Modern Physics: “ I DON’T know that I don’t know.”
===========.
I DON’T know that I don’t know what photon is.
I DON’T know that I don’t know what electron is.
I DON’T know that I don’t know what 4-D (etc) is.
I DON’T know that I don’t know what SRT’s essence is.
I DON’T know that I don’t know what dark mass is
I DON’T know that I don’t know what quantum gravity is.
Etc.
=========================.
And we do not know,
and we also do not know whether or not
we will ever know.
===================.
#
The Lord. / Niels Bohr./
Does Modern Physics never strike you right?
Mephistopheles. / Wolfgang Pauli./
No, Lord ! I pity Physics only for its plight,
And in my doleful days it pains and sorely grieves me.
No wonder I complain – but who believes me?
/ The Blegdamsvej. Faust. 1932./
=============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===============.
How do you know you don’t know?
Maybe you know but don’t realise you know.
I wonder how much knowledge is passed on in the genetic coding for brain cells.
The knowledge domain is expanding into the known unknown territory,
known unknown domain is expanding into the absolute unknown territory,
so the unknown domain as absolute is actually shrinking.
And there is no need to fear the unknown as we have boundaries set, and the brave scientists are patrolling the border
and sometimes running raids into the the unknown to capture more territory.
In my opinion boundaries can and will be overcome, the only real limits are time and energy.
Putting God into the gaps is not a good idea as they are always shrinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
The last century was very fruitful, but there will be always new things to research.
I don’t think that a 19 century person could have imagined such progress.
Matter/Atom/Quark were though to be the last thing we can learn, but scientists are not stopping.
Do they know what is the final piece of the puzzle? No.
It is possible there is no final piece, but the search will continue.
Is the Higgs Bosson going to be found or not?
Is the super-string theory going to be verified or not?
The next question:
What are the Higgs Bosson and the Superstrings made of?
If there is a boundary what are we going to do when it is reached, and what will we become - these questions are not relevant today.
I imagine in the next century Star-trek will become reality, and people will travel among the stars and among the atoms (even if virtually) to learn more.
[quote ]
The next question:
What are the Higgs Bosson and the Superstrings made of?
Old Timer
What are the Higgs Bosson and the Superstrings made of?
=================.
#
String Theory ?
It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand
SRT using 4D space
Nobody knows what Minkowski negative space really is
Trying to understand it, Kaluza in 1921 created 5D space
Nobody knows what it is too
So
If we don’t know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5 + 4 = 9 ?
And if we don’t know what is 4-D how can we
understand SRT and another 10-D, 11-D/ String Theory ?
#
About the mad CERN ’s project
Rutherford studied atoms
bombarding them with a- particles
This idea helped him to understand the structure of atoms
Then Devil gave advice to physicists to Bomb particles !
And physicists created LHC , CERN
The artful Devil is glad
He again deceived men
Physicists think that LHC is first of all a huge energy
And the Devil laughs
He knows that LHC is first of all Vacuum !!!
But this he withheld from men
I respect your opinion, I guess you are entitled your Biblical views.
But what science is about - its learning the truth.
Everybody can have his own interpretation of the Bible, this is why there are so many religions, churches and sects.
And some of them don’t even use a religious book that was written ages ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions
When science is being done the experiments help determine the only actual truth,
and when more and more questions are answered scientists can build a theory
that help us understand and predict our physical world.
A few centuries ago when people did not have a scientific method,
they were stumbling in the dark.
Most of the people were hungry.
Most of the population was sick.
Doctors were using deadly poisons to try to heal sicknesses.
Most of the children used to die in young age.
Believing in shamans, witches, con-artists and lairs was common.
After the scientific method was discovered, rapid change has started.
See how much life has changed in the last few decades: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html
If you think this the work of the Devil?
Making peoples lives longer, healthier and more enjoyable is Devils work?
Well then what are the works of God?
You seem afraid of physics in general, the atom bomb in particular. Voicing your concerns about radioactivity is important, but I think it would be more helpful if you could find ways to express your questions in a more clear and concise format. As to your references to “The Lord”, “The Devil”, “Merephisteles”, and “Faust” I have found that understanding the meaning of Jesus’ life has been crucial for me in my own life journey, and that Faust doesn’t lead to quite the same number of interesting questions as the new testament does. But, you are entitled to your opinion. This isn’t a religious forum as much as it is a forum for Modern Physics.
An ‘unknown’ electron.
==========================.
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e= +ah*c and e= -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Question.
Why does electron heed five ( 5 ) formulas ?
=========================.
Why does electron obey three Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
================================.
#
Now nobody knows what the Electron is.
1
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein /
2
Tell me what an electron is and I’ll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody /
3.
In the internet we can read hundreds theories of electron.
All of them are problematical.
Nobody knows what electron is.
#
For example.
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.
/ The book “What is the Electron?”
Volodimir Simulik
Montreal, Canada. 2005. / http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
====================.
So, why do physicists call an electron a simple
elementary particle if IT looks not very simple ?
=====================.
We know the electron is very important particle in our live.
It acts in Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
It acts in the atom.
But how electron acts in cell and in Outer space we don’t know.
We need time to understand this fact.
===============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===============.
Comment by Sam ‘sasam2 ‘
#
On Jan 21, 10:59 am, socratus <isra…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An ‘unknown’ electron.
Speaking of electrons - physics and biology seem to meet in the study
of interaction of magnetic fields with DNA.
I’ve read up a bit on studies undertaken by Poponin and Garjajev - has
it been discussed on TO yet? These studies seem to indicate a phantom
organizing effect of DNA on the previously random distribution of
photons in a vacuum - some effects lasting a month after the DNA has
been removed. No other material / substance causes this effect.
Poponin thinks that this can give some clues as to the sub-structure
of a vacuum, since the presence of DNA left a history of slowly
propagating “holes” in the vacuum influencing electromagnetic fields.
Garjajev focuses on the effects of modulated laser beams on DNA. These
studies seem to give evidence of the DNA code (all 100% of it)
following linguistic rules, while in vivo chromosomes react on DNA
(and normal voice) modulated laser. It shows DNA exhibiting some form
of non-chemical information transmitting characteristic connecting all
chromosomes of an organism as a unit, while starting to explain how
our toe nail DNA knows it must form toe nail cells and not nose hair
cells.
This shows that a DNA wave theory will probably answer some questions,
i.e the phantom leaf and limb effect while enhancing medical
treatment.
I’ve read somewhere that cells separated from tissue in micro gravity
does not revert back to their basic state as on earth, but retains
their individual characteristics. This also seems to indicate that the
earth’s gravity field acts on the DNA “field” in some way.
Cheers
Sam
==========.
Comment by Zerkon
I’d say they use the word to indicate reduction. Many things reduced down
to a few, these then are called simple as in irreducible.
Your question is very important, I think. Is simplicity here now void of
complexity, the only reason being the object is common or basic therefore
simple? Or can this simple object have infinite complexity which would or
will seem very likely to be the case proved at some future point.
“What will then happen” is a good question. A material finality must be
then formed outside of object parameters. The scientific method will
survive even as many scientific minds implode, for a while anyway.
It may be a greatest day yet to come. Philosophers in and out of their
graves, of course, will have to chuckle at least a little.
/ Zerkon /
On Jan 21, 4:00 am, socratus <isra…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An ‘unknown’ electron.
==========================.
On Jan 22, 3:49 pm, bert <herbertglazie…@msn.com> wrote:
Isreal
This post begs the question.
How was the electron, and positron created?
/ TreBert- /
==============================================.
How was the electron and positron created?
Socratus.
On the one hand – everybody knows.
On the other hand - this Question still waits its Answer.
==============================.
The God spoke in the darkness: “Let there be light !”
. . . . . . . .
And the God said in the darkness:
Let there be light: and there was light.
So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
1
In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
2.
The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
Energy Space and we don’t know that to say about Him/ Her/ It.
But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
Homogeneous Energy Space.
So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
3.
So, in the beginning God created the Light.
How did He do it?
The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
God simply said: ‘Let there be light: and there was light.’
And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
without any doubt.
Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
But Tom, Dick and Harry laughed.
‘What cannot the old Jew understand?’ they said bewilder.
‘ Isn’t clear that quantum of light is a simply wave-particle,
of course, simultaneously ?’
. . . . .
And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
God created the light in very easy way.
And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
===============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===============.
God doesn’t play dice: cause and effect
(causality and dependence)
======================================.
Einstein said “God doesn’t play dice” because he didn’t accept
the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory. He thought
that behind the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory some
real process is hidden. This real process makes the situation
probabilistic. Thinking so - Einstein wasn’t alone.
P. Langevin told, that to speak about crash of unity between
cause and effect is ‘ intellectual lechery’. And Lorentz,
de Broglie, Schrodinger believed that the situation in the
micro world can be explained in details. All of them considered
that the particles and fields exist in real space and time and they
can move from one point to another. And this situation is possible
to describe not only probabilistically but in details too.
#
But other group of scientists didn’t agree with them.
Their leaders, Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must
refuse to describe particle’s behaviour to the smallest detail.
Here is enough to use Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
Most scientists agreed with them saying: ‘There isn’t better
interpretation quantum physics than Heisenberg’s ’.
From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation
and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without
success. And at last Feynman said: ‘I think I can safely say
that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’ And somebody
agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can
accustomed to it.
Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world
and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks,
dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions
and new symmetries . . .and etc)
#
I try to understand the situation.
1.
We have dualistic particle as a ‘ math point’.
2.
We have two kinds of space:
a) Minkowski ( -4D) and a its shadow -
b) separate independent space and independent time (3D+t)
3.
The dualistic particle/wave point can move from one point
to other, or (maybe) from one space (-4D) to another (3D+t).
#
This situation was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved.
Is this situation hard puzzle ?
Isn’t clear that we need to know: dualism of particle,(-4D )
and its shadow – (3D+ t) to solve this puzzle – problem ?
But these categories of being scientists try no debate now.
Why?
Maybe they are busy solving other problems . . . and . . .
. . . create new paradoxes . . .. . . . . . I don’t know.
#
I remember that about 50 years ago I have read one interesting
book. Maybe this book will help me to understand the situation.
I must reread it again.
Where is it? Here it is:
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: ‘The Praise of Folly.’
===============.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
Focus Fusion Society 
