Philosophy Now Forum

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.
=====================.

SRT: The Essence.
1.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
The acceleration is zero.
2.
The other postulate says: the Lorentz transformations
don’t have constant speed (the formula of speed is another)
The Lorentz transformations have relative speed and
therefore an acceleration is hidden in it.
3.
SRT was grown from Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
We cannot compare Maxwell’s electrodynamics with
Newton mechanics. And the Lorentz transformations
we cannot compare with Galileo's transformations.
The Galileo's transformations belongs to inertial moving.
The Lorentz transformations doesn’t belong to inertial moving.
The Lorentz transformations is another kind of movement.
The Lorentz transformations explains the SPIN of particle.
The Lorentz transformations describes the SPIN of Quantum
of light. The Rotation of Quantum of light in Vacuum changes
not only its parameters but the surrounding region too.
The Rotate Quantum of light has other mass, energy, length,
time and surrounding space.
Not vice versa.
#
Therefore I say:
SRT is a special theory only for the Quantum of Light.
SRT explains the behavior of the Quantum of Light.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=====================.

socratus wrote:Therefore I say:
SRT is a special theory only for the Quantum of Light.
SRT explains the behavior of the Quantum of Light.

Socratus, you are reasonable man. I believe you agre with me :)
Of course there is not any Minkowski physical world. It is only an artificial construction, schema for better formal expressing of another formal schema. I am always wondering who can try to find it in the real world. Such nonsense! Do you believe there is another time in the world then the time of "now"? Do you believe you are already "prepared" older somewhere in the future, in the other place in of a Minkowski time-space? Perhaps the history somewhere exists, but we cannot reach it because, simply saying, growing of the Universe is faster then c.

From the other side there is not any quantum of the light, any real photon. There is only some kind of waving of the space, waving of an aether. Whenever such waving causes any "defect" we call it "the impact of the photon". Is not possible for the sea waving (tsunami) to cause some "action" in the particular place? Certainly we do not call it an impact of (localized) thing (particle, H2Onon)... Every waving manifests at the weakest place ...

Forget TR, it is necessary to study regular 4D structures and algebra of its defects :)

Cerveny wrote: Forget TR,
it is necessary to study regular 4D structures and algebra of its defects

I agree.
What is Minkowski -4D ?
What is Pseudo- Euclidian space?
What is Mincowski Light cone?
===.

It is not necessary to break down whole present physics, of course. Very most of physics including QM runs well. But we still do not understand the substantial bases of physical world. It is not difficult for example to perceive particular physical fields as some kind of elastic deformation of space. This, simple, natural consideration supposes the physical space as a material, elastic medium, the template for the future. As for elementary particle there is no alternative then an explaining they as a specific defects, irregularities in space structure....

There is a question "what is the space from?" As we recall a process of annihilation it is clear the pair particle/antiparticle must be just opposite case of space's defects. Most common cases of such pairs are a vacation/interstitial or dislocations with opposite buerger vectors combination... Mainstream's schema of some "sea" of virtual particles is an attempt to fill the mathematic space by a matter, attempt to do something from nothing. Suppose such "sea" exist. Then vacuum should lead electricity, antiparticles of such sea should corrode a common matter... such sea cannot keep the metrics, such see cannot keep any physical "field"...

to be continued...

SRT: The Essence.

Einstein wrote that as a boy 15 -16 years old:
‘ I wonder what would happen to light if I were
moving right along with it at the speed of light.’ (c=1)
From this perspective and after 10 years of hard work
he published his SRT.
So, Einstein flew at the speed c=1 and around him flew
many other light quanta. No other particles were around.
Only the light quanta were around at the speed c=1.
And Einstein saw that they can change not only all their
parameters but the surround region too, according to
Lorentz transformations.
#
Therefore I say:
SRT is a special theory only for the Quantum of Light.
SRT explains the behavior of the Quantum of Light.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=====================.

Cerveny wrote:to be continued...

Commonly accepted schema of discrete, quantum substance of the world contains one weak, controversial moment. It is the unit of the mass. Why the mass is not changeable by simple multiplied unit as the electric charge, as the spin, as the angular momentum? It seams the mass is not primary, basic, independent parameter of elementary particles but mediated unit, derived from influence to the space, derived from a particle/space interaction. Mass is thus related with an enregy needed for creating of defect, for structural shift... From this point of view it should be better to write m=E/c^2 then E=mc^2

It is clear the every structural defect in the elastics medium is related with some strain, some tension in its surround. The closer, the stronger. On the other hand every non-homogenous tension, strain acts, pulls or pushes to the elementary particle...

to be continued...

Cerveny wrote:

Cerveny wrote:to be continued...

Commonly accepted schema of discrete, quantum substance of the world
contains one weak, controversial moment. It is the unit of the mass.
Why the mass is not changeable by simple multiplied unit as
the electric charge, as the spin, as the angular momentum?
It seams the mass is not primary, basic, independent parameter
of elementary particles but mediated unit, derived from influence
to the space, derived from a particle/space interaction.
Mass is thus related with an enregy needed for creating of defect,
for structural shift... From this point of view it should be better
to write m=E/c^2 then E=mc^2

It is clear the every structural defect in the elastics medium is related
with some strain, some tension in its surround. The closer, the stronger.
On the other hand every non-homogenous tension, strain acts,
pulls or pushes to the elementary particle...

to be continued...

Why the mass is not changeable by simple multiplied unit
as the electric charge, as the spin, as the angular momentum?
/ Cerveny /

In my opinion:
As a result of the spin ( the angular momentum)
the real-observed mass and the electric charge appears.
Mathematically this process is described with Lorentz transformations.
It needs to connect this process with geometrical description.
Socratus.
===========.

socratus wrote:In my opinion:
As a result of the spin ( the angular momentum)
the real-observed mass and the electric charge appears.
Mathematically this process is described with Lorentz transformations.
It needs to connect this process with geometrical description.
Socratus.
===========.

Lorentz transformations does not pay generally. It is only partial, perhaps useful, formal tool... They do not objectify the fact the bodies act to each other by different ways in case bodies are approaching and in the case bodies are getting away. The flagrant example is tangential motion of Mercury trace. Another case: approaching bodies sends to each other more energetic "photons" then the same bodies in removing case by the same velocity - in the first case is can appears a photoelectric effect (for example) and in second the case it can not happen (in special conditions of course)

Cerveny wrote: Lorentz transformations do not pay generally.
It is only partial, perhaps useful, formal tool...

They do not objectify the fact the bodies act to each other
by different ways in case bodies are approaching and
in the case bodies are getting away.

The flagrant example is tangential motion of Mercury trace.

I only try to understand SRT.
SRT is theory without gravity.
SRT doesn’t have effects of gravitation.
SRT is not theory about gravitation.
And therefore
‘They do not objectify the fact the bodies act to each other
by different ways in case bodies are approaching
and in the case bodies are getting away. ‘
And therefore the ‘tangential motion of Mercury trace’
doesn’t have any relation to SRT.
And therefore Lorentz transformations are partial, useful,
formal tool...and they don’t explain inertial movement.
===================.

socratus wrote:I only try to understand SRT.
SRT is theory without gravity.
SRT doesn’t have effects of gravitation.
SRT is not theory about gravitation.
And therefore
‘They do not objectify the fact the bodies act to each other
by different ways in case bodies are approaching
and in the case bodies are getting away. ‘
And therefore the ‘tangential motion of Mercury trace’
doesn’t have any relation to SRT.
And therefore Lorentz transformations are partial, useful,
formal tool...and they don’t explain inertial movement.
===================.

Socratus, how can you waste the time by studying such (eighty years) useless, confused theory? There is only one "real prove" of it - the long live of some muons. It is unreliable from at least from two points: it is never clear where particular muon was rose and mainly, from muon's point of view we should live thousand years... All frames are equivalent by SR :( But in which do we live actually? Earth, Sun, Galaxy, nest of galaxy or Universe? Does it any sense to study it? There are many other interesting questions? How thin is the point of "now". Why the future is only probable, not certain? Is a neutron attacked by the vacuum? How can be related some electric properties (permittivity, permeability) of vacuum with a common limit of speed? Where is information coming from? Is the information an imaginary energy? Is a surface of the Universe (time "now") smooth enough? Is a waving of Universe surface possible? ... and many others...

When I was going by car last week I had a look at one woman going before me on the pavement. She turned at me instantly nevertheless she could not see me before, she did not hesitated for any moment for who was watched at her.. What kind of signal? What kind of localization? What kind of addressing... They are real interesting questions :)

- The Special Theory of Relativity.
==========================..
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space"
- said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D,
8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it.
But the doubts still remain.
"OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem.
We must create more complex D spaces".
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But……….
But there is one problem.
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).
#
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
===============.
The SRT is a real theory.
But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
Minkowski's mathematic theory has nothing to do with physics,
with the Nature. There isn't any proof of its existence.
And if we mix these two theories then we are
surprised with its paradox.
What does the man usually do in such situation?
It is clear, he must understand
what “ 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.
But somebody can say: “ You are wrong,
4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.”
Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose
that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space
in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.
Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.
And if we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is 4-D negative space
( 4-D positive Minkowski space )
how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?
In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D Minkowski
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real
interpretation to “ 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that
a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.
======. =========
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense".
Why?
Because they have won us over using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==============..
I think this 4-D negative space is a real one.
I think this space is Vacuum.
Why?
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.
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.
==========================.

I do not think our world must be paradoxical. The Mainstream physics is paradoxical only. We unluckily understand to the begin of (our) Universe as a dramatic, mystics, singular event. But it need not be true at all. I personally believe that begin of Universe was a quiet event, a calm start of condensation of new Universe phase. Universe started its growing from tiny, first small crystal, from a first few ordered, condensed pan-atoms...

We have problem with a solid phase of aether. But aether is not a presence, it is always the history, it is already fixed, metricizing pattern, template for the future. The presence, the time of "now", the quantum world is never done yet. The presence is a "live", not certain, thin surface of growing Universe.. It is a quantum world, just condensating layer of the (new) time... It is a border between two phase of Universe, between the history and the future... Every quantum interaction ("measurement") fixes, glues next time layer, next time sediment to the history...

SRT: The Essence.
#
In his Miracle 1905 Einstein wrote the Fourth paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
And as a postscript to his forth, the Fifth paper:
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”
As he realized the answer was:
“ Yes, it depends on its energy E= Mc^2.”
It means what SRT must be connected with E= Mc^2 .
It means what must be connection between Lorentz’s
transformation and E= Mc^2.
#
The same Einstein’s question in a little detail interpretation:
“Does the inertia of a body ( for example: of light quanta
or of an electron) depend upon its energy content E=Mc^2 ?”

Thinking logically, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.”
But the energy of a quantum of light or of an electron can
be written as E= h*f.
When new question arise: ‘ How is possible to understand the
connection between E=Mc^2 and E= h*f ?’

On my opinion " The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass" (according to one single light quanta /electron )
gives answer to this question..

The problem is that now nobody wants to ask yourself that
„The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to one single light quanta / photon /electron.
============== . .
Socratus

This SRT exaplains only the method of its explaining.

If a thing were to go the speed of light, which would be destroyed? the thing 'within' the constant (universe)? or the whole universe (based on the constant) in that there would be a violation of the constant as a constant?

Consistent with the thoery is that both would occur. Now if this is the case, in order for the thoery to have validity, the theory itself must be suspended in a medium of knowledge that exists outside the medium it proposes to describe. Because, if the constant is what supplies the relation by which everything may exist, then everything that exists must also be of the same consistancy of the constant, It is only in positing the distinction between the elements that such a thoery may exist. Thus, the theory denies itself unless it depends upon an unspokenof residuum that maintains the segregation of elements.

The only way this occurs is through our means of communicating; not through any fundamental feature of 'the universe', but only in the way we have to speak of it. If there is a necessary relation between the objective universe and the way we speak of it, such that our knowledge is constituted as a reflection of the way the universe truly is, then our knowledge of the way the universe is denies the relation our knowledge posits as a basis of its truth value. If we are connected to some universal force that supplies us with true knowledge of the universe as it is, then it (the universe, the positor of itself into knowledge for us to know, as we are 'of' the universe) must admit to a denial of the positor itself, that is the Self Itself as the special creature of the universal process, in the positing of the universe.

Supposed by the thoery is: The universe, moving in such a way through its manifestation that is our human bodies, is asserting a knowledge of itself that is removed from itself in the very supplying of knowledge to us. We deny the 'humanness' of our existance by insisting that our knowledge of the universe is a relfection of its truth instead of merely a reverberation of it. Through this privied knowledge (the knowledge that is supposed to be supplied by the universe in that we are creatures of the universe and the knowledge that we are supposed to be comming upon as such a creature), we 'produce' an effective 'blank spot' from which our supposed 'inside' knowledge of the universe, as 'special' creatures - a blank spot that is effectively God. and in denying that this effect is what truely is granting us this 'knowledge' of truth, in the denial of God is exactly where science gains its ability to give us an inviolate truth. In this way, science can be likened to a religion, not an 'objective science' : science does not give us what it proposes to: it gives us what we give it.