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
0 registered (), 204 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Topic Options
#38223 - 04/25/11 01:32 PM - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
socratus Offline
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 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?
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 have
some 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 zero
but . . 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 particles
in 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 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 (&#8722;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. [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
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. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real space
then 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. [Re: Bill S.]
socratus Offline
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. [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
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. [Re: Bill S.]
socratus Offline
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’s
Infinite 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. [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
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. [Re: Bill S.]
socratus Offline
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. [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Thanks Socratus, now I wish I could answer your question; but, no such luck. frown
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#38308 - 05/04/11 09:06 PM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. [Re: socratus]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: socratus
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.

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. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Bill
Both 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. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
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. [Re: Bill S.]
socratus Offline
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 radiation
of 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. [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Let's take one point at a time.

Originally Posted By: BS
The 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. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
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. [Re: Bill S.]
socratus Offline
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 myself
But 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’ . . . .etc
Who knows?
S.
==================================.

Top
#38606 - 05/27/11 05:11 AM Re: - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. [Re: socratus]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Basic GR theory there is no reference frame for the universe

Quote:

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. Offline
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. [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
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. Offline
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



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

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