The unity of geometry and physics. =.. My questions are: Can 'dirac's virtual particles' have geometrical form of circle? Can we use Euler equation to this circle- particle ? Which physical laws can we use to this circle- particle ? How can be tied Euler equation, physical laws and circle- particle into one theory ? ==.. I say that there is circle-particle that can change / transformed into sphere-particle and vice versa and Euler's equation cosx + isinx in = e^ix can explain this transformation / fluctuation of quantum particle I try to understand more details. I have circle- particle with two infinite numbers: (pi) and (e). I say that this circle-particle that can change into sphere-particle and vice versa. Then I need third number for these changes. The third number, in my opinion, is infinite a=1/137 ( the fine structure constant = the limited volume coefficient) This coefficient (a=1/137) is the border between two conditions of quantum particle. This coefficient (a=1/137) is responsible for these changes. This coefficient (a=1/137) unite geometry with the physics ( e^2=ah*c) =.. If physicists use string-particle (particle that has length but hasn't thickness -volume) to understand reality (and have some basic problems to solve this task) then why don't use circle-particle for this aim. It is a pity that I am not physicist or mathematician. If I were mathematician or physicist I wouldn't lost the chance to test this hypothesis. =.. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus

## Advertising

==... On Mar 7, 8:22 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > Dear MarkCC. > Thank you for paying attention on my crackpottery article. > I like your comment. > Very like. > ==. > You say: > Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds > of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that > we see - and e and π won't change. > =.. > Now Euler's equation plays a role in quantum theory. > In quantum theory there isn't constant firm quant particle. > The Pi says that a point-particle or string-particle cannot be > a quant particle. The Pi says that that quant particle > can be a circle and it cannot be a perfect circle. > If e and π belong to quant particle then these numbers > can mutually change. > Doesn't it mean that Pi ( a circle ) can be changed into sphere? > Doesn't Euler's equation cosx + isinx in = e^ix can explain > this transformation / fluctuation of quant particle ? > You say: > What things like e and π, and their relationship via Euler's equation > tell us is that there's a fundamental relationship between numbers > and shapes on a two-dimensional plane which does not and cannot > really exist in the world we live in. > =. > > But this 'a fundamental relationship between numbers and > shapes on a two-dimensional plane' can really exist > in two-dimensional vacuum. > > All the best. > socratus. > > ==..... > > On Mar 5, 9:57 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net> > wrote: > > > > > Euler's Equation Crackpottery > > Feb 18 2013 Published by MarkCC under Bad Math, Bad Physics > > > One of my twitter followers sent me an interesting piece of > > crackpottery. > > I debated whether to do anything with it. The thing about > > crackpottery > > is that it really needs to have some content. > > Total incoherence isn't amusing. This bit is, frankly, right on the > > line. > > ==. > > Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature. > > a) Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality. > > Euler's identity is "the gold standard for mathematical beauty'. > > Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics". > > ' . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo > > da Vinci's Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo's statue of David' > > 'It is God's equation', 'our jewel ', ' It is a mathematical icon'. > > . . . . etc. > > b) Euler's Equation as a physical reality. > > "it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, > > and we don't know what it means, . . . . .' > > ' Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence' > > ' Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?' > > 'It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process > > using physics.' > > ' Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum > > physics ?' > > My aim is to understand the reality of nature. > > Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality? > > To give the answer to this. question I need to bind Euler's equation > > with an object - particle. Can it be math- point or string- particle > > or triangle-particle? No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which > > says me that the particle must be only a circle . > > Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and > > therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories. > > These two theories say me that the reason of circle - particle's > > movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi). > > a) Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves > > ( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1. > > We call such particle - 'photon'. > > From Earth - gravity point of view this speed is maximally > > . From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally. > > In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no > > charge). > > b) Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum > > ( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis. > > In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves > > ( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c. > > 1. We call such particle - ' electron' and its energy is: E=h*f. > > In this way I can understand the reality of nature. > > ==. > > Best wishes. > > Israel Sadovnik Socratus. > > > ==. > > Euler's equation says that . It's an amazingly profound equation. > > The way that it draws together fundamental concepts is beautiful > > and surprising. > > But it's not nearly as mysterious as our loonie-toon makes it out to > > be. > > The natural logarithm-base is deeply embedded in the structure of > > numbers, and we've known that, and we've known how it works > > for a long time. > > What Euler did was show the relationship between e and the > > fundamental rotation group of the complex numbers. > > There are a couple of ways of restating the definition of that > > make the meaning of that relationship clearer. > > For example: > > > That's an alternative definition of what e is. If we use that, and we > > plug into it, we get: > > > If you work out that limit, it's -1. Also, if you take values of N, > > and plot , , , and , ... on the complex plane, as N gets larger, > > the resulting curve gets closer and closer to a semicircle. > > An equivalent way of seeing it is that exponents of are rotations > > in the complex number plane. The reason that is because if you take > > the complex number (1 + 0i), and rotate it by radians, you get -1: . > > That's what Euler's equation means. > > It's amazing and beautiful, but it's not all that difficult to > > understand. > > It's not mysterious in the sense that our crackpot friend thinks it > > is. > > But what really sets me off is the idea that it must have some > > meaning in physics. That's silly. > > It doesn't matter what the physical laws of the universe are: > > the values of and e will not change. > > It's like trying to say that there must be something special about > > our universe that makes 1 + 1 = 2 - or, conversely, that the fact > > that > > 1+1=2 means something special about the universe we live in > > . These things are facts of numbers, which are independent > > of physical reality. Create a universe with different values for all > > of the fundamental constants - e and π will be exactly the same. > > Create a universe with less matter - e and π will still be the same. > > Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds > > of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that > > we see - and e and π won't change. > > What things like e and π, and their relationship via Euler's equation > > tell us is that there's a fundamental relationship between numbers > > and shapes on a two-dimensional plane which does not and cannot > > really exist in the world we live in. > > Beyond that, what he's saying is utter rubbish. > > For example: > > These two theories say me that the reason of circle - particle's > > movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi). > > Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves ( as a wheel) > > in a straight line with constant speed c = 1. > > We call such particle - 'photon'. > > From Earth - gravity point of view this speed is maximally. > > From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally. > > In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no > > charge). > > > This is utterly meaningless. > > It's a jumble of words that pretends to be meaningful and > > mathematical, > > when in fact it's just a string of syllables strung together > > nonsensical ways. > > There's a lot that we know about how photons behave. > > There's also a lot that we don't know about photons. > > This word salad tells us exactly nothing about photons. > > In the classic phrase, it's not even wrong: what it says doesn't have > > enough meaning to be wrong. What is the "inner impulse" > > of a photon according to this crackpot? > > We can't know: the term isn't defined. > > We are pretty certain that a photon is not a wheel rolling along. > > Is that what the crank is saying? We can't be sure. > > And that's the problem with this kind of crankery. > > As I always say: the very worst math is no math. > > This is a perfect example. > > He starts with a beautiful mathematical fact. > > He uses it to jump to a completely non-mathematical conclusion. > > But he writes a couple of mathematical symbols, > > to pretend that he's using > > math.http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2013/02/18/eulers-equation-crack... > > > ==. > > > On Feb 14, 8:48 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net> > > wrote: > > > > Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature. > > > =. > > > Mr. Dexter Sinister wrote: > > > ' I understand Euler's Identity, > > > and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it, > > > there's nothing particularly mystical about it, > > > it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric, > > > and complex functions are related. > > > Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise > > > anyone that its various bits are connected. > > > It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would > > > almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.' > > > > Mr. Gary wrote: > > > Mathematics is NOT science. > > > Science is knowledge of the REAL world. > > > Mathematics is an invention of the mind. > > > Many aspects of mathematics have found application > > > in the real world, but there is no guarantee. > > > Any correlation must meet the ultimate test: > > > does it explain something about the real world? > > > As an electrical engineer I used the generalized > > > Euler's equation all the time in circuit analysis: > > > > exp(j*theta) = cos(theta) + j*sin(theta). > > > > So it works at that particular level in electricity. > > > Does it work at other levels, too? > > > Logic cannot prove it. > > > It must be determined by experiment, not by philosophizing. > > > ====.. > > > Thinking about theirs posts I wrote brief article: > > > Euler's Equation and Reality. > > > =. > > > a) > > > Euler's Equation as a > > ... > > read more >>- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.