Vacuum and Light quanta.

socratus

Vacuum and Light quanta.

All stars and planets move into the Outer space without
friction. Therefore Newton and Huygens were sure that
the Cosmic space, Aether /Vacuum was an empty space.
In that time Newton gave preference to corpuscular
light theory and Huygens to the waves theory.
But later A.J. Fresnel and Th.Young discovered that
light was transverse waves. And the transverse waves can
propagate only in the firm and spring space as the steel.
Can Aether/ Vacuum be empty and steel at the same time?
Many theories were written to explain this problem. All of
them are covered with dust and maybe only historians of
science remember them.
Now somebody wrote:
" Maybe the problem of transverse waves in Aether is
possible to solve in another way. Perhaps it is
necessary to explain not the Aether but how light works."
My answer on the question:" How does Light quantum work?"
1.
Light quantum can travel with constant speed c=1.
and then we call it Photon.
2.
Light quantum can work with speed c>1.
and then we call it Electron.
3.
Light quantum can stop its moving and take
a rest c=0 and then we call it Anti matter.
4.
Is my interpretation correct ?
Yes. It is correct. Why?
Because when Electron interacts
with Vacuum we also call it Anti matter
5.
If you doubt in my rightness, ask yourself :
What does " The Law of conservation and transformation
of energy" mean according to one single Light quanta ?
================..
Best wishes.

_________________
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' hide
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

socratus

Vacuum and Gravity.

Now it is considered that Newton / Einstein's laws
of gravitation are basis of physics, the first laws of the Universe.
But the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
is so small (the average density of all substances in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that gravitation
field, as whole, is broken , it doesn't work, as whole, in the Universe.
So, the Newton / Einstein's laws of gravitation are correct only
in the small and local part of Universe and we cannot take them
as the first ones. What can the first law of the Universe be?
All galaxies , all gravitation fields exist in Vacuum (T=0K).
Therefore the Vacuum can be “The first law of the Universe.”
Question:
How can the hot process of star formation in cold Vacuum begin?
===========..
P.S.
Sorry, I forgot that it is possible also to take
a" Big bang" as the first law of Universe,
as the basis of physics. Everything is possible
in the mad Orwell's house.

_________________
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' hide
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

socratus

Vacuum, infinity, particles... etc.
#
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
said Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
============..
1.
The Third Law of Thermodynamics says that we cannot
reach the Absolute temperature of Vacuum T=0K.
This temperature is a border for us.
Classic physics says that all particles in T=0K will stop their
movement. But Quantum theory doesn't agree with this statement.
Dirac and other his colleagues said that in the sea of
vacuum " virtual, negative, imaginary (i^2=-1) " particles live.
So, the Third Law says that the border between infinity universe
and the " finite world" is marked by Kelvin temperature T=0K.
In another words in the infinity universe T=0K another
objects with finite " inner borders " can exist. The question is:
How can the infinity universe interact with the " finite world" ?
======...
2.
What is a geometrical and physical parameters of particles
in Vacuum, in Nothing , in T=0K?
Can we know anything about this "soup of virtual particles" in vacuum?
The physicists think about the " virtual, negative, imaginary
(i^2=-1) " particles as about of a " point". They are mistaken.
Because, there are physical laws which forbid such opinion.
Because according to J. Charles law ( 1787), when the
temperature falls down on 1 degree the volume decreases
on 1/273. And when the temperature reaches -273 degrees
the volume disappears.
Because, as consequence from the Third Law
( W. Nernst-1906, M. Planck-1911, A.Einstein-1925)
when it is closer to zero T=0K the particles lose more
their volume, density, pressure. The volume of these
particles aspires to infinity. And when this “ infinity”
comes nobody knows what to do with the infinity.
But, according to the
" Law of conservation and transformation of energy"
the particles cannot disappear. So, they can only change
its geometrical form and its kinetic energy and become
“flat particles” with potential energy. These flat particles
must have geometrical form of a circle C/D=pi.
So, it is mistaken to think about elementary particle
as about a point.
3.
And from another side we know that photon is a real particle
and can fly with constant speed c=1.
In this movement its form is a compressing circle.
4.
etc.
==============================

_________________
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' hide
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

socratus

Mr. B. wrote:
If you are looking for support, at most you will find paranoid
and/or confused individuals who want to take shelter in your
us-vs.-them state of mind.

Who is who?
=================....
1.
The speed of Light quantum is constant: c=1,
no matter how the source or the observer moves.
/ Michelson’s experiment. 1881. SRT. 1905. /
2.
But .. .. in every book and textbook is written that
there isn’t absolute speed. For example in the book
“ Relative theory- actual” by Prof. Ernst Schmutzer.
Part 3.2.2.page 122. and
Part 3.2.4. page 130.

Another book “Relativity for the layman”
By James A. Coleman.
Part 3 pages 47 -48

Another book “The materialistic essence of Einstein’s
Relative theory” by Mostepanenko M. B.
Page 37.

Another book “ Einstein and development of physical/
mathematical thought.” by Science Academy of
USSR. Article “ Physics and Relative theory”
by M. Born. On the pages 74 and 81.
And article “ Relative theory and some questions
about the optic of moving bodies” by Francfurt U. I.
and Frenk A.M. Page 224: “ Relative theory
doesn’t know absolute moving”.
etc….
3.
From the school days I cannot understand how
it is possible to say that the speed of photon is
absolute constant c=1 and in the same time to say :
“ All motion is relative (hence ,the theory of relativity).
We can never speak of absolute motion as such,…..”
…etc.
Maybe somebody can explain me this paradox.
==========..
It is very difficult to prove the correctness
in our Orwell's mad house.

====================...
Best wishes.
Israel.

_________________
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' hide
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

sdhobbs

Einstein is also supposed to have said that C (speed of light) was the maximum speed of any matter in the universe and that this was because as matter approaches the speed of light its mass (momentum) becomes so infinitly great that it can not be accelerated further.

Yet if light is a particle and has mass, it's mass/momentum must also be almost infinite, so if that were the case then would it not pass straight through any object on its path and so we would not have a shadow.

Besides I thought the idea of "photons" was actually initially a way of imagining and quantifying the energy in light mathematically and not a physical reality.

Also if light were particles travelling as fast as the speed of light, why can we not hear them? For if they are travelling that fast, each would also have a "sonic boom", so with all this light around pouring down from the sun then it'd be a bit noisy wouldn't it?

Also on the subject of an "absolute" vaccuum, this would be an area of space where there is no energy (0K) with no light, no magnetic fields, no matter or any other known physical qualities. You say "we know that a vaccum has strange effects", but do we? I think if every matter and force were removed then in fact it would have no effect at all except to explode any matter placed within it and "diffuse" all energy forced into it
until the area or "space" was occupied completely by an even medium of whatever was introduced.

Sorry, reword the bit on matter: It would explode any matter within it which did not have sufficient internal bonding to hold it together. For example a huge lump of diamond may stay intact, but a human would quickly be turned inside out and spread into a thin mist.

_________________
God did not play dice, he obviously prefered marbles.

socratus

Inertia and Spin. / My opinion./

1.
Aristotle.
Every object needs force/power/energy for its moving .
If no force, no moving.
2.
Newton.
Of course great Aristotle is right saying that there is no movement
without forces . I respect him very much and I won’t make a
fool myself quarrelling with him. However I can say more and explain
Aristotle’s opinion by the formula F=ma. It means, the force of moving
object depends on acceleration which it gives to this object’s mass. But
here I have two opportunities /possibilities.
a) The acceleration appears as a result of outside influence.
One body (moving body) interacts with another body (moving or
resting).
b) But if I have only one, single body moving in the straight line
and it doesn’t interact with another body it means that this body
also must have an acceleration. In this situation I don’t know
how the acceleration appears, I don’t know if it is inner
acceleration of body, I know nothing about this acceleration.
But this kind of acceleration must exist and I will name it “inertia”.
3.
Mach.
Newton doesn’t know the reason of inertia, but maybe inertia depends
on all stars, on all the matter in the Universe.
4.
Planck.
Newton’s inertia is very strange, and Mach’s idea too. But if I will take
that our Universe looks like a “black body “ then I can suggest that
must be some very small particle (quant) which can move “inertial “
with constant speed c=1 over a period of time. I will write this “inertial “
moving of quanta by formula: h=Et. But really, it is hard for me to
believe that I am right.
5.
Einstein.
Of course Planck is right. But I don’t like the way he reached the result.
He says nothing concrete about the particle and the reason of this
acceleration’s beginning. I will take another road. If I use the Boltzmann
resting particle (R/N=k ) and give him Wien’s displacement constant (b),
as an acceleration, then the particle will have the Planck’s impulse but
now the formula is h=kb. Planck’s formulas and my own are equal, as they
explain behavior of quant (light quanta) from different point of view.
6.
Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck.
It is all well.
But we can see different kinds of movings in the real Nature And look at
Planck’s formula h=Et. It includes time (t). And time, by its nature, is a
limited parameter. It means that this particle cannot go straight at all time
with constant speed c=1. This kind of moving must be temporary
and can change. So, another possibility is that the particle can spin
around itself and we will write this kind of moving by formula h=h/2pi.
7.
L. de Broglie and Heisenberg.
These two spins of particle are very important parameters, so we will
try to explain all phenomena in the Nature using only these parameters.
…………………….
But, unfortunately, they both didn’t have success. Why did they fall?
Because to use only spin parameters is not enough. The spin
parameters belong to the particle who/ which have/has also another
parameters: speed (c) and volume (a) and all together they can create
particle which we call electron: e^2=ahc. Now using electron and
Boltzmann particle (R/N=k ) it is possible to explain the beginning
of star formation (gravitation) and later all another phenomena of
the Nature.
===============.
P.S.
Someone wrote to me:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “

I don’t say about myself, I say about this article:
“This article waits for its Nobel Prize.”
Does somebody have another opinion?

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik/ Socratus

_________________
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' hide
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

socratus

Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything .
====================.
Could the vacuum contain dark energy, gravity particles,
and frictionless gears?
by Tim Folger
published online July 18, 2008

When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void.

http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

_________________
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' hide
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

Vacuum and Light quanta.

Forum Options

Register