Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
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?
============ . .


.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
Where does the mass of the particle come from?
AWT anwers this question by another question: Where does the mass of the droplets condensing from water vapor come from? If you can answer this question, you can answer the above question as well.
Originally Posted By: socratus
where does the energy come from?
By AWT assumes, every question for ultimate origin of reality is missleading, because multiple histories and/or futures may exists here. Both mass, both energy is already here from its very beginning and it compensates mutually in emptiness of vacuum. Just the violation of this random equillibrium manifests itself like local excess of energy or matter.

It means, AWT doesn't solve origin of energy and matter, space or time. It simply puts all these quantities in mutual gradient driven relation, described by wave equation in which all members including number of dimensions are just infinite. The infinity state brings a lowest number of problems from causality reasons: every other particular number would introduce another questions and zero is impossible, as we know, the Universe is nonzero. After then the infinity is the first very natural choise, which doesn't require any other reasoning.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
To Zephir.

Sorry, but your opinion is too sophistical.
I will try detail it.

Zephir
Both mass, both energy is already here from its very beginning
and it compensates mutually in emptiness of vacuum.

Socratus
It means : in Vacuum particles must have equilibrium as E= M = c^2.

Zephir
Just the violation of this random equillibrium manifests itself
like local excess of energy or matter.

Socratus
When this equilibrium (E= M = c^2 ) violates when it
‘ manifests itself like local excess of energy or matter. ‘
It means that now we must use another formula,
for example , E= h(bar)f.
The correlation between these two formulas realizes by
„The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . etc.

Best wishes.
S.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
..in vacuum particles must have equilibrium as E= M . c^2...
This is just a conjecture, you should derive it first.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Zephir
Originally Posted By: socratus
..in vacuum particles must have equilibrium as E= M . c^2...
This is just a conjecture, you should derive it first.

=======================================
We have Vacuum.
The Vacuum ( as a whole) is the Homogeneous Space of
the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy.
Take some local space of energetic vacuum and mark
it by letter ‘E’.
This local space of energetic vacuum must have mass: ‘M’.
When , every virtual, energetic particle ( according to SRT )
must have potential energy/mass ‘ c^2 ’.
======== . .

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
.. energetic particle ( according to SRT )
must have potential energy/mass ‘ c^2 ’...
Why did not just said "by special relativity"? After then it's unnecessary to add the rest of BS above... Of course, this makes whole your theory dependent on special relativity.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Zephir
[quote=socratus] .. energetic particle ( according to SRT )
... Of course, this makes whole your theory dependent on special relativity.

==============================
SRT ?
What is SRT ?
SRT explains behavior of Light Quanta in Vacuum.

Is it sound strang?
==================== ..
My whole theory ( scheme ) dependents on one fundament:
Infinite Vacuum.
When I ask myself: ‘ Which physical parameters can have
a virtual particles in the Vacuum?’
And then, step by step, I create the scheme of Universe formation.

Is it sound strange?
================= . .
Best regards.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
SRT explains behavior of Light Quanta in Vacuum
SRT (i.e. special relativity) HAS NO IDEA, what the light quantum is.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
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.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
The simplest answer is: According to Quantum Physics from virtual particles.
I'm not very sure, whether quantum mechanics can deduce such interpretation from its postulates at all. In my opinion, "virtual particles" is just one of intuitively guessed interpretations of QM, which has no support in its formalism, though. The mainstream physics never thrown Aether model in its entirety - it's just trying to cover this fact by formal approach to physics.

If nothing else, such "trivial explanation" introduces a number of complex QM postulates into logical chain, so I personally consider any notion of "quantum physics" as an feasible explanation, the "most simple" explanation the less - until we cannot explain quantum mechanics itself.

Surprisingly, mainstream physics has quite serious problem to perceive reality by particle field from insintric perspective, i.e. it adheres to description of space-time as represented by water surface from perspective of much faster light waves, while introducing various abstract theories at the moment, when no faster waves are available, i.e. for description of light in vacuum by using of light.

While for me its quite logical and trivial, we can observe the situation at water surface from perspective of surface water waves, including the the situation of surface wave spreading itself. Every introduction of much faster waves into description introduces an assumption, whose validity cannot be guarantied in general case.

Why after five hundreds of years we have no formalism for description of water surface phenomena from perspective of its own waves? Such description could be developed by means of Victorian physics and it would seamlessly describe the situation in vacuum just by adding of another dimensions without need to introduce virtual particles, ad-hoced postulates, etc..

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
. the theory of ideal gas is not abstract theory..
I can agree to 50% only. The caveat remains in usage of "ideal" word. Every idealization is just a sort of abstraction. We should realize, without certain level of abstraction we cannot describe real things in generalized way at all. So that every theory is abstract by its very definition and it can never describe reality quite exactly.

Aether Wave Theory is an abstract theory as well, it simply replaces all density fluctuations / space-time curvatures of all various possible shapes thinkable by concept of hyperspherical particles of maximal degree of symmetry possible to be able to estimate shape of another particle fluctuations in predictable way. Such abstraction works only if every fluctuation remains formed by large number of another fluctuations. The ideal (Boltzmann) gas theory suffers by the same problem. Concept of colliding particles is in fact quite rich in its implicit, less or more hidden assumptions.

Recently prof. Bert Schroer has wrote in his recent article Remarks on the world-sheet saga

"Only zero-dimensional particles are acceptable building blocks in physics"

I personally disagree in 50%, because just from particle model follows, whatever theory of your personal preference can be made a TOE, if it would be converted into implicit, recursively nested theory. AWT theory is just a simplest way, how to do that - but definitely not the only way possible. For example recursive geometrodynamics could do the very same job like AWT - it's just way less intuitive and less easy to imagine. Both AWT, both geometrodynamics doesn't introduce any other constrains (strings, loops, branes, protosimplexes) into description of reality, so it shouldn't be problem to renormalize it in implicit way.

We shouldn't replace the totality of relativity and quantum mechanics by another totality, for example by dictatorship of Aether theory. AWT is based on deep, if not ultimate relativity in thinking: every truth is relevant here only in connection to particular observational perspective and the assumptions made about it. It's not vagueness, but a requirement to carefully define subject, before we start to make some extrapolations about it.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
.we have merely proven that we do not need it (for computations)..
Lagrangian and Hamilton formalism used in quantum mechanics for description of steady state distribution of energy density (simply because the momentary values of quantum function are experimentally inaccessible for us) is based on Newtonian physics and optics of Victorian era. The derivation of Einstein field equations uses a Newton's gravitational law and constant as well. The concept of geodesics of general relativity has its direct relevance to Hamiltonian flow and Fermat theorem. Feynman's concept of path integrals is just an Huygens-Fermat principle in its integral form. The principles of topology are derived from behavior of soap membranes: the same groups of operations, which are allowed to do with manifolds are allowed to do with soap membranes in vacuum inclusively. The concept of natural numbers and Peano algebra rules are tightly connected with concept of colliding particles, which are countable in this way. The differential and integral calculus is based on gradient driven reality inside of particle field, where only density gradients can be see from sufficient distance. And so on...

If mainstream physicists would be more consequential in understanding of their formalism used, they would recognize easily, approach of contemporary physics is still deeply rooted in classical particle physics.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
To Zephir.
======= .
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.
=== .
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?
===============

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?

Not quite, Boltzmann gas theory considers

1) Particles of gas are spherical and always repulsive
2) Distance between particles is higher, then the size of particles
3) Energy between particles is exchanged by elastic collisions only, so that only longitudinal waves can place here.

In AWT model all these assumptions are violated for vacuum. Only Aether can be modelled by ideal gas - observable rest of Universe must be modelled by density fluctuations of Aether.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
#
Question
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?

Zephir.
1.
Not quite, . . . . !!!
2
Only Aether can be modeled by ideal gas . . . .!!!
===== .
???????????????????

P.S.
The Ideal gas is a hypothetical gas. . . . . (!!! )
An ideal gas is a theoretical gas . . . ( !!! ) composed
of a set of randomly-moving point particles . . . . .
. . . . .( point particle !!! )
that interact only through elastic collisions .
The ideal gas model tends to fail at lower temperatures
or higher pressures.
===============

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
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.
============ . .

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
..Only Aether can be modeled by ideal gas . . . .??
!! In AWT Aether is of infinite density, vacuum is one of many nested phases of Aether and it has a finite density and it appears like dense nested foam or sponge, rather then particle gas.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Zephir
Originally Posted By: socratus
..Only Aether can be modeled by ideal gas . . . .??
!! In AWT Aether is of infinite density, vacuum is one of many nested phases of Aether and it has a finite density and it appears like dense nested foam or sponge, rather then particle gas.

=============================
1.
Can I understand what Aether is infinite density T=0K ?
2.
Can I understand what in this infinite Aether T=0K
there are many different vacuum places with others
parameters of temperature and density ?
(‘vacuum is one of many nested phases of Aether’)
3.
How the Aether changed his infinite parameter T=0K ?
====== .
S.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
Can I understand what Aether is infinite density T=0K

Nope, the temperature of Aether must remain infinite as well to balance the infinite density of matter (a gravity field) by radiation pressure. But for Aether the temperature scale in Kelvin degrees has no meaning at all, it's simply undefined - or at least I don't know about some way, how to define it.

We can imagine vacuum at 0 K Kelvin temperature like calm, mirror-like surface of molten iron. It means, no macroscopic undulations appears on surface, but the rest of environment is in arbitrarily high temperature. Inside of hot and dense stars, like black holes and neutron/quark stars the density of material is so high, it enables the formation of stable complex artifacts, which are composed just from density fluctuations of plasma material. Hypothetical creatures formed by such particles would perceive their environment like a cold vacuum, whereas from outside perspective they would appear like hot glowing objects. Aether Wave Theory is based on such relative perspective. It means absolute temperature scale is a measure, assigned to each particular space-time level in different way.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Zephir
Originally Posted By: socratus
Can I understand what Aether is infinite density T=0K

Nope, the temperature of Aether must remain infinite as well to balance the infinite density of matter (a gravity field) by radiation pressure. But for Aether the temperature scale in Kelvin degrees has no meaning at all, it's simply undefined - or at least I don't know about some way, how to define it.

We can imagine vacuum at 0 K Kelvin temperature like calm, mirror-like surface of molten iron. It means, no macroscopic undulations appears on surface, but the rest of environment is in arbitrarily high temperature. Inside of hot and dense stars, like black holes and neutron/quark stars the density of material is so high, it enables the formation of stable complex artifacts, which are composed just from density fluctuations of plasma material. Hypothetical creatures formed by such particles would perceive their environment like a cold vacuum, whereas from outside perspective they would appear like hot glowing objects. Aether Wave Theory is based on such relative perspective. It means absolute temperature scale is a measure, assigned to each particular space-time level in different way.


==========================================
#
Zephir.
Nope, the temperature of Aether must remain infinite as well
to balance the infinite density of matter (a gravity field) by radiation pressure.
========= . .
S.
Of course the temperature of Aether remains infinite as whole ,
but only in a different small parts of Aether the temperature can change.
If this not happens our Universe ( stars, planets . .etc) will not exist.
======= . .
Zephir.
But for Aether the temperature scale in Kelvin degrees has no meaning
at all, it's simply undefined - or at least I don't know about some way,
how to define it.
========== .
S.
It is a pity that you don't know how to define Aether.
=========== .
Zephir.
We can imagine vacuum at 0 K Kelvin temperature like calm,
mirror-like surface of molten iron.
It means, no macroscopic undulations appears on surface,
but the rest of environment is in arbitrarily high temperature.
========= .
Zephir.
We can imagine vacuum at 0 K Kelvin temperature . . .

S.
!!!
If vacuum has 0 K Kelvin temperature,
what temperature does Aether have?
!!!
If vacuum ‘like calm, mirror-like surface of molten iron.‘
how the planets or particles can move through it?
!!!
Zephir.
It means, no macroscopic undulations appears on surface,
but the rest of environment is in arbitrarily high temperature.
!!!
S.
It means that macroscopic effect we cannot see,
but the rest of environment is in arbitrarily high
temperature we can see.
??? !!!
========= .
Zephir.
Inside of hot and dense stars, like black holes and neutron/quark stars
the density of material is so high, it enables the formation of stable
complex artifacts, which are composed just from density fluctuations
of plasma material.
======== . .
S.
Of course, inside of hot and dense stars the fluctuations
of plasma particles goes.
========= . .
Zephir.
Hypothetical creatures formed by such particles would perceive
their environment like a cold vacuum, whereas from outside perspective
they would appear like hot glowing objects.
====== .
S.
It is difficult to understand, but it is very interesting speculation.
======== .
Zephir.
Aether Wave Theory is based on such relative perspective.
======== .
S.
Yes. I see your theory is based on very relative perspective.
======== .
Zephir.
It means absolute temperature scale is a measure,
assigned to each particular space-time level in different way.
======== .
Zephir.
‘ It means absolute temperature scale ‘ . . . . .
. . . . . .
Nope, the temperature of Aether must remain infinite as well
to balance the infinite density of matter (a gravity field)
by radiation pressure.
=== .
S.
You have high knowledge, but in my opinion, they are mixed
in your theory on very relative perspective but it is interesting.
===.
Best wishes.
S.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5