Welcome toScience a GoGo'sDiscussion 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
 You are not logged in. [Log In] Science a GoGo's Home Page » Forums » General Discussion » Physics Forum » - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Register User    Forum List        Calendar         FAQ
 Who's Online 0 registered (), 406 Guests and 0 Spiders online. Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
 Latest Posts The universes expansion accelleration solved. by Marchimedes 05/14/20 07:25 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
 Marchimedes 4
 Topic Options
 #38223 - 04/25/11 01:32 PM - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. socratus Senior Member Registered: 06/20/08 Posts: 415 - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.The principle states that:"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Now the Occam's Razor is in conflict with mainstream science.==.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 lineunder 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?Yes. 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 havesome physical parameters like: volume (V), temperature (T)and density (P). Yes, it seems the idea is right.Then, volume (V) is zero, temperature (T) is zerobut . . but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real space then its density can approximately be zero.#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 particlesin 2D has approximately zero mass, it is approximately massless (M). Fact.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 ofmovement, for example: my particle will move in straight linealong 2D surface from some point A to the point B. What is possible to say now? According to the Michelson-Morley experiment my particlemust move with constant speed: c=1 and its speed is independent.Its speed doesn’t depend on any other object or subject, it meansthe 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 trajectoryI 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 diameterit 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 knowthe 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 musthave 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 goesout 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=======================. . Top
 .
 #38227 - 04/25/11 06:09 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Socratus, you have obviously put a lot of work into this elegant theory. I shall leave it to those with more expertise than I have to comment on its details. However, one thought occurs to me: Quote: 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,You seem to base your theory on the belief that a 2D surface has some extension in the third dimension.Although a 2D environment may be of value in theory, it cannot exist as a physical object in a 3D environment; so it cannot be a physical reality in our Universe. _________________________ There never was nothing. Top
 #38230 - 04/26/11 12:40 AM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Quote:but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real spacethen its density can approximately be zero.How can something that has no extension in the third dimension be said to have density?The best example of a 2D "entity" I can think of is a shadow, and I doubt that that could be said to have density.How do you define "approximately zero"? _________________________ There never was nothing. Top
 #38240 - 04/27/11 05:34 AM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. socratus Senior Member Registered: 06/20/08 Posts: 415 Originally Posted By: Bill S.You seem to base your theory on the belief that a 2D surface has some extension in the third dimension.Although a 2D environment may be of value in theory, it cannot exist as a physical object in a 3D environment; so it cannot be a physical reality in our Universe. ==.In beginning I have 2D surface.2D surface is flat homogenous infinite Pseudo Euclidian space. In this space dark – virtual particles exist (-E=Mc^2).From these dark – virtual particles stars were formatted.These stars (3D) exist in infinite Pseudo Euclidian space.All billions and billions Galaxies exist in this infinite Pseudo Euclidian space.=========.Small example.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaOHvy5AcA&feature=related==============. Top
 #38246 - 04/27/11 05:21 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Socratus, all you have done is restate your original assertion; you still have not said how something that has no extension in the third dimension can be said to have density, or even to exist in a 3D universe. Your link doesn't address that question, either. _________________________ There never was nothing. Top
 #38296 - 05/03/11 05:38 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. socratus Senior Member Registered: 06/20/08 Posts: 415 Occam's Razor and the conception of ‘Time’.( According to SRT , QED and GRT. )=====..1.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’sInfinite Time changes to a relative according to the Lorentz transformations.2.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.P.S.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.=========.. Top
 #38297 - 05/03/11 07:52 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Scoratus; could you please explain what the minus 4D continuum is? _________________________ There never was nothing. Top
 #38305 - 05/04/11 05:00 AM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. socratus Senior Member Registered: 06/20/08 Posts: 415 Originally Posted By: Bill S.Scoratus; could you please explain what the minus 4D continuum is? One of Einstein’s postulate says that particle – quantum of light- moves in a straight line with speed c=1 in the vacuum.So, in SRT we have one reference frame and it is vacuum.But because Einstein took Time as a length (1 sec= 299,792,458 m)Minkowski decided to take this time as a fourth coordinate and created his minus 4D continuum. And we lost the direction.But the root of theory is the postulate: constant and independence speed of quantum of light in the vacuum.==.So, in my opinion the essence of Einstein’s SRT is question:What will be happen if the particle – quantum of light – changes its constant and straight movement in the vacuum.=========.Israel Socratus.==============.. Top
 #38307 - 05/04/11 04:34 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Thanks Socratus, now I wish I could answer your question; but, no such luck. _________________________ There never was nothing. Top
 #38308 - 05/04/11 09:06 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Bill Megastar Registered: 12/31/10 Posts: 1858 Loc: Oklahoma, USA Originally Posted By: socratusSo, in my opinion the essence of Einstein’s SRT is question:What will be happen if the particle – quantum of light – changesits constant and straight movement in the vacuum.That question is answered by General Relativity (GR), not Special Relativity (SR). SR is special because it only addresses constant motion. Your question of changes in motion are examples of accelerated motion. Einstein knew this and spent the next 10 years, after publishing SR, in coming up with GR. GR takes into account accelerated motion, which he realized is the same as gravitation. One thing, you keep talking about a quantum of light. Both SR and GR apply to any form of matter, not just light.Bill Gill _________________________ C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.C is the universal speed limit. Top
 #38317 - 05/05/11 03:23 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. [Re: Bill] Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Originally Posted By: BillBoth SR and GR apply to any form of matter, not just light.Would I be right in suspecting that SR applies to light, unless you are trying to establish a F of R for a photon? _________________________ There never was nothing. Top
 #38381 - 05/11/11 03:55 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Originally Posted By: Socratus What will be happen if the particle – quantum of light – changes its constant and straight movement in the vacuum.Lets look at what you might mean by a quantum of light (photon?) changing its constant and straight movement in the vacuum.Presumably the photon is travelling in a straight line through spacetime. Any change in direction will be caused by a distortion of spacetime. The photon will then be following a geodesic, which is defined as a straight line through curved spacetime. It is still going straight, so is there any real change of direction?The photon is travelling at “c” in a vacuum. Any apparent change of speed will be in the F of R of the observer. The photon cannot be said to have an inertial frame, nor can it change its speed relative to itself. Can it be said to have changed speed? _________________________ There never was nothing. Top
 #38391 - 05/13/11 10:20 AM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. socratus Senior Member Registered: 06/20/08 Posts: 415 Originally Posted By: Bill S.The photon is travelling at “c” in a vacuum. Any apparent change of speed will be in the F of R of the observer. The photon cannot be said to have an inertial frame, nor can it change its speed relative to itself. Can it be said to have changed speed? The photon is traveling at “c” in a vacuum. Any apparent change of speed will be in the F of R of the observer. / Bill S. /One observer was in vacuum’s F of R and looked after photon. S.The photon cannot be said to have an inertial frame, / Bill S. / Why not? Another observer was in an inertial F of R and looked after the same photon. S. nor can it change its speed relative to itself. / Bill S. /Why not? S. Can it be said to have changed speed? / Bill S. / From an inertial F of R ( Earths) the observers (Michelson and Morley) saw the photon was traveling in a stright line at constant speed “c” in a vacuum. And in the another - vacuum’s F of R the observers ( Fitzgerald and Lorentz ) saw the moment when photon changed its stright motion and constant speed “c” .P.S. The understanding of the reason of independent radiationof photon from its source is still a controversial hypotheses(as for proponents of Planck and Einstein as for their opponents) / Sergey Podolskiy /====================… Top
 #38396 - 05/13/11 03:39 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Let's take one point at a time.Originally Posted By: BSThe photon cannot be said to have an inertial frame,Here we are dealing with special relativity in which the Poincare transformation does not work at v=c. You will get division by zero (undefined) and zero divided by zero (indeterminate) if you try. _________________________ There never was nothing. Top
 #38599 - 05/27/11 12:06 AM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Let's try the next bit:Quote:nor can it change its speed relative to itself./ Bill S. /Why not?S.Next time you are out for a walk, try changing your speed, relative to yourself. I think you will find that although you may change speed relative to your surroundings, you will always be travelling at the same speed relative to yourself. To do anything else you would have to be in two inertial frames at a time. _________________________ There never was nothing. Top
 #38605 - 05/27/11 05:00 AM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. socratus Senior Member Registered: 06/20/08 Posts: 415 Originally Posted By: Bill S.Let's try the next bit:Quote:nor can it change its speed relative to itself./ Bill S. /Why not?S.Next time you are out for a walk, try changing your speed, relative to yourself. I think you will find that although you may change speed relative to your surroundings, you will always be travelling at the same speed relative to yourself. To do anything else you would have to be in two inertial frames at a time. Next time you are out for a walk, try changing your speed, relative to yourself. I think you will find that although you may change speed relative to your surroundings, you will always be traveling at the same speed relative to yourself. / Bill S. /Correct.I am traveling at the same speed relative to myselfBut in myself I have different changes: pulse, breathing, . . .etc.Which changes a particle can have when it changes its motion:for example - the straight movement on the curved or rotating movement? S.To do anything else you would have to be in two inertial frames at a time. / Bill S. /And therefore is possible to speak about two (2) reference frames. Of course they are different reference frames.One reference frame is the nature in which I walk or run.Another reference frame is I am myself.#One reference frame is Universe.Another reference frame is Elementary Particle itself:Maybe these particles are Platonic’s 'ideas', Kant’s ‘ thing in itself ‘, Leibniz’s ‘monads’ . . . .etcWho knows?S.==================================. Top
 #38606 - 05/27/11 05:11 AM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Orac Megastar Registered: 05/20/11 Posts: 2819 Loc: Currently Illinois, USA Basic GR theory there is no reference frame for the universeQuote:that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frame) _________________________ I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you. Top
 #38613 - 05/27/11 01:03 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. [Re: Orac] Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Socratus, I find myself wondering if we are using reference frame (inertial frame) in the same sense.As Orac rightly points out, there is no reference frame for the universe, but, perhaps you have an understanding of F of R in which you can identify one for the Universe. _________________________ There never was nothing. Top
 #38621 - 05/27/11 06:13 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. Orac Megastar Registered: 05/20/11 Posts: 2819 Loc: Currently Illinois, USA So many problems with your theory Socratus lets start with a simple one.Explain how delayed choice quantum eraser works under your theory please (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser) _________________________ I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you. Top
 #38625 - 05/27/11 09:08 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. [Re: Orac] Bill S. Megastar Registered: 08/20/10 Posts: 3570 Loc: Essex, UK Fascinating how one thing sparks off another in this sort of thread. After asking you (Socratus) if you could identify a F of R for the Universe, I thought about the Cosmic Microwave Background. In a way that provides a universal inertial frame. It approaches every point in the Universe from every direction at a uniform speed. The motion of the Milky Way through the CMB has been measured. This must be as near as one can get to identifying absolute motion. _________________________ There never was nothing. Top

 Hop to: General Discussion ------   General Science Discussion Forum   Not-Quite-Science Forum   Sci Fi Forum   Physics Forum   Climate Change Forum
 Newest Members debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT 865 Registered Users