The physical education.
The more I study the more I know.
The more I know the more ideas I have.
The more ideas I have the more they abstract.
The more they abstract the less I know the truth.
=====.
After reading some comments and ideas.
=====.
Some years ago I told with young physicist (!).
He said:” You cannot be physicist (!) if you cannot
understand the beauty of Minkowski mathematics.(!)
======.
It seems that he is right, because physicists must know
mathematics very well. The problem is that nobody
knows what is real physical meaning of “ 4-D negative
space continuum.” in the Nature. SRT is correct theory
but Minkowski space continuum is abstract. And together
they are paradoxical. More than 100 years we live with
this paradox. Nobody confuses.
==========.
During our conversation I understand that this young physicist
is strong and clever man and he want to reach success. And
I think he will do it. So, in the future he will create new
D/ M-spaces or new symmetries or discover new particles.
And one day he will be a professor and will teach new
generation ( your son or your daughter) in order that they also
have possibility to create new D/ M-spaces or new symmetries
or discover new particles.
If in the beginning the abstract ideas were put into the fundament
of physics then ……we can create new and new theories for
1000 years but the result will be the same - paradoxical.
Our small Orwell’s world.
=============…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
==========.
but without the abstract , for the most part , we can’t get the truth
patience
One camment.
==============.
SR is wrong theory. it is deductively inconsistent and so it is
empirically inconsistent.
Prof. Grynmore of CMU wrongly claimed that as Minkowsi metric theory
is consistent, SR is consistent. The truth is that Minkowski’s
theory has nothing to do with Einstein’s SR. Einstein was correct
when he protested that Minkowski made it impossible to understand
physics. The proper interval theorem of SR which maps Einsteinian SR
inot Minkowski’s theory is not one to one mapping. This means, we
cannot translate the prediction of Minkowski’s theory to Einstein’s
original SR.
The cruel fact is that Einstein’s theory is inconsistent and
Minkowski’s theory has nothing to do with physics. The latter is a
stupid mathematics too. All mathematicians with decent training knows
that functions and graph of functions are exactly the same. Minkowski
represented functions which formulate motions as graphs. This is what
4D is all about. It is a mathematical trivia and it is amusing to see
that relativists cult takes this as their big pride. Trivial
mathematics for trivial minds. It is totally stupid to assume that
one can get something revolutionary from this equivalent
representation of functions. This stupidity crystalises later when GR
was developed as maniforld of 4D Riemann space. They thought that
they made motion stationary by defining it as geodesic in the
maniforld over 4D Riemann space. These stupid people did not
understand a simple fact that when masses move, the geometric
distribution of masses change and thus geodesic cannot really
represent motion. Motion is dynamic even in the 4D. Then what is the
point of making origianl 3D space 1D time into 4D? it appears all
intellectual masterbation of relativists cult that they took 4D
nonsense so seriously. Never mind, think about economists for
example, they are working on many hundreds dimensional vector spaces.
So do engineers. Mathematics for physics is most simple minded.
Dr. Kanda
About " The third Newton’s law ".
One no imagine story about " The third Newton’s law “.
=========…
" The action is equal to counteraction.” was the great scientific discover.
In a wood it was spoken only about it.
Every animal suddenly became brave and run to the king Lion
Every animal cried to him: “strike me.” And as the animals begged
as the king began to beat. Many animals were wounded.
“It is not under the law”, the animals were indignant,
"Under the law the king must also be wound "
But Lion beat and he spits on their law.
All animals scientists worried and began to search why the law doesn’t work.
And when one old scientist Badger has found the answer.
He said:
" The law of action is equal to counteraction is true only in static situations .
But there, where the physical force works, the law is inactive ".
==============.
I am sure, you can now apply this Badger’s concept to many physics areas.
The first thing that strikes me is that the truth might just be abstract.
Next is the difference between “knowing” and “truth”.
Truth might not be about quantity.
I would revise the last line to read as follows: “The more abstract they get harder they are to understand”
I don’t think truth ever entered into the equation…
Not if what you are studying is false.
To every action there is NOT an equal and opposite reaction.
Why?
Because in QT " The third Newton’s law " must submit to
“ The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ”.
i must apologize for my continued criticism, but i would relpace the heisenberg uncertainty principle in this case with the possibility of god.
To every action there is NOT an equal and opposite reaction.
Why?
Between action and opposite reaction must go time.
The time can go with speed of light quanta c=1.
So " The third Newton’s law " in QT in quantum action
doesn’t work. Because if
“ to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
the structure and symmetry of space doesn’t change.
Generally nothing will be change in Universe.
And the creation of Nature and the creation of Life began
only when the symmetry of space and action were changed.
====================…
"The third Newton’s law " as right as “The first Newton’s law ".
=========.
From an article:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
===============.
If we want to understand Physics laws without abstractions
we need new interpretation.
Einstein : Science and Religion.
/ Book: “ Ideas and opinions by Albert Einstein”
Edited by Carl Seeling. 1996.
Part: About religion. /
Page 46.
“The situation may be expressed by an image:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict
between religion and science cannot exist “
Page 47.
“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres
of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God.”
Page 48
“ To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with
natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science,
for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which
scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.”
Page 48.
“…. , teachers of religion must have the stature to give up
the doctrine of a personal God,… “
“ After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated
they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been
ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.”
Page 49.
“ And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious
impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes
to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.”
/Source: Science, Philosophy and Religion.
A Symposium, published by the Conference on
Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their
Relation to the Democratic Way of Life,
Inc., New York, 1941./
====================….
‘ I believe because it is absurd. ‘
/ Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) /
=======…
‘I believe in Physics because it is absurd.’
Would you ever say such a thing to a modern man ?
I doubt it. Most of us would be asking God’s
forgiveness for even thinking it.
But.
=============…
The basis of the physics consists of:
1.
Abstract separated absolute space and time of Newton.
2.
Abstract ‘ideal gas’ and ‘ideal particles.’
3.
Abstract ‘black body.’
4.
Abstract SRT negative 4 - dimensional space,
abstract 5D, …….and 11 - dimensional spaces.
5.
Abstract ‘virtual particles’, ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’.
6.
Abstract ‘ inertial movement’.
7.
Abstract ‘big bang’.
8.
Abstract " method of renormalization".
9.
Etc.
=========…
And therefore we can read.
We don’t know what we are talking about"
/ Nobel laureate David Gross referring to the current state of string theory./
It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. ”
( Feynman. 1987)
When asked which interpretation of QM he favored,
Feynman replied: “Shut up and calculate.”
When I was first learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student
at Harvard, a mere 30 years after the birth of the subject.
“You’ll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted
by such frivolities,” they kept advising me, “so get back to serious
business and produce some results.”
“Shut up,” in other words, “and calculate.”
And so I did, and probably turned out much the better for it.
/ N. David Mermin /
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 .
“ Young man, in mathematics you don’t understand things,
you just get used to them.”
/ John von Neumann ./
Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection.
/ Richard Feynman./
" I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all
if we just apply working mathematical rules;
that’s not what the physicist should be satisfied with."
/Dirac /
In his 1997 book ” The End of Certainty” Nobel Laureate
Ilya Prigogine wrote:
“The more we know about our universe, the more difficult
it becomes to believe in determinism.”
And “ The quantum paradox is real nightmare for classic mind ”
In his book ” Quantum theory “ ( published in 2002 )
John Polkinghorne wrote:
“Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising,…”
Etc.
======================…
Conclusion from some article:
" One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality."
What is our intellect ?
We can see this practically :
after “ big bang “ all Galaxies run away from us.
============…
P.S.
Dark energy may be vacuum
eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 011607.php
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18 … everything
discovermagazine.com/topics/space
========================================…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
socratus.com
wbabin.net
wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf
============…
Physicists and Laws.
Physicists do not dictate to Nature their laws.
Laws of nature are reality, which exists independently
from the researcher. The Nature cannot be arranged so
strange, as the physicists think of it. Their thoughts
are so strange, that they offer paradoxical ideas.
Einstein wrote:
“ In the Science the man has freedom to solve
well made crossword. ”
In this crossword physicists don’t know what Light quanta,
Electron, Energy are.
“ It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. ” / Feynman. 1987/ . . . .
“The electron that can be told is not the true electron.”
/ David Harrison /
Etc.
And instead to understand what Light quanta, Electron,
Energy are, they try to add to the crossword of Universe
new cells (on horizontal and vertical ) and fill them with
new abstract models. This is reason that I wrote:
The more I study the more I know.
The more I know the more ideas I have.
The more ideas I have the more they abstract.
The more they abstract the less I know the truth.
And as a result conclusion from some article:
" One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality."
========= .
Again, I don’t think we have ever gripped truth. I don’t know if i would know what truth is if it bit me in the face.
This all seems a rather round about way of learning you know nothing
I like this very much. It may not be literally true - but it’s better than that - it resonates.
Thanks for posting it.
Education. . . ?
Mr. Scientist wrote to me:
Define rest moving and active moving.
They seem to me only illusions of our limited
experimental abilities?
[/quote]
====================.
Socratus.
Moving, energy . . .etc are part of physics.
Is physics as a science
“ illusions of our limited experimental abilities? “
Or the physics’ modern interpretation is
“ illusions of our limited experimental abilities? “
My speculation.
Everything began from Infinite Energetic Vacuum: T=0K.
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the Vacuum
(the Energetic Dirac Soup) and turned into particles.
The Materialistic World gets its finite being
from an Infinite Energetic Being – Vacuum: T=0K.
To understand this ‘speculation’ we must know:
- What is Vacuum: T=0K ?
- Which virtual particles can exist in Vacuum?
- How can virtual particles turn into real particles?
======== .
Until now the physicists ignore the Vacuum Energy T=0K
because it is the Zero Point Energy for our measuring devices.
Because the Absolute Zero Point Energy is border for our
measuring devices.
Can this fact be enough reason to stop our investigation?
==========…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
discovermagazine.com/topics/space
discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18 … everything
================ . .
Please, have patience and wait “when the next revolution rocks physics.”
==========…
What does ‘ Yahoo’ mean ?
============ ===.
Gulliver’s Travels.
Part:
Gulliver in the land of the Houyhnhnms.
/ Jonathan Swift./
One of the words that the two horses said several
times sounded like ‘Yahoo ‘ . ……….
I could not understand its meaning. ………
Then I understood.
‘ Yahoo’ was the beastly creature just like a man…….
The Yahoo’s hands, feet were like mine, …….
The Yahoo’s face was like mine, but …………
but . . . .Yahoo could not be taught ………………
============ ====…
It seems that the creators of yahoo. com/
were great jokers .
Or maybe they know how hard the people can be taught.
============ ======…
P.S.
Is the word ‘Yahoo’ similar to word ‘Google’ ?