- Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
1.
In beginning was Vacuum an Infinite / Eternal continuum.
2.
Vacuum is not Empty space.
‘ Virtual particles’, ‘ dark matter’ and ‘zoo of elementary particles’
exist in the Vacuum.
3.
Now (!) the physicists think (!) that the Universe as whole has
temperature: T= 2,7K . The parameter T=2,7K is not constant.
It is temporal and goes down. In the future it will come to T= 0K.
4.
The simplest question: Which geometrical form can have
the ‘ virtual particles’, ‘ the particles of dark matter’ ,
the ‘ zoo of elementary particles’ in reference frame
T= 2,7K - –--> T= 0K ?
The answer is: ‘ They must be flat particles.’
Why?
Because according to Charle’s law and the consequence of the
third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
approaches zero too. It means the particles must have flat forms.
They must have geometrical form of a circle: pi= c /d =3,14 . . . . .
====.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========================…
Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
Socratus, I personally have problem with Infinite and Eternal vacuum. Why do you suppose it? By my, perhaps wrong, opinion vacuum - physical space (in present form) appeared before certain time.socratus wrote:- Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
1.
In beginning was Vacuum an Infinite / Eternal continuum.
2.
Vacuum is not Empty space.
‘ Virtual particles’, ‘ dark matter’ and ‘zoo of elementary particles’
exist in the Vacuum.
...
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========================…
Next, by my opinion the empty (physical) space has a regular structure. I assume it due to a small, fixed spectrum of basic elementary particles. I do not believe in virtual, zoo particles, there is no reason for it - people consider it only for QM admits it... but I think the physical reality tends to be smooth..
By my mean, the number of elements of physical space (in "irreducible" representation) is limited, but permanently grows... Nevertheless we can recognize unlimited number of "complex" elements (exotic elementary particles) that can be construct, "composed" of limited number of irreducible elements by many ways - these consideration is related with (your) unlimited number of parameters ....
It is the matter of discussion of these topics to be better clear up , of course
Last edited by Cerveny on Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
There are not any virtual particles in vacuum. Let’s suppose they exist. In this case vacuum must have led electric current and common matter exposed by vacuum (by its "virtual particles") must have been attacked, corroded by its "antimatter" part. The fact that certain expression admits some (mainly divergent) solution in any case does not mean that such solution have a real existence. The relations uncertainty describe only that the measurement of position influences the motion of particle and the opposite, measurement of speed (of inertia moment) influences the position of particle. Next, the relations uncertainty describe "the shorter time we have the less accuracy of measurement of energy we can reach". The fact "the bigger fluctuation of energy the shorter time it can last" does not implicate "the great fluctuations of energy exist"... Vacuum is a slightly waving (2,7 K) regular, but elastic structure only .
.Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
It is the same case as if I claim: "the vacuum is full of electromagnetic waves" ...Cerveny wrote:... The fact that certain expression admits some (mainly divergent) solution in any case does not mean that such solution have a real existence. ..
The physic keeps only one direction: "if something exists it has to meet certain equation" but no the opposite way (everything that meets physical law must exists)
Last edited by Cerveny on Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
Physicists should, instead of dreaming about virtual particles, search the real factor, real ingredient of vacuum causing an opposite gravity, a gravitational repulse that keeps gravitational elasticity of vacuum. The most challenge of physics are studying of history/future transition and studying of electro/magnetic and gravity/inertia analogy…certainly no searching Higss boson, By my modest opinion
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
I use a 'Shop Vac' vacuum cleaner. It is a canister type vacuum, not that expensive but efficient. I don't believe in spending a lot for a vacuum. I also like cordless ones, like the "Dust Buster". I once imagined starting a museum for vacuums.
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
The physical parameters of Vacuum.
1.
The Vacuum ( as a whole ) is a Homogeneous Space
between Galaxies of the lowest ( the background )
level of temperature: T= 2,7K - –--> T= 0K.
2.
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0 ( according to
thermodynamics theory ) or E= ∞ (according to quantum theory)
3.
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy Density.
===.
WE cannot reach the temperature T=0K and we
cannot reach the energy density of Vacuum.
But just because we cannot reach these Vacuum’s
parameters it does not mean that they don’t exist.
=.
P.S.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?
====.
Socratus.
1.
The Vacuum ( as a whole ) is a Homogeneous Space
between Galaxies of the lowest ( the background )
level of temperature: T= 2,7K - –--> T= 0K.
2.
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0 ( according to
thermodynamics theory ) or E= ∞ (according to quantum theory)
3.
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy Density.
===.
WE cannot reach the temperature T=0K and we
cannot reach the energy density of Vacuum.
But just because we cannot reach these Vacuum’s
parameters it does not mean that they don’t exist.
=.
P.S.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?
====.
Socratus.
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
One comment
Thank you Socratus, for the plain explorable explanation .
a thought/question >>>>>
and if the perfect vacuum did exist what then?
I do not understand what we would get from a perfect vacuum.
/ darkbeaver /
My answer.
Then we have vacuum’s polarization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
Thank you Socratus, for the plain explorable explanation .
a thought/question >>>>>
and if the perfect vacuum did exist what then?
I do not understand what we would get from a perfect vacuum.
/ darkbeaver /
My answer.
Then we have vacuum’s polarization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
Vacuum Energy Density, or How Can Nothing Weigh Something?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
Conclusion
In the past, we have had only upper limits on the vacuum density and
philosophical arguments based on the Dicke coincidence problem and
Bayesian statistics that suggested that the most likely value
of the vacuum density was zero.
Now we have the supernova data that suggests that the vacuum energy density
is greater than zero. This result is very important if true.
We need to confirm it using other techniques, such as the WMAP satellite
which has observed the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background
with angular resolution and sensitivity that are sufficient to measure
the vacuum energy density.
CMB data combined with the measured Hubble constant do confirm the
supernova data: there is a positive but small vacuum energy density.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
My opinion.
1.
The vacuum energy density ( as whole) is absolute zero: T=0K
2.
The vacuum energy density can be greater than zero.
/ or How Can Nothing Weigh Something? /
The reason of this increasing can be ` vacuum's polarization `
==.
socratus
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
Conclusion
In the past, we have had only upper limits on the vacuum density and
philosophical arguments based on the Dicke coincidence problem and
Bayesian statistics that suggested that the most likely value
of the vacuum density was zero.
Now we have the supernova data that suggests that the vacuum energy density
is greater than zero. This result is very important if true.
We need to confirm it using other techniques, such as the WMAP satellite
which has observed the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background
with angular resolution and sensitivity that are sufficient to measure
the vacuum energy density.
CMB data combined with the measured Hubble constant do confirm the
supernova data: there is a positive but small vacuum energy density.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
My opinion.
1.
The vacuum energy density ( as whole) is absolute zero: T=0K
2.
The vacuum energy density can be greater than zero.
/ or How Can Nothing Weigh Something? /
The reason of this increasing can be ` vacuum's polarization `
==.
socratus
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
Universe ( beginning): which theory is right?
=.
On the one hand the Existence began from bing bang.
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the
early development of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
=.
On the other hand the Existence began from Vacuum polarization.
In quantum field theory, and specifically quantum electrodynamics,
vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background
electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs that
change the distribution of charges and currents that generated
the original electromagnetic field. It is also sometimes referred
to as the self energy of the gauge boson (photon).
Vacuum polarization was observed experimentally in 1997 using
the TRISTAN particle accelerator in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
On the other words:
Theoreticians say that leaving our ‘atomistic- matter’
paradigm behind, and taking ‘virtual antiparticles’,
we realized that the background Cosmic Vacuum ‘polarized ‘
itself, and the result of this polarization we know as our world.
====.
Question.
What is the reason of ‘ the early development of the universe’ :
Big bang or background Vacuum polarization?
==.
Socratus.
=.
On the one hand the Existence began from bing bang.
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the
early development of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
=.
On the other hand the Existence began from Vacuum polarization.
In quantum field theory, and specifically quantum electrodynamics,
vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background
electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs that
change the distribution of charges and currents that generated
the original electromagnetic field. It is also sometimes referred
to as the self energy of the gauge boson (photon).
Vacuum polarization was observed experimentally in 1997 using
the TRISTAN particle accelerator in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
On the other words:
Theoreticians say that leaving our ‘atomistic- matter’
paradigm behind, and taking ‘virtual antiparticles’,
we realized that the background Cosmic Vacuum ‘polarized ‘
itself, and the result of this polarization we know as our world.
====.
Question.
What is the reason of ‘ the early development of the universe’ :
Big bang or background Vacuum polarization?
==.
Socratus.
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
ScienceDaily (Oct. 28, 2011)
How to Unbalance Nothingness:
Physicists Calculate the Time Development of the Vacuum Decay
"The ground state of our world can't be described by the absence of all matter,"
Professor Dr. Holger Gies from the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the
Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena and the Helmholtz-Institute Jena explains.
"This so-called quantum vacuum rather turns out to be a complex
state of constantly fluctuating quantum fields with physical properties."
The world-wide community of physicists is hoping to be able to witness
a particularly spectacular characteristic in a few years' time:
the spontaneous decay of the vacuum into pairs of particles of matter
and antimatter in super strong electric fields.
Thanks to new research results of the Austro-German team of physicists,
this goal came a few steps closer.
Describe Quantum Fields out of Equilibrium
Although first theoretical consideration concerning the spontaneous
decay of the vacuum dates back to the year 1931, its comprehensive
understanding is still in its infancy.
"A great challenge in modern theoretical physics is the description
of quantum fields out of equilibrium," Professor Gies explains.
"We are facing this problem in phase transitions in the early Universe
as well as in many experiments in solid state physics."
Therefore experimental proof of the vacuum decay -- as it might be
delivered by high intensity lasers in the near future -- will provide
knowledge exceeding this particular field.
The scientists from Graz and Jena now succeeded calculating the time
evolution of the vacuum decay in detail.
"Even we were surprised by the results," Professor Gies confesses.
According to the results particles of matter and antimatter behave
in a novel self-focusing way and therefore the possibility of discovering
them is higher than expected.
"The quantum vacuum has already had some surprises in store,"
says the Heisenberg-Professor for Theoretical Physics.
"To unbalance this nothingness could develop into a new prolific
field of research."
The results of this co-operation have just been published in the journal
Physical Review Letters.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142508.htm
My questions and opinion.
What are physical parameters of Vacuum?
What are physical parameters of ‘so-called quantum vacuum’?
What is difference between vacuum and ‘so-called quantum vacuum’?
The reason that ‘quantum fields out of equilibrium,’ is polarization of vacuum.
What is mechanism of ‘ the self energy ‘ polarization?
Nobody tries to explain the mechanism of this process.
======..
How to Unbalance Nothingness:
Physicists Calculate the Time Development of the Vacuum Decay
"The ground state of our world can't be described by the absence of all matter,"
Professor Dr. Holger Gies from the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the
Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena and the Helmholtz-Institute Jena explains.
"This so-called quantum vacuum rather turns out to be a complex
state of constantly fluctuating quantum fields with physical properties."
The world-wide community of physicists is hoping to be able to witness
a particularly spectacular characteristic in a few years' time:
the spontaneous decay of the vacuum into pairs of particles of matter
and antimatter in super strong electric fields.
Thanks to new research results of the Austro-German team of physicists,
this goal came a few steps closer.
Describe Quantum Fields out of Equilibrium
Although first theoretical consideration concerning the spontaneous
decay of the vacuum dates back to the year 1931, its comprehensive
understanding is still in its infancy.
"A great challenge in modern theoretical physics is the description
of quantum fields out of equilibrium," Professor Gies explains.
"We are facing this problem in phase transitions in the early Universe
as well as in many experiments in solid state physics."
Therefore experimental proof of the vacuum decay -- as it might be
delivered by high intensity lasers in the near future -- will provide
knowledge exceeding this particular field.
The scientists from Graz and Jena now succeeded calculating the time
evolution of the vacuum decay in detail.
"Even we were surprised by the results," Professor Gies confesses.
According to the results particles of matter and antimatter behave
in a novel self-focusing way and therefore the possibility of discovering
them is higher than expected.
"The quantum vacuum has already had some surprises in store,"
says the Heisenberg-Professor for Theoretical Physics.
"To unbalance this nothingness could develop into a new prolific
field of research."
The results of this co-operation have just been published in the journal
Physical Review Letters.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142508.htm
My questions and opinion.
What are physical parameters of Vacuum?
What are physical parameters of ‘so-called quantum vacuum’?
What is difference between vacuum and ‘so-called quantum vacuum’?
The reason that ‘quantum fields out of equilibrium,’ is polarization of vacuum.
What is mechanism of ‘ the self energy ‘ polarization?
Nobody tries to explain the mechanism of this process.
======..
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
The Models of Vacuum.
1.
A black hole is an idealized physical body ( with a mass of
three - six – ten times more than our Sun ) is a region of
spacetime from which nothing, not even light, can escape.
2.
A black body is an idealized physical body that can absorb
all incident electromagnetic radiation.
The result: from a ‘black body ‘not even light, can escape’
3.
Max Laue called ‘ Kirchhoff black body’ as ‘ Kirchhoff vacuum’
Why?
Because Vacuum is a space in which there is nothing material.
For example: according to QET then electron interacts
with vacuum he disappeared there. And therefore physicists
invented the mathematical " method of renormalization",
a method "to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./
The result: from a ‘vacuum ‘not even light, can escape’
#
My conclusion.
The ‘black body’, the ‘ black hole’ and the vacuum
can do one and the same work (completely absorb radiant
energy). It means that the ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’
are models of vacuum.
Another fact.
A black hole has a temperature within a few
millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.
/ Oxford. Dictionary./
And the vacuum has background cosmic temperature:
T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K.
The background cosmic temperature (T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K)
belongs to ‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ and therefore we can use
this theory for explaining ‘ The Theory of Vacuum’.
My conclusion.
The ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’ and
‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ are models of vacuum.
===.
P.S.
If the ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’ and the vacuum can radiate
the quantum of light and electron – then the reason is the Vacuum’s
fluctuations / transformation / polarization. And this is ‘ a song from
another opera’. Because the Vacuum’s fluctuations / transformation /
polarization explains the Origin of the Material Existence.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===.
1.
A black hole is an idealized physical body ( with a mass of
three - six – ten times more than our Sun ) is a region of
spacetime from which nothing, not even light, can escape.
2.
A black body is an idealized physical body that can absorb
all incident electromagnetic radiation.
The result: from a ‘black body ‘not even light, can escape’
3.
Max Laue called ‘ Kirchhoff black body’ as ‘ Kirchhoff vacuum’
Why?
Because Vacuum is a space in which there is nothing material.
For example: according to QET then electron interacts
with vacuum he disappeared there. And therefore physicists
invented the mathematical " method of renormalization",
a method "to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./
The result: from a ‘vacuum ‘not even light, can escape’
#
My conclusion.
The ‘black body’, the ‘ black hole’ and the vacuum
can do one and the same work (completely absorb radiant
energy). It means that the ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’
are models of vacuum.
Another fact.
A black hole has a temperature within a few
millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.
/ Oxford. Dictionary./
And the vacuum has background cosmic temperature:
T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K.
The background cosmic temperature (T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K)
belongs to ‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ and therefore we can use
this theory for explaining ‘ The Theory of Vacuum’.
My conclusion.
The ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’ and
‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ are models of vacuum.
===.
P.S.
If the ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’ and the vacuum can radiate
the quantum of light and electron – then the reason is the Vacuum’s
fluctuations / transformation / polarization. And this is ‘ a song from
another opera’. Because the Vacuum’s fluctuations / transformation /
polarization explains the Origin of the Material Existence.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===.
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
Light Created from a Vacuum:
Casimir Effect Observed in Superconducting Circuit
/ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2011) /
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 133050.htm
#
http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/Pages/Ch ... acuum.aspx
============…
What did I study from the article
1.
The vacuum can be a basic physical concept.
2.
The vacuum is full of various potential particles.
3
They can fluctuate in and out from vacuum.
3.
This process (long time ago) was named ‘vacuum fluctuations’
( -- the constant appearance and disappearance
of virtual particles in vacuum -- )
4.
The vacuum have a connection with "dark energy".
=====.
My conclusion.
Did I learn something new? Nothing new.
1
In 1928 Dirac said that vacuum full with virtual particles which
can appear from and disappear into this continuum
2
Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder proposed
the existence of the force and formulated an experiment to detect
it in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs.
The classic form of the experiment, described above, successfully
demonstrated the force to within 15% of the value predicted by the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
3.
We know that virtual particles can appear as a reason of
Vacuum fluctuation / polarization.
Vacuum polarization was observed experimentally in 1997 using
the TRISTAN particle accelerator in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
My questions.
What mechanism the ‘virtual antiparticles’ use to do polarization?
What is mechanism of ‘ the self energy ‘ polarization?
Nobody tries to explain the mechanism of this process.
4.
But this article say me again that the conception of vacuum
is important for our understanding how the Universe works.
If vacuum itself can create particles, why we need ‘big bang’?
What was before ‘big bang’ or vacuum?
Did the ‘big bang’ explode in nothingness /vacuum or vice versa?
5.
The vacuum and "dark energy".
I say that vacuum itself is a "dark energy".
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0 ( according to classical
thermodynamics theory ) or E= ∞ (according to quantum theory)
#
Dark Energy may be Vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 011607.php
===.
Why do physicists refuse to take vacuum as a fundament of Universe?
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 /
My opinion.
It is true we cannot reach the zero temperature T=0K.
But just because we cannot reach this Vacuum’s
parameter it does not mean that it cannot exist.
#
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?
If unseen virtual antiparticles from vacuum can appear
and we can observe them as a real particles doesn’t it mean
that vacuum itself is absolute another Reference Frame which
has its own physical parameter – Absolute Zero: T=0K.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
===================== .
P.S.
We are very interesting people: we accepted a big bang
in a nothing but refuse to accept the nothing.
==.
Casimir Effect Observed in Superconducting Circuit
/ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2011) /
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 133050.htm
#
http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/Pages/Ch ... acuum.aspx
============…
What did I study from the article
1.
The vacuum can be a basic physical concept.
2.
The vacuum is full of various potential particles.
3
They can fluctuate in and out from vacuum.
3.
This process (long time ago) was named ‘vacuum fluctuations’
( -- the constant appearance and disappearance
of virtual particles in vacuum -- )
4.
The vacuum have a connection with "dark energy".
=====.
My conclusion.
Did I learn something new? Nothing new.
1
In 1928 Dirac said that vacuum full with virtual particles which
can appear from and disappear into this continuum
2
Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder proposed
the existence of the force and formulated an experiment to detect
it in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs.
The classic form of the experiment, described above, successfully
demonstrated the force to within 15% of the value predicted by the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
3.
We know that virtual particles can appear as a reason of
Vacuum fluctuation / polarization.
Vacuum polarization was observed experimentally in 1997 using
the TRISTAN particle accelerator in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
My questions.
What mechanism the ‘virtual antiparticles’ use to do polarization?
What is mechanism of ‘ the self energy ‘ polarization?
Nobody tries to explain the mechanism of this process.
4.
But this article say me again that the conception of vacuum
is important for our understanding how the Universe works.
If vacuum itself can create particles, why we need ‘big bang’?
What was before ‘big bang’ or vacuum?
Did the ‘big bang’ explode in nothingness /vacuum or vice versa?
5.
The vacuum and "dark energy".
I say that vacuum itself is a "dark energy".
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0 ( according to classical
thermodynamics theory ) or E= ∞ (according to quantum theory)
#
Dark Energy may be Vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 011607.php
===.
Why do physicists refuse to take vacuum as a fundament of Universe?
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 /
My opinion.
It is true we cannot reach the zero temperature T=0K.
But just because we cannot reach this Vacuum’s
parameter it does not mean that it cannot exist.
#
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?
If unseen virtual antiparticles from vacuum can appear
and we can observe them as a real particles doesn’t it mean
that vacuum itself is absolute another Reference Frame which
has its own physical parameter – Absolute Zero: T=0K.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
===================== .
P.S.
We are very interesting people: we accepted a big bang
in a nothing but refuse to accept the nothing.
==.
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
"Dark energy" is probably a result of wrong gravitational theory :(alex81 wrote:Nice discussion guys.. Socratus, would you please what dark energy is? Thanks
Re: Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1.)
Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’. By Steven Weinberg.
Page 66.
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpretation.
. . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’ (!)
#
Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’. By Lee Smolin.
Page V!!
‘ Not that every scientist is a seeker, most are not.’ (!)
#
/ page 329. /
‘Few scientists think about foundational problems,
and even fewer have ideas about them’ (!)
===…
Ce la vie !
====…
#
Page 66.
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpretation.
. . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’ (!)
#
Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’. By Lee Smolin.
Page V!!
‘ Not that every scientist is a seeker, most are not.’ (!)
#
/ page 329. /
‘Few scientists think about foundational problems,
and even fewer have ideas about them’ (!)
===…
Ce la vie !
====…
#