U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 09-14-2012, 09:08 AM
Location: Israel
165 posts, read 181,278 times
Reputation: 75


Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
The principle states that:
"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."
Now the Occam's Razor is in conflict with mainstream science.
At first I take the simplest reference frame –
- the Euclidean space ( 2D).
Now I will put a virtual - ideal particle in this 2D.
The 2D is a very thin and flat homogeneous space,
so my particle also must be thin and flat and symmetrical.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited line- string?
No. In my opinion even this very thin and tiny line
under good microscope will be looked as a rectangle.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited loop?
No. The geometrical form of a loop is too complex,
needs supplementary forces to create it.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited circle?
From all geometrical forms the circle is the most symmetrical.
The surface of a circle takes up the minimal area it can and
I will write it by formula: C/D= pi= 3.14. (!)
But I can put many particles there, for example,
Avogadro's number of particles: N(a). (!)
What is my next step?
If I were a mathematician I would say nothing.
But if I were a physicist I would say that 2D must have
some physical parameters like: volume (V), temperature (T)
and density (P). Yes, it seems the idea is right.
Then, volume (V) is zero,
temperature (T) is zero
but . . but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real space
then its density can approximately be zero.
What can I do with these three parameters?
I have only one possibility, to write the simplest formula:
VP/T=R ( Clausius Clapeyron formula ! )
What is R? R is some kind of physical state of my 2D.
And if I divide the whole space R by Avogadro's
numbers of particles then I have a formula R/ N(a) = k,
then k ( as a Boltzmann constant) is some kind of
physical state of one single virtual- ideal particle. (!)
But all creators of Quantum theory said that this space,
as a whole, must have some kind of background energy (E).
And its value must be enormous.
But the background mass of every Avogadro's particles
in 2D has approximately zero mass, it is approximately
massless (M).
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that physicists say: ` More than 90% of the matter
in the Universe is unseen.'
And nobody knows what this unseen `dark matter' is.
So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately dark
massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single
virtual- ideal particle ( according to Einstein and Dirac) is
E/M=c^2 (potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 ! )
( I don't know why physicists call E/M= c^2 `rest mass'
and never say potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .)

In potential state my particle doesn't move,
so its impulse is h = 0.
My conclusion.
I have virtual- ideal- massless particle which has
geometrical and physical parameters:
C/D= pi= 3.14 . . . . , R/ N(a) = k, E/M=c^2, h=0.
All my virtual- ideal- massless particles are possible to call
` bosons' or `antiparticles' . These bosons are approximately
massless but have huge potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .
But I have no fermions, no electric charge, no tachyons,
no time, no mass, no movement at this picture.
Now, thinking logically, I must explain all the effects of
motions. And. . . and I cannot say it better than Newton:
`For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces.'
How can one single virtual- ideal particle start its movement?
At first, it will be right to think about some simple kind of
movement, for example: my particle will move in straight line
along 2D surface from some point A to the point B.
What is possible to say now?
According to the Michelson-Morley experiment my particle
must move with constant speed: c=1 and its speed is independent.
Its speed doesn't depend on any other object or subject, it means
the reason of its speed is hidden in itself, it is its inner impulse.
This impulse doesn't come from any formulas or equations.
And when Planck introduced this inner impulse(h) to physicists,
he took it from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this inner impulse (h) intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced his unit (h) phenomenologically.
At any way, having Planck's inner impulse (unit h=1) my
particle flies with speed c=1. We call it photon now.
Photon's movement from some point A to the point B
doesn't change the flat and homogeneous 2D surface.
Of course, my photon must be careful, because in some local
place some sun's gravitation can catch and change its trajectory
I hope it will be lucky to escape from the sun's gravity love.
My photon can have other possibility to move. This second
possibility was discover by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck
in 1925. They said the elementary particle can rotate
around its diameter using its own angular inner impulse:
h * = h /2pi. So, when photon rotates around its diameter
it looks like a string ( open string) and this string vibrates.
My god, that is a strange technical terminology the physicists
use: ` vibrate, vibration'.
If I were a physicist I would say no ` vibrate, vibration' but
` frequency', `the particle rotates with high frequency'.
The frequency is a key to every particle, by frequency we know
the radiation spectrum of various kinds of waves.
Now I can say: then my photon starts to curl its rotation
goes with enormous frequency, faster than constant speed
of photon. Now its speed is c>1. We call it `tachyon'.
The tachyon's spinning creates electric charge and
electrical waves and now we call it `electron' or `fermions'.
So, in my opinion, virtual- ideal particle, photon, tachyon
and electron are only different names of one and the same
particle – quantum of light.
My particle is a circle. When this circle started to curl around
itself its form changed. Now it has volume and looks like a sphere.
What is the law between particle's volume and energy?
I think: big volume – low energy, small volume – high energy.
The more speed / impulse ----> the more particle (as a volume)
compress ----> the more energy .
And when the speed decrease – - the energy decrease too –
but the volume of particle will increase.
My particle behaves like ` a springy circle' (!)
This springy circle can curl into small sphere which must
have volume and therefore can be describe as a
`stringlike particle with vibrations' only approximately .
Springy particle - it means the particle is able to spring back
into its former position. In my opinion this is the meaning of
` The Law of mass/energy conservation and transformation'
Once more.
Quantum of light has potential energy (- E=Mc^2 ).
When it starts to curl around its diameter the potential energy
(- E=Mc^2 ) is hidden and we can observe its electronic
energy ( E=h*f).
But there is situation when this hidden potential energy goes
out and we can see its great active power ( + E=Mc^2 )
looking the destroyed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In my opinion the particle's transformation from one state into
the other was legalized as ` The Law of mass/energy
conservation and transformation'.
Different conditions of particles are also reason of new
situation in 2D. Now the surface of 2D is changed.
On the one hand we have the spinning electron ( E=h*f)
On the other hand there are masses of Avogadro's particles.
( kT logW )
The spinning electron changes the temperature of the
surface in this local area.
Now this local area has Debye temperature: Q(d)= h*f(max) / k.
In this space a grain of quantum gravity theory is hidden.
The scheme of quantum gravity is:
1. h*f = kT logW.
2. h*f > kT logW.
3. h*f < kT.

At first the temperature is going from T=0K to 2.18 K (−271 °C)
( at first kT logW is Helium II ).
Then the temperature is going from T=2.18 K to T= 4.2 K,
( kT logW is Helium I ).
And then the protons are created. . . . etc.

E=h*f - - -> He II - - -> He I -- -> . . . . - - > H . . . – - >
Plasma reaction... --> Thermonuclear reactions ...-->......etc.
( P. Kapitza , L. Landau , E.L. Andronikashvili theories).
(Superconductivity, superfluidity.)
Now on the one hand we have quantum of light/ electron.
On the other hand we have proton.
Their interaction creates atom.
This interaction is evolving process.
The conception of Time appears as a period of these two actions.
( star formation and atom creation}.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:00 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top