Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.

After reading book ‘Albert Einstein’ by Leopold Infeld.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Infeld
========================.
Page 4.
‘ Many believe that relative theory tells us that ours
is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland universe; . . . .‘
‘ How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious relative
Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?’

I will try to give my brief remark about this situation.
1.
In the 19th century aether /ether was the term used to
describe a medium for the propagation of quantum of light
(electromagnetic waves ).
This aether had strange chracteristic.
On one hand it must be very thin, because the planets
move through it without resistence.
On the other hand it must be very hard, because quantum
of light is a transverse wave. And a transverse wave can
move only in a hard space. It was created many theories
to explain this paradox but without success.
2.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant in all
directions regardless of the motion of the source.
This experiment was interpreted as ’ether doesn’t exist’.
3.
In 1905, Albert Einstein resolved this paradox by revising the
Galilean model of space and time to account for the constancy
of the speed of light. Einstein formulated his ideas in his
special theory of relativity, which advanced humankind’s
understanding of space and time.
/ The special theory of relativity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
4.
In 1908 Herman Minkowski explained Einstein’s
idea using time as forth dimension and said:
‘ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve
an independent reality.’
=======================.

So, ‘ How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious
relative Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?’
My opinion.
On the page 5 Infeld wrote:
‘ Science is a rational structure; the greatest pleasure
in studying is that of understanding. Without it
knowledge means little.’

Very well. But if the ‘ Science is a rational structure’
then where is the Minkowski (-4D ) in nature, where
is the ‘only a kind of union of the two’ ?
Nobody knows where it is.
So, what is about a rational structure?
So, what is about a real structure, real nature?
I don’t mean to criticize.
I only cannot understand why the trick of changing
concept of ether on the concept of space-time was passed
without doubt, with glory and proud.
=====.
P.S.
Maybe the reason of (-4D) long live is it
mathematical beauty ?
Page 45.
‘Minkowski mathematical genius put Einstein’s ideas
into a new geometrical form that fully revealed their
beauty and simplicity.’

But is it correct to say, that these two parameters real enough
to explain and understand the real nature?
About 2500 years ago, according to Plato, Socrates said:
‘ I do not go so far as to insist upon the precise details;
only upon the fact that it is by Beauty that beautiful
things are beautiful.’

This is exactly that physicists are doing.
And as a result, going in such beautiful mathematical
way we have many paradoxes in physics.

Without the precise physical details, like: volume (V ),
temperature (T ) and density ( P) the Minkowski
beautiful and simple (-4D) is a pure mathematical game,
it is an abstraction.
=======.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============================.

2

The universe is a beautiful place, it is us who makes it ugly and daunting by mere association - why does man sully and taint everything he becomes aware of? :confused:

3

Possibly because we are tactile, curious beings. If there is a profit to be made, then that fuels that progressive point of investigation. It’s been happening that way for eons. Even the fictional characters in Star Trek with their ‘noble’ intent tainted the universe in several places.

4

Book ‘Albert Einstein’ by Leopold Infeld.
Page 4.
And out of this fantastic, relative world that Einstein
created there suddenly appeared the atomic bomb.
Page 36.
Its title is ‘Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy?’
This short paper states: the use of atomic energy is,
in principle, possible. Forty years later, the work
of many scientists showed that the use of atomic
energy is practicable as was demonstrated . . . . .
. . . in the New Mexican desert and the devastation
at Hiroshima.
=============.
So, on the one hand SRT is true theory.
But on the other hand its basis ( -4D) is abstract.
To tell half of truth is worse than pure lie.
When in SRT practical truth mixed with an abstract meaning
of (-4D) our logical thought sink as ‘ unsinkable Titanic’.
SRT, as a good mirror, shows us the real ugly understanding
the concept that we call ‘ Scientific Knowledge’.
But . . .but . . .
‘ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have.’
/ Einstein /
=============.

5

But it is us who makes it beautiful and welcoming by mere association.

6

===========.
It is clear that the many D and M were grown from a simple D.
1D and 2D is too simple.
The 3D- Descartes / Newtonian (our world) is seemed to be
the best absolute place for existence. But Einstein and
Minkowski came and said that we all were mistaken. They said
that the best absolute place for existence is ( -4D).
And what about the Riemannian space.
Does ( -4D) exist in Riemannian space or vice versa?

Again I read the page 116.
In the beginning was nothing.
It was: ‘ A world without masses, without electrons,
without an electromagnetic field is an empty world.’

And later: ‘masses appear, charged particles appear,
an electromagnetic field appears then our world
becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian,
that is, non- Euclidian.’
So, in beginning was (-4D).
From this ( -4D) masses appear, charged particles
appear and electromagnetic field appears too.

And then . . . . .and then . . . .
‘then our world becomes curved. Its geometry
is Riemannian, that is, non- Euclidian.’
So . . .!!
It becomes curved and curved and in the end was created
circle, circle of our Sun and our local planetary world ,
circle of our Earth and many circles of other stars and
planets.
!!
And who want to understand more must read pages

  • 64 – 65 - 66 - 67: the story about creatures who lives
    on a two- dimensional plane.
    ‘For them the two- dimensional plane will be
    what three- dimensional space for us’
    / Page 64./
    ‘ This story is not as fantastic as it sounds. Indeed, some
    of its features remind us of the story of our earth and how
    its spherical shape was recognized.’
    / Page 65. /
    It is a pity and funny story.
    But this story doesn’t finish.
    In the XXI century we still doesn’t recognize that
    Riemannian curved geometry shows us the scheme
    of creation of our local Sun - spherical shape.
    Once again.
    There is empty space. And ‘if masses appear, if charged
    particles appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then
    our world becomes curved.’
    They appear not as one whole substance.
    They appear as separated local very rare mass.
    Between them is an empty space.
    / Astronomers Find a Hole in the Universe
    liveleak.com/view?i=0fb_1188365505 /
    So, the Riemannian space cannot belong to the Universe
    as whole. The Riemannian space can be only local.

In my opinion, we are creatures who climbed out to the
two- dimensional cosmos space and saw the Riemannian
curved line of light. We cannot understand that this
curved line is only a small part of a circle, which surrounds
the local gravity space of our Sun and shows us its limit.
And therefore from 1919 the discussions about ‘open’ and
‘closed’ Universe doesn’t stop until now.

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============================.

7

Sure… one could look at it that way, but I see the reverse/my version, perhaps because we seem to always be going against the planet in our quest to make it a more… comfortable place for us to rest our heads.

8

The beginning: where is it ?
===.
The beginning of Universe can be:
‘ big bang’ , ‘closed- gravity’ or ‘open - empty’.

First question:
Where did the mass for ‘ big bang’ come from?
Second question:
Where did the mass for ‘closed- gravity’ come from?
It is clear that these two questions lead to the third question:
How can the real mass appear from ‘open - empty’ space?

In my opinion to answer to this question we need to analyze
three theories: QT, SRT and Theory of Ideal gas.
1
Ideal gas.
100% of physicists believe that Theory of Ideal gas is an
abstract theory with abstract – virtual particles.
And then something happens there
( a temperature or volume or pressure changes maybe by
god’s interference) and it becomes real physical gas with
real particles.

I don’t believe in their opinion, I don’t believe in their god.
I believe in science and therefore I say that only QT and SRT
can explain the changes in the Ideal gas.
Only QT and SRT can explain how the virtual world of Ideal gas
becomes real one.
2
QT.
Dirac’s quantum theory says that a ‘open - empty’ space-

  • vacuum is not empty at all - virtual particles exist there.
    But Dirac didn’t give us the physical parameters of this
    ‘open - empty’ vacuum space.
    This its weak point .
    3
    SRT.
    The basis of SRT is an abstract ( -4D).
    This its weak point.

In my opinion, if instead of ( -4D) and Dirac’s space
we take the physical laws and parameters of Ideal gas -

  • all abstractions disappear and the real
    picture of Universe will appear in front of us.
    =============.
    All the best.
    Israel Sadovnik Socratus
    ==============================.
9

How a wave and particle can coexist?
==.
From Huygens / Newton’s time the light from the
one hand is wave and from the other hand is particle.
‘ But what is light really?
Is it a wave or a shower of photons? ‘
/ N. Bohr /
How to understand this coexistence?

The wave of air consists of air - particles.
The wave of water consists of water- particles.
The electric wave must consist of . . electrons.
The light wave must consist of light- particles.

So, to understand the wave phenomena we must
examine its single particle. What is a single
quantum of light? We don’t know.

Let us say that quantum of light is an abstract particle
and then put it into another abstraction ‘ Ideal gas’,
which has only one physical condition: T= 0K.

What is possible to say about this abstract picture?
=======.
S.
==========.

“The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory
starts from a paradox.” / Heisenberg,
Physics and Philosophy, pg. 44./

upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralI … Copen.html

10

Let us say that quantum of light is an abstract particle
and then put it into another abstraction ‘ Ideal gas’,
which has only one physical condition: T= 0K.

Now we will test it with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
principle. What is possible to say about this picture?

We see that the abstract particle becomes real alive particle.
The dead person was reborn again.
Is it mysticism?
I don’t know.
I only know that according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle and the ‘ method of renormalization‘ the Universe
begins to show itself.
==========.
Israel Socratus.

11

Where are the First Laws of Existence?

Socratus, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Above I explained that the quantum of light is not abstract.
Plus the ‘ideal gas’ is not a quantum thing.
It is a classical concept, and therefore doesn’t work well with QT.
/Bill Gill /
=====.

Bill Gill expressed the common opinion that :
Light is not abstract.
The ‘ideal gas’ is not a quantum thing. It is a classical
concept, and therefore doesn’t work well with QT.

My dilettanti opinion.

ABC introduction.
Every phenomena has its own reference frame.
Every particle has its own reference frame.
For example.
To study the behaviour of whale we need ocean.
To study the behaviour of elephant we need savanna.
To study a Higg’s boson we need vacuum system.
Etc.
It is impossible to understand process without reference frame.
Research is impossible without reference frame
Physics without a reference frame is abstract and
paradoxical doctrine.
Questions:
1.
Why does Dirac’s sea ( as a reference frame) have not
physical parameters?
2
Why does Minkowski space (-4D as a reference frame)
have not physical parameters?
3.
QT and SRT are two fundamental theories in physics.
We don’t know their reference frame and we don’t trouble
very much.
========.

I say the ’ Ideal gas’ is reference frame for QT and SRT.
Why I say so?
1.
Minkowski space (-4D) is negative space and
’ Ideal gas’ has negative parameter: T=0K.
2.
Many negative particles exist in Dirac’s sea / vacuum.
It is possible if Dirac’s sea / vacuum itself is negative system.
Therefore the negative ’ Ideal gas’ belongs to QT too.
Therefore all laws of ’ Ideal gas’ belongs to QT, SRT and QED.

Task.
We have: Pseudo - Euclidian space with ’ Ideal gas T=0K’
with ‘ ideal –virtual Dirac particles’ and with ‘ ideal laws’.

Needs to find:
The first laws of Existence.
===========================.
Israel Socratus.

12

Seems you take things extremely litteraly.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, through emotion and group think we can manipulate people’s preception of things, to become hysterical, phobic …etc.