The Photon is back: ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22996054k), remember the wisdom below.
Remember these words On Friday, May 17, 2013 8:47:59 PM UTC+3, sadovnik socratus wrote: > > I like your opinion . > =. > Today's common opinion will say: you are absolutely wrong. > So, I am also absolutely wrong because I agree with you > But why am I agree with you? > QED try to understand the interaction between photon and matter. > This interaction is possible to observe in crystals and in vital > organisms. (every living being needs light / photon.) > Now everyone think that photon is an undeveloped particle and > it seems nonsense to say that photon can evolve > taking interaction from simple to complex system and > be bearer of information / consciousness. > > But on the one hand, nobody knows that photon is. > On the other hand , photon can move with different speeds: > constant speed c=1 , and faster c>1, and in my opinion > can have zero speed c=0. > ( the common opinion that photon never can stop is not a law, > it is a supposition) > And if photon can use two different inner impulses (spin) > h ( photon behaves like corpuscular ) > and h*=h/2pi ( photon behaves like wave ) > for its independent movement > ( it means photon itself decided how to act, > what kind of movement to do) then I say: > to take decision can only a thinking particle. > =. > In ancient Veda is written that the consciousness develops > from a vague wish to a clear thought. > ==. > All the best > socratus > > == > > On May 17, 3:25 pm, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In my very unscientific ways---I have always treated photonic energy as > the > > organising principle of nature. It fuels our consciosness, it is the > life > > force behind inter/intracellular communication---and so on. To me, > > Reality/consciousness--simply refers to photonic energy, Am I absurdly > > wrong? > > > > ** > > *Committed to strategic visioning and the state of our nationhood. > > * > > ** > > > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:33 AM, i.sadovnik socratus > > <is.socra...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Answer for nominal9 > > > =. > > > A black hole can be Vacuum. > > > 1. > > > A black hole has a temperature within a few > > > millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K. > > > / Oxford. Dictionary./ > > > 2. > > > A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking > > > temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less > > > than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole > > > 3. > > > Previous Picture of the Day articles about black holes suggested that > > > the terminology used to describe “gravitational point sources” > > > is highly speculative: space/time, singularities, and infinite > density > > > are abstract concepts, precluding a realistic investigation into > > > the nature of the Universe. > > > / Oct 12, 2011. Black hole theory contradicts itself. By Stephen Smith > / > > > =. > > > My heretical idea: > > > The ‘black hole’ with thermodynamic temperature about - –--> T= 0K. > > > is a Homogeneous Energy Vacuum Space between billions Galaxies. > > > =. > > > Best wishes. > > > Israel Sadovnik Socratus > > > ===. > > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:26 PM, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > >> Question for you....Socratus..... > > > > >> How much of this "dark-matter/energy" is held in "black hole" > > >> conditions... or is there.. other > > >> non-gravity-compressed "dark-matter/energy" floating around nearby > (so to > > >> speak) but "we" just can't sense it near us in any known way? > > > > >> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:41:14 PM UTC-4, sadovnik socratus wrote: > > > > >>> Who created the material Universe? > > >>> About 96% of the matter in the whole Universe is unseen > > >>> dark matter/energy. Nobody knows what it is. > > >>> And only about 4% is physical /classical matter. > > >>> It is possible to suggest that from > > >>> 96% of unseen dark matter/energy was created the 4% > > >>> of the known matter. > > >>> It is possible to suggest that this unseen dark matter/energy > > >>> consist on virtual particles (according to Dirac) and they can > become > > >>> (in some way, for example - through vacuum fluctuation) > > >>> real particles (for example: photons and electrons|). > > >>> And these real particles created the visual matter universe. > > >>> =. > > >>> What you can say about this subject? > > >>> ==. > > > > >>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM, awori achoka > > >>> <awori....@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > >>>> The idea of a universe that orders and organises itself--wears me > down. > > >>>> So, i wouldn't even try. > > > > >>>> ** > > >>>> *Committed to strategic visioning and the state of our nationhood. > > >>>> * > > >>>> ** > > > > >>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 6:48 PM, i.sadovnik socratus < > > >>>> is.so...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>> Why don't you wish ''even'' to try? > > > > >>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, awori achoka > > >>>>> <awori....@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> LOL---I wouldn't even try. > > > > >>>>>> The nature of events in nature always amaze me. Who determines > the > > >>>>>> causality of events in the universe? I wouldn't mind the crushing > of stars > > >>>>>> and the formation of all manner of objects--but then, you bring > in humans > > >>>>>> (conscious) and the whole story changes. > > > > >>>>>> ** > > >>>>>> *Committed to strategic visioning and the state of our > nationhood. > > >>>>>> * > > >>>>>> ** > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 6:46 AM, sadovnik socratus < > > >>>>>> is.so...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> Take your time. > > >>>>>>> = > > > > >>>>>>> On May 14, 11:00 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > sure.... give me five years to try to understand Faster than > > >>>>>>> Light.... OK? > > > > >>>>>>> > On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:43:41 AM UTC-4, sadovnik socratus > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > More details > > >>>>>>> > > ===. > > > > >>>>>>> > > The basis of SRT ( by an uneducated Socratus) > > > > >>>>>>> > > ===. > > > > >>>>>>> > > SRT is based on four facts. > > > > >>>>>>> > > Fact number 1: > > > > >>>>>>> > > The constant speed of photon in vacuum is minimal. > > > > >>>>>>> > > ( from vacuum's point of view and tachyon theory ) > > > > >>>>>>> > > Fact number 2: > > > > >>>>>>> > > The inertia of photon depends on its potential energy: > E=Mc^2 > > > > >>>>>>> > > In 1905 Einstein asked: > > > > >>>>>>> > > “ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content > ?” > > > > >>>>>>> > > As he realized the answer was: > > > > >>>>>>> > > “ Yes, it depends on E= Mc^2 ” > > > > >>>>>>> > > It means that inertia of quantum particle (photon, electron > ) > > > > >>>>>>> > > depends on E= Mc^2 ( nobody explains the details of such > > > > >>>>>>> > > possibility of inertia movement. How can E=Mc^2 > > > > >>>>>>> > > be responsible for inertial movement of quantum particle ? > ) > > > > >>>>>>> > > Someone wrote to me: > > > > >>>>>>> > > “An old professor of mine used to say > > > > >>>>>>> > > that anyone who can answer that question > > > > >>>>>>> > > what inertia is, would win a Nobel Prize. “ > > > > >>>>>>> > > Fact number 3: > > > > >>>>>>> > > Every speed and energy > > > > >>>>>>> > > ( including the speed and energy of photon ) are relative. > > > > >>>>>>> > > Speed, energy, impulse . . . . etc they are physical > parameters > > > > >>>>>>> > > which belong to one, single quantum particle. > > > > >>>>>>> > > If you change one parameter all others will change > automatically > > >>>>>>> too. > > > > >>>>>>> > > For example : > > > > >>>>>>> > > In 1916 Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c. > > > > >>>>>>> > > If you change one electron's parameter all others parameters > > > > >>>>>>> > > also will be changed and the electron's energy will change > too. > > > > >>>>>>> > > Take, for example, electron in atom. > > > > >>>>>>> > > Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= > -13,6eV. > > > > >>>>>>> > > But if someone parameter changes, then electron jumps out > from > > >>>>>>> atom > > > > >>>>>>> > > with energy E=h*f ( it is said: electron emits quantum of > > >>>>>>> light, > > > > >>>>>>> > > but where this quantum of light is hidden in the electron, > in > > >>>>>>> which pocket > > >>>>>>> > > ?) > > > > >>>>>>> > > In vacuum the energy of electron is E=Mc^2 (according to > SRT > > >>>>>>> and Dirac), > > > > >>>>>>> > > but when someone parameter is changed then electron jumps > out > > >>>>>>> from > > > > >>>>>>> > > vacuum with energy E=h*f. ( effect of vacuum > fluctuation > > >>>>>>> ). > > > > >>>>>>> > > Fact number 4: > > > > >>>>>>> > > The Lorentz equations explain the transformations (revolving > > >>>>>>> movement) > > > > >>>>>>> > > of quantum particles using the Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck > inner > > >>>>>>> impulse > > > > >>>>>>> > > of particle: h* = h/ 2pi. > > > > >>>>>>> > > ===. > > > > >>>>>>> > > All the best. > > > > >>>>>>> > > Israel Sadovnik Socratus > > > > >>>>>>> > > =====… > > > > >>>>>>> > > P.S. > > > > >>>>>>> > > " Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two > > >>>>>>> postulates: > > > > >>>>>>> > > One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the > constancy > > > > >>>>>>> > > and universality of the speed of light. > > > > >>>>>>> > > Could the first postulate be true and the other false? > > > > >>>>>>> > > If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to > make > > >>>>>>> two > > > > >>>>>>> > > postulates. But I don't think many people realized until > > >>>>>>> recently > > > > >>>>>>> > > that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed > only > > > > >>>>>>> > > the second postulate." > > > > >>>>>>> > > / Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. / > > > > >>>>>>> > > # > > > > >>>>>>> > > Question: > > > > >>>>>>> > > Can quantum of light change its constant speed ? > > > > >>>>>>> > > Answer: Faster-than-light. > > > > >>>>>>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Faster-than-light< > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light> > > > > >>>>>>> > > etc . . . > > > > >>>>>>> > > ===… > > > > >>>>>>> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:05 PM, nominal9 > > >>>>>>> > > <nomi...@yahoo.com<javascript:> > > > >>>>>>> > > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > >> So... Socratus and Awori..... I guess I should ask the > question > > >>>>>>> > >> differently.... do photons have "mass"? > > >>>>>>> > >>https://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Photon< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon> > > >>>>>>> > >> Experimental checks on photon mass > > > > >>>>>>> > >> The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, > but > > >>>>>>> this is > > >>>>>>> > >> an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly > > >>>>>>> massless > > >>>>>>> > >> particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in > > >>>>>>> vacuum, *c*. > > >>>>>>> > >> Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. > > >>>>>>> Relativity would be > > >>>>>>> > >> unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, *c*, > would > > >>>>>>> then not be > > >>>>>>> > >> the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of > nature > > >>>>>>> which is > > >>>>>>> > >> the maximum speed that any object could theoretically > attain in > > >>>>>>> space-time. > > >>>>>>> > >> [21] <https://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Photon#cite_note-23< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-23>> > > >>>>>>> Thus, it would > > >>>>>>> > >> still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational > waves<... > > > > read more » > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
