SRT: The Essence.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by socratus »

Cerveny wrote:
socratus wrote:
Cerveny wrote: In the beginning was only another (odd caused) phase - the "future".(
Before you was born, your "future" was in your mother’s thoughts.
Before universe was created, its "future" was in God’s mind.
I do not have serious problem with the God :)
I tend to relate the "future" to the Platonic world – the world of Ideas :)
I can only agree with you.
Question:
Can modern physics explain Platonic’s 'ideas',
Kant’s ‘ thing in itself ‘, Leibniz’s ‘monads’ . . . .etc
using physical laws, formulas, equations?
====.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by Cerveny »

From this point of view is interesting to study the point of "now". If we conceive the future as reasonless, uncaused God's empire of ideas, of forms, of structures, of possibilities as a "father" and if we conceive the history as a matter, as a material, as a potential, as a unformed mass yet, as a "mother" then the point of now is a process of fructification, process of mixing the energy with form, rather uncertain (quantum) process, where Universe is growing. I believe the (complex) energy has pure imaginary moment - the information (it is by own way related to the idea) that can flow from the future and support the present life...
Of course I am aware that speculations are related to the topic very freely :)
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by socratus »

The discovery of the electron spin
/ S.A. Goudsmit /

And that was it: the spin; thus is was discovered, in that manner.
Of course we told Ehrenfest about it and then summer was over
and I went again to Amsterdam and various episodes followed.
Naturally, I found it wonderful, because in the formalism which
I knew it fitted perfectly. And the rigorous physics behind it
I did not fathom. But Uhlenbeck, being a good physicist, started
to think about it. ...... "A charge that rotates"......? He claims that he
then went to Lorentz and that Lorentz replied: "Yes, that is very
difficult because it causes the self energy of the electron to be wrong".

And Uhlenbeck also tells you that ........
We had just written a short article in German and given to
Ehrenfest, who wanted to send it to "Naturwissenschaften".
Now it is being told that Uhlenbeck got frightened, went to
Ehrenfest and said:
"Don't send it off, because it probably is wrong;
it is impossible,
one cannot have an electron that rotates at such high speed and
has the right moment". And Ehrenfest replied:
"It is too late, I have sent it off already".
But I do not remember the event, I never had the idea that is was
wrong because I did not know enough. The one thing I remember
is that Ehrenfest said to me:
"Well, that is a nice idea, though it may be wrong.
But you don't yet have a reputation, so you have nothing to lose".
That is the only thing I remember.
http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/histor ... dsmit.html
======================…
“ . . . . . it is impossible,
one cannot have an electron that rotates at such high speed
and has the right moment".
/ S.A. Goudsmit /
==.
1.
Do we have another way to explain the high speed of rotation
( frequency) of elementary particles?
2.
And if it is possible (!) . . . because it ‘has the right moment’ . . .
then . . . the constant speed c=1 of quantum of light is minimal.
And we have theory . . . theory of ‘ Tachyon.’
===.
S.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by Cerveny »

socratus wrote:...
1.
Do we have another way to explain the high speed of rotation
( frequency) of elementary particles?
2.
And if it is possible (!) . . . because it ‘has the right moment’ . . .
then . . . the constant speed c=1 of quantum of light is minimal.
And we have theory . . . theory of ‘ Tachyon.’
S.
Because of the "spin" property can take only two values, it is clear that in case of a "rotation of electric charge" it must be a rotation around the axis parallel with the time direction. This direction is orthogonal to every (space) directions. And there is the difficulty: such motion has not been descript by any classical (Maxwell) law/equation so far :( Dirac guessed its quantum solution ):
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12259
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by Arising_uk »

Cerveny wrote:...I am afraid the structure/space defects can be much more complicated (even combination of them) :(
bergerslarge.gif
The growing of "Universe" surface with a screw dislocations with Burgers vector parallel to the time axis can be conceived as particle with the spin motion… for example :)
Fig1A_ResearchPage.jpg
How so? If you have a mathematical description for it then I guess there'll be a computational model to describe it? Although I accept that at present we have no such models in the automata field but the Game of Life hints that very complicated self-sustaining patterns can arise from simplistic rules. So why could what we 'see' not be the patterns produced by a multi-dimensional 'computer'? I.e. we are a simulation(emulation?) running upon 4-D hardware that is implemented in 'planck-bits'?
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by Cerveny »

Simple 3-D structural defects are well known and descript.
http://www.google.com/search?q=crystal+defects
Worse it is with their combinations :(
But structural defects in 4-D (our space is a growing surface of 4-D Universe body) has not been fully descript yet.
Certainly many of them can be the similar. But there can be new ones...
As we can not model screw dislocation in 2-D structure as well there can appear a new types of defects in 4-D :(
http://www.google.com/search?q=screw+dislocation
The algebra of 4-D space defects = (new) elementary particle model :)
The stability and density of particular defects depend on temperature, on the structure waving and structure stress (physical fields).
So in early epochs of Universe the behavior of elementary particle must differ from present ones.
Last edited by Cerveny on Tue May 17, 2011 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by socratus »

socratus wrote:1.
Do we have another way to explain the high speed of rotation
( frequency) of elementary particles?
One impressive.......explanation by Mr. ‘James S Saint’
#
Well, typical presumptions of that era. Lorentz was wrong.
Lorentz, no doubt, was thinking in terms of a mass rotating and
having a momentum factor. Why wouldn't he?
Well, he shouldn't because the effect of mass is not within
the particle, but emitted by the particle.
A similar argument could be, and was, made concerning the atom.
How could an electron be orbiting and not emitting radiant energy?
Science actually gave up and skipped over that one and just accepted
the idea of quantumization as a fundamental principle without
per se cause. Actually quantizing occurs for an exact and predictable
reason and is not merely a fundamental force, but an aberrant effect.

The spin of particles is similar. It implies that there should be energy
involved and even lost, but in reality, it doesn't work like that.
The mass is not what spins, but merely the particle.
There is no momentum involved.
The mass is the resultant effect of the particle's spinning.
But don't try to correlate a spin to mass, because what is measured
as "spin", not spinning. It is the magnetic moment of a particle
that is spinning that is measured. A particle can have no measurable
"spin", magnetic moment, yet have the same mass as any other,
because the spinning that is within, isn't polarized such as to yield
an identifiable moment.

Actually, a better way to think of it is;
A particle is spinning and tumbling energy that produces mass.
It is not a spinning and tumbling mass that produces energy.
The precise manner it tumbles is what determines its "spin" type.
/ James S Saint /
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by Cerveny »

socratus wrote:
socratus wrote: ...
Well, he shouldn't because the effect of mass is not within
the particle, but emitted by the particle.
...
/ James S Saint /
Exactly, mass is not primary property of particle, it is its influence to the surround.
Again very simple example: two vacancies tend to be attracted and two interstitials tend to be repulsed
def.gif
Or: two parallel whirls are attracted and two antiparallel whirls are repulsed

BTW the "spin" phenomenon has the same "motor" as inertial motion has - it is universal motion of the "presence" to the "future" - m*c^2 ~ kinetic energy of this motion... Spin is whirl by which is "particle"/defect replicated, flows to the future :)
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by socratus »

Do we have another way to explain the high speed of rotation
( frequency) of elementary particles?
S.
==========.
Another impressive explanation by Mr. ‘john heath ‘
#
Nice bit of history .
It is always good to know how ideas evolved .
As to electron spin there is a addition variable that should be considered .
If a magnetic field is set up electrons can be separated into up and down spin .
If only up spin electron are separated then put through a addition magnet field
at 90 degrees to the first field the the up electrons will separate into a 50 / 50 mix
of up and down electrons . You see the problem . If only up electrons can separate
into up and down electron then the spin is not a property of the electron .
The spin property of a electron is imposed on it by the environment .
Some what like a tennis ball skimming off the side of a wall picking up a spin .
/ john heath /
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by Cerveny »

The key problem of the physic is an understanding of the "time" dimension/phenomena and understanding of related phenomena - the "inertia" and the "spin". There must be some hidden "motor", perhaps some Universal motion behind...
Another problem is the structure of the space of course, the cases of its elastic polarization...
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by socratus »

Cerveny wrote:The key problem of the physic is an understanding of the "time"
dimension/phenomena and understanding of related phenomena -
the "inertia" and the "spin".
There must be some hidden "motor",
perhaps some Universal motion behind...
Another problem is the structure of the space of course,
the cases of its elastic polarization...
The key of problem is:
‘ Thing-in-itself ‘ has organic structure.
/ Fritjof Kapra's. ' The Tao of Physics' /
And this idea is hard to adopt in our modern life.
==.
Banno
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:23 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by Banno »

This thread cannot be one of PN's proudest moments, I hope. Confused and convolute.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12259
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by Arising_uk »

Explain it then?

We also, I guess, don't much judge what others are saying if they appear to understand each other and we don't?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3353
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: SRT: The Essence.

Post by HexHammer »

socratus wrote:SRT: The Essence.
1.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
This postulate has no conception of acceleration.
2.
The other postulate says: every speed, even the
speed of quantum of light in a vacuum is relative.
It means it has acceleration and this acceleration
is hidden in Lorentz transformations.
#
It means that quantum of light in a vacuum can have
two kinds of motions: constant and relative. And the
SRT explains only the behavior of Quantum of Light !
#
Only quantum of light has a constant speed (c=1).
All another bodies and particles cannot reach this speed.
Quantum of light and all another particles are two
incompatibles quantities of quality. And we know from
school that two incompatibles quantities cannot be
compared. And therefore the SRT is a special theory
only for the Quantum of Light.
#
It is our stupid prejudice that instead to understand
what Quantum of light is and how it interacts with
another particles we try to compare them.
=.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=====================.
I would be very careful to put things in stone, now and then we know our science books are rewritten. Just see how Einstein rewrote much of our understanding of gravity and time ..etc, how Hawkings predicted the radiation from Black Holes, thus the Hawking's Radiation.
Infact we have so little understanding that we can only account for 1/10 of a galaxy's ability to stay together.
Post Reply