Objections, please.

Discussion in 'Physics' started by socratus, Jun 13, 2013.

  1. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Book:
    QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
    / by Richard Feynman /
    More details.
    Book. QED:
    The Strange Theory of Light ( E= h*f ) and Matter ( E= kT )
    / by Richard Feynman /
    =====..
    Objections, please.
    ==.

     
  2. wmodavis

    Well-Known Member

    Oct 23, 2010
    737
    150
    Might help if you were somewhat intelligible.
     
    DerStrom8 likes this.
  3. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    I want to say that on the one hand we have pure energy
    of quantum of light: E= h*f.
    On the other hand we have matter –
    the beginning state of matter - : E= kT.
    Later from this beginning state of matter all different atoms
    were created and physicists began to study electromagnetic
    and nuclear interactions
    (as interaction between light / electron and matter).
    ==.
     
  4. dthx

    Member

    May 2, 2013
    194
    14
    I graduated from high school (wish I was back there again) in 1968...my physics teacher, Mr. Whitaker...(liked him) ....was all excited about whether light was a wave or a particle....Is the physics world still talking about that....?
    Is that what you mean?
     
  5. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Dualism of particle is still an unsolved puzzle in physics.

    ==.
     
  6. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Book:
    QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matte'.
    '' The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature
    as absurd from the point of view of common sense.
    And it agrees fully with experiment.
    So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd.''
    / page. 10. by R. Feynman /
    ==.
    If Feynman is correct then I can say:
    The interaction between light and matter ( in all parts of physics ?! )
    we accept as absurd from our philosophical ( logical ) point of view.
    Then to understand Nature we need to reconsider our
    '' philosophy of physics ''.
    Where was the mistake made ?
    Where did we lose the true path ?

    In my opinion, we ignore the absolute zero of vacuum and therefore
    Feynman was correct writing that from the point of view of common
    sense we accept Nature as absurd.

    ==.
     
  7. dthx

    Member

    May 2, 2013
    194
    14
    The absolute zero of vacuum....?
    Could you explain?
    D.
     
  8. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    The common today's opinion
    Book :
    Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
    '‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
    reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
    sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
    simple have no meaning.’'
    / Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /

    Others opinions.
    #
    " 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? "
    / Paul Dirac ./
    #
    The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
    What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
    its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
    vacuum is a gross misnomer!
    / Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedwardt_Winterberg
    #
    Wikipedia :
    “ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well defined,
    resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of space,
    how can we characterize either ? “
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
    #
    "Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
    over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
    said Peter Milonni
    from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
    #
    Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
    nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
    rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
    tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
    If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
    into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
    / Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
    By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
    #
    Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned into
    particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.
    / University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb./
    #
    Vacuum -- the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness –
    is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws
    of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
    additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum,
    allowing light-light interactions.
    http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html
    #
    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-of-everything
    ==.
    And in spate of these opinions we don't know and
    don't want to know what vacuum is.
    The common opinion is triumphed: '' temperatures below
    absolute zero simple have no meaning.’'

    =.
     
  9. dthx

    Member

    May 2, 2013
    194
    14
    Thanks for the explaination...
    Would you be so kind as to tell us a little more about yourself in your profile...?
    You have an interesting way of putting things..
    D.
     
Loading...