Innovation: abstraction and reality: plogiston and Ideal gas.

[socratus]

Innovation: abstraction and reality: plogiston and Ideal gas.
===
Quote by Albert Einstein about the value of Innovation:
“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”
#
There are two ways of innovation.
a) to solve a problem with one absolutely new idea
( like Planck's quantum of action)
b) to solve a problem looking it from another point of view
( like was solved problem that '' heat is not a phlogiston substance,
but a dynamical form of mechanical effect'' that* slowly* evolved
into the new science of* ''thermodynamics'')
#
The ''phlogiston theory'' was accepted for more than 100 years.
Today, in my opinion, there is another kind of ''phlogiston theory''.
We know this a new* kind of ''phlogiston theory''.from about 1800
by the very old name* ''the theory of ideal gas.
More than 300 years we accept ''an ideal gas'' as an abstract theory.
#
What is an ideal gas ?
a) Ideal gas has the temperature T=0K* ( −273.15 °C)
b). Ideal gas molecules do not attract or repel each other.
c) Ideal gas molecules themselves take up no volume.
#
We usually remember the first things we learn.
The second thing it seems not so important and
the brain refuses* to pay attention on this subject.
For example.
At first in the school we were taught that
''ideal gas''(with temperature T=0K) is an abstract model,
Later we were taught that vacuum is not ''empty, dead place ''
because some kinds of ''quantum virtual particles'' exist there .
As result, the brain refuses to tie ''an abstract ideal gas'' with vacuum.
For me it sound strange.
If the vacuum was accepted as a some real substance
(book :* '‘Dreams of a final theory'’
'‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero''
by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.)
then why the ''ideal gas'' is still* an abstract model?
#
The thermodynamics was created from ''an ideal gas''
In ideal gas molecules /* particles don't interact each other.
But thermodynamics / heat is result of interaction between* particles.
Then i can suggest - small quantum's changes allow ideal particles
create thermodynamic effect.
#
In my opinion ''ideal gas'' is not an abstract model.
It is possible to apply all laws of ''ideal gas'' to zero vacuum
because they both have equal temperature: T=0K and then
the potential characteristic of vacuum's ''virtual particles''
will be clearly known.
Later using* Quantum theory and Lorentz / Einstein SRT
it is possible to understand how the potential characteristic of
''virtual particles''* change / transform* into Planck's dynamic
quantum particles of action.
#
The changes / transformations between potential and active
states of quantum particles are going according to
'' The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''.
This law dictates that quantum particles off energy/mass cannot die,
they can only change / transform* their faces / images.
===========

[socratus]

Perpetual motion and Quantum physics
=
To be true ''Perpetual motion'' must obey some physical law
The Classic / Newtonian physics forbids such phenomena
But what does Quantum physics say?
The Quantum physics says:
[ In 2017 new states of matter, time crystals, were discovered in which
on a microscopic scale the component atoms are in continual repetitive motion,
thus satisfying the literal definition of "perpetual motion".
However, these do not constitute perpetual motion machines in the traditional sense
or violate thermodynamic laws because they are in their quantum ground state,
so no energy can be extracted from them; they have "motion without energy"]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

It means that on a microscopic scale ( in their quantum ground state)
the Quantum physics can allow "perpetual motion" as a
"motion without energy" . . . but . . . then the ''zero-point energy'' comes

[ Vacuum energy and zero-point energy:
In order to explain effects such as virtual particles and the Casimir effect,
many formulations of quantum physics include a background energy which
pervades empty space, known as vacuum or zero-point energy.
The ability to harness zero-point energy for useful work
is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large.
Inventors have proposed various methods for extracting useful work
from zero-point energy, but none have been found to be viable,
no claims for extraction of zero-point energy have ever been validated by
the scientific community, and there is no evidence that zero-point energy
can be used in violation of conservation of energy.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
#
If the ''Perpetual motion'' is true concept then the virtual particles
must be tied with real particles (Casimir effect ) by
''The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''
#
''Perpetual motion'' concept is tied with
''The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''
==

[socratus]

There is a strange situation:
everybody knows that vacuum is not an empty continuum,
but when it comes to give the physical parameters of vacuum,
then one educated man is as dumb as the next learned guy,
who is as dumb as the learned man next to him.
Why?
Because from the school we were told that ''ideal gas''
(with temperature T=0K) is an abstract model and
until today we live with such '''scientific knowledge''.
As it says: ''Old habits die hard''
====

[socratus]

The Philosopher's Stone and* Quantum particles.
===
a)* First question:
What is* the Philosopher's Stone?
The Philosopher's Stone is a Primary Matter.
All physical elements was derived from one common
source -- primary matter (first matter in the universe)
Philosopher's Stone consist of quantum particles.

b)* Second question: *
Where is the Philosopher's Stone?
Before to talk about Philosopher's Stone we must to think
about the reference frame of this ''stone''
because the Philosopher's Stone must exist somewhere.
#
Different conditions of reference frame can change the images of stone.
If the Philosopher's Stone is in a desert* then It is covered with sang.
If the Philosopher's Stone*is in tundra then It is covered with lichen.
If the Philosopher's Stone is at a bottom of sea then It is covered with corals.
If the Philosopher's Stone is in a zero vacuum then It* isn't a bare stone but
the Philosopher's Stone - particle in T=0K is covered with:
1) the theory of ideal gas,
2) quantum theory ,
3) Lorentz / Einstein's SRT.

c)* Third question:
Does* the Philosopher's Stone hidden in a zero vacuum?
Yeah, because all stars, planets . . .* all micro and macro
material objects are hung in the* void of zero vacuum.
Then:
1)
according to* the theory of ideal gas the Philosopher's -particle
must have geometrical form of circle pi=c/d= 3,1415 . . . .
2)
according to* the theory of ideal gas the Philosopher's -particle
must have Boltzmann mass k=R/N(Avogadro)
3)*
according to quantum theory quantum particles must have
energy-mass:* +/- E=Mc^2
4)
according to quantum theory quantum particles must have
own* Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck inner angular impulse h * = h /2pi.
5)
according to SRT quantum particles can obey Lorentz transformations.
============

[socratus]

The theory must be “crazy enough to be true,”
===
There Are No Laws of Physics. There’s Only the Landscape.
Scientists seek a single description of reality.
But modern physics allows for many different descriptions, many equivalent
to one another, connected through a vast landscape of mathematical possibility.
/ by Robbert Dijkgraaf /
But we have to be honest.
Very few current ideas about what replaces particles and fields
are “crazy enough to be true,” to quote Niels Bohr.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/there...0604/#comments
=======

[socratus]

We all know your idea is crazy.
The question is whether it is cray enough
to have a chance of being correct
/ Niels Bohr /
#
What is the temperature of Hawking radiation ?
The temperature of the background radiation - energy
left over from the Big Bang - is about 2.7 kelvin, but the
temperature of Hawking radiation is only 1.2 nanokelvin
#
My opinion
Book: ''' Stephan Hawking, A life in science''
''Together with Brandon Carter and Jim Bardeen, Hawking
wrote a paper, published in Communications in Mathematical
Physics , pointing out . . . . . the team commented,
'' In fact the effective temperature of a black hole is
absolute zero . . . . No radiation could be emitted from the hole.''
/ by Michael White and John Gribbin, page 156./
But later (!) , . . using concept of entropy and Heisenberg
uncertainty principle and quantum fluctuations
Hawking changed his mind and wrote that black hole can emit
( Hawking radiation )
#
So, in the beginning (according to calculations) the ''black hole'' had
absolute zero temperature T=0K, but . . .
. . . but thanks to quantum fluctuations Hawking radiations was arisen
In others words:
''black holes'' are local micro- scheme of absolute zero vacuum: T=0K
So called a ''black hole'' is only another name of the true vacuum: T=0K
#
Many say:
''Hawking radiation has never been experimentally verified.''
In my opinion: Hawking radiation (as appearances of virtual particles
from the event horizon of black hole / zero vacuum ) was experimentally
observed in many physical effects:
a)
Scientists create light from vacuum
November 17, 2011,
https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
b)
“ 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. “
/ Vacuum energy - Wikipedia /.
==============

[socratus]

"Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed.
Now they try to explain why they can't explain what was not observed.
And they're not even good at that."
/ Sabine Hossenfelder, /
nbcnews.com - Why some scientists say physics has gone off the rails
====

[socratus]

Beauty Is Truth, Truth Is Beauty, and Other Lies of Physics
/ by Sabine Hossenfelder , 15/JUL/2018 /
Who doesn’t like a pretty idea?
Physicists certainly do. In the foundations of physics, it has become
accepted practice to prefer hypotheses that are aesthetically pleasing.
Physicists believe that their motivations don’t matter because
hypotheses, after all, must be tested. But most of their beautiful ideas
are hard or impossible to test. And whenever an experiment comes
back empty-handed, physicists can amend their theories
to accommodate the null results.
https://thewire.in/the-sciences/beau...ies-of-physics
===

[socratus]

Beauty Is Truth, Truth Is Beauty, and Other Lies of Physics
/ by Sabine Hossenfelder , 15/JUL/2018 /
Who doesn’t like a pretty idea?
Physicists certainly do. In the foundations of physics, it has become
accepted practice to prefer hypotheses that are aesthetically pleasing.
Physicists believe that their motivations don’t matter because
hypotheses, after all, must be tested. But most of their beautiful ideas
are hard or impossible to test. And whenever an experiment comes
back empty-handed, physicists can amend their theories
to accommodate the null results.
https://thewire.in/the-sciences/beau...ies-of-physics
===

"beauty makes all beautiful things beautiful "
by beauty all things are beautiful
by largeness* things are longer than another
by shortness things are shorter than another
===

[socratus]

Beauty Is Truth, Truth Is Beauty, and Other Lies of Physics
/ by Sabine Hossenfelder , 15/JUL/2018 /
Who doesn’t like a pretty idea?
Physicists certainly do. In the foundations of physics, it has become
accepted practice to prefer hypotheses that are aesthetically pleasing.
Physicists believe that their motivations don’t matter because
hypotheses, after all, must be tested. But most of their beautiful ideas
are hard or impossible to test. And whenever an experiment comes
back empty-handed, physicists can amend their theories
to accommodate the null results.
https://thewire.in/the-sciences/beau...ies-of-physics
===

an argument to find truth in beauty :
a small circle whose circumference spins* around its center / axis
(according to Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck inner angular impulse: h* = h /2pi )
==============

[socratus]

"beauty makes all beautiful things beautiful "
by beauty all things are beautiful
by largeness* things are longer than another
by shortness things are shorter than another
===

Question;
What conditions must be to find the truth in beauty?
My answer.
The theory must be simple, clear, intelligible for usual common sense
(not only for professional mathematicians or physicists)
Question.
What is prevented this aim?
My answer.
The abstract thinking of professionals is prevented this aim:
they want to understand theory without to know the
geometrical forms of quantum players-particle
(string wouldn't behave like triangle and
triangle wouldn't behave like circle . . . .
and circle wouldn't behave like cube . . . . etc )
=======

[socratus]

Question;
What conditions must be to find the truth in beauty?
My answer.
The theory must be simple, clear, intelligible for usual common sense
(not only for professional mathematicians or physicists)
Question.
What is prevented this aim?
My answer.
The abstract thinking of professionals is prevented this aim:
they want to understand theory without to know the
geometrical forms of quantum players-particle
(string wouldn't behave like triangle and
triangle wouldn't behave like circle . . . .
and circle wouldn't behave like cube . . . . etc )
=======

What conditions must be to find the truth in beauty?
My answer
The theory must be simple, clear, intelligible for usual common sense
(not only for professional scientists)
Question
What is prevented this aim?
My answer
Everything exists in some Reference Frame
The conditions of RF determine structure and behavior of everything
Therefore Einstein and Infeld wrote:
“ We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body
of reference system they belong to, and all our physical
construction appears erected on sand ”
/ Book “Evolution of Physics” /
Nowadays scientific reference frame:
in beginning was ''Singular point'' that doesn't have framework
(neither time nor space)
Time and space were only appeared after ''Singular point's'' pregnancy
As result of this pregnancy all different quantum particles were born
that after 14 billion years of development created our visual universe

I reread this post:
isn't this nowadays explanation seems simple, clear and intelligible ?
Hmm?
======

[socratus]

Beauty, truth and ... physics?
/ Murray Gell-Mann at TED 2007 /
Armed with a sense of humor and laypeople's terms,
Nobel winner Murray Gell-Mann drops some knowledge
on TEDsters about particle physics, asking questions like,
Are elegant equations more likely to be right than inelegant ones?

https://www.ted.com/talks/murray_gel...uth_in_physics
============