This coming week's New Scientist is summarising 'before the big
bang'. I read a couple of experiments recently in which lasers and x-
rays are being used to track photon-electron interaction - it seems
electrons beyond the 'valence-shell' are affected by a single photon
collision. Lasers are also being used to keep a nucleus stable
without the electron shell. The philosophers now give us 'structural
realism', but we sort of know that the bits of hydrogen we pull apart
and fire at each other and the decay patterns we notice are
constructed in several kilometres of the LHC ('constructor theory')
and that some of our reactions are literally constructed inside
catalysts.
What's the other side of absolute zero is a question from your
interesting posit on helium. There are speculations but I'm not
familiar with them. Like other colleagues retired from doing actual
science I miss it. I'm more concerned these days with why we haven't
grasped we should be devoting effort to environment control instead of
economic tat.
On 11 Oct, 17:20, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
> Where is the root of all elements ?
> =.
> An interesting stuff
> (phys.org, Oct 2012)
> Lithium in action: Advanced imaging method reveals fundamental
> reactions behind battery technology
> The nano-engineering technology is grown every day,
> every day a new success - new discovery.
> And it seems that really all elements are magical and amazing.
> ==.
> But . . . . .
> 1
> Let us say that we want to write a full theory about elements.
> Then we cannot begin from the lithium.
> Lithium is too complex element.
> The Periodic table says we need to begin from hydrogen.
> But in my opinion we need to begin from helium II.
> Why?
> Helium II exists below at 2.19 K
> We don’t know any another element that exist below this coefficient
> Below is Nothingness : T=0K
> The idea of the Nothingness is not a new one.
> There are enough physicists who try to understand it.
> #
> 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-nothingness-of-space-theory-o...
> #
> And Paul Dirac wrote:
> " 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? "
> ==.
> 2
> Professor Yang Shao-Horn says:
> "We focused on finding out what really happens during
> charging and discharging,"
>
> In my opinion there isn’t charging and discharging without photon
> ( electric charge)
> =.
> So, we come again to QED: what is happen in interaction
> between photon / electron ( quantum of light) and matter.
> =.
> All the best.
> 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.
