-
OK, it's on.
Objections, please.
- Thread starter s0cratus
- Start date
s0cratus
Banned
- Local time
- Today 9:08 PM
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2012
- Messages
- 366
I want to say that on the one hand we have pure energy
of quantum of light: E= h*f.
On the other hand we have matter –
the beginning state of matter - : E= kT.
Later from this beginning state of matter all different atoms
were created and physicists began to study electromagnetic
and nuclear interactions
(as interaction between light / electron and matter).
==.
of quantum of light: E= h*f.
On the other hand we have matter –
the beginning state of matter - : E= kT.
Later from this beginning state of matter all different atoms
were created and physicists began to study electromagnetic
and nuclear interactions
(as interaction between light / electron and matter).
==.
s0cratus
Banned
- Local time
- Today 9:08 PM
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2012
- Messages
- 366
Book:
QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matte'.
'' The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature
as absurd from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd.''
/ page. 10. by R. Feynman /
==.
If Feynman is correct then I can say:
The interaction between light and matter ( in all parts of physics ?! )
we accept as absurd from our philosophical ( logical ) point of view.
Then to understand Nature we need to reconsider our
'' philosophy of physics ''.
Where was the mistake made ?
Where did we lose the true path ?
In my opinion, we ignore the absolute zero of vacuum and therefore
Feynman was correct writing that from the point of view of common
sense we accept Nature as absurd.
==.
QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matte'.
'' The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature
as absurd from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd.''
/ page. 10. by R. Feynman /
==.
If Feynman is correct then I can say:
The interaction between light and matter ( in all parts of physics ?! )
we accept as absurd from our philosophical ( logical ) point of view.
Then to understand Nature we need to reconsider our
'' philosophy of physics ''.
Where was the mistake made ?
Where did we lose the true path ?
In my opinion, we ignore the absolute zero of vacuum and therefore
Feynman was correct writing that from the point of view of common
sense we accept Nature as absurd.
==.
s0cratus
Banned
- Local time
- Today 9:08 PM
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2012
- Messages
- 366
About absolute zero of vacuum.
===..
The common today's opinion
Book :
Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
'‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’'
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
Others opinions.
#
" 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 ./
#
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!
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedwardt_Winterberg
#
Wikipedia :
“ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well defined,
resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of space,
how can we characterize either ? “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
said Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
#
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
#
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned into
particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.
/ University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb./
#
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.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
==.
And in spate of these opinions we still don't know what vacuum is
because we don't want to accept kingdom of T=0K as a real fact of nature,
as a real parallel world of another kind of existence .
The common today's opinion is triumphed:
'' temperatures below absolute zero simple have no meaning.’'
=.
===..
The common today's opinion
Book :
Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
'‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’'
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
Others opinions.
#
" 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 ./
#
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!
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedwardt_Winterberg
#
Wikipedia :
“ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well defined,
resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of space,
how can we characterize either ? “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
said Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
#
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
#
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned into
particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.
/ University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb./
#
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.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
==.
And in spate of these opinions we still don't know what vacuum is
because we don't want to accept kingdom of T=0K as a real fact of nature,
as a real parallel world of another kind of existence .
The common today's opinion is triumphed:
'' temperatures below absolute zero simple have no meaning.’'
=.