The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.  (Read 2294 times)

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
- Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
« on: 29/04/2011 05:17:18 »
   - Occam's  Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
           / Theoretical Physics and Nature./

The principle states that:
"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."
 Now the Occam's Razor is in conflict with mainstream science.
My opinion.
At first I take the simplest reference frame –
- the Euclidean space ( 2D).
Now I will put a virtual - ideal particle in this 2D.
The 2D is a very thin and flat homogeneous space,
so my particle also must be thin and flat and symmetrical.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited line- string?
No. In my opinion even this very thin and tiny line
under good microscope will be looked as a rectangle.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited loop?
No. The geometrical form of a loop is too complex,
needs supplementary forces to create it. 
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited circle?
From all geometrical forms the circle is the most symmetrical.
The surface of a circle takes up the minimal area it can and
 I will write it by formula:  C/D= pi= 3.14.   (!)
But I can put many particles there, for example,
Avogadro’s number of particles:  N(a).   (!)
What is my next step?
If I were a mathematician I would say nothing.
But if I were a physicist I would say that 2D must have
some physical parameters like: volume (V), temperature (T)
and density (P). It is no bad idea to ask physicists the question:
 what are physical parameters of your new super space?
Then in my scheme the volume (V) in 2D is zero,
 temperature (T) is zero. But  . . but density (P) cannot be
zero if 2D is a real or even virtual space.
 Its density can approximately be zero.
Question: What can I do with these three parameters?
I have only one possibility, to write the simplest   formula:
   VP/T=R  ( Clausius Clapeyron formula ! )
What is R?  R is some kind of physical state of my 2D.
And if I  divide the whole space R by  Avogadro’s
 numbers of particles then I have a formula R/ N(a) = k,
then k ( as a Boltzmann constant) is some kind of
physical state of one single virtual- ideal particle. (!)
But all creators of Quantum theory said that this space,
as a whole, must have some kind of background energy (E).
And its value must be enormous.
But the background mass of every Avogadro’s  particles
in 2D has approximately zero mass, it is approximately
 massless (M).
The detected material mass of the  matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
  p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that physicists say: ‘  More than 90% of the matter
 in the Universe is unseen.’
And nobody knows what this unseen ‘dark matter’ is.
So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately dark
 massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single
 virtual- ideal particle ( according to Einstein and Dirac) is
    E/M=c^2  (potential energy/mass E/M=c^2   ! )
 ( I don’t know why physicists call E/M= c^2  ‘rest mass’
and never say potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .)

In potential state my particle doesn’t move,
so its impulse is h = 0. 
My conclusion.
I have virtual- ideal- massless particle which has
geometrical and physical parameters:
C/D= pi= 3.14 . . . . ,    R/ N(a) = k,   E/M=c^2,   h=0.   
All my virtual- ideal- massless particles are possible to call
‘ bosons’ or ‘antiparticles’ . These bosons are approximately
 massless but have huge potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .
But I have no fermions, no electric charge, no tachyons,
 no time, no mass, no movement at this picture.
Now, thinking logically, I must explain all the effects of
motions.  And. . . and  I cannot say it better than Newton:
‘For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
 the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces.’
How can one single virtual- ideal particle start its movement?
At first, it will be right to think about some simple kind of
movement, for example: my particle will move in straight line
along 2D surface from some point A to the point B.
 What is possible to say now?   
According to the Michelson-Morley experiment my particle
must move with constant speed: c=1 and its speed is independent.
Its speed doesn’t depend on any other object or subject, it means
the reason of its speed is hidden in itself, it is its inner impulse.
 This impulse doesn’t come from any formulas or equations.
And when Planck introduced this inner impulse(h) to physicists,
he took it from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this inner impulse (h) intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced his unit (h) phenomenologically.
At any way, having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my
particle flies with speed c=1. We call it photon now.
Photon’s movement from some point A to the point B
doesn’t change the flat and homogeneous 2D surface.
Of course, my photon must be careful, because in some local
place some sun’s gravitation can catch and change its trajectory
I hope it will be lucky to escape from the sun’s gravity love.
My photon can have other possibility to move. This second
possibility was discover by  Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck
 in 1925. They said the elementary particle can rotate
 around its diameter using its own angular inner impulse:
 h * = h /2pi. So, when photon rotates around its diameter
it looks like a string ( open string) and this string vibrates.
My god, that is a strange technical terminology the physicists
 use: ‘ vibrate, vibration’.
If I were a physicist I would say no ‘ vibrate, vibration’ but
‘ frequency’, ‘the particle rotates with high frequency’.
The frequency is a key to every particle, by frequency we know
the radiation spectrum of various kinds of waves.
Now I can say: then my photon starts to curl its rotation
goes with enormous frequency, faster than constant speed
of photon. Now its speed is  c>1. We call it ‘tachyon’.
 The tachyon’s spinning creates electric charge and
electrical waves and now we call it ‘electron’ or ‘fermions’.
So, in my opinion, virtual- ideal particle, photon, tachyon
and electron are only different names of one and the same
 particle – quantum of light.
 My particle is a circle. When this circle started to curl around
itself its form changed. Now it has volume and looks like a sphere.
 What is the law between particle’s volume and energy?
I think: big volume – low energy, small volume – high energy.
 The more speed / impulse ----> the  more particle (as a volume)
compress ----> the more energy .
And when the speed decrease – -  the energy decrease too –
but the volume of particle will increase.
My particle behaves like ‘ a springy circle’ (!)
This springy circle can curl into small sphere which must
have volume and therefore can be describe as a
‘stringlike particle with vibrations’ only approximately .
Springy particle - it means the particle is able to spring back
 into its former position. In my opinion this is the meaning of
‘ The Law of mass/energy conservation and transformation’
Once more.
Quantum of light has potential energy (- E=Mc^2 ).
When it starts to curl around its diameter the potential energy
(- E=Mc^2 ) is hidden and  we can observe its electronic
 energy  ( E=h*f).
But there is situation when this hidden potential energy goes
out and we can see its great active power ( + E=Mc^2 )
 looking the destroyed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 
In my opinion the particle’s transformation from one state into
 the other was legalized as ‘ The Law of mass/energy
 conservation and transformation’.
Different conditions of particles are also reason of new
 situation in 2D. Now the surface of 2D  is changed.
On the one hand we have the spinning electron ( E=h*f)
On the other hand there are masses of Avogadro’s particles.
( kT logW )
The spinning electron changes the temperature of the
surface in this local area.
Now this local area has Debye temperature: Q(d)= h*f(max) / k.
In this space a grain of quantum gravity theory is hidden.
The scheme of quantum gravity is:
 1.   h*f = kT logW.
  2.  h*f > kT logW.
 3.   h*f < kT.

At first the temperature is going from T=0K to 2.18 K (−271 °C)
( at first kT logW is Helium II ).
Then the temperature is going from T=2.18 K to T= 4.2 K,
( kT logW is Helium I ).
And then the protons are created. . . .  etc.

 E=h*f  - - -> He II - - -> He I -- ->  . . . . - - > H . . . – - >
Plasma reaction... -->  Thermonuclear  reactions ...-->......etc.
( P. Kapitza , L. Landau , E.L. Andronikashvili theories).
(Superconductivity,  superfluidity.)
Now on the one hand we have quantum of light/ electron.
On the other hand we have proton.
Their interaction creates atom.
 This interaction is evolving process.
The conception of Time appears as a period of these two actions
( star formation and atom creation).
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik  Socratus


Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
- Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
« Reply #1 on: 29/04/2011 18:34:47 »
I agree that Occams razor can inhibit a deeper scientific understanding, and a deeper understanding can lead to a better theory. My point is that there is a time to apply the razor and a time to ignore it.

I like to use a football analogy. If you are looking for an efficient theory to improve you gambling results, placing bets on every game in the world, you want to end up with the simplest formula that wins more often than it loses. Such a formula might treat the football pitch as a 2D space with the ball and each player having mass, charge and one or two more attributes. But to find that efficient formula, you must start by modeling the 3D space, giving each player a long list of attributes−−including a personality which interacts with each other player's personality.

Most cosmologists expect to find an ultra-simple model of the universe. I think the universe is simple, but not that simple. 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
- Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
« Reply #2 on: 30/04/2011 04:20:24 »
But to find that efficient formula, you must start
 by modeling the 3D space, giving each player a long list
 of attributes−−including a personality which interacts
with each other player's personality.
Quantum theory says that in the beginning the players start
 game in Pseudo Euclidian 2D space and later they go
 to play in Descartes – Newtonian 3D space.
The problem is that we don’t know the player's personality
in Pseudo Euclidian 2D space

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
- Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
« Reply #3 on: 03/05/2011 18:39:57 »
Occam's Razor and the conception of  ‘Time’.
( According to SRT , QED and GRT. )
In his Miracle 1905 Einstein wrote the paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
He wrote about moving of  ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
This movement is going in minus 4D continuum.
Only quantum of light can move with speed c=1 and in this
 movement his Time is infinite.
Then the minus 4D continuum must be infinite too.(!)
Later the theory says that something happens and photon’s
Infinite Time changes to a relative according to the Lorentz
According to QED when electron interacts with Vacuum
 all his physical parameters become infinite.
 But he cannot die. This is forbidden by
‘ The law of conservation and transformation  energy/mass‘.
 How is possible to understand this situation?
 It can only mean that electron’s own Time becomes infinite too.
So, it is possible that before he had an another Time.
If all electron’s physical parameters become infinite it means
 that vacuum must be infinite too. (!)
If minus 4D continuum and Vacuum are both infinite then,
maybe, they are both one and the same reference frame. (!)
My conclusion:
All ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ have two kinds of Time:
Infinite and relative.
In 1915 Einstein wrote GRT.
According to GRT the Time depends on gravity mass and gravity speed.
Every planet says that this fact is true.
Israel Socratus.


Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
- Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
« Reply #4 on: 15/05/2011 18:05:23 »
The discovery of the electron spin
     / S.A. Goudsmit /

And that was it: the spin; thus is was discovered, in that manner.
 Of course we told Ehrenfest about it and then summer was over
and I went again to Amsterdam and various episodes followed.
Naturally, I found it wonderful, because in the formalism which
I knew it fitted perfectly. And the rigorous physics behind it
I did not fathom. But Uhlenbeck, being a good physicist, started
to think about it. ...... "A charge that rotates"......? He claims that he
 then went to Lorentz and that Lorentz replied: "Yes, that is very
difficult because it causes the self energy of the electron to be wrong".

And Uhlenbeck also tells you that ........
We had just written a short article in German and given to
Ehrenfest, who wanted to send it to "Naturwissenschaften".
Now it is being told that Uhlenbeck got frightened, went to
Ehrenfest and said:
 "Don't send it off, because it probably is wrong;
 it is impossible,
one cannot have an electron that rotates at such high speed and
 has the right moment". And Ehrenfest replied:
 "It is too late, I have sent it off already".
 But I do not remember the event, I never had the idea that is was
 wrong because I did not know enough. The one thing I remember
 is that Ehrenfest said to me:
"Well, that is a nice idea, though it may be wrong.
But you don't yet have a reputation, so you have nothing to lose".
 That is the only thing I remember.
“ . . . . .  it is impossible,
one cannot have an electron that rotates at such high speed
 and  has the right moment".       
/ S.A. Goudsmit /
Do we have another way to explain the high speed of rotation
 ( frequency) of elementary particles?
And if it is possible  (!) . . . because it ‘has the right moment’ . . .
then  . . . the constant speed c=1 of quantum of light is minimal.
And we have theory  . . .  theory of ‘ Tachyon.’

The Naked Scientists Forum

- Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
« Reply #4 on: 15/05/2011 18:05:23 »


SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums