* * The Universe from Nothing: T=0K. / by*Israel Socratus /

[socratus]

Universe Temperature = 0°KELVIN (-273°C / -459°F)
Should 0°Kelvin Temperature be Considered
a Universal Force To do Work?
** Zero Kelvin Theory
=====

[socratus]

Discuss the three laws of thermodynamics.

System and Surroundings

In order to avoid confusion, scientists discuss thermodynamic values in reference to a system and its surroundings. Everything that is not a part of the system constitutes its surroundings. The system and surroundings are separated by a boundary. For example, if the system is one mole of a gas in a container, then the boundary is simply the inner wall of the container itself. Everything outside of the boundary is considered the surroundings, which would include the container itself.

The boundary must be clearly defined, so one can clearly say whether a given part of the world is in the system or in the surroundings. If matter is not able to pass across the boundary, then the system is said to be closed; otherwise, it is open. A closed system may still exchange energy with the surroundings unless the system is an isolated one, in which case neither matter nor energy can pass across the boundary.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/in...hermodynamics/
====
My opinion.
There are two systems:
Zero vacuum system T=0K and material system ( billion and billion galaxies)
#
Absolute zero vacuum system is an infinite / eternal reference frame.
Absolute zero system is some kind of infinite dynamic energy continuum.
This zero vacuum dynamic energy continuum gives birth to potential
quantum particles that can do useful work to arise up the temperature
from T=0K to temperature of hot stars and create surrounding material world.
#
In Casimir effect, Lamb shift, vacuum fluctuations was shown the
reality of such kind of quantum particles.
====

[socratus]

The Great-Fool Theory.
Once upon a time (maybe 14 billion years ago) all
the matter of the Universe was* squeezed into a
''singular-point'' by the Gravity power.
Why this Great theory is fool ?
a) two electrons in the Universe would not allow
such scenario, because they hate each other.
b) the power of each electron is about 10^40 times
stronger than Gravity power.
=========

[socratus]

What does god want you to know about physics ?
1) The zero vacuum (T=0K) is a material / physical continuum.
( all the rest is secondary )
========
Book: MATERIALITY OF A VACUUM
/ by Frank Wilczek and Lawrence Krauss
Debate 07/04/2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYfrriX3-mw
#
https://reneland.wordpress.com/2017/...y-of-a-vacuum/
===========

[socratus]

What does god want you to know about physics ?

1) The zero vacuum (T=0K) is a material / physical continuum.
** ( all the rest is secondary )
========

[socratus]

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?
/ Paul Dirac /
#
Vacuum -- the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness –
is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws
of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum,
allowing light-light interactions
| American Institute of Physics
#
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!
/ Friedwardt Winterberg /
#
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 | DiscoverMagazine.com
============
Today Zero Vacuum (T=0K) is banned from Physics
==============

[socratus]

The Nature of Vacuum
Published by Mayukh on July 24, 2018
. . . it turns out that “nothing’ is one of the most interesting something !!
. . . it turns out that empty space is far from nothing.
. . . what would a perfect empty space look like?
. . .virtual particles play a crucial role in our analysis
of the nature of the vacuum.
. . quantum conservation laws must be obeyed
so most virtual particles are created in particle-antiparticle pairs

But how do we verify the existence of these elusive particles?
The 1st hint of the existence of virtual particles came in
the year of 1947 when Wills Lamb . . . .
In 1948 the Dutch physicist Hendric Casimir came up with
a brilliant scheme to detect these virtual particles and vacuum energy.
The observation is that accelerating expansion of the universe.
It is hypothesized that dark energy itself maybe vacuum energy.

A simulation of empty space was made by crunching up
calculation from the Quantum Chromo Dynamics,
the theory of fundamental particle called quarks,
which are the building blocks of protons, neutrons
and how they interact with each other.

QFT with its dependence on virtual particles and
vacuum fluctuations is one of the most successful theories
and yet its prediction on the strength of vacuum energy
seems to be so wildly off.

/ Published by Mayukh on July 24, 2018 /
The Nature of Vacuum - Understanding nothingness of space
===

[socratus]

Senior writer Natalie Wolchover described this situation in another way :
Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem
December 1, 2016

The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally
different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute;
its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles.
But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical,
a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional
"space-time" fabric."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161...-time-problem/

Why did scientists call Einstein's /Minkowski absolute a four-dimensional
spacetime as a " fabric " ?

And '' If space-time is a fabric, so to speak, then what are its threads? ''
Zeeya Merali
Theoretical physics: The origins of space and time

Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just
the behaviour of space and time, but where these entities come from.
Zeeya Merali
28 August 2013
https://www.nature.com/news/theoreti...d-time-1.13613

I want to correct Zeeya Merali.
It needs to write:
Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just
the behaviour of Gravity-space and Gravity-time, but where these entities come from.

In such description the situation is more clear.

============================

[socratus]

Senior writer Natalie Wolchover described this situation in another way :
Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem
December 1, 2016

The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally
different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute;
its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles.
But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical,
a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional
"space-time" fabric."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161...-time-problem/

[socratus]

a) According to Newton, absolute time and space respectively are independent
aspects of objective reality

b) In Einstein's theories, the ideas of absolute time and space were superseded by
the notion of absolute spacetime in special relativity, and curved absolute spacetime
in general relativity

c) SRT is theory without gravity but with an absolute spacetime.
It means, we need to take Newton's absolute time and Newton's absolute space
simultaneously together in order to have Einstein's spacetime.
Newton's absolute time + Newton's absolute space = Einstein's spacetime.

d) And this absolute spacetime can be curved by masses ( for example:
by Sun masses ) in some local region of absolute Einstein's spacetime.

e) According to GRT the curvature depends on masses and its speed.
And because masses (of stars and planets) are different so every local
region has its own gravity-space and gravity. For example: Earth
has its own gravity-space and gravity-time, and Venus or Mars has
another gravity-space and gravity-time. But for humans on the Earth
their Earth's gravity-space and Earth's gravity-time seems absolute.

==========================================

[socratus]

Gravity in the Electric Universe
Where does gravity fit in the electric universe?
Contrary to a fairly common misperception, the electric universe does not deny
gravity’s existence, nor its role in the cosmos and our own world.
Rather, the electric universe theory, as proposed by physicist Wal Thornhill,
suggests that the fundamental mysteries of gravity may be explained
by the electrical structure of matter.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...se-space-news/

====================
My opinion.
Zero Vacuum (T=0K) is itself some kind of an Infinity Energy continuum ( universe).
Where does gravity fit in the infinity T=0K electric-energy universe?

a) according to quantum theory the Zero Vacuum (T=0K) being energy continuum
can create only potential - virtual negative energy particles: -E=Mc^2.
b) these potential - virtual negative energy particles: -E=Mc^2 somehow
can transformed themselves into real energetic particles: E=h*f
c) these real energetic particles somehow can create local gravity - solar system.
=========================

Gravity is indivisible from the electromagnetic force.
To create local gravity - solar system is needed EM force.
================

[socratus]

Physics Professor Baumgarte Describes 100 Years of Gravity
April 1, 2015
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same,
independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with
respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence,
space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered
a new joint entity called "spacetime. But special relativity describes physics in the absence
of gravity, whereas general relativity describes gravity in terms of the curvature of spacetime.

Physics Professor Baumgarte Describes 100 Years of Gravity | Bowdoin News


Today scientists are trying to reconcile Newton's absolute time and Einstein's spacetime.

========================================

[socratus]

In truth I never knew the half of what you reduced to simplicity.

Every successful detective knows that the first step in solving complex cases
is to reduce bamboozling complexity to simple probabilities.
Only then can a picture of the whole begin to emerge.
Only then will logical deduction bring you closer to the truth.
Only then can you see if you have all the parts to a puzzle which collude
to produce a whole that cannot be destroyed and which is logical and rational.

Simplicity as a Primary Condition of Nature and Evolution.
=.
The evolution of Nature is going from simple to complex therefore
I will take the simplest physical parameters in order to explain
the primary conditions of evolution in Nature.
1.
The simplest reference frame is two dimensions (2D).
There are two kinds of 2D: Euclidian (relative) and
Pseudo-Euclidian (absolute according to SRT).
What Euclidian 2D is - everybody knows.
What Pseudo-Euclidian (negative - 2D) is - nobody knows.
In my opinion (- 2D) is Zero Vacuum reference frame: T= - 273,15 . . . . .
2.
In this simplest negative reference frame (- 2D) only flat - circle
particles can exist: c/d = 3,14 . . . . and they are the simplest original /
primary quantum particles of Nature.
3.
These quantum particles in their simplicity contain their own
inner – natural power / energy and impulses: h and h*=h/2pi.
4.
These particles obey "the law of conservation and transformation energy".
This law is not book-keeper's calculations of "debit – credit".
This law means:
the simplest particles can keep and somehow transform their energy.
=.
Only on these simplest physical parameters (T= - 273,15 . . , c/d = 3,14 . . . ,
h and h*=h/2pi ) and "the law of conservation and transformation energy"
can be constructed the reliable castle for Quantum theory.
==..
More than 300 years ago Newton wrote:
" 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."
This Newton's offer is carried out fully in Quantum physics.
==...
From the state of Simplicity was created and evolved
the complex World of Matter, Consciousness, Knowledge.
==..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
==..

[Gambeir]

I am quite incapable of communicating with you at the same levels you've previously posed, and in many other ways, but I would agree that the picture I've managed to cobble together says that we do not have all the parts to the puzzle, and that the puzzle we have now has parts which work for themselves.

This is like saying a story told by a suspect works so long as you don't look at anything else: Just imagine the audacity of a criminal inventing a story to escape suspicion; who'd have thunk it? So it appears there's a lot of suspect understandings which claim to explain the whole elephant the same way any suspect might themselves construct a plausible explanation. Now what kind of imbecile gulps down a story told by a suspect without question?

Is the Universe infinite, flat, and created out of nothingness, but which is some-thing? Consciousness comes out of nothingness and goes into a physical form. There has to be mass given to create the form. In any part of our reality mass seems to be a key part that defines our reality and (near as I can tell) mass springs forth from nothingness the same as consciousness itself does.

So forgetting about consciousness, where does matter get mass from? When matter loses all mass it disappears from our reality.
* PS: For all practical purposes what then is mass because it doesn't appear except in matter and when in this reality. It appears to me that it comes out of this nothingness you've postulated. I'm not saying the nothingness is mass but it seems to contain the ability to assign mass to this reality and to take it back out of this reality when it's through with it. If you're following, the idea then is that nothingness creates the reality; a key part of the creation appears to be the assignment of mass to our plane of reality without which matter evidently doesn't exist.

[Gambeir]

Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones.
But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.

Henri Poincaré

If we study the history of science we see happen two inverse phenomena...
Sometimes simplicity hides under complex appearances; sometimes it is the simplicity
which is apparent, and which disguises extremely complicated realities.
. . .
we must stop when we have found simplicity.
This is the only ground on which we can rear the edifice of our generalizations.

Henri Poincare

Generally speaking I'd agree; up to a point. The way the mind works is to hold complexity in simplicity. Complex ideas are retained in thought under general headings. Only when called upon to dig deeper are complexities of a topic called up from deep memory.

So the goal isn't then to "actually" create a kind of Occam's Razor, but by reducing complexities to outlines a puzzle is laid out, and which can be examined to see if it holds all the parts to a complete picture, and which can then reveal the whole elephant....so to speak: There is a step by step process to this which comes down to us through the workings of one hundred and fifty years of police science.

In other words, you must have an Occam's Razor, but the razor must be understood for a whole picture of a more complex mass.

You did that in post five in ways which I've never encountered previously. In truth I never knew the half of what you reduced to simplicity. Every successful detective knows that the first step in solving complex cases is to reduce bamboozling complexity to simple probabilities. Only then can a picture of the whole begin to emerge. Only then will logical deduction bring you closer to the truth. Only then can you see if you have all the parts to a puzzle which collude to produce a whole that cannot be destroyed and which is logical and rational.