God particles - without Nobel Prize. / by Socratus/

Discussion in 'Physics' started by socratus, Aug 24, 2015.

  1. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    God particles - without Nobel Prize. / by Socratus/
    ==..
    To discover so-called God - particle ( Nobel Prize in 2013)
    was needed two conditions : deep vacuum and high energy.
    But if the vacuum were deeper and energy were higher then
    it would be possible to discover some kind of a new God – particles.
    Question: what is the deepest vacuum in the Universe?
    My answer:
    the deepest vacuum in the Universe is the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K.
    Question: what can be the highest energy?
    My answer:
    the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K continuum is itself some kind
    of infinite energy continuum.
    Using these parameters, I say that the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K
    can create primary God – particles and their names are
    "potential molar –masses (k) particles."
    ==..
    Question:
    Why potential molar – masses (k) particles are primary God particles?
    Because:
    a)
    Heat is result of some kind of chaotic movements of particles.
    In thermodynamics the heat is explained by the formula: E=kT (logW)
    It means that chaotic movements of molar-mass (k) particles create heat.
    b)
    In 1905 Einstein wrote "quantum of action" as: h=kb
    It means that molar-mass (k) particles know some kind of another
    movement which can create "quantum of action" with energy E=(kb)*f.
    My conclusion.
    Without heat the Universe is an Absolute Cold Kingdom.
    Without "quantum of action" the Universe is dead continuum.
    The molar-mass (k) particles can take part in these two phenomenons:
    E=kT (logW) and E= (kb)*f. And therefore the molar-mass (k)
    particles are primary elements from the First Instant (T=0K) of the
    Universe’s creation. Not " the famous Higgs Boson" (with the low
    energy and prestige Prize) but the old and modest well-known
    molar-mass k-particles are real "God particles"
    #
    k-particles have two forms of modifications: as a heat E=kT (logW)
    and as an energy E=(kb)*f . The interaction between energy and heat
    created everything in the Universe but . . . . but until today nobody
    explained the interaction between E= (kb)*f and E=kT (logW).
    =====….
    Best wishes.
    Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
    ========….
     
  2. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Why the interaction between E= (kb)*f and E=kT (logW) wasn’t explained?
    These k-particles belong to “ the theory of ideal gas” and this theory was
    not enough seriously accepted by theoretical physics because from the school
    we studied that “ The theory of Ideal gas” is an abstract theory.
    And in my opinion “ The theory of Ideal gas” (with the temperature T=0K)
    is an ideal model for Zero Vacuum and it is possible to use all laws and
    formulas of “ideal gas” to understand processes in the zero vacuum: T=0K.
    (of course with the help of QT / SRT / QED )
    ===…
     
  3. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    What result do I have using “ideal gas” to the zero vacuum?
    One result (from many) is:
    I can know the real geometrical form of quantum particles.
    ===…
    Today the theoretical physics thinks about quantum particles
    as a “point” or as a “ball” or as a “string” without to pay attention
    on the reference frame where they exist. But every reference frame
    creates its own form of existence. (RF of sea creates – fish and RF
    of savanna creates another kind of living beings and conditions of
    existence)
    a)
    The geometrical form of particles as a “point” is a necessary and useful
    mathematical model . . . but . . . not a real physical objects.
    b)
    The geometrical form of particles as a “ball” depends on specific
    reference frame and specific forces to create the “ball”.
    c)
    Because the quantum particles have frequencies, it means that they
    must somehow vibrate as a “string” theorists decided to try
    to understand nature by using “string – particles”
    (1-D line with Planck's length but without thickness) in a . . . .
    mathematical 11-D. “String – particle” is only theoretical invitation:
    there isn’t a physical law that says: “ . . . because . . . so . . . and so . . . .
    particle must be string”.
    Geometrical form of particles as a “string” has many problems
    as it is written in the book "The trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin.
    d)
    Of many laws of “ideal gas” I will take one: Charles's law from
    the 1780s ( also known as the law of volumes) and use it to zero
    vacuum T=0K in order to understand the geometrical form of
    quantum particle.
    According to Jacques Charles’ law (and the consequence of the
    third law of thermodynamics ) as the thermodynamic temperature
    of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
    approach zero too. It means that these particles must have flat forms.
    From all geometrical forms the form of a circle is most ideal and
    symmetrical and it is written by the formula: pi= c /d =3,14 . . . . .
    In such condition the quantum k-molar particles are ”virtual particles”
    in . . . a virtual state, . . .in an equilibrium state . . . . in a relax state . .
    . . . . in a potential state .
    To change this equilibrium state needs forces, quantum forces.
    Without forces every flat quantum k-molar particle in T=0K must be
    in a symmetrical equilibrium micro - circle state: c/d=pi=3,14 . . . . .
    #
    Once more.
    Physicists don’t say that according to the law “X” or “Y” or “Z”
    particles must be or “ball”, or “string” or “triangle”.
    And I show concrete, specific law (s) that says which
    concrete geometrical form quantum particles must have.
    ==…
    Israel Sadovnik Socratus
    ===
     
  4. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    Assumptions make bad science, unless they can be tested. It is one of the reasons some scientists looks side ways at String Theory.

    I'm not a philosopher, which IMO isn't science. I prefer real experimental evidence. There is enough strangeness with experiments right now to keep philosophers busy for a while.
     
  5. wayneh

    Expert

    Sep 9, 2010
    12,103
    3,038
    I'm probably taking your comment too literally, but philosophy and science are intricately intertwined. One is not the other, true, but science cannot exist without philosophy. Development of philosophy is in the history and blood of science. Like a grown child, science can function for long periods without input from philosophy, but it needs the foundation.

    This all said, I hereby advocate for a ban on unpublished physics discussions here. That's probably the wrong term for it but I think you know what I'm getting at. There's just not much point in such discussions.
     
  6. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    The term I use is pseudo science.

    The core to science is physical proof, which anathema to philosophy.
     
  7. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,168
  8. GopherT

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 23, 2012
    6,026
    3,790
    Is that the best way to keep the uneducated safe from the mis-informed or the spreaders of mis-information.
     
  9. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    That or just call them on it when you see it.
     
    GopherT likes this.
  10. wayneh

    Expert

    Sep 9, 2010
    12,103
    3,038
    There must be a reason we reject over-unity discussions. Whatever that reason, extending it to abstract pseudo-physics is not a big leap. But just ignoring the small amount that goes on here is fine too.
     
    #12 likes this.
  11. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    I don't know it all, and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. A bit of speculation is good, and (hopefully) makes us think.

    When people claim to have facts that ain't so it sets my teeth on edge.

    Right now we are in exciting times (as opposed to interesting times) for science. A lot of good experiments are yielding results that no one can completely explain. It is the best of times.

    As for over-unity, they were swamping us in the past, and many were obvious scams. We have better things to do than teach elementary physics to folks who don't want to learn.
     
    #12, nsaspook and hexreader like this.
  12. reerer

    Member

    Apr 1, 2016
    71
    3
    Particle physics is based on the gauge transformation of Maxwell's equations but Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is massless; therefore, particle physics is a hoax since a God particle (subatomic particle) is composed of matter. Also, does a subatomic particle enter the bubble chamber?
     
  13. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,168
  14. reerer

    Member

    Apr 1, 2016
    71
    3
    Particle physics is based on the gauge transformation of Maxwell's equations but Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is massless since induction propagates through glass; therefore, particle physics is a hoax since a God particle (subatomic particle) is composed of matter that cannot propagate through glass. Also, how in the heck does a subatomic particle enter the bubble chamber?
     
  15. reerer

    Member

    Apr 1, 2016
    71
    3
    Right on! nsaspook. You're smarter than you look.
     
Loading...