Clearly, we need to learn how to harness the powers of the vacuum with our electronmagnetic consciousness. Then, and only then, will we be able to truely create a better world of light to despell the darkness that still flows upon the face of the earth. We shall finally reach the Atalantean level of civilization, though even this enlightened state does not prevent one of us or a few of us from destroying it all. The free energy of light shall lead us to explore new regions of space when we harness the energy from the faster than light electrons and tap the void, which has infinite energy. Yes, the light is going to lead us into a blessed state of existence.
We live in modern scientific world and I think
the science will purify the religion of the “dross”.
I think the science will prove the truth
of the religion’s base.
===========…
Speaking scientifically :
What are " The darkness and the light." ?
…
The darkness is the Vacuum: T=0K.
The light is the Light Quanta.
=========================…
Now we are in a “special kind of intelligence
is variably called schizophrenia. "
What is the reason of this illness?
The reason is hidden in abstract thinking about :
abstract ideal gas, abstract black body,
abstract inertial systems, abstract virtual particles,
abstract zoo of antiparticles, abstract
Schrödinger’s cat in a dark matter ,
abstract 4D, 5D, 11D, 27D , and etc…
Is there a medicine for this illness?
Of course.
On the one recipe is written " Vacuum: T=0K”,
On the other recipe is written " Light quanta".
If we don’t take this medicine our human society
will remain in the state of “schizophrenia”. Save us God.
=========…
The secret of words ‘God’, 'soul ', ‘religion’, ‘ Existence’,
‘dualism of consciousness’, ‘human being’ is hidden
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.
=================…
I am unimpressed with Dirac’s opinions in light of up to the moment quantum theory, even ‘classic’ physics. My comment on vacuum as not being known to exist remains valid. Dirac will have to produce an example, or evidence of a ‘vacuum’ or lose all credibility in the comment that you quoted.
The non-concept of ‘infinite’ requires the same ‘religious belief’ as his ‘vacuum’. Pffft!
Fantasy! Show me some! Not conceived, not perceived = not existing! It is a hypothetical mental invention created to support false premises that are dearly believed. You recite this stuff as ‘fact’ and yet there is much debate and discussion (many Perspectives) in the science ‘community’ about just about every major concept. There are no absolute ‘facts’.
This seems right on the money!
Though he does sound confused in saying that; “Antiparticles live in Vacuum/ Ether sea.” and now saying that the term ‘vacuum’ is a nonsensical and meaningless term. Why would he use it in such a definitive statement and then admit that it is meaningless. He also exhibits the poor thinking of saying that even though he has no concept of the meaning of “the vacuum”, yet he assumes that it is/would be ‘simple’ compared to his “something more complex”. His logic appears poor. It seems like an unfounded assumption. Another one…
After reading your immediately above post, I realize that I must truncate our conversation on this subject. I’m not trying to make you think something, or accept or ‘believe’ anything, just sharing my perspective on the subject. Just offering food for thought. If these words have any meaning for you, fine. If not, fine. There is no argument.
Peace
Tell me one of you know what you’re talking about when it comes to physics. Otherwise, I’d be very sad. I definitely know one does not have a clue and is wooish.
“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./
"You might, perhaps, read up on this stuff (if you are really interested) and come to your own understandings. If I was god Itself offering these words, I’d hope that you examine them, critically, and if found to make sense, to add the words/concepts to your data set for further thought. That is why I offer no personal info. Celebrity endorsement is a cognitive fallacy and even, on the other hand, a blind hog finds an occassional acorn! *__-
Besides, EVERYONE ‘thinks’ that they ‘know’ what they are talking about… It’s up to ‘you’ to figure it out."
/nameless./
Light quanta and its life.
1.
The movement of light quanta does not depend of a source.
So, thinking about light quanta we can forget about a " source" .
It means that light quanta is an independent particle.
2.
When light quanta in the state of a rest its speed is c=0
and its impulse is h=0.
The time is frozen, and its own clock shows zero.
We call it “antiparticle”.
2.
When light quanta moves with constant speed c=1
its impulse is h=1.
The time is also frozen, and its own clock still shows zero.
We call it “photon”.
3.
When photon moves with speed c>1 and its impulse
(spin) is h=h/2pi the zero time changes and limited time appears.
In this situation we know light quanta as “electron”.
Light quanta works as electron. SRT explains this process.
4.
When electron emits from an atom and interacts with Vacuum
all its parameters changes. Its limited time ended and its own
clock again shows zero. We again can call it as a " photon"
or “antiparticle”. Now it lives in infinite/ eternal Vacuum
until new incarnation, until its new work maybe in an atom
(molecule), or in a cell, maybe in a blade of grass or in a tree,
maybe in an animal or in a person.
5.
If you doubt in my rightness, ask yourself :
What does " The Law of conservation and transformation
of energy" mean according to one single Light quanta/Electron?
====================…
^^^ Wow! Did this all come from your own head? I’d give a dollar for a 5 min ride in there… Your first stanza is so fraught with cognitive error, that I did little more than scan the rest…
A short tutorial (offered completely nonjudgementally and friendly);
I’m willing to accept your perspective of the premise that the ‘movement’ (there is no such thing as ‘movement’) of a photon is (or might not be) is unrelated to a source. Though that is akin to saying that the movement of a bullet is independent of the gun and casing and powder and ‘forces’ that fired it, and gravity, and wind speed and direction and humidity… but, moving on…
Really choose to ‘close one eye’, eh? It fails logic because you make an unsupported declarative statement that you ‘really want’ us to accept, that ‘movement’ of photons, for some reason, “does not depend on a source” (on power of your say-so) and then tell me that since you say so that i should ‘forget’ about thinking about any ‘source’ because you said so. Are you waving your hands and trying to give me some sort of hypnotic programming? A ‘virus’??? “Forget about 9/10ths of the picture (waves hands) and just look here! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…”
You declared it in the first line. You seconded your first statement in the second line, and finally declare “so there!”. Actually you claimed, first, that the ‘movement’ does not depend on a source. Now you claim the particle itself is independent of a ‘source’ or anything else. This does not follow from that.
Somehow I am reminded of the evolutionist ‘joke’ that debate with a (ID) fundamentalist is “like playing chess with a pigeon. He’ll knock over the pieces, poop all over the board and return to the flock claiming victory!”
The apparent ‘sarcasm’ was merely to highlight a point, a bit of drama… Nothing personal and please, there is no personal ‘attack’ (I know how people ‘identify’ with these things…), just a short lesson in rational, logical and critical thought.
Peace
(Even in a ‘black hole’?)
Now, thats a bit more ‘accurate and precise’ statement. It’s a start, anyway.
If the speed ‘appears’ to be constant to the observer (in a (hypothetical) vacuum, whatever that is), no matter his motion, doesnt that indicate that that photon is ‘in the observer’, rather than ‘external’?
Is there a reason that you avoid the more common term ‘photon’?
==================================================
1.
a ‘black hole’?..
…it is a song from another opera.
2.
If the speed ‘appears’ to be constant to the observer (in a (hypothetical) vacuum, whatever that is), no matter his motion, doesnt that indicate that that photon is ‘in the observer’, rather than ‘external’?
This fantasy you solve by yourself.
===============…
P.S.
A. Einstein warned:
"we have not proven that the Aether doesn’t exist,
we have merely proven we do not need it (for calculations).”
^^^ Socratus, would you consider the ‘source’ irrelevent when considering the ‘direction’ of the photons in the beam? Hmmmmm? *__- Now, there’s a ‘fantasy’ for you to enjoy.
And the point of my post wasn’t to niggle minutia, it was to point out and offer a ‘constructive critique’ of your erroneous mentation. Never mind… Peace
The parrots repeat the rubbish of conventional Physics.
a)
the electron must obey the law of conservation of charge,
so it cannot “change into a photon”.
b)
Positron is not a “state” of electron, but an independent
particle having all parameters identical with electron
with exception of the charge: +1 of positron, opposed
to -1 of electron.
c)
Electron NEVER TURNS to photon. Upon a collision, electron
and positron annihilate one another and their mass is
converted to two photons gamma.
d)
etc…
=================…
When electron interact with Vacuum all its parameters
become infinite.( also its charge.) / QED. /
This" infinite parameters" are forbidden by
" The Law of conservation and transformation of energy".
Question:
What does happen with electron?
=============================.
Mr. B. wrote:
If you are looking for support, at most you will find paranoid
and/or confused individuals who want to take shelter in your
us-vs.-them state of mind.
Who is who?
=================…
1.
The speed of Light quantum is constant: c=1,
no matter how the source or the observer moves.
/ Michelson’s experiment. 1881. SRT. 1905. /
2.
But … … in every book and textbook is written that
there isn’t absolute speed. For example in the book
“ Relative theory- actual” by Prof. Ernst Schmutzer.
Part 3.2.2.page 122. and
Part 3.2.4. page 130.
Another book “Relativity for the layman”
By James A. Coleman.
Part 3 pages 47 -48
Another book “The materialistic essence of Einstein’s
Relative theory” by Mostepanenko M. B.
Page 37.
Another book “ Einstein and development of physical/
mathematical thought.” by Science Academy of
USSR. Article “ Physics and Relative theory”
by M. Born. On the pages 74 and 81.
And article “ Relative theory and some questions
about the optic of moving bodies” by Francfurt U. I.
and Frenk A.M. Page 224: “ Relative theory
doesn’t know absolute moving”.
etc….
3.
From the school days I cannot understand how
it is possible to say that the speed of photon is
absolute constant c=1 and in the same time to say :
“ All motion is relative (hence ,the theory of relativity).
We can never speak of absolute motion as such,……”
…etc.
Maybe somebody can explain me this paradox.
==========…
It is very difficult to prove the correctness
in our Orwell’s mad house.
Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
--------------------.
The Classic Physics was started from two points:
thermodynamics and light.
1.
By studying the effect of thermodynamics, physicists came to the
opinion that the physical parameters like volume, temperature and
density (of particles mass) are enough to discover the laws of
thermodynamics, and they didn’t need to know something
concrete about single particle. But then, soon or later, all mass of this
particles will stop it’s moving and the thermal/ radiation death
will come. Is it possible? No, it isn’t , some particles will radiate
and then QT evolved from this idea. Now the situation radically change.
From studying mass of particles in thermodynamics Planck and Einstein
began to study one individual particle (quantum of energy). It seams that
it was logical to think about geometrical form of this particle, but this
did not happen. And still now physicists do not think about concrete
particles, they are concerned about the “mathematical point”.
2.
When physicists studied the behavior of light, they came to the
conclusion that light ( light quanta) can sometime be a particle as a
“ mathematical point” and sometime a wave as a “ mathematical
wave". From behavior of light the SRT was born and here the particle
is also “ mathematical point”. It is hard to understand, why nobody think
about geometrical form of light quanta if it is real particle.
3.
For many years, physicists used Euclidian (static and firm ) geometry
for solving physical problems, and they thought there was only one geometry.
But Lobachevsky and Bolyai had another opinion.
They thought that to use only Euclidian geometry was not enough to
explain all the effects in the Universe. Why, because our Universe is not
static and firm. The physical processes in Universe change all the time
so the Euclidian geometry also has to change. This lead Lobachevsky and
Bolyai to discover Non-Euclidian geometry which is not static but elastic.
4.
Between the XIX and XX century, many physicists such Abraham,
Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein came to the conclusion that the particle
(electron) does not have constant mass, energy and length. This means
that an electron is not a firm particle. The electron is an elastic particle
and therefore his geometrical form can change. All physicists know about
this fact and took this fact in their calculations. But which conclusion can
be done from this fact? They have no answer. Nobody interested about
the borders of this changes.
5.
In 1915 Einstein said the mass and speed (moving mass) can change the
geometry of space. (GRT). It means the physics without geometry is a
limited part of science. It means the physics without geometry is not
complete (whole) part of science.
6.
The situation we see today is similar to the years between 1900 and
1928 when QT was created. Nothing changes.
Mathematicians use Non- Euclidian geometry and they do not know
the power of these changes from Euclidian to Non-Euclidian geometry.
They do not interested how these changes came.
And physicists use forces (energy, impulse, …etc) without know
anything about geometrical changes of particles. They do not think about
this. For them the particle is only represented by a “mathematical point”.
After all, they say the situation in QT is crazy, the Nature is paradoxical.
I know why they say this, because one hand “physical” doesn’t know that
the other hand “geometrical” does.
7.
Can we understand our “ paradoxical” world?
The answer is clear. In the Natural world, physics and geometry
are one unit part in the evolutionary process, and this fact must be
reflected in any future theory of the evolution of matter (as a mass
an as a individual particle).
8.
There are two ways to reflect this process.
One way explained by Einstein in GRT as a man who observed
the situation from outside.
Another way can be explained by Lobachevsky / Bolyai geometry
using it in conjunction with the inner (!) impulse of Planck-Einstein (h)
and the inner (!) impulse of Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck (h=h/2pi)…
Questions:
Where does the Planck/Einstein factor h come from?
Where does the Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck factor h=h/2pi come from?
What is the physical difference between h and h=h/2pi in the Nature.
Can the process of evolution go without geometrical changes?
Without the physical/ geometrical theory we cannot answer these questions.
-----------------------.
The Natural world is not a “mathematical point”.
Even the smallest object must have a geometrical form.
And on my opinion, only when we begin to think about light quanta as
a particle with a geometrical form we come from image to reality.
===================…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik /Socratus,
