Did you ever discuss these matters with Georges Metanomski? Is Georges still around? He must be getting up there in age... Hope he is alright... despite his very "cantankerous" character.... Anyway..... My own interest is in William of Ockham, and i do not htink that your mentioning the so-called principle of Occam's razor doe Ockham any credit.... it is just a commonplace assumed "high-brow" reference meant to indicate intrellectual authority by implication"....but just amounts to an artifice..... Ockham was interested in a "First Intention" apprehension of individual "Things" through direct experience or experimentation... and thereby arriving atr some "concept" or "idea" as to their operation..... from what I gather from your paper (and I am not versed in any scientific disciprines at all).... there is NO.... THING.... in what you are talking about... no "matter or energy" or physically identifiable or quantifiable reference to correspond to the "virtual" idea or concept that you are proposing......at best, far from making you a Nominalist like Ockham " you appear to be merely "positing" some sort of "objective" virtual idea or concept... like at best a Realist... but without a corresponding Objective reference ... at worst with only a subjective reference...then, just a Phenomenologist....... Tell you what, somehow prove the objective physical existence of the virtual particle that you have postulated.... and maybe I will give the whole some "credence".... personally I just do not believe anything at all that a phenomenologist has to say... Realists... I tend to credit their work on the "reference" side.... and Idealists... I tend to credit their work on the "Concept"... but Phenomenologists..... Neither....All wrong.... I think...
On Apr 25, 9:36 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote: > - Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. > The principle states that: > "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." > Now the Occam's Razor is in conflict with mainstream science. > ==. > At first I take the simplest reference frame - > - the Euclidean space ( 2D). > Now I will put a virtual - ideal particle in this 2D. > The 2D is a very thin and flat homogeneous space, > so my particle also must be thin and flat and 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 mathematician I would say nothing. > But 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 ( Clausius 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). > Fact. > The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small > (the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately > p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that physicists say: ' More than 90% of the matter > in the Universe is unseen.' > And nobody knows what this unseen 'dark matter' is. > So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately dark > massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single > virtual- ideal particle ( according to 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. > # > ===================.. > 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 the elementary particle can rotate > around its diameter using its own angular inner impulse: > h * = h /2pi. So, when photon rotates around its diameter > it looks like a string ( open string) and this string vibrates. > My god, that is a strange technical terminology the physicists > use: ' vibrate, vibration'. > If I were a physicist I would say no ' vibrate, vibration' but > ' frequency', 'the particle rotates with high frequency'. > The frequency is a key to every particle, by frequency we know > the radiation spectrum of various kinds of waves. > Now I can say: then my photon starts to curl its rotation > goes with enormous frequency, faster than constant speed > of photon. Now its speed is c>1. We call it 'tachyon'. > The tachyon's spinning creates electric charge and > electrical waves and now we call it 'electron' or 'fermions'. > So, in my opinion, virtual- ideal particle, photon, tachyon > and electron are only different names of one and the same > particle - quantum of light. > # > My particle is a circle. When this circle started to curl around > itself its form changed. Now it has volume and looks like a sphere. > What is the law between particle's volume and energy? > I think: big volume - low energy, small volume - high energy. > The more speed / impulse ----> the more particle (as a volume) > compress ----> the more energy . > And when the speed decrease - - the energy decrease too - > but the volume of particle will increase. > My particle behaves like ' a springy circle' (!) > This springy circle can curl into small sphere which must > have volume and therefore can be describe as a > 'stringlike particle with vibrations' only approximately . > Springy particle - it means the particle is able to spring back > into its former position. In my opinion this is the meaning of > ' The Law of mass/energy conservation and transformation' > # > Once more. > Quantum of light has potential energy (- E=Mc^2 ). > When it starts to curl around its diameter the potential energy > (- E=Mc^2 ) is hidden and we can observe its electronic > energy ( E=h*f). > But there is situation when this hidden potential energy goes > out and we can see its great active power ( + E=Mc^2 ) > looking the destroyed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. > In my opinion the particle's transformation from one state into > the other was legalized as ' The Law of mass/energy > conservation and transformation'. > # > Different conditions of particles are also reason of new > situation in 2D. Now the surface of 2D is changed. > On the one hand we have the spinning electron ( E=h*f) > On the other hand there are masses of Avogadro's particles. > ( kT logW ) > The spinning electron changes the temperature of the > surface in this local area. > Now this local area has Debye temperature: Q(d)= h*f(max) / k. > In this space a grain of quantum gravity theory is hidden. > The scheme of quantum gravity is: > 1. h*f = kT logW. > 2. h*f > kT logW. > 3. h*f < kT. > > At first the temperature is going from T=0K to 2.18 K (-271 °C) > ( at first kT logW is Helium II ). > Then the temperature is going from T=2.18 K to T= 4.2 K, > ( kT logW is Helium I ). > And then the protons are created. . . . etc. > > E=h*f - - -> He II - - -> He I -- -> . . . . - - > H . . . - - > > Plasma reaction... --> Thermonuclear reactions ...-->......etc. > ( P. Kapitza , L. Landau , E.L. Andronikashvili theories). > (Superconductivity, superfluidity.) > # > Now on the one hand we have quantum of light/ electron. > On the other hand we have proton. > Their interaction creates atom. > This interaction is evolving process. > # > The conception of Time appears as a period of these two actions. > ( star formation and atom creation}. > ==================.. > Best wishes. > Israel Sadovnik Socratus > =======================. > . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@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.
