God particles - without Nobel Prize. / by Socratus/

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

1. socratus Thread Starter Active 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?
the deepest vacuum in the Universe is the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K.
Question: what can be the highest energy?
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.
========….

2. socratus Thread Starter Active 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 Active 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.
==…
===

4. Wendy Moderator

Mar 24, 2008
21,012
2,745
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
13,624
4,416
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
21,012
2,745
The term I use is pseudo science.

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

Aug 27, 2009
3,622
3,754
8. GopherT AAC Fanatic!

Nov 23, 2012
7,268
5,978
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
21,012
2,745
That or just call them on it when you see it.

GopherT likes this.
10. wayneh Expert

Sep 9, 2010
13,624
4,416
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
21,012
2,745
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?

Aug 27, 2009
3,622
3,754
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.

16. Motanache Member

Mar 2, 2015
379
33
WOW !!!!!!!!!!!

At the mass we have two types: "Inert mass"(F=m*a) and "heavy mass"(G=m*g).
In practice I noticed they have the same value. We do not know why.

If the particles no longer have mass without the higgs boson, they should either not attracted by the planet Earth, or not to have inertia.

In fact, mass is defined as the measure of body inertia.

It should stop suddenly without being bracketed. Or, to consume energy 0 to accelerate them to infinity.

Everything else has been discovered, it's not about the mass.

17. BR-549 Distinguished Member

Sep 22, 2013
3,071
746
Inertia is the result of two perpendicular angular accelerations. That has not been discovered.

Mass is the field density of those rotations. That has not been discovered.

And since the velocity of the accelerations is constant.........the only way to vary the mass/inertia......is to vary the length of rotation.....which will vary the time/period of rotation......which will vary the field density.

In order for a particle to gain mass......we have to increase field density......and to do that ....we have to compress the size of the rotation.......in other words.......the particle gets smaller with an increase in mass.....not larger. That has not been discovered.

Hardly anything fundamental has been discovered. For instance......there is no positive and negative charge.........it's really left handed and right handed charge. That has not been discovered.

Gravity does not come from mass.........it comes from asymmetric dipole fields. That has not been discovered.

A neutron is an over dampened dipole. That has not been discovered.

There is only one particle in the cosmos. This particle is mirrored. That has not been discovered.

Antimatter is just regular matter that has been temporary inverted. That has not been discovered.

Time is not a property of space......it's a property of displacement/length. Time always has length and length always has time. That has not been discovered.

We need to start over.

Last edited: May 14, 2017
18. R!f@@ AAC Fanatic!

Apr 2, 2009
9,618
1,088
Forgive me for asking but WTF is a god particle ????

19. BR-549 Distinguished Member

Sep 22, 2013
3,071
746
Modern physicists believe that when they bombard particles........they get to see the components that make up the particles. That problem with this is that they are not components....they are fragments. And these fragments dissolve very quickly.

Particles...there are only two......actually one........are unitary. There are no components.

Anyhow.....there are about 100 and some new fragments now. And all this stuff is defined and related with quantum wave functions. They need a particular wave function with a particular energy level to solve and relate gravity as a mass wave function.

That "particle" was predicted years ago by a man named Higgs. Some think they might of found it recently at cern.

This new particle would unite the EM with gravity........the supreme physics prize. Hence the term "god particle".

20. R!f@@ AAC Fanatic!

Apr 2, 2009
9,618
1,088
I heard "Higgs Bozone " many times in Big Bang theory TV series.

In short they are chasing after something that some one made up.