Gravity Is Love, And Other Astounding Metaphors : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Comments

3 responses to “Gravity Is Love, And Other Astounding Metaphors : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR”

1. 

   socratus

   November 23, 2010

   – Hallelujah !! String Theory !!
   ==.
   Science has always been a source of heresy.
   ====.
   Lee Smolin wrote:
   I have written this book in the hope that it will contribute
   to an honest and useful discussion among experts and
   lay readers alike.
   / ‘ The trouble with Physics’. Page XVIII. /
   I will take Smolin’s proposition and try to explain my
   amateur’s thoughts about that was called ‘String theory’.
   =============.
   #
   Three years ago I posted an article ‘ The Special Theory
   of Relativity’ I wrote:
   ‘ String theory acts in 11- D space.
   But if we don’t know what 1+1 = 2 is
   how can we know what 5+4 = 9 is?
   And if we don’t know what 4-D negative Mincowski space
   is how can we understand 11-D space ( String theory) ?’
   I wrote: . . . .
   ‘If I were a king, I would publish a law:
   every physicist who takes part in the creation
   of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
   “To the winner over common sense”.
   Why?
   Because they have won us using the
   absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. ‘
   This was a reason that I refused to read any information
   about ‘String theory’.
   And later on different forums I posted emails, trying
   to explain, that the point is only a shadow of real particle,
   that it is impossible to understand Physics and Nature
   thinking of particle as a point.
   I wrote: In 1915 Einstein connected Mass with Geometry.
   Maybe now, in 2010, somebody will try to understand the
   interaction between an elementary particle and geometry.
   I wrote:
   If physicists think about a particle as a ” mathematical point”
   the result can be only paradoxical. And I am sure if somebody
   takes into consideration the geometrical form of particle
   the paradoxes in Physics will disappear.
   #
   Travelling in Scotland, by chance, in a secondhand shop
   I bought a book: ‘ The trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin.
   This book changed my opinion about ‘String theory’.
   Now I say: Hallelujah ! Hallelujah ! Why? Because
   ‘… particles could not be seen as points, which is how
   they always been seen before. Instead, they were ‘stringlike’,
   existing only in a single dimension, and could be stretched, . .
   And . . . they vibrated.’ / Page 103. / ‘ . . the idea of particles
   as vibrations of strings was the missing link that could work
   powerfully to resolve many open problems.’ / Page 124./
   It is nice. It is pleasant to read this idea.
   So, the string particle is a dynamic particle. And the string can
   have different geometric forms: ‘String can be both closed and
   open. A closed string is a loop. An open string is a line;
   it has ends’. / Page 106./ And now few physicists try to connect
   forces, movement and geometry of the quantum particle together.
   Hallelujah ! It is a progress. It is a step to truth.
   Now I say: the truth is hidden in the ‘ String theory ’.
   #
   But there are many string theories. And the growing catalogue
   of string theories evokes trouble. Because one theory is better
   than the other one, but at the same time each new theory brings
   new problems. Maybe therefore Lee Smolin wrote:
   ‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
   How do we find that missing idea?’ / Page 308. /
   Interesting: What was missed by ‘ the brightest and
   best- educated scientists’ who worked very hard doing
   many complicated calculations ?
   New particle? New D ? New force? New idea?
   Where did they have an error?
   I will try to understand this situation.
   #
   If I were professor I would great super – super 55D for
   explaining everything. But I am a peasant and the best way
   for me is to take the simplest reference frame – the Euclidean
   space ( 2D) . And maybe (who knows ?) Newton was right
   saying: ‘ Truth is ever to be found in simplicity,
   and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.’
   Now I will put a virtual- ideal particle in this 2D.
   The 2D is a thin and flat homogeneous space, so my particle
   also must be thin and flat and very 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?
   Yes.
   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 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 (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).
   So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately
   massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single
   virtual- ideal particle ( according 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.
   #
   Smolin wrote: ‘ – the missing element – must have been
   one of the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’/page 102/
   Where was ‘the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’?
   In the hope to understand Smolin’s thought I will draw
   historical scheme: Quantum Theory —->
   —-> Thermodynamics —-> Theory of gases —-> Ideal Gas.
   So, ‘the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’ was connected
   with idea of an ‘Ideal Gas’. From Ideal Gas our trouble with
   physics begins. I think the ‘Ideal Gas’ cannot be an abstract
   hypothesis. In my opinion the ‘Ideal Gas’ must be a real model
   of vacuum: T=0K . We can use all laws of ‘Ideal Gas’ for
   explaining the situation in Vacuum: T=0K. The ‘ Ideal Gas’ as
   abstract as ‘ Vacuum ‘ and vice versa.
   ===================..
   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.
   The frequency of every string particle can change.
   ( The various states of vibration . . . Page 103.)
   The geometrical form of string can change.
   ( When they gained energy, they stretched; when they
   gave up energy, they contracted – Page 103.)
   Thanks to rotating movement the ‘massless’ of particles
   increased and it became real observed particle.
   Stop ! !!
   I have missed here something important.
   What have I missed?
   #
   ( When they gained energy, they stretched; when they
   gave up energy, they contracted – Page 103.)
   What does it mean? What did Smolin want to say?
   How can I understand this process ?
   . . . . . . . . . . .
   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 geometrical forms of string particle
   ( open – closed ), different frequencies of string particle are
   reason of different radiation (from ultraviolet to infrared ),
   are also reason of new situation in 2D.
   Now the surface of my 2D in local area is changed.
   On one hand it is electromagnetic field now,
   on the other hand the spinning electron
   changed the temperature of the surface in local area.
   Now this local area has Debye temperature: Q(d)= h*f(max) / k.
   Maybe in this space a grain of gravity theory is hidden.
   Who knows?
   ==================..
   My conclusion.
   It is no bad idea to ask question:
   what are physical parameters of your new super D?
   It is possible to understand many things using 2D.
   The missing ‘big idea’ in ‘String theory’ is hidden in the
   simple question: ‘ What was the form of particle before
   it started to curl?’
   The time appears as a period of electron’s action.
   I ‘mix bosons with fermions’ (page 105) without using
   any supersymmetries.
   And I have:
   a) In potential state the impulse of particle is h = 0. ( boson)
   b) Having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my
   particle moves straight with constant speed c=1. ( photon)
   c) Having Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck inner angular impulse
   h * = h /2pi. the particle rotates around its diameter.
   ( electron/ tachyon/ fermion).
   Maybe the different conditions of (h) is the key to all
   other phenomena.
   Maybe this process can explain ‘the dualism of particle.’
   Maybe this interpretation can explain where the energy comes from.
   Maybe, if the space of my circle curls and changes then we need to
   use Riemann geometry .
   Maybe, if the speed of the particle is independent and self-contained
   then we need to use nonlinear equations.
   Maybe . . . . .
   Maybe it is time to end now.
   I reread my article. It is not bad, not bad for amateur,
   who thinks about philosophy of physics for 28 years.
   Of course, my interpretation is only scheme. And if
   I were a physicist I would make from this scheme a theory:
   ‘ Elementary particle as a springy circle’.
   But as a peasant I can only hope that maybe somebody
   from Smolin’s ‘few . . . most talented and accomplished
   physicists’ will do it. Who knows? Why do I doubt?
   Because I read Smolin’s opinion: ‘ Not that every scientist
   is a seeker, most are not.’ (!) Ce la vie !
   #
   Now I must go to my farm, to my garden.
   I want to plant some trees and flowers today.
   =.
   All the best.
   Israel Sadovnik Socratus
   ====================.
   ==============================…
   P.S.
   History.
   Einstein spent his life trying to construct a ‘unified field theory‘.
   He tried to explain electromagnetism using geometry just as he
   had done with gravity.
   De Broglie and Heisenberg tried to unite different forces
   using constants ( h) and ( h*).
   The year 2010: particle as a springy circle + ( h) and ( h*) +
   + Riemann geometry + nonlinear equations . . . . ?!?!
   P.S.
   …the more a subject is understood,
   the more briefly it may be explained.
   / Thomas Jefferson,
   letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816 /
   #
   You do not really understand something unless
   you can explain it to your grandmother.
   / Albert Einstein /
   #
   And Rutherford said, if you understand something
   you can explain it to barmen woman.
   #
   And somebody wrote : Of course , if I understand
   something I can explain it to my son.
   ====================================.
   …
   http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372

   http://www.socratus.com

   ================.

   Reply
2. 

   socratus

   January 3, 2011

   – What is the Source of the Universe ?
   Where did Existence come from?
   ===========================.
   #
   Now we have three ( 3) sources of the Universe:
   Big bang , vacuum and God.
   Which of them is correct ?

   About big band and God my opinion is:
   the action, when the God compressed all Universe
   into his palm, physicists had named -a singular point
   And action, when the God opened his palm,
   physicists had named – the Big Bang
   =.
   And about vacuum Paul Dirac wrote:
   ‘ 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? ‘
   ==========.
   #
   In the book “Evolution of Physics” Einstein and Infeld wrote:
   “ We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body
   of reference system they belong to, and all our physical
   construction appears erected on sand ”.
   They are right. Why?
   Because :
   The Universe ( as a whole ) is Two- Measured,
   there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity.
   What was before Vacuum or Gravity ?
   Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa?
   No answer.
   == .
   Fact and Speculation.
   1.
   Fact.
   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 it cannot ‘close’ the Universe into sphere and
   therefore our Universe as whole is ‘open’, endless Vacuum.
   But what to do with the infinite Universe the physicists don’t know.
   The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
   to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
   draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
   A notions of ‘more, less, equally, similar ’ could not
   be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
   The Infinity / Eternity is something, that has no borders,
   has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
   Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
   infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
   and cannot be considered in real processes.
   Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
   (on a level of censor of the law):
   « If we want that the theory would be correct,
   the infinity/eternity should be eliminated » .
   Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
   all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
   Therefore they invented an abstract ‘dark matter and dark energy’.
   They say: ‘ 90% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen.’
   And nobody knows what it is.
   2.
   Speculation.
   Unknown ‘dark matter ‘ it is matter which makes up the difference
   between observed mass of a galaxies and calculated mass……
   which….will …’close ‘ ….the Universe into sphere, as …….
   as……the astrophysicists want.
   Question:
   How can the 99% of the Hidden ( dark ) matter in the Universe
   create the 1% of the Visible matter ?
   ========================== . .
   #
   Now it is considered that Newton / Einstein’s laws of gravitation
   are basis of physics, the first laws / source of Universe.
   But the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
   is so small that gravitation field, as whole, doesn’t work
   in the Universe.
   So, the Newton / Einstein’s laws of gravitation are correct only
   in the small and local part of Universe and we cannot take them
   as the first ones.
   What can the first law of the Universe be?
   All galaxies , all gravitation fields exist in Vacuum (T=0K).
   Gravitational effects took place only in a small area of Infinite Vacuum.
   It is impossible to use GRT to the Universe as a whole.
   Vacuum is “ The first law of the Universe.”
   The Physics first of all is Aether / Vacuum.
   Vacuum is the Source of the Universe .
   Vacuum is the Absolute Reference Frame.
   Without Eternal, Infinite Vacuum Physics makes no sense.
   ==========.
   Best wishes.
   Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.

   http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
   ======================== .
   P.S.
   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. /

   ======================.

   Reply
3. 

   Charlie Brown

   December 10, 2011

   I thought Brian’s contribution was less to anthropomorphize the cosmos than to cosmologize a phenomenon often relegated to the sphere of poetry: we use the word “love” to represent connection, allurement, attraction, yet we don’t know why we are brought together. “Love” is a signifier signifying the mutualism and inextricable union of seemingly disparate entities.

   Love is not an emotion, it is a verb–a process. We do not feel “love” the way we feel sadness. We do and make love. We love and feel loving, in that we are more able to open ourselves up and bridge gaps of initial disconnection. Love is what goes on in a relationship–the binding force. It is felt, i.e. converted into emotional thought forms and feelings, but it is a tangible, physical process that is observed and produced, giving rise to emotion; the source of sadness, jealousy, rage…(emotions). It is what we sense in the relationships that define community–the energetic capacity for the sum of all action

   Reply

Leave a Reply to Charlie Brown Cancel reply

Enter your comment here…

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ