Do you believe in Physics ?

[socratus]

Do you believe in Physics ?
You don’t have to be so sure. Why ?
=== .
How does Physics look now?
#
The basis of the Physics consists of:
1.
Abstract ‘ inertial movement’.
2.
Abstract ‘ideal gas and ideal particles.’
3.
Abstract ‘absolute black body.’
4.
Abstract ‘entropy’
5.
Abstract SRT negative 4 - D space,
abstract 5D, …….and 11 - dimensional spaces. .
6.
Abstract separated absolute space and time of Newton.
7.
Abstract ‘virtual particles’, ‘dark matter and dark energy’.
8.
Abstract ‘big bang’.
9.
Abstract " method of renormalization ". . . . . . etc.
=========..
And therefore we can read.
Conclusion from the book ‘ The Holographic Universe ’
by Michael Talbot.
‘ Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.’
#
Conclusion from some article:
‘ One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality.’
============ . .
In my opinion to understand the paradoxes we must
reconsider the old basis of the Physics.
=== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 3624&st=15
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 547&st=105
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
================== . .

[nameless]

Conclusion from some article:
‘ One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality.’

Just precious!
*__-

In my opinion to understand the paradoxes we must
reconsider the old basis of the Physics.

Already done and moving on.
If you learned and understood some QM you would understand that you are beating, for some reason?, an obsolete horse, and your posts might be more... coherent.

[Arising_uk]

...
In my opinion to understand the paradoxes we must
reconsider the old basis of the Physics.

Which would be?
Regards
a_uk

[socratus]

[quote="nameless
If you learned and understood some QM you would understand
that you are beating, for some reason?,
an obsolete horse, and your posts might be more... coherent.
[/quote]
==========
Why is Quantum Theory paradoxical ?

The theory which we call Quantum Mechanics is very strange.
Because when we are talking about mechanics it means that we can
imagine and see this process visually. But QM came with no visual
aids, no model to picture in one's mind. Now this theory is a purely
mathematical formalism, difficult to use and impossible to visualize.
It simply gives the right answers to the most complicated theoretical
question. Such situation satisfy maybe 99% of physicists.
But there are few physicists who don’t agree with this situation.
They want to understand QT without paradoxes.
I consider that these paradoxes are connected with only one reason:
" Nobody pays attention to the geometrical form of particles".
Now the physicists follow "pure" mathematicians.
"Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot. The bizarre concepts generated
out of the over use and misinterpretation of mathematics would be
funny if it were not for the tragedy of the waste in time, manpower,
money, and the resulting misdirection." - - said Richard Feynman.
There is difference between "pure" mathematics and the mathematics
of theoretical physics.
" Pure" mathematics is infinite and the mathematics of theoretical
physics is limited by natural laws. The "pure" mathematicians have
all rights to create and use abstract models ( point, line …etc)
Physicists must use mathematical apparatus in connection with real
objects, with real particles. And they forgot about this fact.
For example.
1. In thermodynamics particles are "mathematical points",
2. In QT particles are "mathematical points",
3. In SRT, particles are points. But according SRT the
"mathematical point", cannot be a firm "mathematical point" .
It means it is a "elastic point", which can change its form. ( ??!! ).
4. When this "mathematical elastic point" flies with speed c=1
its form become a flat circle, not a " mathematical point"
flying with speed c=1.
5. In QED an electron is an elastic sphere, which can change its form. ( ??!! ).
6. The power, impulse, linear and angular momentum in physics is
also a " mathematical point".
7. Then one "mathematical point" /particle/ interacts with another
"mathematical point" / power, impulse / the physicists say:
" The micro-world is paradoxical."
8. If physicists think about a particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical. And I am sure if somebody
takes into consideration the geometrical form of particle the
paradoxes of QT will disappear.
===== .
In an Italian railway station:
It was more then two hours 'till the departure of the train.
I went to the café and ordered a cup of coffee. Soon two men
and a very beautiful, slim woman took a place opposite me.
They ordered something to drink and one of the man opened
a case of violin and took out a bow. He began to explain
something about the bow, carefully and gently touching it.
Then another man took this bow and also enthusiastically
continued this conversation. For half an hour the bow was passed
from one hands to another followed with enthusiastic discussion.
And the beautiful woman looked at bow, at both these men without
saying a word. For half an hour I watched this group with admiration
and excitement. What a class! What a cultural level!
What a beauty!
And now let's imagine the bow pressed into a "mathematical point"
and the musicians speak seriously about a "mathematical point"
which must produce a sound from a violin.
Everybody will say I describe an idiotic situation.
Well, I agree.
But why doesn't anybody say it to physicists when they observe
an elementary particle as a "mathematical point" , without paying
attention to its geometrical form.
When Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics." it was only because nobody took
into consideration the geometrical form of a particle.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.

=============

[nameless]

Why is Quantum Theory paradoxical ?...

When Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics." it was only because nobody took into consideration the geometrical form of a particle.

Nah, if my old neighbor (Feynman) were here, I don't think that he'd agree with your inferred reason for his statement. Though you interpret his statement as you might, the interpretation is your's! He never claimed such reasoning as far as I am aware.
("Nobody understands quantum mechanics" is a line that quantum mechanics use to pick up babes!)

He might also point out that any particular partical has no inherent 'form' (geometrical or otherwise), but is an 'information wave', an amorphous 'cloud' of Mindstuff ('undifferentiated potential').
Where/what is your evidence of an inherent geometrical particulate configuration?
'Form' of any kind is a matter of perception...
Perceiver and perceived are 'one'.

He would also point out to you that a 'mathematical point' has no dimensions and, necessarily, has no 'form' of any kind.

And if Richard wouldn't have pointed this out, I am.

[socratus]

He might also point out that any particular partical has
no inherent 'form' (geometrical or otherwise), but is an 'information wave',
/ nameless /
================================
I agree.
The particle – electron is an 'information wave'.

In our terrestrial world the Information ( some basis of Consciousness)
can be transfer to you only by Electromagnetic waves.
Lorentz proved: there aren’t Electromagnetic waves without Electron.
Therefore I say,
only Electron can be the Quantum of Information/ Consciousness.
We don’t have any other theory of Information’s transfers.
====.
#
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein /
#
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody /
=============

[nameless]

He might also point out that any particular partical has no inherent 'form' (geometrical or otherwise), but is an 'information wave'

I agree.
The particle – electron is an 'information wave'.

In our terrestrial world the Information (some basis of Consciousness)
can be transfer to you only by Electromagnetic waves.

There has not been found any 'basis' of Consciousness. All existence is within Consciousness. 'Consciousness' is the 'basis' of existence/the Universe.
The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that "Consciousness is the Ground of All Being"! Meaning that 'electrons' and 'electromagnetic waves' and hamburgers and thoughts, etc..., everything, are all perceptions within Consciousness. Our perceiving something is it's existence. There is no 'information travelling from a 'thing' to our perception. Things are, by our perception of them. We are perceivers, that is what we are. We perceive the universe into being!

Lorentz proved: there aren’t Electromagnetic waves without Electron.

Not relevent. There are not ocean waves without ocean. So? Oceans and electrons, to exist, must be perceived by Conscious Perspective into existence!
They do not exist and are subsequently perceived; they are perceived into existence! They have no existence prior to perception.

We don’t have any other theory of Information’s transfers.

You'll have to define what you mean by "information transfer" before I can comment.

You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein /

Sorry, this makes no sense. If he is admitting to not really understanding the electron, he cannot say from knowledge/experience (other then pure speculation), that the understanding of an electron would be "sufficient" (sufficient for what? Sufficient how? To whom?)
I say that understanding the electron is equivalent (metaphoric) to understanding everything else, that the electron is non-different than everything else, all is 'information waves', all is Mindstuff perceived by Conscious Perspective (us).
In this context, it is sufficient...

Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody /

I just did.

[Mike Strand]

A whimsical look at quantum mechanics: The Racehorse Named "Electron", and the Meaning of Simultaneity

I just paid a million dollars for Electron and took him to the track to see what he could do. I have two clocks, synchronized to show the same time within a thousandth of a second of each other. This means that the clocks flip to the same time reading within 1/1000 of a second of each other. I also have two expensive cameras, with shutter speeds of near 1/1000 of a second, say.

I have set up a clock and a camera at the starting gate. When my horse leaves the gate, the clock records the time and the camera takes his picture. I also have set up a clock and a camera at the finish line, to record the time the horse crosses the line and take his picture when he does so. I can't watch him run, though, because I'm busy at the office so I can make the payments on the horse, so I have the groom follow my instructions for timing the horse. He just hands me the time records and photographs at the end of the day, and doesn't say anything about the horse's run, being a quiet, grumpy sort of guy.

Result of trial: Start clock records that my horse left the starting gate at 10:10 am, and the start camera takes a photo of him kicking away from the starting gate. End clock records that my horse crossed the finish line at 10:10 am, and the end camera takes a photo of him crossing the finish line.

I'm ecstatic: Electron is a good name for the horse. I expected the horse to take at least 2 minutes to run the distance, but he left the starting gate and appeared at the finish line simultaneously! Hard to believe, so I arrange another trial for the next day.

End of story. OK, you've figured out, maybe, that my clocks only show the time to the nearest 10 minutes. In the first trial my horse really started, say, at 10:11 and .20 seconds, and ended at 10:13 and .41 seconds. Both times would show as 10:10 from my clocks.

How good are measurements of the behavior of electrons disappearing here and appearing there? Can we determine whether two events are "simultaneous"? (Can we determine it's the same electron?) What if one of the measurements is biased? For example, even if the same clock is used to measure the time of both events, suppose during the experiment it skips ahead somewhat, or falls behind somewhat, unknown to me, for reasons of which I'm not aware?

I assume such questions as these, having to do with the fact of measurement error in scientific experiments, have been answered, and so I appear to be a naive fool. So be it. I would be grateful if someone told me the precautions experimenters take with their measuring equipment, when they study electrons and make the claim that events occur "simultaneously".

[nameless]

Some food for thought re: 'time', that can be enjoyed at your leisure;

The Time Percept
Super clocks: More accurate than time itself
Is time an illusion?
Outside of time: The quantum gravity computer
Relativity and the Separation Formula if you wish to go a mathematical route...
A Possible Solution to the Problem of Time in Quantum Cosmology By Stuart Kauffman and Lee Smolin

[Mike Strand]

Many thanks, nameless! I'm starting to "wade" through these, and the reading is fun. I encourage others to read from your list.

Anybody out there involved in quantum experimentation? I would enjoy hearing about your methods, instrumentation, any use of repeated measures and statistical testing and estimation, etc. to determine what happens in those experiments.

[Cerveny]

============ . .
In my opinion to understand the paradoxes we must
reconsider the old basis of the Physics.
=== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
================== . .

By my opinion it is necessary to understand the point “now” and to quickly forget very disputable Theory of relativity and any "timespace". How we can declare the antimatter has the same gravitational properties as “common” mass?... How we can declare any singularities in real, physical world?... How we can declare the "time" axis is unlimited? Does the future (we in the future) already exist?...