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:
Scientists create light from vacuum
November 17, 2011,
“ 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 /.
download 777.jpg
Posts: 184
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.
Posts: 184
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/

Posts: 184
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

Posts: 184
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.
Posts: 184
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests