Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Quantum particles and Aether.
8 views
Skip to first unread message
sadovnik socratus
Apr 23, 2013, 2:40:56 AM4/23/13
to
Quantum particles and Aether.
Maybe you know that surrounding space ( a reference frame )
makes influence on the objects that exist there.
For example, the fish in the water has another form than
animals which live in the forest or savanna.
The same is about quantum particles and aether.
Quantum particles exist in an Aether.
The physical parameters of aether is near to T=0K.
This thermodynamic condition has influence on quantum particles.
=.
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 . .
( All another geometrical forms : triangle, square,
rectangle . . .etc
have angles and to create angles need forces,
without forces all geometrical forms must turn into circle.)
#
If physicists use string-particle (particle that has length but
hasn’t thickness -volume) to understand reality
(and have some basic problems to solve this task) then
why don’t use circle-particle for this aim ?
#
Without to understand what aether is all debates is tautology.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
===.
Maybe you know that surrounding space ( a reference frame )
makes influence on the objects that exist there.
For example, the fish in the water has another form than
animals which live in the forest or savanna.
The same is about quantum particles and aether.
Quantum particles exist in an Aether.
The physical parameters of aether is near to T=0K.
This thermodynamic condition has influence on quantum particles.
=.
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 . .
( All another geometrical forms : triangle, square,
rectangle . . .etc
have angles and to create angles need forces,
without forces all geometrical forms must turn into circle.)
#
If physicists use string-particle (particle that has length but
hasn’t thickness -volume) to understand reality
(and have some basic problems to solve this task) then
why don’t use circle-particle for this aim ?
#
Without to understand what aether is all debates is tautology.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
===.
Zinnic
Jun 14, 2013, 9:32:07 PM6/14/13
to
If all particles, waves and forces are all different disturbances of "Aether", how can the nature of 'undisturbed' Aether be investigated and characterized? Does an unchanging Aether represent the unfathomable nothing from which it is claimed that something cannot arise?
Zinnic
Zinnic
Jenn
Jun 14, 2013, 9:47:41 PM6/14/13
to
On 6/14/2013 8:32 PM, Zinnic wrote:
> If all particles, waves and forces are all different disturbances of "Aether",
> how can the nature of 'undisturbed' Aether be investigated and characterized?
Investigated from a distance... observed... It could be characterized as
> If all particles, waves and forces are all different disturbances of "Aether",
> how can the nature of 'undisturbed' Aether be investigated and characterized?
original. If it isn't observed, does it actually exist as being
'undisturbed'?
> Does an unchanging Aether represent the unfathomable nothing from which it is
> claimed that something cannot arise?
unchanging, otherwise, it doesn't exist.
--
Jenn
Zinnic
Jun 16, 2013, 11:35:35 PM6/16/13
to
Good point.
But the underlying nature of the universe may be beyond biological comprehension because that comprehension is limited to detection and reaction only to changes that directly effect it's function. Any other changes in the universe would, in effect , be 'non-existent'. However a limitation to biological comprehension does not negate the existence of a greater universe beyond comprehension any more than does ignorance negate the existence of greater knowledge.
Reards
Zinnic
But the underlying nature of the universe may be beyond biological comprehension because that comprehension is limited to detection and reaction only to changes that directly effect it's function. Any other changes in the universe would, in effect , be 'non-existent'. However a limitation to biological comprehension does not negate the existence of a greater universe beyond comprehension any more than does ignorance negate the existence of greater knowledge.
Reards
Zinnic
Jenn
Jun 16, 2013, 11:56:19 PM6/16/13
to
Perhaps the limitation is only in our own minds because we can't really
fathom the true nature of infinite possibilities, therefore, we put
limits on even our expectations. IOW, we can't grasp the nature of what
we would consider to be miracles or the unexplainable...
--
Jenn
isoc...@gmail.com
Jan 30, 2014, 5:48:11 AM1/30/14
to
Vacuum and Quantum of light are still two fundamental puzzles in physics.
About quantum of light Einstein wrote:
'' All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken.''
And about vacuum there are different opinions.
a)
" The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!."
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
b)
' 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.'
/ Book : 'Dreams of a final theory'. Page 138. By Steven Weinberg./
c).
'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. /
Conclusion. As 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? "
=.
So, what is *philosophy of science* if we don't know these two simplest
but fundamental structure of the Universe?
=====...
About quantum of light Einstein wrote:
'' All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken.''
And about vacuum there are different opinions.
a)
" The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!."
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
b)
' 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.'
/ Book : 'Dreams of a final theory'. Page 138. By Steven Weinberg./
c).
'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. /
Conclusion. As 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? "
=.
So, what is *philosophy of science* if we don't know these two simplest
but fundamental structure of the Universe?
=====...
0 new messages