Philosophy Now Forum

1.“ Minkowski space “ has no gravity field, but has negative parameter.
2. Only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
but has negative parameter : T= - 273= 0K.
T= -273 = OK, ahh here it is.. I like the "T (truth) = (it is) OK (perfectly permissible to believe that we are progressing toward the 'great truth' of the universe) better than the "theoritcal paricles are actually true instead of just our way a situating knowlegde" idea" . .
3. The negative parameter is united with space/ time , which are
joined together absolutely and this unit we can see in Vacuum .
4. And the second SRT postulate tells about constant moving
light quanta in Vacuum.
5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
====== ======
P.S.
Sorry.
I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".
So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"
…………..or to " the God "......................
Then ...............
The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only
big band which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore
we see background radiation T=2,7K now."
And religious man will say: " The God exists.
He sits at his “ D- home” and plays with all things.
For example.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
I don’t know who is right.
But I came to conclusion:
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
I will never gather my harvest . "
======= ======..
If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
beginning of his calculations then after some
operations it grows into a big one.
And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
then now we are surprised with its paradoxes………
………………………..
and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
but the result will be the same - paradoxical.
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
Im sorry Socratus - I think it is supremely ironic that your take your root name from the eternal doubter while you contemplate such blatantly metaphysical ideas - even while you seem to be missing the metaphysical nature of your ideas. (maybe you are being wonderfully ironic ??)
==========================.[/quote]

SRT: The Essence.

To understand SRT we need to answer to the simple question:
In which Reference frame the SRT event is happened?
One of the SRT postulate says – in Galileo/ Newtonian space.
The other postulate says - in the vacuum.
But the common opinion – the SRT takes place in Minkowski
absolute negative 4D.
Minkowski gave explanation of 4D using his ‘Light cone’.
In the picture of the ‘Light cone’ we can see that in the past the
particle moved along the straight line of time with speed c=1.
In the future it will move also along the straight line with speed c=1.
But what is happened on the border, in the moment of present?
In that moment was needed ( by some reason) to use Fitzgerald /
Lorentz transformation (speed). Why?
More than 100 years we don’t have clear answer.
Without known the physical (thermo dynamical ) and geometrical
parameters of the Reference frame ( -4D) we cannot assign any
meaning to the SRT at all.
==============================.
Socratus.

socratus wrote:SRT: The Essence.

To understand SRT we need to answer to the simple question:
In which Reference frame the SRT event is happened?
One of the SRT postulate says – in Galileo/ Newtonian space.
The other postulate says - in the vacuum.
But the common opinion – the SRT takes place in Minkowski
absolute negative 4D.
Minkowski gave explanation of 4D using his ‘Light cone’.
In the picture of the ‘Light cone’ we can see that in the past the
particle moved along the straight line of time with speed c=1.
In the future it will move also along the straight line with speed c=1.
But what is happened on the border, in the moment of present?
In that moment was needed ( by some reason) to use Fitzgerald /
Lorentz transformation (speed). Why?
More than 100 years we don’t have clear answer.
Without known the physical (thermo dynamical ) and geometrical
parameters of the Reference frame ( -4D) we cannot assign any
meaning to the SRT at all.
==============================.
Socratus.

All points on your cone have zero distance from point (0,0,0) - by Minkovski, but non zero distance from each other. Minkovski metric does not have a physical sense.. Triangle inequality is not valid here :(

socratus wrote:SRT: The Essence.

To understand SRT we need to answer to the simple question:
In which Reference frame the SRT event is happened?
One of the SRT postulate says – in Galileo/ Newtonian space.
The other postulate says - in the vacuum.
But the common opinion – the SRT takes place in Minkowski
absolute negative 4D.
Minkowski gave explanation of 4D using his ‘Light cone’.
In the picture of the ‘Light cone’ we can see that in the past the
particle moved along the straight line of time with speed c=1.
In the future it will move also along the straight line with speed c=1.
But what is happened on the border, in the moment of present?
In that moment was needed ( by some reason) to use Fitzgerald /
Lorentz transformation (speed). Why?
More than 100 years we don’t have clear answer.
Without known the physical (thermo dynamical ) and geometrical
parameters of the Reference frame ( -4D) we cannot assign any
meaning to the SRT at all.
==============================.
Socratus.

So, if I am gathering the Essence correctly, you have drawn a nice picture around the issue which you cannot exaplain. So you are addressing a construct, and not the issue. (Actually, you are addressing a construct with a construct.) The issue being the moment of the present. This is always the case with every conceptual construct. There will never be a conceptual construct which explains itself. In this way, every conceptual construct is equal; all are true and none are true. Or its truth is what gains the most popularity. SRT is just a very popular construct. Every posit you make avoids the nature of the posit itself which is the issue at hand, that you call the present.
When the fascination with constructs becomes incidental, and the object the construct supposes to exaplain is seen as entirely dependant upon the particular construction, then the question becomes: from where does the construct gain creedence? ? How does it become considered valid? And key: what is the difference in whether I call the element "absolute negative 4D" or whether I call it "Hog Garnish with parsley"? If I define terms in such a way, I can make any construct that appears to exaplain reality.
another key question: what is tradition?
The universe is not "information" for this posit also avoids the issue by merely defining more terms that propose to describe the issue.

SRT: what is it about?
1.
One of Einstein’s postulate says that particle – quantum of light-
moves in a straight line with constant speed c=1 in the vacuum.
So, in SRT we have one reference frame and it is vacuum.
But because Einstein took Time as a length (1 sec= 299,792,458 m)
Minkowski decided to take this time as a fourth coordinate
and created his minus 4D continuum. And we lost the direction.
But the root of the SR theory is the postulate:
constant and independence speed of quantum of light in the vacuum.
2.
The other Einstein’s SRT postulate says that movement is relative
conception. The name of Einstein’s SRT is :
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
Einstein wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And then this other Einstein’s SRT postulate must be understand
as: ‘every speed, even the speed of quantum of light is relative.’
It means that quantum of light in a vacuum can have
two kinds of motions: constant and relative.
3
SRT is theory about relativity of every particle’s speed,
including the motion of particle - quantum of light. (!)
SRT explains only the behavior of Quantum of Light (!)
So, in my opinion the essence of Einstein’s SRT is hidden
in the questions:
a)
What will be happen if the particle – quantum of light – changes
its constant and straight movement in the vacuum?
b)
How can quantum of light change his movement?
=========.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
==============..

Socratus, I dare to suggest you: Use Occam's razor for SRT:) Forget obscure empty space, Minkowski metrics and Lorentz transformation. Perhaps there are some useful formalism in, for special usage, but it is the all :(

Cerveny wrote:Socratus, I dare to suggest you:
Use Occam's razor for SRT:)
Forget obscure empty space, Minkowski metrics and Lorentz transformation.
Perhaps there are some useful formalism in, for special usage,
but it is the all

Occam's Razor and SRT
/Special for Cerveny /
1.
In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
He wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And this movement is going in minus 4D continuum.
2.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
3
Another postulate of SRT says that motion, every motion (!),
(even including the motion of quantum of light ) (!)
is relative. (!)
====.
Question for Cerveny:
What conclusion can be doing?
===.
S.

socratus wrote: Occam's Razor and SRT
/Special for Cerveny /
1.
In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
He wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And this movement is going in minus 4D continuum.
2.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
3
Another postulate of SRT says that motion, every motion (!),
(even including the motion of quantum of light ) (!)
is relative. (!)
====.
Question for Cerveny:
What conclusion can be doing?
===.
S.

My point of view:
--------------------
- There is no -4D metrics (it does not meet triangle inequality, in addition: time after the "now" does not exist yet)
- The physical space has fair physical properties; it is a layer/"pattern" for next phenomena, for next space statuses
- All motions are relative to the physical space, to the "aether"
- The photon is a waving of the space, some kind of sound in space (remember the ultrasound can hit/shift the small body too)

I am afraid STR is nearly useless :(
You perhaps could mention Dirac’s QED but Dirac solution (rather obscure linearization) is related to SRT formalism too freely... Yet, there is more serious question: Why Dirac’s procedure does not lead to the discovery of Proton/antiproton pair too? Why it discovers just only electron/positron pair?

Oh you guys. So convinced that the entire foundation of science is a lie when you can't even grasp the basics. It's perfectly fine to not understand relativity; it's definitely complex, and most people don't understand it. But it's not ok to accuse the entire scientific community of being frauds and charlatans just because you can't figure out what they're talking about.

A few things:

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.

No, no, no. The entire point of special relativity; the entire reason it even exists, is because the speed of light in a vacuum is not relative. Standard Newtonian relativity is that all speeds are relative. The reason Special relativity is "special" is because light disobeys this; the speed of light is NOT relative. It is constant in all frames of reference. That's what the "special" in "special relativity" means. Light is special and moves at c in all frames.

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 !

Actually relativity is sort of the opposite of quantum physics; relativistic physics deals with huge distances and massive gravity wells, while quantum physics deal with tiny distances and massless particles.

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.

No, Special Relativity is the combination of regular, old-school Newtonian relativity (all speeds are relative) with the "special" exception of light. The math of special relativity is about explaining how things with mass act in relation to massless light, and how space and time are relative to speed based around the constancy of the speed of light.

converge wrote:Oh you guys. So convinced that the entire foundation of science is a lie when you can't even grasp the basics. It's perfectly fine to not understand relativity; it's definitely complex, and most people don't understand it. But it's not ok to accuse the entire scientific community of being frauds and charlatans just because you can't figure out what they're talking about.
...

Converge, you must be a lucky man. You do not have any problem with mainstream physics, you understand the all.
I wish you next happy eighty years with quantizing of TR. I believe you certainly have clear idea about the damned dark matter too :)

converge wrote: No, Special Relativity is the combination of regular,
old-school Newtonian relativity (all speeds are relative)
with the "special" exception of light.
The math of special relativity is about explaining
how things with mass act in relation to massless light,
and how space and time are relative to speed
based around the constancy of the speed of light.

1
Special Relativity is the combination of regular,
old-school Newtonian relativity (all speeds are relative)
with the "special" exception of light.
/ converge /
#
Doesn’t it mean that (all speeds are relative) including
the "special" speed of quantum of light?
S.

2
The math of special relativity is about explaining
how things with mass act in relation to massless light,
/ converge /
#
The math of special relativity is about explaining
how massless (?) quantum of light can have mass.
===..
P.S.
A New Limit on Photon Mass.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html

A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or
7 x 10-19 electron volts, has been established by an experiment
in which light is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance;
if light had mass, the rotating balance would suffer an
additional tiny torque. This represents a 20-fold improvement
over previous limits on photon mass.
Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an
assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass
would make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for
Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction.
The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong
University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China
( junluo@mail.hust.edu.cn , 86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried
out a measurement of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al.,
Physical Review D, 15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the
force of gravity at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from Newton's
inverse-square law might suggest the existence of extra spatial dimensions)
and are studying the Casimir force, a quantum effect in which nearby
parallel plates are drawn together.
===============. .

3
and how space and time are relative to speed based
around the constancy of the speed of light.
/ converge /
#
Doesn’t it mean that space and time are relative
to Minkowski minus 4D spacetime?
P.S.
Herman Minkowski said about his spacetime continuum:
“ 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, ‘ space by itself, and time by itself ‘
( it means Newtonian space and time) are shadows.
And ‘only a kind of union of the two’ is reality?
What does union of spacetime mean?
Why only this union of spacetims is real factor in Universe?
Nobody knows what this minus 4D timespace really is,
=========================...
Another problem.

"There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive
solution could provide considerable elucidation.
What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission?"
/ Max Planck. Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920 /

This question still waits for its answer.
===============. .
The Philosophy of Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics
#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
etc . . .

Do we have Philosophy of Physics ?
S.
========.

Socratus, please, could you explain why you take stand such firmly on the photon as a localized "particle“? It is possible to simply perceive it as a manifestation of space waving, as an occurrence of space/particle interaction. It seems to be clear the SRT is (eighty years) blind aisle of physics development :(

Cerveny wrote:Socratus, please, could you explain why you take
stand such firmly on the photon as a localized "particle“?
It is possible to simply perceive it as a manifestation of space waving,
as an occurrence of space/particle interaction. It seems to be clear
the SRT is (eighty years) blind aisle of physics development

It is possible to simply perceive it as a manifestation of space waving,
as an occurrence of space/particle interaction.

Cerveny wrote: #
I think that particle can make a ‘space waving ‘.
Not vice versa.
Did you see that ocean’s ‘space waving ‘ create fish?
S.

socratus wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Socratus, please, could you explain why you take
stand such firmly on the photon as a localized "particle“?
It is possible to simply perceive it as a manifestation of space waving,
as an occurrence of space/particle interaction. It seems to be clear
the SRT is (eighty years) blind aisle of physics development

It is possible to simply perceive it as a manifestation of space waving,
as an occurrence of space/particle interaction.

Cerveny wrote: #
I think that particle can make a ‘space waving ‘.
Not vice versa.
Did you see that ocean’s ‘space waving ‘ create fish?
S.

1. I have seen the sea its wave shift a fish
2. When the sea creates the fish it creates anti-fish too - say, it shift the fish to the air
(The "photon" is not able to create only one particle, it creates only complementary pair - some shift in regular structure)

Cerveny wrote:

socratus wrote:

Cerveny wrote: 2. When the sea creates the fish it creates anti-fish too
- say, it shift the fish to the air
(The "photon" is not able to create only one particle,
it creates only complementary pair - some shift in regular structure)

You are right.
When the Dirac’s vacuum sea creates the fish-particles,
it creates anti-fish particles too – say, it shift the fish to the air
Questions:
What is the physical parameters of Dirac’s vacuum sea?
What does mean: ‘to shift the fish to the air’ ?
=========.