Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.

    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 (−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
    =======================.

  • #2
    Where is the root of all elements ?
    =.
    An interesting stuff
    (phys.org, Oct 2012)
    Lithium in action: Advanced imaging method reveals fundamental reactions behind battery technology
    The nano-engineering technology is grown every day,
    every day a new success - new discovery.
    And it seems that really all elements are magical and amazing.
    ==.
    But . . . . .
    1
    Let us say that we want to write a full theory about elements.
    Then we cannot begin from the lithium.
    Lithium is too complex element.
    The Periodic table says we need to begin from hydrogen.
    But in my opinion we need to begin from helium II.
    Why?
    Helium II exists below at 2.19 K
    We don’t know any another element that exist below this coefficient
    Below is Nothingness : T=0K
    The idea of the Nothingness is not a new one.
    There are enough physicists who try to understand it.
    #
    When the next revolution rocks physics,
    chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
    that endless infinite void.
    Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine
    #
    And 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? "
    ==.
    2
    Professor Yang Shao-Horn says:
    "We focused on finding out what really happens during
    charging and discharging,"

    In my opinion there isn’t charging and discharging without photon
    ( electric charge)
    =.
    So, we come again to QED: what is happen in interaction
    between photon / electron ( quantum of light) and matter.
    =.
    All the best.
    Israel Sadovnik Socratus

    =.

    Comment


    • #3
      Bill Gill wrote:

      'Once again socratus you make an elementary mistake.
      The photon is the particle which transmits the electromagnetic
      force. The electron is the particle which holds the negative electric
      charge. The photon and the electron are 2 completely different
      things.

      This is the kind of mistake you make repeatedly.'
      #
      Socratus wrote:

      What is energy of photon ?
      The energy of photon is: E=h*f.
      What is the energy of electron ?
      The energy of an electron is: E=h*f.
      What is difference between photon and electron ?
      Frequency makes difference between them.
      Book " Isaac Newton "
      by Soviet academician S. I. Vavilov:
      ‘ For photons with extremely high fluctuations,
      . . . ., in experience was observed the remarkable
      phenomenon of transformation them in electrons.
      Undoubtedly, a reverse process is also possible.’
      / page 94. /
      ==.

      Comment

      Working...
      X