for god is easily seen in the universally omnipotent force,electricity.

 

[socratus]

A more likely and directly observable candidate for god
is easily seen in the universally omnipotent force,electricity.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

It is possible correct.
But then you speak about electricity you need to speak
about electron.
Because it isn’t electricity without electron. ( Lorentz 1904).
And we know that electron doesn’t have omnipotent force.
Its energy is limited.
But it is possible to ask question: is an electron universal particle?
=.

 

[Mowich]

Holy Smoke................he spoke!

 

[petros]

Philosophy of ‘"Vaccum".


I've give this some serious thought and came to the conclusion that there was no word for the opposite of vaccum (suction) so could it be termed as "blowtion"?

 

[socratus]

Light Created from a Vacuum:
Casimir Effect Observed in Superconducting Circuit
/ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2011) /
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118133050.htm
#
http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/Pages/Chalmers-scientists-create-light-from-vacuum.aspx
============…
What did I study from the article
1.
The vacuum can be a basic physical concept.
2.
The vacuum is full of various potential particles.
3
They can fluctuate in and out from vacuum.
3.
This process (long time ago) was named ‘vacuum fluctuations’
( -- the constant appearance and disappearance
of virtual particles in vacuum -- )
4.
The vacuum have a connection with "dark energy".
=====.
My conclusion.
Did I learn something new? Nothing new.
1
In 1928 Dirac said that vacuum full with virtual particles which
can appear from and disappear into this continuum
2
Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder proposed
the existence of the force and formulated an experiment to detect
it in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs.
The classic form of the experiment, described above, successfully
demonstrated the force to within 15% of the value predicted by the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
3.
We know that virtual particles can appear as a reason of
Vacuum fluctuation / polarization.
Vacuum polarization was observed experimentally in 1997 using
the TRISTAN particle accelerator in Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
My questions.
What mechanism the ‘virtual antiparticles’ use to do polarization?
What is mechanism of ‘ the self energy ‘ polarization?
Nobody tries to explain the mechanism of this process.
4.
But this article say me again that the conception of vacuum
is important for our understanding how the Universe works.
If vacuum itself can create particles, why we need ‘big bang’?
What was before ‘big bang’ or vacuum?
Did the ‘big bang’ explode in nothingness /vacuum or vice versa?
5.
The vacuum and "dark energy".
I say that vacuum itself is a "dark energy".
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0 ( according to classical
thermodynamics theory ) or E= ∞ (according to quantum theory)
#
Dark Energy may be Vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php
===.
Why do physicists refuse to take vacuum as a fundament of Universe?
Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
My opinion.
It is true we cannot reach the zero temperature T=0K.
But just because we cannot reach this Vacuum’s
parameter it does not mean that it cannot exist.
#
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?
If unseen virtual antiparticles from vacuum can appear
and we can observe them as a real particles doesn’t it mean
that vacuum itself is absolute another Reference Frame which
has its own physical parameter – Absolute Zero: T=0K.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
===================== .
P.S.
We are very interesting people: we accepted a big bang
in a nothing but refuse to accept the nothing as a fact.
==.

 

[socratus]

Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’. By Steven Weinberg.
Page 66.
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpretation.
. . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’ (!)
#
Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’. By Lee Smolin.
Page V!!
‘ Not that every scientist is a seeker, most are not.’ (!)
#
/ page 329. /
‘Few scientists think about foundational problems,
and even fewer have ideas about them’ (!)
===…

Ce la vie !
====…