Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy of Physics / Science ?
What photon is, what electron is, what proton is, what "ordinary particle" is.
1)
Poor Einstein had problem to understand " what photon is".
" All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer
to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.'‘
/ Einstein. 1954. /
2)
There are many - many theories about what electron is.
All of them are problematical.
3)
Does proton really have many quarks and their brother antiquarks ?
4)
Where did mass of "ordinary particles" come from ?
=..
Hmm.
Say now: " we have philosophy of Physics / Science"
==.

Hi Socratus,

It is difficult to follow you, and I don't think the miraculous year of Einstein was so poor...

For me, quarks are problematic:
Even going deeper in the matter, we rise in complexity, because the quarks Up and Down have no symmetrical charges.

This would lead to go even deeper, to find some distribution of symmetrical particles... and I have a doubt in this way.

Some people talk about Beons (be-on), which would be as many as properties (mass, electricity,...).

But this re-lead to an understanding the world as a decomposition, rather than a composition. This told, let's remember that a whole thing is more than the sum of its parts...

This is why a decomposition cannot be for me an ultimate answer. Especially, we cannot justify a force or interaction in terms of particles, because the cause of the interaction-particle should re-ask the question: What does generate it ? Another particle ?

This is nonsense.
P.S.:
(Some of particles have been seen, I believe, but it could be - why not - in induction due to the thoughts of physicists, as for an experiment with electrons interferences.

I effectively think that a so light particle could be simply generated - or inducted by mind, even on an infinitesimal time, as it is most often the case.)

@NielsBohr
1)
Some famous theories "string" , "quark" , "big bang" are abstract.
They are only theoretical play on paper.
Nothing was actually testing.
2)
Internet is full with different "theories" which try to explain nature using new words.
=

Vacuum and his models.
=
Kirchhoff's black body - light go in and don't come back.
Black holes - light go in and don't come back.
Zero Vacuum - light go in and don't come back.
===
Black - holes have temperature about absolute zero
(60 nanokelvin - 60 billionths of a kelvin).
" Ideal Gas" has temperature T=0K.
The Cosmos as whole has temperature T=0K.
===
My conclusion.
a)
Kirchhoff's black body, black holes , "ideal gas" are models of zero vacuum.
b)
It seems that in the future heat death of the universe can come.
But thanks to Planck's and Hawking radiations
( vacuum fluctuation, tunneling barrier )
the Universe can escape heat death.
c)
All laws of an "ideal gas" and "quantum theory" can be used
to explain the primary conditions of the Existance.
====

Your mum is cold Socratus.

No offense Socratus but you are on every forum everywheeeere kind of like Jebus on acid.

I have to say you spread yourself so thin though I wonder if you are a bot just posting random things on message boards.

Hear me out though:

1) you seldom respond on your own thread
2) when you do it doesn't refer to the thread or anything anyone said
3) when it does it is usually a random hit that tends to provoke only some people to converse, but not it seems you

I ask in all good conscience why you are botting the internet, and why anyone would even do that, or care?

If that makes any sense to you what is your favourite colour and what emotional meaning does it have?

Don't reply and we can assume you are a bot. So please do reply.

It's kind of like what that other lazy piece of shit does, by posting Haiku poetry or just quoting one sentence, and they made that dick a mod on some forums. Making a bot a mod, would probably really choke some anal researchers chain. It's clearly not long before Skynet will be a reality, but do we really have to be made specimens in a jar by people hoping to pass their PhD? Fuck me that is lame, grow up and do your research the right way you dumbass.

About quantum impulse h and h*.
1)
Quantum particle has two (2) kinds of different impulses: (h) and (h*).
2)
Quantum of light having impulse (h) travelling in a straight line with
constant speed c=1 has infinite wavelength it means its frequencies
aren’t limited.
3)
Quantum of light having impulse ( h*= h / 2pi ) will go in a curved path
( rotate around its axle / diameter ) and its speed will be more than constant (c >1) .
In this movement quantum of light has limited specific frequencies.
4)
From the point of Earth gravity reference frame c=1 is maximal.
From the point of Vacuum's reference frame c=1 is minimal.
( Tachyon theory )
5)
Frequency belongs to quantum particle with some geometrical form.
Maybe: point, string, loop, triangle , cone , cube, . . . . . . .
6)
To know what quantum of light is ( and its h and h* ) we need to know
its geometrical form. Quantum particle without geometrical form
is an abstract creation.
7)
In 1900 Planck's wrote quantum of action as: h=E/t
(it means: there must be (phenomenologically must be ) some quantum action)
In 1905 Einstein wrote quantum of action as: h=kb.
(it means: there is (exactly there is ) quantum of action)
===.
Planck's constant (h, h*) belongs to the smallest and fundamental
particle of Nature: quantum of light. And Einstein wrote:
“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer
to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken.”
( Albert Einstein, 1954 )
===..

socratus wrote:Vacuum and his models.
=
Kirchhoff's black body - light go in and don't come back.
Black holes - light go in and don't come back.
Zero Vacuum - light go in and don't come back.
===
Black - holes have temperature about absolute zero
(60 nanokelvin - 60 billionths of a kelvin).
" Ideal Gas" has temperature T=0K.
The Cosmos as whole has temperature T=0K.
===
My conclusion.
a)
Kirchhoff's black body, black holes , "ideal gas" are models of zero vacuum.
b)
It seems that in the future heat death of the universe can come.
But thanks to Planck's and Hawking radiations
( vacuum fluctuation, tunneling barrier )
the Universe can escape heat death.
c)
All laws of an "ideal gas" and "quantum theory" can be used
to explain the primary conditions of the Existance.
====

Black holes mathematically impossible: Study
/ Sep 29, 2014 /
However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton showed that
by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass.
So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density
to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes.
A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon.

The take home message of the work is clear:
there is no such thing as a black hole, researchers said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com//art ... 821528.cms
==…

So bot then.

Sadly I think so.

Although after what you said I did a quick goggle and there are sites where he kinda interacts.

So do bots. Try arguing with a bot on the many splendid sites that honestly introduce themselves as such. You'll get a conversation. Ask them a question about why they feel like they do deep down, and how it impacts on their emotional health, and how when they are having a hard day how they then have learned to cope, and what life experiences lead them by abstraction to such a view, all you will get is gibberish.

I am not sure of course if anyone is a bot, what I am sure of is though, that he or it doesn't contribute much to whatever dialogue he's in, and I have never seen he she or it do anything but wax lyrical, with no real substance. Same could be said of some posters perhaps on here, but at least you consider them human.

Put it this way the first time this guy responds to a question like how do you feel, how are you doing, makes a pun, or cracks a joke, or explains what is it that makes you a contextual person not a robot, I will eat my words, having seen him on many forums, I have yet to see any sign of humanity. I am wrong all the time, but I have never seen this thing speak like a real person.

Bot or not, the question "4) Where did mass of "ordinary particles" come from" in the original post i find interesting, for i do not see the graviton hypothesis becoming real..

Blaggard wrote:So do bots. Try arguing with a bot on the many splendid sites that honestly introduce themselves as such. You'll get a conversation. Ask them a question about why they feel like they do deep down, and how it impacts on their emotional health, and how when they are having a hard day how they then have learned to cope, and what life experiences lead them by abstraction to such a view, all you will get is gibberish.

Blaggerd, ever seen a person laugh out of being nervous or uncertain, or for those reasons change the subject?

Blaggard wrote:I am not sure of course if anyone is a bot, what I am sure of is though, that he or it doesn't contribute much to whatever dialogue he's in, and I have never seen he she or it do anything but wax lyrical, with no real substance. Same could be said of some posters perhaps on here, but at least you consider them human.

Yes. bots are quite the little miracles aren't they?

Blaggard wrote:Put it this way the first time this guy responds to a question like how do you feel, how are you doing, makes a pun, or cracks a joke, or explains what is it that makes you a contextual person not a robot, I will eat my words, having seen him on many forums, I have yet to see any sign of humanity. I am wrong all the time, but I have never seen this thing speak like a real person.

Diversity is to be found among many things, not always just for the good and better. There are real people that can't speak like a real person, yet there are bots who have passed the Turing-test with a good average.

But what i wanted to ask, maybe we can examine the out come of a bot some day together or something like that

nvm plz del double post

Questionmark wrote:... There are real people that can't speak like a real person, yet there are bots who have passed the Turing-test with a good average.

Where? I can only think that they were tested by the real people who can't speak like a real person.

i wanted to put real between quotes but i figured it made sense, and since most likely only op is bot and not able to understand context, but no..