Dear Mike Atovigba Thank you for your comment. Can you explain me how is possible to use Riemann geometry to springy circle particle? Physically this is self- contained process and therefore we need to use non-linear equations. How is possible to combine them together? Yours sincerely Israel Sadovnik. ===========
On 13 Oct, 17:08, garshagu <mikeatovi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Socratus, > I've enjoyed your work just as i've always. I love you for your > frankness. > You've helped me a lot. You and the professsors on this group. You > have trained me and made me to become a great thinker! > For instance, your concluding remarks on particles looking like spring > circles! Just rhyms with my conclusion on proving the Riemann > Hypothesis! Phenomenologically. > I think i've just proved the Riemann Hypothesis. I'll post it in a > couple of hours from now! > Mike Atovigba > > On Oct 8, 1:41 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > - Hallelujah !! String Theory !! > > ==. > > Science has always been a source of heresy. > > ====.Lee Smolin wrote: > > > I have written this book in the hope that it will contribute > > to an honest and useful discussion among experts and > > lay readers alike. > > / ‘ The trouble with Physics’. Page XVIII. / > > I will take Smolin’s proposition and try to explain my > > amateur’s thoughts about that was called ‘String theory’. > > =============. > > # > > Three years ago I posted an article ‘ The Special Theory > > of Relativity’ I wrote: > > ‘ String theory acts in 11- D space. > > But if we don't know what 1+1 = 2 is > > how can we know what 5+4 = 9 is? > > And if we don't know what 4-D negative Mincowski space > > is how can we understand 11-D space ( String theory) ?’I wrote: . . . . > > > ‘If I were a king, I would publish a law: > > every physicist who takes part in the creation > > of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal > > "To the winner over common sense". > > Why? > > Because they have won us using the > > absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. ‘ > > This was a reason that I refused to read any information > > about ‘String theory’. > > And later on different forums I posted emails, trying > > to explain, that the point is only a shadow of real particle, > > that it is impossible to understand Physics and Nature > > thinking of particle as a point.I wrote: In 1915 Einstein connected Mass > > with Geometry. > > > Maybe now, in 2010, somebody will try to understand the > > interaction between an elementary particle and geometry.I wrote: > > > 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 in Physics will disappear. > > # > > Travelling in Scotland, by chance, in a secondhand shop > > I bought a book: ‘ The trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin. > > This book changed my opinion about ‘String theory’. > > Now I say: Hallelujah ! Hallelujah ! Why? Because > > ‘… particles could not be seen as points, which is how > > they always been seen before. Instead, they were ‘stringlike’, > > existing only in a single dimension, and could be stretched, . . > > And . . . they vibrated.’ / Page 103. / ‘ . . the idea of particles > > as vibrations of strings was the missing link that could work > > powerfully to resolve many open problems.’ / Page 124./ > > It is nice. It is pleasant to read this idea. > > So, the string particle is a dynamic particle. And the string can > > have different geometric forms: ‘String can be both closed and > > open. A closed string is a loop. An open string is a line; > > it has ends’. / Page 106./ And now few physicists try to connect > > forces, movement and geometry of the quantum particle together. > > Hallelujah ! It is a progress. It is a step to truth. > > Now I say: the truth is hidden in the ‘ String theory ’. > > # > > But there are many string theories. And the growing catalogue > > of string theories evokes trouble. Because one theory is better > > than the other one, but at the same time each new theory brings > > new problems. Maybe therefore Lee Smolin wrote: > > ‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing. > > How do we find that missing idea?’ / Page 308. / > > Interesting: What was missed by ‘ the brightest and > > best- educated scientists’ who worked very hard doing > > many complicated calculations ? > > New particle? New D ? New force? New idea? > > Where did they have an error? > > I will try to understand this situation. > > # > > If I were professor I would great super – super 55D for > > explaining everything. But I am a peasant and the best way > > for me is to take the simplest reference frame – the Euclidean > > space ( 2D) . And maybe (who knows ?) Newton was right > > saying: ‘ Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, > > and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.’ > > Now I will put a virtual- ideal particle in this 2D. > > The 2D is a thin and flat homogeneous space, so my particle > > also must be thin and flat and very symmetrical. > > Can it be a very thin and tiny limited line- string? > > No. In my opinion even this very thin and tiny line > > under good microscope will be looked as a rectangle. > > Can it be a very thin and tiny limited loop? > > No. The geometrical form of a loop is too complex, > > needs supplementary forces to create it. > > Can it be a very thin and tiny limited circle? > > Yes. > > From all geometrical forms the circle is the most symmetrical. > > The surface of a circle takes up the minimal area it can and > > I will write it by formula: C/D= pi= 3.14. (!) > > But I can put many particles there, for example, > > Avogadro’s number of particles: N(a). (!) > > # > > What is my next step? > > If I were a physicist I would say that 2D must have some > > physical parameters like: volume (V), temperature (T) > > and density (P). Yes, it seems the idea is right. > > Then, volume (V) is zero, > > temperature (T) is zero > > but . . but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real space > > then its density can approximately be zero. > > # > > What can I do with these three parameters? > > I have only one possibility, to write the simplest formula: > > VP/T=R (Clapeyron formula !) > > What is R? R is some kind of physical state of my 2D. > > And if I divide the whole space R by Avogadro’s > > numbers of particles then I have a formula R/ N(a) = k, > > then k ( as a Boltzmann constant) is some kind of > > physical state of one single virtual- ideal particle. (!) > > # > > But all creators of Quantum theory said that this space, > > as a whole, must have some kind of background energy (E). > > And its value must be enormous. > > But the background mass of every Avogadro’s particles > > in 2D has approximately zero mass, it is approximately > > massless (M). > > So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately > > massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single > > virtual- ideal particle ( according Einstein and Dirac) is > > E/M=c^2 (potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 ! ) > > ( I don’t know why physicists call E/M= c^2 ‘rest mass’ > > and never say potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .) > > In potential state my particle doesn’t move, > > so its impulse is h = 0. > > # > > My conclusion. > > I have virtual- ideal- massless particle which has > > geometrical and physical parameters: > > C/D= pi= 3.14 . . . . , R/ N(a) = k, E/M=c^2, h=0. > > All my virtual- ideal- massless particles are possible to call > > ‘ bosons’ or ‘antiparticles’ . These bosons are approximately > > massless but have huge potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 . > > But I have no fermions, no electric charge, no tachyons, > > no time, no mass, no movement at this picture. > > #Smolin wrote: ‘ – the missing element – must have been > > > one of the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’/page 102/ > > Where was ‘the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’? > > In the hope to understand Smolin’s thought I will draw > > historical scheme: Quantum Theory ----> > > ----> Thermodynamics ----> Theory of gases ----> Ideal Gas. > > So, ‘the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’ was connected > > with idea of an ‘Ideal Gas’. From Ideal Gas our trouble with > > physics begins. I think the ‘Ideal Gas’ cannot be an abstract > > hypothesis. In my opinion the ‘Ideal Gas’ must be a real model > > of vacuum: T=0K . > > ===================.. > > Now, thinking logically, I must explain all the effects of > > motions. And. . . and I cannot say it better than Newton: > > ‘For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover > > the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions > > and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces.’ > > # > > How can one single virtual- ideal particle start its movement? > > At first, it will be right to think about some simple kind of > > movement, for example: my particle will move in straight line > > along 2D surface from some point A to the point B. > > What is possible to say now? > > According to the Michelson-Morley experiment my particle > > must move with constant speed: c=1 and its speed is independent. > > Its speed doesn’t depend on any other object or subject, it means > > the reason of its speed is hidden in itself, it is its inner impulse. > > This impulse doesn’t come from any formulas or equations. > > And when Planck introduced this inner impulse(h) to physicists, > > he took it from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry. > > I must write: Planck introduced this inner impulse (h) intuitively. > > I must write: Planck introduced his unit (h) phenomenologically. > > At any way, having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my > > particle flies with speed c=1. We call it photon now. > > Photon’s movement from some point A to the point B > > doesn’t change the flat and homogeneous 2D surface. > > Of course, my photon must be careful, because in some local > > place some sun’s gravitation can catch and change its trajectory > > I hope it will be lucky to escape from the sun’s gravity love. > > # > > My photon can have other possibility to move. This second > > possibility was discover by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck > > in 1925. They said > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
