A brief thought of fundamental basis in Physics.

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

A brief thought of fundamental basis in Physics.

Postby socrat44 on April 24th, 2018, 8:53 am 

A brief thought of fundamental basis in Physics.
Physics is created on some fundamental basis.
At first the basis was an absolute space and an absolute time.
But after discovering SRT, GRT, QT - Newtonian basis was changed:
there isn't absolute space, there isn't absolute time.
In this situation scientists decided that universe was started
from ''singular point'' (big bang theory). Most believe in such scenario.
A few don't believe. Why?
a) Gravity forces are the weakest in nature and cannot
create ''singular point'' in the region as big as the whole Universe.
Gravity forces don't work even in a single galaxy and therefore were
invented unseen - unknown ''dark matter-energy''
(more than 90%-95% in the universe)
b) Which force created ''big-bang'' is unknown.
c) ''big bang theory'' doesn't explain the principal problem:
''where did masses come from?''
Some physicists think: universe can start from vacuum.
a) About vacuum effect:
a) “ 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 /

b) Light Created from a Vacuum:
Casimir Effect Observed in Superconducting Circuit
/Science Daily (Nov. 18, 2011) /
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 133050.htm
Chalmers scientists create light from vacuum
http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/Pages/Ch ... acuum.aspx
Then i can think: vacuum is not nothingness.
if vacuum can somehow create light and particles
then it is possible that universe started from vacuum.
” The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? “
/ Paul Dirac /
“ We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body
of reference system they belong to, and all our physical
construction appears erected on sand ”.
/ Book “Evolution of Physics”, by Einstein and Infeld /
'' When the next revolution rocks physics,chances are it will be
about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void.''
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18 ... everything
ETHER (2).jpg
Posts: 463
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

Re: A brief thought of fundamental basis in Physics.

Postby bangstrom on April 25th, 2018, 3:42 am 

I find this to be an intriguing subject that doesn’t necessarily involve getting into the weeds of a single complex experiment but, in my reading about Chalmers experiment, I have been unable to identify where the “vacuum” is to be found.

In one description of the experiment where they create light in a vacuum, the "vacuum" is described as an electrical “short” between two superconductors while others explain that the “short” is best understood as an electrical current quantum tunneling through a thin insulator known as a “Josephson junction.” Carver Mead explains that the insulator in a tunneling device is usually ignored as a “vacuum” even though it doesn’t function as a vacuum because it is a solid material.

I understand the “vacuum” is in the SQUID but a SQUID is a totally solid device so I ask, is there a vacuum anywhere in the Chalmers experiment?
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests