We all know your idea is crazy.

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

  We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on May 22nd, 2018, 2:44 am 

  We all know your idea is crazy.
The question is whether it is cray enough
to have a chance of being correct
    / Niels Bohr /
#
What is the temperature of Hawking radiation ?
The temperature of the background radiation - energy
left over from the Big Bang - is about 2.7 kelvin, but the
temperature of Hawking radiation is only 1.2 nanokelvin
#
My opinion
Book:  ''' Stephan Hawking, A life in science''
''Together with Brandon Carter and Jim Bardeen, Hawking
wrote a paper, published in Communications in Mathematical
Physics , pointing out . . . . . the team commented,
'' In fact the effective temperature of a black hole is
absolute zero . . . .  No radiation could be emitted from the hole.''
  / by Michael White and John Gribbin,  page 156./
But later  (!) , . . using concept of entropy and Heisenberg
uncertainty principle and quantum fluctuations
Hawking changed his mind and wrote that black hole can emit 
( Hawking radiation )
#
So, in the beginning (according to calculations) the ''black hole'' had
absolute zero temperature  T=0K,  but  . . . 
. . .  but thanks to quantum fluctuations Hawking radiations  was arisen
In others words:
''black holes'' are local micro- scheme of  absolute zero  vacuum: T=0K
So called a ''black hole'' is only another name of the true vacuum: T=0K
#
Many say:
''Hawking radiation has never been experimentally verified.''
In my opinion: Hawking radiation (as appearances of virtual particles
from the event horizon of black hole / zero vacuum )  was experimentally
observed  in many physical effects:
a)
Scientists create light from vacuum
November 17, 2011,
https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
b)
“ Its effects can be observed in various phenomena
(such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the
van der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought
to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe
on cosmological scales. “
/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy /.
==================
Attachments
download 777.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on May 24th, 2018, 1:28 am 

We all know your idea is false
because in the beginning was a ''singular point''.
#
We all know that ''a singular point'' doesn't have framework.
#
We all know that thanks to '' a singular point'' different
particles were created (virtual particles too)
#
We all know that these ''virtual particles - antiparticles''
also take some part in the universe.
#
We all think your idea is crazy because an idea that
in the beginning was zero vacuum: T=0K
contradict our comprehension of physics.
======
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on June 1st, 2018, 5:43 am 

Questioning Truth, Reality and the Role of Science
May 24, 2018
==
Many scientists in the early 20th century were deeply engaged
with philosophy, including Einstein, Bohr, Mach and Born.
Have we lost that engagement?
Yes, I think what we have lost is a distinctive way of thinking about science.
We have lost the idea, dating back to the Renaissance and
the scientific revolution, that science is part of our broader cultural history.
/ Michela Massimi /
https://www.quantamagazine.org/question ... -20180524/

==========
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on June 5th, 2018, 8:50 am 

Why some scientists say physics has gone off the rails
Has the love of "elegant" equations overtaken the desire to describe the real world?
by Dan Falk / Jun.02.2018 / 5:13 PM ET
===
"People can believe in the multiverse all they want — but it's not science."
#
"Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed.
Now they try to explain why they can't explain what was not observed.
And they're not even good at that."
  /  Sabine Hossenfelder, /
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/wh ... ncna879346

====================
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on June 12th, 2018, 10:16 am 

Innovation: abstraction and reality: plogiston and Ideal gas.
===
Quote by Albert Einstein about the value of Innovation:
“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”
#
There are two ways of innovation.
a) to solve a problem with one absolutely new idea
( like Planck's quantum of action)
b) to solve a problem looking it from another point of view
( like was solved problem that '' heat is not a phlogiston substance,
but a dynamical form of mechanical effect'' that  slowly  evolved
into the new science of  ''thermodynamics'')
#
The ''phlogiston theory'' was accepted for more than 100 years.
Today, in my opinion, there is another kind of ''phlogiston theory''.
We know this a new  kind of ''phlogiston theory''.from about 1800
by the very old name  ''the theory of ideal gas.
More than 300 years we accept ''an ideal gas'' as an abstract theory.
#
What is an ideal gas ?
a) Ideal gas has the temperature T=0K  ( −273.15 °C)
b). Ideal gas molecules do not attract or repel each other.
c) Ideal gas molecules themselves take up no volume.
#
We usually remember the first things we learn.
The second thing it seems not so important and
the brain refuses  to pay attention on this subject.
For example.
At first in the school we were taught that
''ideal gas''(with temperature T=0K) is an abstract model,
Later we were taught that vacuum is not ''empty, dead place ''
because some kinds of ''quantum virtual particles'' exist there .
As result, the brain refuses to tie ''an abstract ideal gas'' with vacuum.
For me it sound strange.
If the vacuum was accepted as a some real substance
(book :  '‘Dreams of a final theory'’
'‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero''
by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.)
then why the ''ideal gas'' is still  an abstract model?
#
The thermodynamics was created from ''an ideal gas''
In ideal gas molecules /  particles don't interact each other.
But thermodynamics / heat is result of interaction between  particles.
Then i can suggest - small quantum's changes allow ideal particles
create thermodynamic effect.
#
In my opinion ''ideal gas'' is not an abstract model.
It is possible to apply all laws of ''ideal gas'' to zero vacuum
because they both have equal temperature: T=0K and then
the potential characteristic of vacuum's ''virtual particles''
will be clearly known.
Later using  Quantum theory and Lorentz / Einstein SRT
it is possible to understand how the potential characteristic of
''virtual particles''  change / transform  into Planck's dynamic
quantum particles of action.
#
The changes / transformations between potential and active
states of quantum particles are going according to
'' The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''.
This law dictates that quantum particles off energy/mass cannot die,
they can only change / transform  their faces / images.
===========
Attachments
IDEAL LAWS.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on June 28th, 2018, 1:14 pm 

  Perpetual motion and Quantum physics
=
To be true ''Perpetual motion'' must obey some physical law
The  Classic / Newtonian physics forbids  such phenomena
But what does Quantum physics say?
The Quantum physics says:
[ In 2017 new states of matter, time crystals, were discovered in which
on a microscopic scale the component atoms are in continual repetitive motion,
thus satisfying the literal definition of "perpetual motion".
However, these do not constitute perpetual motion machines in the traditional sense
or violate thermodynamic laws because they are in their quantum ground state,
so no energy can be extracted from them; they have "motion without energy"]
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

It means that on a microscopic scale ( in their quantum ground state)
the Quantum physics can allow "perpetual motion" as a
"motion without energy"  . . . but . . .     then the ''zero-point energy'' comes

[ Vacuum energy and zero-point energy:
In order to explain effects such as virtual particles and the Casimir effect,
many formulations of quantum physics include a background energy which
pervades empty space, known as vacuum or zero-point energy.
The ability to harness zero-point energy for useful work
is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large.
Inventors have proposed various methods for extracting useful work
from zero-point energy, but none have been found to be viable,
no claims for extraction of zero-point energy have ever been validated by
the scientific community, and there is no evidence that zero-point energy
can be used in violation of conservation of energy.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
#
If  the ''Perpetual motion'' is true concept then the  virtual particles
must be tied with real particles (Casimir effect ) by
''The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''
#
''Perpetual motion'' concept  is tied with
''The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''
==
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on July 6th, 2018, 7:42 am 

  The Philosopher's Stone and  Quantum particles.
===
a)  First question:
What is  the Philosopher's Stone?
The Philosopher's Stone is a Primary Matter.
All physical elements was derived from one common
source -- primary matter (first matter in the universe)
Philosopher's Stone consist of quantum particles.

b)  Second question:  
Where is the Philosopher's Stone?
Before to talk about Philosopher's Stone we must to think
about the reference frame of this ''stone''
because the Philosopher's Stone must exist somewhere.
#
Different conditions of reference frame can change the images of stone.
If the Philosopher's Stone is in a desert  then It is covered with sang.
If the Philosopher's Stone is in tundra then It is covered with lichen.
If the Philosopher's Stone is at a bottom of sea then It is covered with corals.
If the Philosopher's Stone is in a zero vacuum then It  isn't a bare stone but
the Philosopher's Stone - particle in T=0K is covered with:
1) the theory of ideal gas,
2) quantum theory ,
3) Lorentz / Einstein's SRT.

c)  Third question:
Does  the Philosopher's Stone hidden in a zero vacuum?
Yeah, because all stars, planets . . .  all micro and macro
material objects are hung in the  void of zero vacuum.
Then:
1)
according to  the theory of ideal gas the Philosopher's -particle
must have geometrical form of circle pi=c/d= 3,1415 . . . .
2)
according to  the theory of ideal gas the Philosopher's -particle
must have Boltzmann mass k=R/N(Avogadro)
3) 
according to quantum theory quantum particles must have
energy-mass:  +/- E=Mc^2
4)
according to quantum theory quantum particles must have
own  Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck inner angular impulse h * = h /2pi.
5)
according to SRT quantum particles can obey Lorentz transformations.
============
Attachments
Stone.png
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on July 14th, 2018, 1:52 am 

The theory must be “crazy enough to be true,”
===
There Are No Laws of Physics. There’s Only the Landscape.
Scientists seek a single description of reality.
But modern physics allows for many different descriptions, many equivalent
to one another, connected through a vast landscape of mathematical possibility.
/ by Robbert Dijkgraaf /
But we have to be honest.
Very few current ideas about what replaces particles and fields
are “crazy enough to be true,” to quote Niels Bohr.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-ar ... /#comments
=======
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on July 15th, 2018, 1:39 am 

There is a strange situation:
everybody knows that vacuum is not an empty continuum,
but when it comes to give the physical parameters of vacuum,
then one educated man is as dumb as the next learned guy,
who is as dumb as the learned man next to him.
Why?
Because from the school we were told that ''ideal gas''
(with temperature T=0K) is an abstract model and
until today we live with such '''scientific knowledge''.
As it says: ''Old habits die hard''
====
Attachments
max-planck.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on July 16th, 2018, 2:56 am 

Beauty Is Truth, Truth Is Beauty, and Other Lies of Physics
/ by Sabine Hossenfelder , 15/JUL/2018 /
Who doesn’t like a pretty idea?
Physicists certainly do. In the foundations of physics, it has become
accepted practice to prefer hypotheses that are aesthetically pleasing.
Physicists believe that their motivations don’t matter because
hypotheses, after all, must be tested. But most of their beautiful ideas
are hard or impossible to test. And whenever an experiment comes
back empty-handed, physicists can amend their theories
to accommodate the null results.
https://thewire.in/the-sciences/beauty- ... of-physics
===
Attachments
Sabine Hossenfelder.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   We all know your idea is crazy.

Postby socrat44 on July 17th, 2018, 1:08 am 

socrat44 » July 16th, 2018, 2:56 am wrote:Beauty Is Truth, Truth Is Beauty, and Other Lies of Physics
/ by Sabine Hossenfelder , 15/JUL/2018 /
Who doesn’t like a pretty idea?
Physicists certainly do. In the foundations of physics, it has become
accepted practice to prefer hypotheses that are aesthetically pleasing.
Physicists believe that their motivations don’t matter because
hypotheses, after all, must be tested. But most of their beautiful ideas
are hard or impossible to test. And whenever an experiment comes
back empty-handed, physicists can amend their theories
to accommodate the null results.
https://thewire.in/the-sciences/beauty- ... of-physics
===

"beauty makes all beautiful things beautiful "
by beauty all things are beautiful
by largeness  things are longer than another
by shortness things are shorter than another
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015



Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests