On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net
<socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> But your question really is "what does a physical particle look
> like?"
> My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
> strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
>  . . .
> So string theory IS my religion.
>        / Richard Ruquist  /
>
> Do you advise me to believe in your religion of metaphysics?
>   /socratus/

No. You have to find your own religion if that is what you want.


> ======..
> 1
>   Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin /
> Part 8. The first superstring revolution.
> Page 126 – 127.
> ‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that
>  we weren’t  actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . .
> ‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up
>  the possibility that  it was true of essentially all the
> properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would
>  mean that properties of the elementary particles were
> environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean
>  that physics would be more like biology, in that the
> properties of the elementary particles would depend on the
> history of our universe. ‘
> #
>  ‘ . . .  at least one big idea is missing.
> How do we find that missing idea?’
> / Page 308.  Lee Smolin. /
>
> 2
> String theory  .  . . . ‘ Type IIA  strings as one-dimensional
> objects, having only lengths  but no thickness, . . . . . ‘
>
> / page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene /
>
> 3.
> We don't know what we are talking about"
>   / - Nobel laureate David Gross referring
> to the current state of string theory ./
>
> 4.
>   How did the idea of many dimensions arise?
> ==..
> It began in  1907 when Minkowski tried to  understand
> SRT and invented  4-D negative spacetime continuum
> Nobody knows what  Minkowski 4-D  really is.
> #.
> Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
> said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
> Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
> to explain SRT using 5D space.
> This theory was tested and found insufficient.
> "Well", said physicists and mathematicians,
> " maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
> And they had done it.
> But………. But there is one problem.
> To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
> Because it is impossible to create new D space without
>  a new force, a new parameter.
> And they take this parameter arbitrarily
> ( it fixed according to they 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? Where is the logic?
> #
> 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 negative Mincowski  4-D
>  how can we understand 11-D, 27-D  and string theory ?
> =========.
> If I were a king, I would publish a law:
> every physicist who takes part in the creation
>  of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal
> "To the winner over common sense" because they have
> won us using the abstract  ideas of Minkowski and  Kaluza.
> ==.
> Best wishes.
> Israel Sadovnik  Socratus.
> =.
>
>
> On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I always considered "h" to just be a constant of proportionality
>> between energy and frequency that is determined empirically.
>>
>> What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond
>> measurement and subject to belief.
>>
>> For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where
>> both wave functions and their quantization exist in the quantum mind;
>> whereas only physical particles exist in the physical world. That is,
>> fields, forces and action at a distance all exist in the quantum mind.
>>
>> So lets consider the radiation of EM waves/fields from electrons in an
>> antenna. As the waves spread out, their intensity or amplitude
>> decreases as 1/r squared, so that one quanta of energy (or one photon)
>> requires integration of the amplitude over larger and larger area
>> and/or time.
>>
>> It is my conjecture that arithmetics of the Quantum Mind do a running
>> quantization so that virtual particles are realized in the Quantum
>> Mind that are digital equivalents to the analog EM fields, Same for
>> all quantum wave functions in general.
>>
>> In the MWI scenario, every such virtual particle becomes a  physical
>> particle in a new universe. However, it is also possible that all
>> virtual particles but one get cancelled by anti-particles ala Feynman
>> QED or Cramer analysis thereby resulting in a single universe (SWI).
>>
>> That thinking combines a collapse model with a hidden variable model;
>> but both models apply to the quantum mind and not the physical world.
>> I believe that for my combined model to be true, the arithmetics of
>> the quantum mind must be instantaneous, consistent with the Quantum
>> Mind being mainly a timeless virtual MWI Block Space.
>>
>> But your question really is "what does a physical particle look like?"
>> My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
>> strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics. Of course,
>> point particles are there as well.
>> Richard
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:37 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
>>
>>
>>
>> <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>> >   Belief . . . from history of physics.
>> > =.
>> >   Many years Max  Planck was attracted with the
>> > absolutely black body problem.
>> > If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls in the area of
>> > absolutely black body and does not radiate back, then “ terminal
>> > dead “ will come. In order to save the quantum of light from ‘death ‘
>> > Planck decided that  it is possible that quantum of light
>> >  will radiate back with quantum unit (h ),  (h=Et )
>> > This unit does not come on formulas or equations.
>> > Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
>> > Sorry. Sorry.
>> > Scientists say:  Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
>> > They say:  Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically
>> > ===..
>> > Phenomenology.
>> > 1.
>> > the movement founded by Husserl that concentrates on the
>> > detailed description of conscious experience, without recourse
>> >  to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional
>> >  philosophical questions
>> >http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/phenomenologically
>> > ===…
>> > So. Planck discovered the quantum of energy / action
>> >  ‘without recourse  to explanation, metaphysical assumptions,
>> > and traditional  philosophical questions’.
>> > Many years Planck tried to find rational explanation for his unit
>> > but without success.
>> > We can read that unit (h) is an ’inner’ impulse (spin) of particle.
>> > But what ’inner impulse’ means? We have no  answer.
>> > ==.
>> > There are 1000 books and millions articles about
>> > ‘philosophy of science’ but how can I believe them
>> >  if they didn’t explain me ‘what quantum particle is’.
>> > Our today’s belief in science is similar to the past belief
>> >  in religion:    ‘ I believe because it is absurd.’
>> > / Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) /
>> > ( in science –  big bang,
>> >  in religion - God create woman from Adam’s rib.)
>> > ==..
>>
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> > "Everything List" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > For more options, visit this group 
>> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to