Brief History of Symmetry and Asymmetry.  / by Socratu

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Brief History of Symmetry and Asymmetry.  / by Socratu

Postby socrat44 on August 6th, 2017, 1:38 am 

  The existing interpretation of quantum mechanics is contrary to common sense. 
        WHY?
================

  BRIEF  HISTORY  of  SYMMETRY and  ASYMMETRY.  / by Socratus /
=====…
   a) 
In 1905  Einstein involved negative time in his SRT.
b)
Nobody knew what negative time  can mean  and therefore Minkowski in 1908
changed negative time into positive time creating 4-D spacetime.
The theory became very beautiful  and as a young physicist said me:
‘ My professor says that you cannot be physicist if you don’t understand
the beauty of SRT in Minkowski’s interpretation.’ but . . .  but nobody knew
and nobody knows  what 4-D really is.  (!)
So, Minkowski was the first person who put symmetry between time and space-dimension.
c)
‘ In 1918 Emmy Noether published theory that every differentiable symmetry
of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.
Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics,
both because of the insight it gives into conservation laws, and also,
as a practical calculation tool. ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
So, thanks  to  Noether the symmetries were legitimate in physics.
d) 
In 1919 Kaluza said that Minkowski’s interpretation is very beautiful, but his theory
doesn’t have forces. Therefore he took  gravitation and electromagnetic forces
as one more  dimension and create 5-D universe.
So, Kaluza  was the  first person who put symmetry between forces and dimension.
e)
To explain and to prove Kaluza’s theory  O.Klein  in 1926 suggested that one dimension
can wrap into  very – very small region – universe, but . . .  but   Mincowski 4-D would
stay unchanged.  (!)
So, Klein was the person who wrapped gravitation and electromagnetic forces
into very –very small region.
Mathematically the theory was beautiful  and interesting but 
nobody knew  what 5-D is and how one  dimension can wrap. (!)
f)
It was passed about 50 years.
New forces were discovered and some physicists came to conclusion that
quantum particle cannot be ‘a point’. Quantum particle as   ‘a point’  doesn’t reflect
the thru image / face of quantum particle.  And because quantum particle at the same
time is a wave therefore it must vibrate for example as a string of violin or guitar.
But this string-particle needs 10 or  11 – dimensions.
All dimensions except Minkowski  4-D must wrap.
Minkowski 4-D keeps unchanged.  (!)
Later was invented another kind of string – loop string-particle that needed
26 or 27 dimensions. And again – in this theory Minkowski 4-D is unchanged. (!)
Physicists say that these theories are very beautiful.
The problem is that nobody   knows if these extra- dimensions and these
string – particles really exist.
=============================…
My opinion:
a - b)
Minkowski in 1908  took time as a symmetry of space.
Space and time became equal each other and therefore we say: ‘spacetime’.
So, if I think of space as a distance then  I must say:
1hour is equal 5 kilometres, 2hour =10 km, 3hour= 15km,  . . . .etc.
But in physics we have only one particle which corresponding to
this condition. And it is photon with constant speed 1sec=300000 km.
In other words: SRT is theory about behaviour of quantum of light
in  the  spacetime.
c)
Emmy Noether was a great and famous mathematician, but bad physicist.
Why?
Because  there isn’t such law in physics  as  ‘ conservation law ’
or  ‘The law of conservation of mass’.
If you read in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
it is half-truth. Half-true  theory is deceitful theory.
You cannot believe half-true  explanation.
The true theory says - there is  only
‘Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass’.
We cannot talk about one without talking about the other.
The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
is a law about a symmetry and asymmetry in the Nature.
If somebody think that  “ The Law of conservation and
transformation of energy/ mass “ is a simple
bookkeeping calculation of debit-credit   he  is  mistaken.
It is a primitive judgment about one of the most important Law in Nature.
Why?
The bookkeeping calculation of debit-credit is 
“ a symmetry law” - like 1$ is equal 100 cents.
But in the Universe we see the laws of symmetry and we see
the laws of breaking of symmetry.
The Life in the Universe is connected  with  symmetry and  with breaking of symmetry.
The forms of living creatures are almost always symmetrical.
But sooner or later comes time of breaking symmetry.
And a  "broken symmetry"  doesn’t  look as  symmetric thing.
( It means : 1$ is not exactly  equal to 100 cents.)
Between symmetry and asymmetry  the effect of ‘transformation’ appears.
But nobody explains what the  ‘transformation’ means according to one
single quantum particle.
=======.
If somebody takes only one part of the law (conservation )
and ignore the second part of it (transformation) then abstract ideas
appear in physics  and we lost sight of the real picture of Nature  .
d - e)
Kaluza and   Klein idea about unity of gravitation and electromagnetic
forces in spacetime  is not finished.
One of problem that gravity is very weak force.
The electromagnetic force is 10^42 times stronger than gravity.
Therefore the problem of unity gravity with quantum theory is still unsolved.
f)
The string theory has its own problem.
In my opinion, if I don’t know what 2 + 2 = 4 then I cannot do more complex calculations.
And if physicists don’t know what 4-D really is, then following calculations are abstracted.
g)
‘Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass’  means
that energy/mass particles can be conserved into potential state
after / through  transformation  and later appear as active particles
also through act of transformation.
Through act of transformation the combined symmetry CPT
  ( charge, space, time ) can be created and  destroyed.
=================.  …
Best wishes.
Israel  Sadovnik  Socratus.
======================================….
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 89
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re:   BRIEF  HISTORY  of  SYMMETRY and  ASYMMETRY.  / by Soc

Postby socrat44 on August 29th, 2017, 11:59 am 

But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
may not be fully aware of it.

In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
fabric OF space and time.

There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
the conservation laws of nature.

Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists
have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th
century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called
Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with
field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are
really talking about these field quanta.

So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time
has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and
the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action.

(I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of
the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields
correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the
fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields
can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.)

Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one
field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a
different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields.
Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge
or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to
"things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given
pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws
that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more
symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).

What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of
symmetries as the fundamental constraint.

So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a
backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the
interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century
physics seems to me to be really about.

There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap
in much better detail.

      Odd Bodkin
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... IswrWd65cs


===========================================
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 89
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Brief History of Symmetry and Asymmetry.  / by Socratu

Postby socrat44 on August 30th, 2017, 4:58 am 

   The  Odd Bodkin  post said:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... IswrWd65cs
===========

a) The fields / waves  extend over ALL space and time.
They don't live IN space and time like particles.
They are part of the fabric OF space and time.

b) There are ''ripples'' =   field quanta = "fundamental particles'' in these fields,
which have behavior constrained by symmetries of nature.

c) '' the idea of "things"/ particles moving through space and time
has become  REPLACED  with the idea of fields that extend everywhere,
and the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action.''

d) ''  . . . electromagnetic charge  is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to
"things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given
pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other.
This idea needs more symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).''

e) ''What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the object.
And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of symmetries as
the fundamental constraint. ''
  #
So, at first physicists use waves and math symmetries to understand situation.
And . . .   EM waves can create . . .  ''charge'', ''ripples'' / particles.
=====================

My opinion.
We don't drink H2O, We drink water, particles of water.
We cannot replace water on H2O and be quenched.

Oceanic waves consists of particles.
Without these particles we don't have waves / water.

The same story is with energy fields / EM waves.
Maxwell's EM waves and Lorentz electron /force are one complete theory.
Without electrons there aren't waves.
#
But until today we don't know what electron is.
We  don't know why the electron has six ( 6 ) formulas
     E=h*f   and   e^2=ah*c ,
    +E=Mc^2   and   -E=Mc^2 ,
     E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV   and   E= ∞

An electron obey five Laws :
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) Dirac - Fermi statistic
e) Maxwell - Lorentz EM theory.

We don't know: what are interactions between these formulas and laws.
================================.
Robert A. Millikan, in his Nobel speech  ( 1923) said,
that he knew nothing about “ last essence of electron”
#
  Feynman wrote about electron :
“ It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. “
===============

Therefore the situation with electron is similar to an old Indian story:
''what is an elephant ?''
One blind man touched the elephant’s foot and said elephant is like a column
Other blind man touched the elephant’s tail and said elephant looks like a snake
The third one touched the elephant’s stomach and said elephant is like a ball
The . . . . . . .. . .
=============.
The electron was '' touched''  in different experiments from different sides
but it seems that our knowledge of an electron is similar to the * blind – knowledge*
of elephant from this old Indian proverb.

As somebody wrote: ''We know electron by what it does, not by what it is''
===========================
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 89
Joined: 12 Dec 2015



Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests