On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]. >> > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
