I am not sure on this fixed (rest) reference frame at all.
/ archytas /
==.
It means that you say: ‘I am not sure what Vacuum exist. ’
==.
#
" 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 ./
#
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
#
Wikipedia :
“ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well
defined,
resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of
space,
how can we characterize either? “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
#
"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.
#
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
#
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned into
particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.
/ University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb./
#
Vacuum -- the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness –
is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws
of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum,
allowing light-light interactions.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html
#
Dark energy may be vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php
#
An experiment.
According to QED Electron in interaction with vacuum has
infinity parameters ( energy, mass …etc )
Physicists do not understand what to do with infinite sizes,
and therefore they have invented "a method of renormalization",
The method of renormalization is a method
" to sweep the dust under the carpet." / Feynman./
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
!
==========.
#
- Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1 - My opinion.)
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.
========================…
On Apr 25, 7:26 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am not sure on this fixed (rest) reference frame at all. Space
> moves as in its descent faster than light speed into a black hole. If
> we vary the space light is in, as in trapping it (almost) in Bose-
> Einstein condensate, we see it travelling at bicycle speed and 'come
> out as a matter wave' (Lene Hau). C is only constant in vacuum,
> though I can't, in my peasant way, understand why acceleration is
> never an issue, as I assume distance is not as issue for light quantum
> in it 'achieving C' (otherwise it would be slower in shorter point to
> point). A spaceship does not leap to C just because we put it in
> vacuum. So why does light? In this peasant view, perhaps photons
> have to achieve an escape velocity equal to the maximum velocity of
> the medium they escape to? Maybe 'space' is moving and carries the
> photon off because 'space' is weakly interactive with classical mass
> but highly interactive with quanta? Such a light beam travelling in
> space, bits of which 'spin off' sideways to another observer is seen
> travelling at C, unless it is caught in superfast space near a
> blackhole. Perhaps this C is some aspect of light travel dissimilar
> to, say, a boat on its medium and the vectors we can apply to that?
> We peasants perhaps understand water because we think it more like
> that new viewly we may drown than be exposed to space and have to try
> and swim in that (which is theoretically possible). Maybe light
> travels in conduits in space and is benign to its currents?
> Space works well in 3d where we have a solid floor but we go to 4d
> where the floor is removed. Peasant Time disappears in this and
> becomes a sequencing, even if one of non-commutative geometry in which
> outcomes can be very different on the basis of such ordering, and
> clocks and rods not as reliable as in the peasant world rooted to
> common sense of very particular experience of universally unusual
> space conditions the peasant may perceive as universal as so many do
> of religion and other cultural habits that are parochial.
> The peasant may make do with considering herself chosen by god and end
> up as cannon-fodder in wars of intellectual idiots. The questions in
> science that need that new view (unlikely) of the photon at large as a
> kind of Alcubierre warp drive or on a string conveyor belt that
> travels at C. LOL!
>
> On Apr 23, 4:37 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > #
> > If we measure the speed of quantum of light in vacuum from
> > different inertial frames the result will be the *same* - constant.
> > Why?
> > Because all different inertial frames ( stars and planets of billion
> > s and billions galaxies ) exist in infinite motionless, stationary,
> > fixed (rest) reference frame of Vacuum.
> > Socratus
>
> > ===- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
