Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: socratus on 03/04/2009 22:11:09
-
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?
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)
============ . .
-
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 the 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 ¨C 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.
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.
-
To me pure empty space is filled with a lot of stuff. It is not empty at all.
-
To me pure empty space is filled with a lot of stuff. It is not empty at all.
I have wondered a lot about this. If Einstein's space-time is reality then there must be a property of space that can vary in distance and carry fields with it.
-
To me pure empty space is filled with a lot of stuff. It is not empty at all.
I have wondered a lot about this. If Einstein's space-time is reality then there must be a property of space that can vary in distance and carry fields with it.
Of course. The thought of pure empty space does not allow anything to exist or to conduct fields. How can you have an electric field with pure empty space. How can you have a magnetic field from pure nothingness.
That is why I say that everything is composed of dot-waves however we define it. There is something that makes up pure empty space. It is easier to go back to the general gas law. Pure empty air was found to have air molecules.
Therefore pure empty space is full of space molecules. The general gas law is merely different. Insteal of the space molecules moving at various speed depending upon temperature, the space molecules tend to move at light speed.
Therefore the univeres is a place where pure empty space is filled with space molecules or space dots.
An electrical energy field moves along the space dots at the speed of light. Gravitational forces are conveyed by the space molecules.
To simplify matters, the proton, the electron, and the neutron are all composed of the space molecules. If you break them apart you end up with pure empty space again which is the space molecules.
-
I don't have a problem with the concept of nothingness. But if we have space filled with space molecules, or dot waves, that means that outside the bounds of the universe there would be nothingness. And nothing could exist there.
-
I don't have a problem with the concept of nothingness. But if we have space filled with space molecules, or dot waves, that means that outside the bounds of the universe there would be nothingness. And nothing could exist there.
Not in my multi-light speed universe. As we move further out from the common center we reach higher light speed universes heading toward infinity light speed. Thus only at infinity do we have pure nothingness as a limit. However infinity includes everything so we never have pure nothingness.
-
======= .
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 ?
================== .
-
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.
============ . .
-
======= .
1.
.
Question.
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?
================== .
I think the ideal gas is a good analogy of the vacuum except the ideal gas sub-particles all travel at the speed of light C.
-
Socratus
1 The question is: “ How can the homogeneous Vacuum be broken?”.
By a singularity? One magnetic monopole in the wrong position? Or does this imply that the vacuum is not, in fact, homogenous?
Your second question, if it is a question implies that it is not homogenous but charged and therefore potential energy?
And your third question - are you doubting that the Higgs boson will be found? I agree with the futility of trying to find the structure of a particle through bombardment. But you put it well. It's really big guns and, thus far proved nothing.
They lived a very little time and do not relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature
This is so profoundly true.
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.
This is beautiful and poetic. I so agree with you.
I can't work out if you agree with the Big Bang theory or not? Personally I believe in beginnings. Not sure if it was a big bang.
My question:
How can “ the natural virtual particles” create superconductivity
space in Vacuum?
On my opinion this process in Vacuum connected with
gravity’s creation, with star’s creation.
Again. I'm not sure what you mean by this? I'd love to understand it.
In my opinion to solve this problem we must understand
only three things:
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” .
I absolutely agree with this.
And I LOVE your irreverand dismissal of Mr Plank and his constant [;D]
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)
Again. Spot on.
Socratus - I so enjoyed this post. It took me ages to get to grips with it. But I loved it. I must now try and get my head around your second post.
-
Socratus,
I feel that the aether was the first sorry victim of quantum mechanics. That, and any attempt to put a conceptual framework to physics generally. Science, since then, has been appropriated by mathematicians whose abstractions have rendered nature incomprehensible to the average layman.
The Higgs boson may yet be found. If so, will this prove the Big Bang theory? And don't they also need this for an explanation of dark energy?
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.
Where does one find information of the 'Theory of Ideal Gas'?
Electron has infinity energy after
interaction with Vacuum.
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.
And this much I entirely agree with. I'm just not so keen on an electron being the most basic particle.
-
Where does one find information of the 'Theory of Ideal Gas'?
In a textbook, of course.
-
So, Sophiecentaur, here's the thing.
The Troll is an ugly little sub human who lives under bridges and pounces on unsuspecting passers by and eats them up.
You get the analogy? In the context of the internet it is those inadequates who avail themselves of, or create conditions where they can appear to be more intelligent, more important or simply more amusing at the expense of a contributor. It is the opposite of the naked scientist who must, of necessity be more vulnerable and sensitive because he's trying to get his head around some of nature's frightening realities. The hope always is that he wont meet the troll.
I hope this helps you understand the term trolling. You asked for a definition in another thread.
-
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?
========== .
Comments.
#
Hi Sadovnik
The notion of a ideal gas is only to simplify it's dynamics in order to frame it
in a mathematical model . When dealing with the real world a gas will never
be perfect but at least understanding and the the tools to predict it are in place .
I see no reason for a vacuum to be perfect unless it was at 0 K
The number zero is as demanding number similar to as infinity . Leaving this
aside I believe space can be modeled under ideal conditions . Making it a ideal
gas is another question . I say no but I am not adamant about it . It depends on
what a photon is . Information has to get from a to b in space . If a photon is a
particle then I see no problem with space being modeled after a ideal gas .
However you must take the bitter pill that goes with this . Energy expands
a gas which is in contradiction with relativity . The energy that goes into
expansion can not also increase it's mass due to conservation of energy .
Only when a gas is inhibited from expanded will all the energy go into
more inertia . Even then there is a problem with heat radiation taking energy
out of the system . So you can see in the case of a ideal gas the bulk of the
energy went into expansion . You can not say it is a ideal gas then change
all the rules when relativity comes along . Some would not agree with this
but I see no way around it .
That was an interesting question .
/ John /
#
I think the ideal gas is a good analogy of the vacuum
except the ideal gas sub-particles all travel at the speed of light C.
/ jerrygg38 /
#
only in the most naive way: by defining a vacuum as a gas of density
zero. Of course this is outside the domain of validity for this theory.
/ Lars /
#
1). It's Socrates, not Socratus.
2). You seem not to understand the meaning and use of theoretical
Terms (such as "ideal gas") in scientific theories.
3). Your quotes are taken out of context, making it seem as
if the world's leading physicists are admitting physics doesn't
know anything. This is called "quote mining". It is clearly not true,
and dishonest, to boot.
4). In any rate, even if modern physics were 100% wrong,
that would be no evidence of God's existence, let alone for the truth
of any particular religion.
5). Just because we don't know how something happened doesn't
mean God did it. For thousands of years people didn't know what
causes lightning, so they said it was God being angry and smiting sinners.
They were wrong. Today we don't know what dark energy is, so some
people say it is something God created. But that doesn't mean that's true.
6). Physics WORKS. It allows us to make predictions and experiments
an engineering feats. If it were deeply wrong, your computer would
not work, for example. Religion doesn't work. It cannot reliably predict,
it cannot be tested, it passes no experiments.
7). For this reason, it is very likely that physics is approximately true,
while religion is not.
Avital Pilpel
http://www.avitalpilpel.com/
=========== . .
-
Socratus, I actually think you're a paradox of nature. A profoundly religious person with an existential mind set. I am beginning to see how much eloquence there is in a comment by saying absolutely nothing. You just hold up a mirror. I'm just not that eloquent.
The following quotes from Avital Pilpel.
5). Just because we don't know how something happened doesn't mean God did it.
Not clear. Contextual reference is missing.
For thousands of years people didn't know what causes lightning, so they said it was God being angry and smiting sinners. They were wrong. Today we don't know what dark energy is, so some people say it is something God created. But that doesn't mean that's true.
Presumably this is the analogy intended to qualify the opening sentence. There's a loose intimation stated that people assumed lightning to be a means of God's punishment. Where is the evidence in historical reference? And it is unclear whether the existence of God is being questioned or His intention to punish sinners by lightning strike, or his manufacture of that lightning in the first instance.
1). It's Socrates, not Socratus.
The name, as I understand it is Socratus. Why is there a presumption of error? Is there a presumtion of an association between the name Socratus and it's co-incidental and partial correspondence to Socrates, a fairly well known historical figure? In which case it is, as referenced a 'presumption' and without some reasonable qualification this presumption may simply be wrong.
2). You seem not to understand the meaning and use of theoretical terms (such as "ideal gas") in scientific theories.
The question is, does Mr Pilpel understand the meaning? If he sees a lack of understanding, then it needs to be compared to a sufficiency in understanding in order to illustrate that lack. Else it is merely a conclusion based on a presumption that has no intrinsic merit in any context at all.
3). Your quotes are taken out of context, making it seem as if the world's leading physicists are admitting physics doesn't know anything. This is called "quote mining". It is clearly not true, and dishonest, to boot.
The question here is to the actual intention to reference our Giants in physics. If it points to self doubt and questions then it is a tribute to their intellectual honesty that they speak these doubts. It is hardly a fault to remind people - through these threads - that such doubts are valid. It would only be dishonest if such quotes were misquoted.
4). In any rate, even if modern physics were 100% wrong, that would be no evidence of God's existence, let alone for the truth of any particular religion.
By the same token if modern physics was 100% right it would not constitute evidence of God's existence or otherwise. But, right or wrong, our existence, presumably is not at question. And the right to attribute that existence to having been manufactured by God is inalienable and shared by many of those Giants in physics.
5). Just because we don't know how something happened doesn't mean God did it. For thousands of years people didn't know what causes lightning, so they said it was God being angry and smiting sinners. They were wrong. Today we don't know what dark energy is, so some people say it is something God created. But that doesn't mean that's true.
I think this point was dealt with. But, again, as a philosophical question this argument is not clear. That people assumed lightning was used a tool of punishment by God is - to date - unproven. We may know more of its cause. We do not know of God's intention. In the same way, if people say that Dark Energy was created by God, then this statement too is not capable of proof or disproof so is substantially irrelevant to a scientific arguement.
6). Physics WORKS. It allows us to make predictions and experiments an engineering feats. If it were deeply wrong, your computer would not work, for example. Religion doesn't work. It cannot reliably predict, it cannot be tested, it passes no experiments.
There is much that religion does reliably predict. I'd list it if this weren't a science forum. By the same token physics WORKS. Physics is man's limited but measurable reach at trying to control Nature. But religion is not thereby the lesser discipline nor physics the greater.
7). For this reason, it is very likely that physics is approximately true, while religion is not.
And for these same reasons a knowlege of God, promoted by various religions may have as great a predictive value as physics. Your argument is therefore unproven.
-
So, Sophiecentaur, here's the thing.
The Troll is an ugly little sub human who lives under bridges and pounces on unsuspecting passers by and eats them up.
You get the analogy? In the context of the internet it is those inadequates who avail themselves of, or create conditions where they can appear to be more intelligent, more important or simply more amusing at the expense of a contributor. It is the opposite of the naked scientist who must, of necessity be more vulnerable and sensitive because he's trying to get his head around some of nature's frightening realities. The hope always is that he wont meet the troll.
I hope this helps you understand the term trolling. You asked for a definition in another thread.
Didn't I answer your question, then?
Textbooks are a fantastic way of getting information. (I should have left out the "of course", perhaps.)
And does the ad hominem in your last post follow your strict rules for others?
-
And does the ad hominem in your last post follow your strict rules for others? Sophiecentaur
Avital Pipel's profile indicates that he's profficient in philosophy. I challenged him on the basis of his profficiency. At no stage did I revert to 'ad hominem' methods of attack. And yes. As I rule I try to avoid them.
-
Did you take up my suggestion about a textbook yet?
-
No need. I googled it.
-
No need. I googled it.
The problem with Google is that it has no quality check. What one reads can have been posted by loonies. Far safer to read a standard text or a link recommended by someone reliable.
-
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?
========== .
/ John /
#
I think the ideal gas is a good analogy of the vacuum
except the ideal gas sub-particles all travel at the speed of light C.
/ jerrygg38 /
This does not mean that they are all traveling at a linear speed of C. Some ideal gas subparticles may be in standing wave patterns. Some spinning around at C. Some oscillating spherically, while spinning, and moving in a linear motion.
The total energy in that case would be constant. thus the space molecule would have a constant energy
E= MC2
The momentum would be conserved in that
(Spherical + Angular + Linear) = Constant
Therefore we have a tradeoff between spherical, angular, and linear momentum.
A photon has mostly linear momentum. A proton has a combination of spherical and angular momtum.
-
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?
========== .
Comments.
#
Hi Sadovnik
4). In any rate, even if modern physics were 100% wrong,
that would be no evidence of God's existence, let alone for the truth
of any particular religion.
6). Physics WORKS. It allows us to make predictions and experiments
an engineering feats. If it were deeply wrong, your computer would
not work, for example. Religion doesn't work. It cannot reliably predict,
it cannot be tested, it passes no experiments.
7). For this reason, it is very likely that physics is approximately true,
while religion is not.
4. It depends on how we define God. God exists for sure if we define God as the creative force which produced us. As far as any religion is concerned, they are particular approaches to the creative force.
In that respect God is the God of all religions. This does not mean that all religions are correct or that any religion is correct. All it means is that the creative force is responsible for all things.
6. You say religion does not work. Well billions of people think it does. Religions provide an outlet for expressing emotional feelings toward the creative force.
You are approaching religion from a scientific perspective. That is wrong. Religion is emotional and artistic. Religion has nothing to do with science.
7. Religion is quite true as an artistic expression for believers. It provides an outlet. It provides a collective moral basis for a particular tribe or group.
-
Far safer to read a standard text or a link recommended by someone reliable. Sophiecentaur
This was my question to Socratus. But I'd be happy for any such from anyone. Would you care to oblige Sophiecentaur - as you are, at least, familiar with educational texts?
-
Far safer to read a standard text of UK or USA Constitutions.
-
Understanding Physics by Jim Breithaupf . Publisher Stanley Thornes will tell you a lot.
-
Sophiecentaur,
Thanks for the suggestion. I was rather hoping you'd recommend a link. It will be ages before I'll get that book. We live in Africa - not renowned for it's ready supply of superior text books.
This is so nice. Civilized communication. You must try and maintain it.
-
You should see some of my other stuff.
-
You should see some of my other stuff.Sophiecentuar
Are you proud of it? I would sooner feel smug if I persuaded someone with reasoned argument.
By the way SophieC, I've posted something in Socratus' new thread. You may find it a little eccentric, not strictly in line with classical thinking. I would LOVE a reasoned argument as to why it's wrong. As mentioned I'm sure it is. But PLEASE, try and keep your argument to the point. I LOVE being persuaded by argument. I'm only deaf to personal attack.
-
You should see some of my other stuff.Sophiecentuar
Are you proud of it? I would sooner feel smug if I persuaded someone with reasoned argument.
No. I was just hoping that you would see that I converse rationally with people who give rational arguments.
-
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?
========== .
/ John /
#
I think the ideal gas is a good analogy of the vacuum
except the ideal gas sub-particles all travel at the speed of light C.
/ jerrygg38 /
This does not mean that they are all traveling at a linear speed of C. Some ideal gas subparticles may be in standing wave patterns. Some spinning around at C. Some oscillating spherically, while spinning, and moving in a linear motion.
The total energy in that case would be constant. thus the space molecule would have a constant energy
E= MC2
The momentum would be conserved in that
(Spherical + Angular + Linear) = Constant
Therefore we have a tradeoff between spherical, angular, and linear momentum.
A photon has mostly linear momentum. A proton has a combination of spherical and angular momtum.
=========================
jerrygg38
I think the ideal gas is a good analogy of the vacuum
========== .
S.
!!!
========= .
jerrygg38
except the ideal gas sub-particles all travel at the speed of light C.
======== .
S.
Sorry.
What are parameters of your ‘‘ the ideal gas sub-particles’ ?
=========== .
jerrygg38
This does not mean that they are all traveling only
at a linear speed of C.
Some ideal gas subparticles may be in standing wave patterns.
======= .
S.
Can you show ‘the ideal gas subparticles’ and
‘ the ideal wave patterns ‘ and interaction between them ?
====== .
jerrygg38
Some oscillating spherically, while spinning,
and moving in a linear motion.
The total energy in that case would be constant.
thus the space molecule would have a constant energy
E= MC2
The momentum would be conserved in that
(Spherical + Angular + Linear) = Constant
========= .
S.
After mixing all motions together(Spherical + Angular + Linear)
we have = Constant = a constant energy E= MC2
Not exactly clear …but interesting …. !!!
======== .
jerrygg38
Therefore we have a trade off between
spherical, angular, and linear momentum.
========== .
S.
Therefore we have a trade . . .
I am afraid it can be a monkey trade.
Sorry.
==== .
jerrygg38
A photon has mostly linear momentum.
======== .
S.
Maybe mostly yes , maybe mostly no.
======= .
jerrygg38
A proton has a combination of spherical and angular momentum.
======== .
S.
No mostly . .???
!!!
========= .
Best wishes.
S.
-
========== .
S.
!!!
========= .
jerrygg38
except the ideal gas sub-particles all travel at the speed of light C.
======== .
S.
Sorry.
What are parameters of your ‘‘ the ideal gas sub-particles’ ?
[quote}=========== .
JGG: They are my dot-waves. The high energy dot-wave has an energy:
Ed = 1.616252E-28
The number in front of the exponent is the same as Planks radius exponent.
This energy is the result of a plus dot of charge of 5.391237E-37 combining with a minus dot of the same charge at the Plank radius.
Ed = K Qd Qd/ Rpl
The energy of the low energy dot-wave depends upon the circumference of the universe
E = hC/ 2pi Ru = 2.427E-52 joules
The universe is filled with both low energy and high energy dot-waves
======= .
S.
Can you show ‘the ideal gas subparticles’ and
‘ the ideal wave patterns ‘ and interaction between them ?====== .
Plus dots attract minus dots. They combine to form bipolar dots. Plus dots repel minus dots. However once they are within the Plank radius, they combine. Thus at the big bang we got huge numbers of plus and minus dots all combined together.
In general we will not find subparticles composed of only plus dots. They form combinations of equal numbers of plus and minus dots with additional numbers of plus or minus dots.
In space combinations of dots are continually combining and breaking apart.
========= .
S.
After mixing all motions together(Spherical + Angular + Linear)
we have = Constant = a constant energy E= MC2
Not exactly clear …but interesting …. !!!
The Heisenbery uncertainty principle shows that linear momentum is not conserved. The reason is that at any interaction linear momentum can transform into angular momentum. However my dot-waves also oscillated from a radius to the Plank radius. The contraction and expansion of the dot-wave either in a plane surface or a spherical surface I call spherical momentum.
Therefore in order to conserve momentum and agree with the Heisenbergy principle, it is clear that one solution is that the total sum of all momentums is constant,
Therefore when two dot-waves interact or two particles interact, we cannot tell what direction the particles will go within the uncertainty.
A photon can enter the electron, the energy of the photon becomes part of the energy level of the electron. However the momentum is not guaranteed.
-
========= .
S.
After mixing all motions together(Spherical + Angular + Linear)
we have = Constant = a constant energy E= MC2
Not exactly clear …but interesting …. !!!
The Heisenbery uncertainty principle shows that linear momentum is not conserved. The reason is that at any interaction linear momentum can transform into angular momentum. However my dot-waves also oscillated from a radius to the Plank radius. The contraction and expansion of the dot-wave either in a plane surface or a spherical surface I call spherical momentum.
Therefore in order to conserve momentum and agree with the Heisenbergy principle, it is clear that one solution is that the total sum of all momentums is constant,
Therefore when two dot-waves interact or two particles interact, we cannot tell what direction the particles will go within the uncertainty.
A photon can enter the electron, the energy of the photon becomes part of the energy level of the electron. However the momentum is not guaranteed.
=============
#
jerrygg38
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that linear momentum
is not conserved.
====.
S.
!!!
========== .
jerrygg38
The reason is that at any interaction linear momentum
can transform into angular momentum.
========== .
S.
And vice versa.
=============== .
jerrygg38
However my dot-waves also oscillated from a radius to the Plank radius.
========= .
S.
Is it possible to say what this process goes around the Plank radius ?
========== .
jerrygg38
The contraction and expansion of the dot-wave either in a plane
surface or a spherical surface I call spherical momentum.
======== .
S.
Is this process goes around the Plank radius (spherical surface ) ?
Is this spherical momentum connected with spherical surface ?
========= .
jerrygg38
Therefore in order to conserve momentum and agree with the
Heisenberg principle, it is clear that one solution is that the total
sum of all momentums is constant,
========== .
S.
Something here is wrong.
Why?
You say:
1.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that linear momentum
is not conserved.
2.
The reason is that at any interaction linear momentum
can transform into angular momentum.
It means that according to Heisenberg principle neither linear
momentum nor angular momentum are constant parameters.
But you try to conserve momentum.
Why?
Is it because from school we were studied about the law
of momentum’s conservation, energy conservation . . etc ?
And then you say: ‘it is clear that one solution is that the total
sum of all momentums is constant,’.
But the law is named :
" The law of conservation and transformation energy / mass"
And nobody in the school taught us : ‘What does the Law of
transformation energy / mass means according to one single
quantum of light or one single electron ?’
============= .
jerrygg38
Therefore when two dot-waves interact or two particles interact,
we cannot tell what direction the particles will go within the uncertainty.
===== .
S.
In my opinion the Heisenberg principle shows that particles
can have different momentums.
========= .
jerrygg38
A photon can enter the electron, the energy of the photon becomes part
of the energy level of the electron.
======= .
S.
Questions:
Can photon and electron be one and the same particle
in different conditions ?
Can the difference between photon and electron depends
only from frequency ?
Answer:
May 23, 2009.
I think not just frequency, but phasing and polarity will differ.
David M. Rountree, AES
Scientific Paranormal Investigative
Research Information and Technology
www.spinvestigations.org
So.
Not just frequency, phasing , but momentum also
will be differ when electron ( or photon) changes its behavior.
=============================== . . .
jerrygg38
However the momentum is not guaranteed.
====== .
S.
However the conversation of momentum is not guaranteed
and is not constant parameter .
========== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
============== .
-
Ones again.
#
jerrygg38 wrote:
Therefore in order to conserve momentum and agree with the
Heisenberg principle, it is clear that one solution is that the total
sum of all momentums is constant,
======= .
S.
We have two momentums:
linear momentum and angular momentum ( maybe more).
And jerrygg38 says:
‘ that the total sum of all momentums is constant,’.
How it was saying simply . . ‘ sum of all momentums ‘ !!!
And I remembered that Eddington said:
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 '.
In others words, when we have one linear momentum
and one angular momentum that we must learn a great
deal more about `sum’. Because ‘sum’ must be some Law,
which connected the ‘one’ and ‘ one’ to ‘sum ’.
============ .
Regards.
S.