|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2012
Posts: 35
Points: 105
Location: Israel
|
Quantum Physics: do we have its philosophy ?
=.
The problem is that physicists draw the Quantum Physics
with ‘ math point-particle’ and therefore they ‘kill the picture
of ultimate reality.’
Of course, physicists know very well that the particle isn’t a
math point, but any another model of particle brought difficult
which they could not solve. Therefore physicists preferred
to think about particle as a structureless point
===.
At last from 1968 physicists decided that instead of a
‘point particle’ they will use ‘a string – particle’ and developed
‘ string theory’. The problem is that there are 5 or 6 ‘ string
theories’ in 10 dimensions .One theory is better than
other one. And they decided to unite them in one
‘ M-string theory’ in 11 dimensions.
This theory is still in a cultivation.
=.
So, if we don’t know what elementary particle is then
can we have the Philosophy of Quantum Physics ?
=.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2012
Posts: 35
Points: 105
Location: Israel
|
Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’. By Steven Weinberg.
Page 66.
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpretation.
. . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’ (!)
===.
Conclusion.
Don’t try to understand quantum theory if you want to reach success.
==.
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==================.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/30/2010
Posts: 107
Points: 321
Location: Puget Sound
|
IOW, those that attempt to really understand the implications won't be the working-stiff practitioners
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2012
Posts: 35
Points: 105
Location: Israel
|
Planck was founder of QT ( quantum of action / energy)
Did he discover the quantum of action experimentally ?
No, it wasn’t any empirical evidence.
Then, what did Planck do?
=.
Many years Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light falls in an area of absolutely black
body and does not radiate back, then " thermal death" comes.
In 1900 Planck decided: there is only one way to save
the quantum of light from ‘ thermal death’ -- it must radiate
with unit: h=Et.
This unit doesn’t come from any formulas or equations.
Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this unit (h) intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically.
=.
Socratus
=.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/3/2009
Posts: 31
Points: 93
Location: Canada
|
Socratus, you’ve chosen your name well, telling us truths the experts seem unaware of or would like to forget. What is that advice often given to young physicists who openly wonder about the meaning of quantum mechanics? Something like, “Shut up and calculate!”
Planck’s work, as you describe it, is an outstanding example of phenomenological deduction. Maxwell’s equations, describing electromagnetic phenomena, are also no more than this. Einstein’s special relativity derives from them, and the invariance of the speed of light in vacuum was arrived at by him as their phenomenological implication, even before he became aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment (which still baffles common sense). So special relativity to this day remains a phenomenological deduction; and those who believe it can be justified by general relativity are reversing logic in the traditional cart-before-horse manner.
Observations, phenomenology, expressed in mathematical terms, regardless of how we choose to interpret them, remain the basis of physical theory.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2012
Posts: 32
Points: 96
Location: Canada
|
String theory can't work out becz it uses extra dimensions which are flat out impossible. Extra dimensions would be describing a space invisible to us which would be totally in the imagination as it would be completely undefined and there would be no explanation of how it could exist and they would have no names and no quantities. As well, there are serious contradictions in descriptions of extra dimensions as they are said to be small (they have size, therefore volume, therefore 3 dimensions), are extended (have length), and are curled up (have shape, i.e., 3 dimensions). Spatial dimensions are measures of space so they cannot themselves have size nor shape and can't have anything in them.
There are 14 types or meanings of dimensions in math (the size of a matrix, the number of elements in a basis in a vector space, a manifold dimension, a simplex dimension, the power of any physical quantity, spatial dimension, Krull, Hausdorff, Hamel, box-counting, fractal, of Hilbert space, of algebraic variety, and inductive) and only 1 refers to space so we shouldn't be confusing them either--what we are talking about are spatial dimensions only. Some confuse spatial dimensions with directions and axes but they are neither directions nor axes--and a figure with 4 or more axes is still in 3-D. The so-called hyperspaces in "multidimentional" geometry are really in 2- or 3-D, including the hypercube-tessaract, which is just a combination of 2 cubes which can be folded out into a cruciate configuration of 8 cubes, all in 3-D, and the Coxeter graphs; and an ant on a cylinder is also in 3-D.
As well, hyperspace would encompass normal space, just as 3-D space encompasses 2-D space, so if hyperspace existed it wouldn't be small nor curled up and we would be able to see it. The reason that we can't see it is because our bodies (or any biological beings) can't exist in more than 3D any more than they can in less than 3D, not because, as some argue, we can't visualize them in our minds. In other words, the reason we can't see them is because they don't exist. It is sometimes also said that the reason we can't see extra dimensions is that they might act as if they're curled up at the subatomic level. How convenient. But, of course, space can't act like anything because it has no behaviour. Put another way, what scientists speak of when they talk about hyperspace and extra dimensions is contrary to nature and reality and makes no sense whatsoever. (Philosopher A.N. Whitehead rightly refered to the 5th dimension as fiction (Singh, 1959, p. 302)). Also, some, e.g. Martin Grumiller of the Vienna University of Technology's Institue of Theoretical Physics, postulate a 2-D Universe (length and width) according to the holographic model of the Universe (Science Daily, 2009).
If string theory is correct it would have to be done in 3D, but I haven't seen any references to this, n it apparently requires extra dimensions.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 980
Points: 2,952
|
I actually find it fairly simple to think about multiple dimensions beyond 3D. For large dimensions, imagine the digital 3D grid that most of us who believe in a digital reality suspect establishes the reality construct. Imagine the allowable points of space being a Planck length apart in all directions with the origin at {x,y,z}={0,0,0}.
Now imagine an identical grid with origin at {x,y,z}={.00001ℓP,.00001ℓP,.00001ℓP} where ℓP is a Planck length and .00001 was just a factor arbitrarily chosen. The path through all of those parallel grids is by definition a 4th spatial dimension. Physics rules and reality rules could certainly theoretically be written in 4D. But being that our reality is 3D from an experiential standpoint, we have no way of experiencing this 4th dimension, save possibly some nuances of gravity that manifest as dark matter, or some other as yet unknown subtle effect.
For the curled up ones, imagine a little loop, like a 1-dimensional ring attached to each point in the 3D grid. And that space is really defined anywhere on that loop, but only on that loop, and is therefore measured by an angular coordinate. Voila - another 4D reality, visible to us as 3D because the curled up dimension is so small.
Or maybe, another dimension is defined by an as-yet-unknown parameter - call it "klepth." Equations of physics or reality could be written in terms of {x,y,z, and klepth units} but collapse to {x,y,z} because klepth dimensionality is tenuous, analogous to how crystals grow - "almost" always in certain directions.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2012
Posts: 35
Points: 105
Location: Israel
|
The situation in ' philosophy of physics'. =. ‘ Suddenly I realized that a nagual did have one point to defend - in my opinion, a passionate defense for the 'description of the Eagle', and 'what the Eagle does'. "But what kind of a force would the Eagle be?" "I would not know how to answer that. The Eagle is as real for the seers as gravity and time are for you, and just as abstract and incomprehensible." Those are abstract concepts, but they do refer to real phenomena that can be corroborated. . " He said that the Eagle's emanations are an immutable thing-in-itself, which engulfs everything that exists; the knowable and the unknowable. "There is no way to describe in words what the Eagle's emanations really are," . . . . . . . . . . . . etc . . . ====. / The Fire From Within. ©1984 By Carlos Castaneda. Chapter 03 - The Eagle's Emanations. / http://aquakeys.com/toltec/fire-from-within-chapter_03-eagles-emanations======.. Their dialogue is a good example for description the situation in ' philosophy of physics' when the stupidity has a mandate from the physicists to explain us the ‘philosophy of physics’. ==. Socratus =.
|
|
|
Guest |
