Big bang and an intelligent pregnant woman.
According to ‘big bang’ the Universe exists 14 billion years.
Woman gives birth to a reasonable child during 280 days.
A body made up of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
A single human cell contains as much information as a library
with a thousand volumes.
Book: “ The unity of Nature”
“ The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.”
/ page 40, by Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker / https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_von_Weizs%C3%A4cker
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a reasonable child ( by the chance )
during 9 months if according to the Probability theory it is impossible?
By the chance woman must be pregnant more than 14 billion years
before to give live to her reasonable child.
So, before a ‘ big bang’ was an intelligent woman.
She was pregnant and gave life to a child . . . and . . .. . .
. . . . after 13.7 billion years and after many generations new children
invented the ‘ big bang’ theory.
wow, this is so twisted. You know that it took billions of years make life, it took another set of billions for life to evolve to humans. So much information that we need is already created. We only need to duplicate this information over and over. It's like you will have to type 10000 word document, then you can simply copy the document in very less time.
Theories and Laws
Flowery Wall Paper and Long Dead Geegaws
Decorate the Walls of our Mental Ward World
Reasonability and Reasonableness Cloak
Our Fragile and Vulnerable Lobes
Straw House Materials
The Storm is Outside
Huffin and a Puffin
Ego's Event K2
Why the large database number? One is enough, or two for comparison, three, well that's just silly. Amoebae or "colonial bags of water", capacitating high minded sperm like sentience. Ah theres the rub.
20,000 different coding texts seems more pertinent to this organism analysis of extrapolations in time, factor.
Perhaps one dilemma is that the answer is found in your self perpetuating query, where reasonable is the noun in question's modifier.
Very brief electromagnetic history. / By Israel Socratus /
Oersted demonstrated connection between electricity and magnetism.
Ampere gave mathematical explanation to this effect.
Faraday discovered the reverse effect: relationship between magnetic
and electric fields. ( how to use magnetism to induce electricity)
Maxwell (using mechanical model: balls, springs, hooks . . . etc.)
found mathematical equations to describe Faraday’s idea.
Oliver Heaviside reformulated twelve (12) Maxwell’s equations
to the modern four (4) equations.
Hertz discovered Maxwell’s electro- magnetic waves and . . .
he wrote that . . . EM waves cannot be put into practice.
But . . . . .
Morse created the telegraph and Morse Code.
Bell is often credited as the inventor of the telephone.
Marconi developed the first effective system of radio.
. . . etc . . . .
Maxwell’s EM theory was theory about waves.
It said nothing about particles.
It was Lorentz who introduced particle-electron in Maxwell theory.
And it was Einstein who developed and leaded Maxwell / Lorentz
EM theory into the “forest / jungles” of SRT.
Planck united together long and short wavelengths and said that
this unity is possible if they ( long waves and short waves) have
something common. The common is – quantum, quantum of action.
De Broglie decided vice versa:
quantum discrete particle can be as a wave – as a "pilot-wave".
Later SRT + QT created conditions for modern technological progress.
Different waves ( long and short) have something common in behavior.
The common is quantum- quantum of action- quantum particle in action.
Planck’s “quantum of action” is quantum particle in action.
It means that there isn’t EM waves without quantum particles in action.
Different quantum particles in action create different kinds of waves.
The source of all EM waves (and all phenomenons in Nature)
are different quantum particles in action with energy E=h*f
The particle’s energy of Gamma-Radiation waves is E=h*f ,
The particle’s energy of Röntgen-Radiation waves is E=h*f,
The particle’s (photon) energy of Light waves is E=h*f,
The particle’s energy of Infra-red-waves is E=h*f ,
The particle’s energy of Super/Ultra-High-TV waves is E=h*f,
The particle’s energy of Radio waves is E=h*f . . . . etc . . . etc.
What is difference between them?
Frequencies make difference between quantum particles in action
and their EM waves.
Photon, electron, x rays, cosmic rays, microwaves, radio waves,
TV-waves all they have in common one thing: frequency.
Change the frequency and you can step from one to another particle.
Frequency is the key to quantum particles.
Frequency makes difference between particles (EM waves).
" . . . photons with extremely high fluctuations (frequency) . . .
in the experience was observed . . . . the remarkable phenomenon
of transformation them in … … …electrons.
Undoubtedly, a reverse process is also possible."
/Book. " Isaac Newton ", page 94.By academician S. I. Vavilov./
Planck’s quantum particles are quantum particles in actions.
The results of these actions are different frequencies.
Question: How did frequencies appear in actions, in nature?
Answer: The frequencies are result of quantum particle’s high
speed self-rotation (a particle behaves like having self- angular
momentum) around its own axis. There are many different kinds
of waves but all they were created by this one scheme: h*=h/2pi.
This effect (spin) was found by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck in 1925.
And in spite of that this effect is well-known for a long time, until
today it doesn’t adopt philosophical as real physical self-action of
quantum particles, as real self-rotation process of quantum particles.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
Sciense is a religion by itself.
Becouse the God can create govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
Here is the scheme of His plane.
God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
§ 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= ∞ ,p= 0, t=∞ .
§ 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1.
§ 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- > HeI -- > H -- > . . .
§ 6. Proton: (p).
§ 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
§ 8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
§ 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
§ 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
The god probably came up with the rating system used to decide which equations and theories to include in this "top ten" list eh? It seems a bit self-serving, like it is giving the god an excuse to say "Hark! Behold my greatest works - hear them live on Letterman Tuesday night, with special music guest Elvis coming back, at my command, for this one performance only"
god Can be so irritating, with him its always like "no matter how well the universe seems to function on it's own, I can always get some believer guy to say 'na-uhhh, god did that' - and all that the intellectuals can say is 'circular arguments' or something and my believers say 'ya but got did that TOO - it really doesn't have to make any sense when FAITH is what creates the top ten list"
See what I mean? god What a blowhard... if he wants to retire he should get out of the way. Or should I say "...get the hell out of the way", lol. Thats funny, "get the hell out of the way" ha ha.
PS - this doesn't belong in the Biology forum, we are breaking the decency protocols talking about this here - it is a distraction for biology conversations.
Religion is always god-centered and so Science cannot be a religion since it has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a god. The definition of Science is "knowledge derived from observation".
God and Soul in Quantum Theory. / By Socratus. /
Can the conception of God and Soul have Physical Background?
My answer is: "Yes, God and Soul have physical background
and can be explained by physical formulas, equations and laws."
I will try to prove my position.
Question: what is God?
The Religious answer:
God is something Absolute, Infinite, Eternal, Spiritual,
the Highest form of Consciousness, Who created everything
in the Universe.
The Physical answer ( in my opinion) is more concrete:
There is an Absolute, Infinite, Eternal Reference Frame and IT is
Vacuum in the condition of Absolute Zero: T=0K,
that take the functions of God and create everything in the Universe.
Zero Vacuum T=0K is a "solo fabric" of creation everything in the Universe.
Zero Vacuum T=0K is a Metaphysical / Spirit World.
How can I prove my opinion?
1. God does not create this Material World directly Himself.
2. To create Material World and everything in It, God uses Spiritual Particles.
3. The modern name of these Spiritual Particles is Quantum of Light.
Quantum of Light is most phenomenal particle in the World.
Quantum of Light is the structural essence of the Material World.
The essence of all material objects is Quantum of Light.
Through the behavior of Quantum of Light we can understand
what an Absolute God has the Highest form of Consciousness.
In the Vacuum Quantum of Light has maximal speed : c=1
(from our earthly- gravity point of view).
No material particles can ever attain this velocity. It means that this
constant characteristic brings quantum of light to the world which
is different from Material World and this is Vacuum World of Spirits.
Many kinds of so-called different particles (waves) are only different
manifestation / modifications of Quantum of Light.
How can I prove this opinion?
It seems that different particles create different waves:
EM-waves, Gamma-Radiation waves, Röntgen-Radiation waves,
Light-Waves, Ultraviolet -waves, Super/Ultra-High-TV-waves,
Short/Mid/Long wave- length Radio Emission waves . . . but . .
. . . but the energy of each of them is written by formula: E=h*f.
It means that the difference between all these particles / radiations
depends only on frequencies and the background of these modifications
is one and the same particle: Quantum of Light in different frequencies.
Why the simple quantum particle electron has six ( 6 ) formulas:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 ,
E=h*f and e^2=ah*c,
E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV and E= ∞ ?
Because an electron and quantum of light / photon and antielectron
are one and the same particle in different actions and conditions and
" The Law of conservation and transformation of energy/ mass "
unites them together.
The Quantum of Light is not static / firm particle.
Quantum of Light is an elastic particle and can change its geometrical form.
Through so-called "vacuum fluctuation / transformation" Quantum of Light
can materialize or dematerialize its body ( virtual particle can become real
and vice versa) using its own inner impulse h or h*=h/2pi.
(Newtonian physics explains movement as a result of outside influence,
Quantum physics explains movement as a result of own inner power / impulse
of particle and therefore Quantum physics is only a modern Aristotle's metaphysics)
1. The potential state of Quantum of Light in the Zero Vacuum is: E=Mc^2.
2. In the straight constant movement its speed is c=1 and its energy is: E=hc
Quantum of Light behaves like a "particle".
3. In the rotation around its axis Quantum of Light behaves like "wave"
with energy: E=h*f. In the Zero Vacuum nobody has influence on
behavior of Quantum of Light. Quantum of Light by himself decided
in which state He wants to be, it means that Quantum of Light has some
kind of consciousness. The consciousness of Quantum of Light can evolve.
Quantum of Light takes part in creation atom, cell, flower, . . . etc . . . and
in creation every living being. And Its evolution of consciousness is going
step by step (from atom, cell, flower . . . to living being ) according to ancient
Vedas conception: ‘ from vague wish up to a clear thought ’
Now . . . . . if . . . .
If Quantum of Light have some kind of consciousness which can evolve
and the Absolute Zero T=0K gave the birth to this Spiritual Particles . . . .
then . . . . then it means that the T=0K have an Absolute the Highest form of Consciousness.
The tendency to understand "God" by physical laws, formulas,
equations using the Quantum Theory will be never ended.
Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
Does Quantum Physics Prove God's Existence?http://physics.about.com/od/physicsmyths/f/QuantumGod.htm
Does quantum theory prove God exists? http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/1339-does-quantum-theory-prove-god-exists/
In 1954 Einstein wrote:
" 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.'‘
In 1987 Feynman wrote:
‘ It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. ‘
================ . . .
We don't accepted Absolute Reference Frame T=0K and therefore
we don't know what Quantum of Light and Electron are and therefore
every speculation is possible. I say:
1) God is simple: T=0K
2) Soul is simple: Quantum of Light
( c/d=pi, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, h=E/t, h=kb,
h=1, c=1. h*=h/2pi, c>1, E=h*f , e^2=ach* , e^i(pi)= -1)
3) Everything else (material) is complex.
‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive
of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground
state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.’
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208, by Danah Zohar. /
=============== . . .
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
Electricity or vibration is that same energy, same power, ye call God. Not that God is an electric light or an electric machine, but vibration that is creative is of the same energy as life itself.
Edgar Cayce Reading 2828-4
Information / consciousness (like light quanta, electrons, atoms . . . . )
is a part of the Universe.
Book: “Why does the world exist?”. By Jim Holt.
“In the other words, maybe all of reality – subjective and
objective – is made out of the same basic stuff. That is pleasingly
simple hypothesis. But isn’t it a bit crazy? Well, it didn’t strike
Bertrand Russell that way. In fact, it was essentially the conclusion
Russell reached in “The Analysis of Matter”. Nor did it strike
the great physicist Sir Arthur Eddington as craze. In “The Nature
of the Physical World” (1928), Eddington ringingly declared that
“the stuff of the world is mind-stuff.” . . . . . “Craze or not, the idea
that the fundamental stuff of reality is mind-stuff has one very odd
implication. If it is true, then consciousness must pervade all of
physical nature. Subjective experience would not be confined to the
brains like us; it would be present in every bit of matter: in big things
like galaxies and black holes, in the little things like quarks and
neutrinos, and in medium-sized like flowers and rocks.”
“The doctrine that consciousness pervades reality is called
“panpsychism”. . . . . . . It seems to harken back to primitive
superstitions like animism - the belief that trees and brooks harbor
spirits. . . . . . Now, . . . .. . But the electrons, protons and neutrons
making up our brains are no different from those making up the rest
of the world. So the entire universe must consist of little bits of
consciousness. . . . .. Consciousness didn’t mysteriously “emerge”
in the universe when certain particles of matter changed to come into
right arrangement; rather, it’s been around from the very beginning,
because those particles themselves are bits of consciousness. “
“ . . . . . Combination Problem: how can many little bits of mind-stuff
combine to form a bigger mind?” . . . . . “How can many consciousness
be at the same time one consciousness?” . . . . . .
What sense does it make, they say, to conjecture that things like electrons
and protons are inwardly mental if you have to clue as to how their
micro- mentality gets unified into full- blown human consciousness?
But there are a few intrepid thinkers who claim they do have clue.
And it is supplied, perhaps surprisingly, by quantum theory. One of the
striking novelties of quantum theory is the notion of entanglement.” . . .
. . . Thus does quantum entanglement offer at least a hint of a solution
to the Combination Problem.”
/ page 195/
Roger Penrose himself has invoked such quantum principles to explain
how the physical activities in our brains generate consciousness. In
“Shadows of the Mind” he wrote that “the unity of a single mind can
arise . . . . only if there is some form of quantum coherence extending
across an appreciable part of the brain.” And he has since gone further,
endorsing the panpsychist notion that the atomic constituents of the brain,
along with the rest of physical universe, are structured out of mind-stuff.
“I think that something of this nature is indeed necessary,”
Penrose announced in a public lecture when the issue came up.” . . . . .
“ So does reality ultimately consist of mind - stuff? Is it no more
(or no less) than an enormous, infinitely convoluted thought, or even dream?
/ page 196 /
Book: “Why does the world exist?”. By Jim Holt.
Interesting how many we associate with conventional Physics also pursue what are often considered alternative physical concepts.
Newton certainly had an extreme interest in alchemy as well as the traditional Hebrew writings w re to numerology and escatology.
N Bohr was described as a mystic by some.
Interesting also how Einstein spent a fair amount of time mentioning intuition in comparison to discursions limitations in discovery and understanding.
Furthermore some have reported that while his original unification ideas were dismissed by the accepted physicists of the day, it was likely, when analysied to have been found to be technologically coherant(if not understood theoreticaly) and used by third reich scientists, and that the tensor analysis thesis and investigation of Gabriel Kron, lent extreme credability to the subject, as well as continued the revealing of how subtle physical forces really are. (Similar to the new discovery of terraherz effects reference mentioned as being evidence of that ever present subtlty).
Still Mr S, you refer at times to deep implications which many conventional scientists would disregard as 'mere' philosophy or delusional metaphysics.
Mind stuff creating the physical? As you know most contemporary "scientists" think that the physical is creating the mind stuff.
I wonder if, as in the starting point in your note, that if light, soul and consciousness are part of the univerese, is God or any'thing' beyond this conceptual universe being refered to? Mabey the powering/source energy that has been refered to as being sourced in or from your 'electron' thesis?
The Universe (as a material reality) was emerged from one common source.
The ancient Vedic teachers called it – Brahman,
Lao-Tzu called it – Tao,
The prophets of the Book called it – Yahweh or Allah.
Today the scientific officially community called this "common source"– Big Bang.
Of course, there is also a scientific possibility that the "common source
for the material reality " can be . . . 11- dimensions or M- dimensions, . . .
But tomorrow . . . .
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
" 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 /
“ 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
. . . . . .
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."
Why potential molar – masses (k) particles are primary God particles?
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.
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.
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).
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
The Universe: two scenarios. /by Israel Socratus/
Scenario number one: Big Bang.
At t=0 moment of BB:
a) the temperature was infinite (go to infinite)
b) the density was infinite. (go to infinite)
c) the volume was zero (go to zero)
d) BB reached a boundary to spacetime itself.
e) here the laws of physics break down.
f) today BB is prestige cosmological scenario.
Scenario number two: Zero Vacuum.
a) the temperature is T=0K (the boundary of heat)
b) the density is infinite (we cannot reach T=0K and its density).
c) the volume is infinite but the volume of its quantum particles
are zero (according to Jacques Charles’ law
(and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics )
d) zero vacuum is the boundary to gravity-space and gravity-time.
e) here the laws of physics (Ideal gas, QED, SRT, . . etc.) are worked.(!)
f) today scientific community obeys taboo:
no explanation beyond zero vacuum point. . . . . . .
. . . ‘ 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.’
Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’ , Page 138.
by Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
Question: Does zero vacuum really have no meaning?
The T=0K is boundary between two (2) worlds: Material and Vacuum.
Beyond/below T=0K is Kingdom of negative virtual antiparticles: -E=Mc^2.
The symmetrical continuum of T=0K ( in its local places) can be broken by
antiparticles through entropy, HUP, quantum fluctuation, quantum tunneling,
Heisenberg Uncertainty principle: (ab ≠ ba) and Electron.
Sir Arthur Eddington wrote:
We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two,
because one and one are two. We are finding
that we must learn a great deal more about `and'.
Because one (1) can be different from another one (1).
Take electron - symbol (e)
Take proton - symbol (p)
They are absolute different particles.
And interaction between electron and proton is not the same
than interaction between proton and electron: ep ≠ pe
( non-commutative algebra. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle)
=================== . . .
The electron (particle/wave) is not the same as the proton.
They are absolute different substances / matter.
There is EM wave theory, there isn't proton-magnetic theory.
Energy/ information can be transferred only by electromagnetic fields.
And in 1895 Lorentz proved that there isn’t em waves without Electron
No other particle can do this work.
We don’t have a theory about protono-magnetic fields that can
transfer an energy/information.
In our earthly world there is only one (1) unique fundamental
particle - electron (!) what can transfer energy as an information.
Electron has six ( 6 ) formulas:
1900, 1905. Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916. Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
1928. Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 (positron).
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV
And pure proton doesn't have formula, it has only "letter".
It means that electron is active particle (pure energetic particle)
and proton is passive mass-particle.
These particles have absolute different structure and matter.
Therefore the interaction between electron and proton is not the same
than interaction between proton and electron: ep ≠ pe
(Heisenberg Uncertainty principle)
Somebody wrote another example.
A thing called “shoe” and a thing called “ sock” along with
the operator ”and” which combines “shoe” and “sock” things.
If you play around with it, you will find
that the “ order “ is fairly important.
======== . .. .
LinkedIn Theoretical Physics : Discussions:
Heisenberg Uncertainty principle: (ab ≠ ba) and Electron
http://www.metafysica.nl/holism/implicate_order_20.html ... ... Wholeness and the Implicate Order ... ... Quantum Theory and the Implicate Order ... ... We will now further elaborate the theory of wholeness, especially in relation to quantum theory. ... ... BOHM’s Quantum Theory of Hidden Variables, or Theory of the Sub-quantum ... Introduction ... ... In his main book on the theory of the Implicate Order Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980, BOHM presents his theory of wholeness. Apart from some general considerations, the book turns out to consist of two ’parts’. ... One part is about the theory of hidden vari ... [This message is long. Retrieve the whole message]
Many people sought deeper meanings in Heisenberg's discovery, feeling that it cast doubt on knowledge itself. Others held that outside the realm of atomic measurements, human understanding remained as certain (or doubtful) as ever.
Cartoon by John Richardson
for Physics World, March 1998
Heisenberg realized that the uncertainty relations had profound implications. First, if we accept Heisenberg's argument that every concept has a meaning only in terms of the experiments used to measure it, we must agree that things that cannot be measured really have no meaning in physics. Thus, for instance, the path of a particle has no meaning beyond the precision with which it is observed. But a basic assumption of physics since Newton has been that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it. (This assumption did not go unchallenged, however, by some philsophers.) Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them.
There were also far-reaching implications for the concept of causality and the determinacy of past and future events. These are discussed on the page about the origins of uncertainty. Because the uncertainty relations are more than just mathematical relations, but have profound scientific and philosophical implications, physicists sometimes speak of the "uncertainty principle."
In the sharp formulation of the law of causality-- "if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise.
--Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927
Heisenberg also drew profound implications for the concept of causality, or the determinacy of future events. Schrödinger had earlier attempted to offer an interpretation of his formalism in which the electron waves represent the density of charge of the electron in the orbit around the nucleus. Max Born, however, showed that the "wave function" of Schrödinger's equation does not represent the density of charge or matter. It describes only the probability of finding the electron at a certain point. In other words, quantum mechanics cannot give exact results, but only the probabilities for the occurrence of a variety of possible results.
Heisenberg took this one step further: he challenged the notion of simple causality in nature, that every determinate cause in nature is followed by the resulting effect. Translated into "classical physics," this had meant that the future motion of a particle could be exactly predicted, or "determined," from a knowledge of its present position and momentum and all of the forces acting upon it. The uncertainty principle denies this, Heisenberg declared, because one cannot know the precise position and momentum of a particle at a given instant, so its future cannot be determined. One cannot calculate the precise future motion of a particle, but only a range of possibilities for the future motion of the particle. (However, the probabilities of each motion, and the distribution of many particles following these motions, could be calculated exactly from Schrödinger's wave equation.)
What Good Is It? Click here for the practical value of quantum uncertainty.
Although Einstein and others objected to Heisenberg's and Bohr's views, even Einstein had to admit that they are indeed a logical consequence of quantum mechanics. For Einstein, this showed that quantum mechanics is "incomplete." Research has continued to the present on these and proposed alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics.
One should note that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not say "everything is uncertain." Rather, it tells us very exactly where the limits of uncertainty lie when we make measurements of sub-atomic events.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle constituted an essential component of the broader interpretation of quantum mechanics known as the Copenhagen Interpretation.
"Because one (1) can be different from another one (1)."
In nature one can never be equal to another one. Therefore 1+1 = 2 is never valid. It is valid only for real numbers.
In nature everything is like apples and oranges. They cannot be added. Even two apples cannot be added, because they are different.
In math 1+1=2, this two is a single item on the real line. It is called closed under addition operation. When you add two objects from nature, they never produce another single object.
You cannot describe any property of any object of nature using mathematics. You cannot describe even an electron. If you isolate an electron from its environment then it will never remain an electron. It is just like taking earth out of its orbit. If you do that the earth will completely change. All people will die. The atmosphere will vanish. Same thing will happen to an electron also.
History of the "quantum of action" (1900-1927) / by Socratus /
In 1900 Planck united together two formulas ( Rayleigh–Jeansfor
for long and Wien's for short wavelengths) and then divided them.
He was himself very surprised when the result was found correct.
And after that came . . . .
: " . . . some weeks of the hardest work of my life . . ."
The result was – quantum of action (as energy multiply time: h=Et)
The coefficient (h) was neither in the Rayleigh–Jeansfor nor in the
Wien's formulas. Planck took unit (h) as in some books are written:
"intuitively, instinctively, phenomenologically"
In 1905 Einstein introduced unit (h) in different way.
Einstein wrote it as: h=kb
(Boltzmann coefficient multiply Wien's displacement constant)
And in 1906 Einstein wrote that Planck's and his results are equal.
But Einstein's formula explains quantum nature more clearly.
For practical uses both Planck and Einstein multiplied
"quantum of action" by frequency : E=hf.
In 1913 Bohr introduced "quant of action" in the hydrogen-atom.
In1923 De Broglie wrote that "quant of action" can be "pilot-wave".
In 1924 Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck wrote that "quant of action"
can work in another way as: h/2pi (h-bar)
In 1924 Pauli discovered that "the quantum of action" must obey
"the exclusion principle".
In 1925 Heisenberg went a step further.
He discovered "the uncertainty principle" (HUP): Et>h*, px>h*.
In the same 1925 year Schrodinger explained that
de Broglie's "pilot-wave" can work as "psi-wave function".
In 1926 Schrodinger found relation between his "psi-wave
function" and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
In 1926 Born showed that could be probability of finding
the "quant of action" in local place of the "psi-wave function".
In1927 Dirac "put into place the last of quantum theory's
building blocks". He "playing with beautiful equations"
explained that the "quantum of action" must have one
negative anti-brother (-E=Mc^2) in "an unobserved infinite sea".
The QM interpretation doesn't fit the logical presentation.
" 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."
/ Book: QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter /
Nature is not an absurd structure.
It is our "scientific" thought of Nature can be absurd,
it is our "philosophy of science" can be abstract.
How is possible to escape philosophical absurd?
The history of the "quantum of action" (1900-1927) shows that
"quantum of action" can be a quantum of light, and
"quantum of action" can be an electron, and
"quantum of action" has connection with an antiparticle . . . . .
In the other words,
quantum of light, electron and antiparticle can be one and the same
real particle of different actions in different conditions. This is possible
because "quantum of action" obeys “ The law of conservation and
transformation energy/mass”. "Quantum of action" has many formulas
and they can be tied together only through physical process of
"transformation" but what "transformation" means according to one
single "quantum of action" nobody explains.
The Existence begins on the quantum level and "quantum of action" is
primary particle of existence. Not from "big bang", not from "Higgs boson",
not from "string particles in 11-D", not from "meson, muon, tau . . . .
and 1000 their brothers" but only from Planck's / Einstein's
"quantum of action" creation of Nature was started.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus