100 years of Einstein's SRT.

[socratus]

100 years of Einstein's SRT.
100 years have passed from the date of creation of SRT.
Millions of articles, reviews and books have been written and the
United Nations has decided to establish 2005 as the centennial year of SRT.
Considering all that is clear in this theory, one must still
continue to be surprised by its unusual aspects
Lets review it again:
1. SRT is based on two postulates:
a) According to classical mechanics, physical processes,
which occur in rest or in a rectilinearly driven reference system
are described under the same laws.
b) The rectilinear - uniform propagation of a quantum of light (c=1) in vacuo
has a constant magnitude and does not depend on the source of radiation.
These two postulates would be proven if in the final analysis, they corresponded
with Galilean transformations. However, the result appears negative.
Galilean transformations do not unite these two theories. Why?
2. The rectilinear - uniform motion of a quantum of light (c=1) is connected with
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics. SRT has grown from Maxwell's electrodynamics
and main component in it is the electron.
What describes the electron in Maxwell's electrodynamics?
It is natural, that this electron should be in motion, but it does not move rectilinearly.
It rotates around its own diameter ( spin of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck)
and such a rotation creates electrical waves. In such rotation all geometrical
and physical parameters of the electron are changed.
It is for this reason Einstein utilized the Lorentz transformations.
And all that is sensible in SRT is that it examines two completely
different types of movement: rectilinear (quantum of light c=1)
and rotational (Maxwell's electron).
It examines the transformation of the electron into a quantum of light (photon)
or quantum of light into an electron .
3. According to classical electrodynamics, an electron in rectilinear motion
does not create electrical waves. Why?
Because the electron travels as a quantum of light (c=1).
In such movement its geometrical form is a circle.
In such movement its area of contact with the vacuum is minimal
and it is not capable of changing the uniformity of the vacuum.
4. When the electron rotates around its own diameter, its speed is more
than the rectilinear motion of a quantum of light. Its speed is c > 1.
For this reason physicists ascribe a huge frequency
to the electron which is the reason its energy E =ħw is higher.
* * *
If you have time and desire, I ask you to visit my site
http://www.socratus.com
Best regards.
Socratus.

[socratus]

The Vacuum and Special Relativity Theory.

Special Relativity Theory examines the behaviour of a quantum of light in the vacuum.
1) The First law of SRT - the speed of a quantum of light in vacuum has
a maximal magnitude (constant, absolute) of c=1.
2) SRT is not considered a gravitational field.
For this reason, Einstein created General Relativity Theory in 1915.
The field in which there is no gravitation is a vacuum.
3) This asserts that action in SRT occurs with particles in
negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space. This space is absolute.
Mathematicians have constructed its model and speak
of this negative space as completely abstract.
Nobody sees that it has no connection to real existence.
This is similar to a sad joke.
For 100 years everyone has admired SRT.
Millions of articles, reviews and books have been written
and the United Nations has decided to establish 2005 as the centennial year of SRT.
Consider that all that is clear in this theory
is that negative four-dimensional space is abstract and has no real existence.
My God! There does not appear to be anyone to laugh at this joke!
Everyone searches for complex models of four-dimensional space, but truth lies in simplicity. All is very simple.
We meet the negative characteristic of space only in the vacuum, and in the vacuum,
space is merged with time (negative four-dimensional space).
According to the first law, the speed of light is absolute and movement occurs
in the absolute vacuum. So why does everyone speak and write that there is no
absolute movement; that only relative movement v =s/t is real?
Why does everyone say that there is no absolute reference system,
if the absolute speed can be only in absolute space?
Here we have one of the paradoxes in human intelligence.

[socratus]

Pythagoras, theory, Electrodynamics and SRT.
Pythagoras' theory applies equally to the largest and smallest triangle.
So mathematicians had decided, that this applies also to
the electromagnetic phenomena;
that the laws of a nature in the macrocosm and in a microcosm are identical.
It appears that this is not so.
In the macrocosm, Maxwell's laws apply
and in the microcosm, other laws, the laws of SRT operate.
These laws are interconnected.
SRT is a continuation of the development of electrodynamics.
* * *
1)What is the make up of the electron in Maxwell's theory?
Maxwell's equations have no relation to the movement of the electron.
They describe the distribution of electromagnetic waves
but not the movement of a particle such as an electron.
In Maxwell's theory, the charge - electron is considered local,
as though the particle is "at rest".
This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
but rotates around the diameter (has the form of a sphere).
The rotation of the electron creates electrical waves.
* * *
2) What is the make up of the electron in SRT?
At the beginning of the last century many scientists
(Einstein, Lorents, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Abraham) were interested in the question:
What will take place, if the electron (Maxwell's) , creating an electrical field,
begins to move - rectilinearly?
All of them came to the conclusion that there would be radical changes with the electron.
These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
That is, when the originally rotating electron (sphere) begins to move rectilinearly,
during movement it gradually will change its geometrical form.
Having reached constant speed of c=1, its form will become a circle.
In such condition it is called a "quantum of light ",” photon”.
And when a quantum of light rotates around its diameter its name is “electron “
An "electron" is an actively working “quantum of light”.
With such an interpretation, electrodynamics and SRT become one general theory.

[fraleysinger]

Your electron internals sound a lot like T.N. Lockyer's (google to find newest book or web info).

I can also make a case for internal velocities closer to c/137 and a corresponding reduction in size.

An electron's relationship to protons is key, I think, since there is more data involving nucleons.

[socratus]

The Vacuum and the Electron
All know, that an electron is not a firm sphere. All know, that its form can be changed.
But nobody understands the borders of the change of the geometrical form of the electron.
So, what are the borders of this change? Quantum theory gives an answer to this question.
It says that at the interaction of the electron with the vacuum, the energy and mass of the
electron become infinite. Physics does not understand what to do with infinite sizes
and therefore have thought up "a method of renormalization", a method
"to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./
But the situation can be understood another way. Electrons, having the geometrical form
of a sphere, lose their volume and turn into an indefinitely flat circle. In this is the reason
for the occurrence of infinite sizes for the electron. But in physics we know
only one particle which has the form of a flat circle. It is a quantum of light
which flies rectilinearly with speed c= 1.
Hence, the electron turns into a quantum of light. Hence, the electron and a quantum of light
is the same particle in different states.
In the books it is written, that electrons interact among themselves with the help of
a quantum of light. In the books it is written that an electron in an atom passing from
one orbit to another radiates a quantum of light. It should be understood as follows.
The electron has a quantum of light in a pocket or under a "shirt" which from time to time
is freed. Interesting. But why is it necessary for it to hide?

[socratus]

SRT are based on two laws.
1) The First law of SRT - the speed of a quantum of light in vacuum has
a maximal magnitude (constant, absolute) of c=1.
2) The second law - no other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
Hence, a quantum of light is a privileged particle and SRT
examines the behaviour of a quantum of light in the Vacuum. SRT solve the problem:
that will take place, if quantum of light will change the rectilinear movement c=1.
He can change the rectilinear movement c=1 only on rotary movement.
And then these changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
The circle turns to a sphere. And he works as electron .
And in this item electron is connected to electrodynamics of Maxwell.
In Maxwell's theory, the electron is considered local,
as though the particle is "at rest".
This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
but rotates around the diameter (has the form of a sphere).
The rotation of the electron creates electrical waves.
And then at the beginning of the last century many scientists
(Einstein, Lorents, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Abraham) were interested in the question:
What will take place, if the electron (Maxwell's) begins to move - rectilinearly?
All of them came to the conclusion that there would be radical changes with the electron.
These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
* * *
What borders of change of its parameters?
The Quantum theory approves, that at interaction electron with Vacuum
its parameters get infinite magnitudes.
It is possible only then the geometrical form of electron - sphere will be
transformed in flat phantom - circle.
Electron and quantum of light is one particle, which can be in different physical condition.
* * *
Such simple explanation seems surprising.
But business that the Quantum theory and SRT describe the beginning conditions
of Existence .
And beginning conditions can not be complex (difficult).

[socratus]

A simple question:
can "material entities", like photon, electron, atom
exist in two different "states of reality":
1)
"wave" - a "non-local" state that has no specific location,
can be more than one place at a time,
and transform instantaneously into a particle; or
2)
"particle" - a "local" state of substance that must
occupies a specific location at a specific time,
must travel at a speed less than the speed of light and
may change back into a wave.
3)
Somebody said that "material entities" are really just "states of
information" - but then, information about "what" known by "who"?
4)
However, if science is going to talk about the "nature of reality" using
the "silly ideas" expressed in QM theory, then religion and philosophy
certainly has an equal justification for talking about the "nature of
reality" using "silly ideas" like souls, spirits, and life after death.
5)
Physics are just a set of theories trying to explain phenomena.
Thus they can change with time.
Mathematics only the support of physics.
But mathematics by itself is incomplete (refer to Kurt Gedel's famous theorem).
* * *
It is not my article.
It is a part from clause of a scientist, which name I have forgotten.
But this clause is not unique.
There are many articles like this.

[Epsilon=One]

...but truth lies in simplicity. All is very simple.I agree that the simpler the premise, the closer you are to truth. To say that "all is very simple" defies reason.

…in the vacuum, space is merged with time (negative four-dimensional space).I cannot agree with this statement. There is no such thing as a vacuum if you are referring to “empty” “space”; and, there is no such thing as “space” if you are referring to a volume that is neither wave or particle; and, time and space do not merge as they are incompatible concepts; and, “four-dimensional” is improper to use if you are alluding to orthogonal manifestations of volume.

Why does everyone say that there is no absolute reference system,
if the absolute speed can be only in absolute space?
Here we have one of the paradoxes in human intelligence.Paradoxes result because no one bothers to define the fundamental concepts, as noted above, that are so easily derived from observation, geometry, and arithmetical manipulations.

[Albers]

A theorist is as happy as a pig in manure when he or she is in pure geometry. Some day I'll talk about a quark theory that's "all mirrors"...........

[Epsilon=One]

A theorist is a happy as a pig in manure when he or she is in pure geometry.If the theorist would stick with geometry there would be far less theory . . . and much less error.

Mathematics is easily prone to error; whereas Nature's geometry and arithmetic are provable . . . despite Gödel’s analysis.

[socratus]

A simple question:
can "material entities", like photon, electron, atom
exist in two different "states of reality":
1)
"wave" - a "non-local" state that has no specific location,
can be more than one place at a time,
and transform instantaneously into a particle; or
2)
"particle" - a "local" state of substance that must
occupy a specific location at a specific time,
must travel at a speed less than the speed of light and
may change back into a wave.
3)
Somebody said that "material entities" are really just "states of
information" - but then, information about "what" known by "who? "
4)
However, if science is going to talk about the "nature of reality" using
the "silly ideas" expressed in QM theory, then religion and philosophy
certainly has an equal justification for talking about the "nature of
reality" using "silly ideas" like souls, spirits, and life after death.
5)
Physics are just a set of theories trying to explain phenomena.
Thus they can change with time.
Mathematics only the support of physics.
But mathematics by itself is incomplete (refer to Kurt Gedel's famous theorem).
* * *
It is not my article.
It is a part from clause of a scientist, whose name I have forgotten.
But this clause is not unique.
There are many articles like this.

[Epsilon=One]

A simple question:
can "material entities", like photon, electron, atom
exist in two different "states of reality"Yes. See: Congeneric Realms of Reality. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=130)

"wave" - a "non-local" state that has no specific location, can be more than one place at a time,
and transform instantaneously into a particleWaves are of different natures. Radiant energy waves are not exactly as you over simplify.

"particle" - a "local" state of substance that must occupy a specific location at a specific time, must travel at a speed less than the speed of light and may change back into a wave.Particles are at all times radiant energy waves.

Somebody said that "material entities" are really just "states of information" - but then, information about "what" known by "who? "If information is defined as a discrete deviation, then all waves are “states of information.”

However, if science is going to talk about the "nature of reality" using the "silly ideas" expressed in QM theory, then religion and philosophy certainly has an equal justification for talking about the "nature of reality" using "silly ideas" like souls, spirits, and life after death.I agree; however, “equal justification” has nothing to do with truth.

Physics are just a set of theories trying to explain phenomena. Thus they can change with time.
Mathematics only the support of physics. But mathematics by itself is incomplete (refer to Kurt Gedel's famous theorem).Kurt Gödel was wrong. See: Universal Proof of One (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=165).

[socratus]

There are mathematicians that like mathematics for the beauty of mathematical calculations that "are brought to art". The connection with reality does not interest them very much.
One mathematician came to give a lecture. There is nobody in the classroom, but he has a plan and he begins his monologue. He became enthusiastic and suddenly he noticed two students in the room. He continues the lecture joyfully and after some time he notices that three of them are going away. "Here it is,- sadly thinks mathematician,- now one more student will come and nobody will be here again".
It seems, as if calculation was done correctly, but torn from the concreteness, he evokes a smile. That is the price of mathematical abstract logic for the gap with the reality. A lot of mathematical models look so. American scientist G. Gibbs wrote:
"Mathematician may say all that he wants, but physicist must maintain at least some spark of common sense”.
This “spark of common sense” preserves, when they begin to build a theory proceeding from initial conditions of Geneses.
Some scientists (even great ones) in order to explain some phenomena introduce new parameters and postulates. It is an "illness" of the modern science. With the help of extra parameters and postulates, one can explain anything you like.
In my book, there are not postulates. There are only famous fundamental laws, formulas and equations, which are collected consistently so that they explain the United Picture of Genesis.

[Albers]

Maxwell's equations extended reasonably have let me depict electrons as the circular mode of light. Check it out in my URL: http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na, and in the threads with Epsilon=One. This tames the singulairity.

[Epsilon=One]

There are mathematicians that like mathematics for the beauty of mathematical calculations that "are brought to art". The connection with reality does not interest them very much.Mathematicians must understand that Nature defines mathematics; not the other way around.

One mathematician came to give a lecture. There is nobody in the classroom…suddenly he noticed two students…he notices that three of them are going away. "Here it is…now one more student will come and nobody will be here again".
It seems, as if calculation was done correctly, but torn from the concreteness, he evokes a smile. That is the price of mathematical abstract logic for the gap with the reality. A lot of mathematical models look so.”It seems” the error in your logic is obvious. Anecdotes and analogies are always poor arguments.

American scientist G. Gibbs wrote:
"Mathematician may say all that he wants, but physicist must maintain at least some spark of common sense”.I find it difficult to believe that Gibbs could be so parochial and mistaken. Theoretical physicists rely on the extensions of unproven mathematics to further their mathematically unproven postulates. Pure mathematicians and most philosophic logicians are well aware of Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (GIT).

This “spark of common sense” preserves, when they begin to build a theory proceeding from initial conditions of Geneses.Genesis has no credibility concerning scientific “initial conditions.”

Some scientists (even great ones) in order to explain some phenomena introduce new parameters and postulates. It is an "illness" of the modern science. With the help of extra parameters and postulates, one can explain anything you like.I agree. Fortunately, there is the smell test.

In my book, there are not postulates. There are only famous fundamental laws, formulas and equations, which are collected consistently so that they explain the United Picture of Genesis.Your book sounds like a trove of scientific misinformation that is "consistently" "collected." If not a postulate of your book, how would you classify the “United Picture of Genesis.” What great mind created the sieve that your collection of “famous fundamental laws, formulas and equations” must pass through to be incorporated in your book?

[Epsilon=One]

Maxwell's equations extended reasonably have let me depict electrons as the circular mode of light. Check it out in my URL: http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na, and in the threads with Epsilon=One. This tames the singulairity.Though I find much to quibble with regarding QM, I have never found anything better expressed that demonstrates the relationship between electrons and radiant energy than at the referenced website.

The mind "tames the singulairity" more so than the current conventions of myth and superstition.

[Albers]

I give you electrons as bound spherical wave states with azimuthal current; I give you quantized lightfields but also nonquantized disturbance. Could fractional packets (ang. momentum between <0,1> explain interference? It is more difficult to deal with non-locality. I don't know much here yet, but I question the setup in the paper I read, where it said if we measure an electron state at one detector we can count on measuring the same downstream. That's polarzing the beam, no? This does not say that electron pairs emitted simultaneously stay the same as they fly!

[Epsilon=One]

Could fractional packets (ang. momentum between <0,1> explain interference?I can’t see fractions when it comes to waves.

It is more difficult to deal with non-locality.I understand non-locality as hyper-relativistic speeds of energy oscillations that are not resonating.

…I question the setup in the paper I read, where it said if we measure an electron state at one detector we can count on measuring the same downstream.I agree. Each Resoloid (photon) is an independent phenomenon with a very short lifespan, as I understand it.

This does not say that electron pairs emitted simultaneously stay the same as they fly!I understand . . . and agree.

[Albers]

I describe wave packets, and the description says they don't care what their overall magnitude is: A_o e^ikX e^-a^2(X^2+y^2+z^2), the A_o is arbitrary, unless you are an atomic emitter. The field itself cannot care, because we assumed at every point an arbitrary reaction was available.

[Epsilon=One]

I describe wave packets, and the description says they don't care what their overall magnitude is: A_o e^ikX e^-a^2(X^2+y^2+z^2), the A_o is arbitrary, unless you are an atomic emitter. The field itself cannot care, because we assumed at every point an arbitrary reaction was available.I agree regarding the packet magnitude. However, I consider it as non-local except when it is such that resonance occurs, which requires all magnitudes be multiples of a unit (integers).

[Albers]

Dang, I thought I could just shatter a couple of foundation pillars, like charge and Planck's constant, and be on my way, but I see you are way ahead of me. How wonderful, as I have spent a few years of amazement finding for myself this new land. This is to a point completeness, but then it is loneliness. How glad I am to be with you on the other side...

[Epsilon=One]

This is to a point completeness, but then it is loneliness.You're telling me . . .

How glad I am to be with you on the other side...Likewise. My computer time is up for the day.

[Albers]

Could a common fractional field explain quantum non-locality? I am just encountering this whole field and need some bootstrapping. However, I believe we must not cling too tightly to cherished quantum mysteries. I will be most interested to learn just what you see as arbitrary and what is unitized. I am asking just where it was we abandoned Maxwell's eqs.

[Epsilon=One]

Could a common fractional field explain quantum non-locality? ...I am asking just where it was we abandoned Maxwell's eqs.I see Maxwell’s equations and most all of physics as empirical and quantitative. That is: results are mathematically interpreted to fit equations. I don’t believe that much thought has ever been given to the etiology of the manifested phenomena; and then developing the mathematics to explain the phenomena. And, of course, testing to fit observation to the mathematics rather than vice versa.

I understand what is usually inferred by a "fractional field" as too much of a stretch to explain non-locality.

Despite Gell-Mann, the only fraction of a wave, or field, (the word field bothers me about the same as photon) is the soliton. Energy is hyper-relativistic motion, despite Einstein’s arbitrary limit for speed.

There are mechanical reasons why this motion is interrupted in a harmonic manner. It is the interruption, itself, that is observed as the "local" wave phenomenon. The seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179) (at near infinite speed) begins at a point (that is limitless everywhere), it is the duality of Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) that instantly makes this point, at the same time, a sphere with motion to and from the center point to the spherical surface. A line (An Infinity line (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=134)) is established in accordance with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (HUP) around which an ellipsoidal expansion occurs. The Infinity line (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=134)) has three salient points (Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101)).

The motion from the points meet at intermediate points referred to as the foci. The first meeting is equidistant and is represented by a perigee length and a soliton length that are equal. The soliton is the Natural function (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=121) (NF) of the perigee, "p," (x2 – x). For an ellipse of any shape, when the soliton, "s," is the NF of the perigee, epsilon equals one and the radius of the inscribed hypotenuse circle, "Hr," is always the key, "k." The key, "k," equals the perigee, "p," minus epsilon "e," = one.

The hypotenuse circle, "Hr," heuristically, represents one of four tetra-spheroid Resoloids. See: Brunardot Ellipses (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=104), Pulsoidal Ellipses (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=125), and Mystique of the Ellipse (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=182).

How’s that for confusing the issue.

...I believe we must not cling too tightly to cherished quantum mysteries.Agreed. QM is fundamentally contrived. This does not mean, within limits, that it is not an accurate contrivance with which to make predictions. It just isn't well suited for reconciliation with Cosmic observations that are equally important to understanding the etiology of our environment.

[Albers]

My analysis of what is necessary as a dipolar manifestation in the small, in electromagnetic space, shows that there is not an intrinsic constraint at this level for a wave packet to carry a total of Planck's constant worth of angular momentum, or similarly a total energy of h-nu. Thus my use of the term fractional photons, and I don't know how you have heard the term used. It is only the detector, you or I, which demands a currency of whole coins. I learned this all eating lunch with my Dad in the Manhattan Automatt back about 1960.

[Albers]

I have deep feeling for E&M field theory especially now that I have fashioned a clear bridge to the quantum world. I cannot understand you using the word etiology. Changing electric fields create magnetic loops and changing magnetic fields create electric loops. The question here is why it seems that monopolar duality is limited to electrics in an otherwise symmetric system. I am moving my understanding greatly to see charge as 'dipolar batons stuck inward', because this same dipolar availability explains why photons do not spread out to infinitesimal oblivion. My friends in the Chinese restaurant had no problem understanding my lecture: hold your fists with hitchiking thumbs pointing out. Consider the obvious YIN and YANG of this situation. If there is a singular reason why these fundamental sticks can hang together with, say, all thumbs pointing inward, then the outward presentation is that of YIN. If thumbs point out then "It's a boy." Here the equations are suggesting to me levels of reality not previously convincing to me, as I challenge part of QM vacuum theory. I agree with the interpretation of MURPHY's LAW I read in a quantum field theory book where the writer said that if you find beautiful mathematical physics there is almost no chance (different from things maybe or maybe not going wrong) that it is not relevant to Nature. Then you make sense and tell a convincing story........Is etiology, to you, geometry?

[Albers]

I also feel fairly comfortable in general relativity theory having enjoyed a good graduate course by Schiffer, of the text by Adler, Schiffer, and Bazin, "Intro to Gen Rel". Einstein said, since we like our special theory where space and time are combined into invariant four-vectors, let us assume that gravitation can be represented as a differential calculus of tensor rank two. This is expressing the hope, successfully it seems, that we can describe effect from one closely neighboring locale to another, given sourcing of the bending of this manifold (whatever it is!) from all things present within communicable distance. To me this is a great step from talking of action at a distance, especially now that I have produced a unique proposal for the nature of background E&M energy. These are clues I have to offer about "WHAT IT IS". No good piece of our theory gets thrown away, to my thinking. Newtonian gravity is the weak solution for gen. relativity. Quantum mechanics has congruence with the macroscopic. We move by synthesis, though who can know what we do not?

[socratus]

What is the electron?
Robert Milliken, who weighed electron, in his Nobel speech ( 1923)
told, that he knew nothing about “last essence of electron”.
In that case there is one old joke.
One professor asked a student:
“ What is an electron?”
“ Ah, God damn it! I have forgotten. And in fact even in the morning I knew it. ”-
the student answered.
“ You should recollect it without fail, - professor said – because you were
the unique person who knew, what electron was, and you had suddenly forgotten!”
This old joke does not grow old.
And today a question: “What is the electron?” remains without answer.
How the electron looks nobody knows.
* * *
1) What does the electron do in Maxwell's theory?
Maxwell's equations have no relation to the movement of the electron.
They describe the distribution of electromagnetic waves
but not the movement of a particle such as an electron.
In Maxwell's theory, the electron is considered local,
as though the particle is "at rest".
This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
but rotates around the diameter (has the form of a sphere).
The rotation of the electron creates electrical waves.
* * *
But everybody knows, that an electron is not a firm sphere.
Everybody knows, that its form can be changed.
And these changes describes by SRT.
2) What does the electron do in SRT ?
At the beginning of the last century many scientists
(Einstein, Lorents, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Abraham) were interested in the question:
“What will take place, if the electron (Maxwell's), creating an electrical field,
begins to move - rectilinearly? “
All of them came to the conclusion that there would be radical changes with the electron.
These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
That is, when the originally rotating electron (sphere) begins to move rectilinearly,
during movement it gradually will change its geometrical form.
* * *
But nobody understands the borders of the electron,s changes.
So, what are the borders of this change?
Quantum theory gives an answer to this question.
It says that at the interaction of the electron with the vacuum, his energy and mass
become infinite. Physicists do not understand what to do with infinite sizes,
and therefore they have invented "a method of renormalization",
a method "to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./
This method is abstract.
The situation can be understood in another way.
Electrons, having the geometrical form of a sphere, lost their volume and turned
into an indefinitely flat circle. In this reason, infinite sizes of the electron occurred.
But in physics we know only one particle which has the form of a flat circle.
It is a quantum of light, which flies rectilinearly with speed c= 1.
Therefore, the electron can turns only into a quantum of light.
That is why, the electron and /or a quantum of light is the same particle in different states.
* * *
It is proved, when electron leaves atom, its electric field changes.
The spherical field will be transformed to an ellipse field.
And in process of his removal the ellipse field is more and more extended.
And in a limit (at the moment of breaking-off ) the electron gets the form of a string.
(String theory).
Therefore, electron can have the different geometrical forms: circle, sphere and string.
* * *
In the books it is written, that electrons interact among themselves with the help
of a quantum of light. In the books it is written that an electron in an atom passing
from one orbit to another radiates a quantum of light.
It should be understood as follows.
The electron has a quantum of light in a “pocket” or under a "shirt"
which it gives freedom from time to time.
Why is it necessary for the electron to hide a quantum of light?

Best wishes.
Socratus.

[Albers]

Let us investigate the Lorentz tranform of my proposed field. I have not yet tried, and hoped $5 would buy the answer! Have I not taken Maxwell's eqs beyond what you say, simply by letting them?

[Epsilon=One]

O.K. I’m going to shoot from the hip regarding your last three posts. Bear with what are bound to be incomplete, and off the mark, comments that may raise some question regarding my mental state.

As usual, you waded through the crap and hit a nerve; so that’s where I will start with what are sure to appear as a bunch of disjointed comments.

… now that I have fashioned a clear bridge to the quantum world. I cannot understand you using the word etiology.I used etiology with reference to QM, thus:
“Cosmic observations that are equally important to
understanding the etiology of our environment.”

I strongly feel that understanding our environment depends more upon understanding what is “mass” than “light”; and I equate mass to the Cosmos. And, Cosmos I relate to GR. So what I was trying to say is that I feel that understanding gravity’s etiology is the most important issue concerning an understanding of our environment.

I consider that: having the quality of gravity is what most distinguishes mass. And, of course, this reduces to how does radiant energy acquires mass.

Almost as important as understanding gravity is to understand what “charge” actually is, phenomenally speaking.

My analysis of what is necessary as a dipolar manifestation in the small, in electromagnetic space, shows that there is not an intrinsic constraint at this level for a wave packet to carry a total of Planck's constant worth of angular momentum, or similarly a total energy of h-nu.I don’t understand what “electromagnetic” or “space” or “Planck’s constant” are. To me they are contrivances to explain enigmatic illusions and the metaphysical.

Thus my use of the term fractional photons, and I don't know how you have heard the term used. It is only the detector, you or I, which demands a currency of whole coins.I don’t agree. To have “whole” terms there must be multiples of a certain “unit.” It is only when there is complex harmony of these multiples of a “unit” that there is a resonance. It is from this resonance that all diversity manifests. It is the Natural function (x^2 – x) that initially sets a system’s “unit”; and, also, establishes the integers and arithmetical manipulations by which physics describes Nature, our environment.

Changing electric fields create magnetic loops and changing magnetic fields create electric loops.This is nonsense . . . electric - magnetic - fields. Such are contrivances used by engineers and mathematicians to explain “how”; these terms do not explain the “what” and “why” of that which is observed and/or mathematically manipulated.

The question here is why it seems that monopolar duality is limited to electrics in an otherwise symmetric system.Such questions and their answers are limited because the concept of “electricity,” and particularly “charge,” are poorly understood at a fundamental level.

I am moving my understanding greatly to see charge as 'dipolar batons stuck inward', because this same dipolar availability explains why photons do not spread out to infinitesimal oblivion.Well actually they do; but, not in the sense that you are probably using. “Stuck inward” is not a bad analogy as long as you also provide for “stuck outward.” A photon (that word again) disperses (at almost an infinite speed) as another photon forms to take its place. This process moves along within an enlarging ellipsoidal “envelope” at the speed of light. Each subsequent photon’s radius is imperceptibly larger by the same “unit” increment. Thus, in time, photons do spread to “infinitesimal oblivion”; however, at the anthropoidal scale this is not very noticeable.

It is the interchange of energy between the expanding “envelope” and the photon (each in turn becomes non-local) that underlies fundamental, intrinsic time . . . and all other evolving diversity.

…if you find beautiful mathematical physics there is almost no chance…that it is not relevant to Nature.I heartily agree!!

Is etiology, to you, geometry?YES. In the beginning there was only motion and its geometry. It took Philip Morrison to direct me to Ludwig Prandtl who took me to C. A. Bjerknes before I was able to get diversity from such simplicity.

Einstein said, since we like our special theory where space and time are combined into invariant four-vectors, let us assume that gravitation can be represented as a differential calculus of tensor rank two. This is expressing the hope, successfully it seems, that we can describe effect from one closely neighboring locale to another, given sourcing of the bending of this manifold (whatever it is!) from all things present within communicable distance. PM also sent me to AE. I don’t understand gravitation as anything so complex. Nor spacetime as anything so simple.

To me this is a great step from talking of action at a distance, especially now that I have produced a unique proposal for the nature of background E&M energy.Does your proposal reconcile with the ultra-high frequency (100 million degrees) X-ray, background radiation discovered in 1987, and thereafter.

No good piece of our theory gets thrown away…Glad you qualified with “good.”

We move by synthesis…I subscribe to Tom Kuhn’s paradigm shift.

Let us investigate the Lorentz tranform of my proposed field. ...Have I not taken Maxwell's eqs beyond what you say, simply by letting them?I feel you are starting too far up the ladder of axioms.

[Albers]

You are in a deep and beautiful place that I am only starting to sense. You have gone wholehog to a deeper wave level that may indeed be demanded, and I have not even thought about quantum non-locality. What I have done is to find what I think might be important expansions of our previous tools which will take us further. I do not yet aspire to your truly great ambition! Yes I am saying that seeming monopoles can be seen as innies and outties and this to me is satisfying, being as the same dipole consideration cleans up major questions about wave packets not dispersing.............Regarding mass and gravitation, a box of light has weight, as does strong pressure among entities, be they light or particles: all these things source gravity. This seems to be a clear message: all gatherings attract all other gatherings.

[Albers]

Bring back this term! I think physics is where there is no more distinction between etiology and epistemology. Ultimately I think we can only make better and better pictures. The Standard Model is actually in this position. I hate Lederman all through his book as he demeans theorists. Then in the last chapter he almost redeems himself saying, "This beautiful structure needs twenty or so constants plugged in that we have no idea about; therefore we sort of suck." How nice to hear! I feel at the first levels we discern patterns in Nature. Then with our intellects we bring forth different hypothetical constructs which might seem to simplify our depictions. This I take as a fundamental goal and always good. I am a musician who does not need so many notes! If with your wave structures (is this fair to say?) you do tie things together as it seems you might, this is cool. Each of us in his own way is trying to increase the elegance of our pictures. Do you think we are ever not going to have to keep turning around our wizard/dunce cap??? We theorists are a strange lot. Once in a while we get to celebrate incredible joy. Then, the next day or so, we go back to the dunce corner.

[Albers]

If your structure is concieved solely to answer to quantized light, you may find me fundamentally upsetting! I offer this with a sense of intellectual respect and 'joy of jousting' in a supportive way, insofar as two people find it possible. Are you comfortable in vector calculus as I deal in? I'm trying to figure out your mind . . . . . . . . . . . . BEDTIME MUSINGS: light has momentum which is felt as force. So also does 'mass' impinging on us. This we call inertia and is this not the flip side of mass?

[Epsilon=One]

Bring back this term! I think physics is where there is no more distinction between etiology and epistemology. Ultimately I think we can only make better and better pictures. The Standard Model is actually in this position. I hate Lederman all through his book as he demeans theorists. Then in the last chapter he almost redeems himself saying, "This beautiful structure needs twenty or so constants plugged in that we have no idea about; therefore we sort of suck." How nice to hear! I feel at the first levels we discern patterns in Nature. Then with our intellects we bring forth different hypothetical constructs which might seem to simplify our depictions. This I take as a fundamental goal and always good. I am a musician who does not need so many notes! If with your wave structures (is this fair to say?) you do tie things together as it seems you might, this is cool. Each of us in his own way is trying to increase the elegance of our pictures. Do you think we are ever not going to have to keep turning around our wizard/dunce cap??? We theorists are a strange lot. Once in a while we get to celebrate incredible joy. Then, the next day or so, we go back to the dunce corner.I have repeated this post without interuptions because it is so beautiful.

[Albers]

My neighbor worked making costumes for the Ashland Shakespeare Fest. Shall we have her make up two up these, with traveling boxes?

[Epsilon=One]

If your structure is concieved solely to answer to quantized light, you may find me fundamentally upsetting!You are no more upsetting than musing about Einstein and Feynman's inner thoughts.

My structure is conceived to explain quantized background created by oscillations that can be thought of as "strings." However, after discussion with Schwarz that's about as close as I get to String Theories.

I offer this with a sense of intellectual respect and 'joy of jousting' in a supportive way, insofar as two people find it possible.I understand and concur. And, considering your position (when not tuning pianos) I find you very courageous.

Are you comfortable in vector calculus as I deal in? I'm trying to figure out your mind . . . . . . . . . . . .I haven't been there for over 50 years (vector calculus, not my mind). I once taught calculus; but, now I need your skills for my geometry. Most of my associates have major collegeality problems if too closely associated with me. The exceptions, however, are quite notable . . . and over the past ten years quite dead. (Except for Mario Rabinowitz who is a dear friend as long as we don't discuss my alternative physics.) I had all kinds of problems in the MacCarthy era with J.E. Hoover and Oppenheimer and never looked back.

...light has momentum which is felt as force.I often use the terms interchangeably

So also does 'mass' impinging on us. This we call inertia and is this not the flip side of mass?Inertia (I use the term Cosmic Inertia) to differentiate from Newton's non-force) is the "flip side" (or reaction force) of gravity. One can be said to operate from the infinitesimal, the other from the infinite, in the exact same manner. (This analogy works to explain the forces and accelerating galactic recession; however, it is fundamentally deceptive.)

[Albers]

Whoa, Betty! One is attractive and the other repulsive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culturally, we sang with Crosby, Stills and Nash, "We are leaving, you don't need us!"

[Epsilon=One]

One is attractive and the other repulsive. . .To begin: Gravity is not attractive. To be attractive would require "voodoo" action-at-a-distance (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=127) . . . which would mean at least six forces for two bodies: reach, grasp, and pull for each body. Gravity is several phenomena; the most noticeable is Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124).

Both Gravity and Cosmic Inertia are the same force; Gravity "appears" to be "positive" acting from the infinitesimal; and, Cosmic Inertia "appears" to be "positive" acting from the infinite, which is so far away the force appears minuscule without acceleration . . . unless the object is galactic in size.

It should be noted that the infinitesimal and the infinite are congruent; as, each is a singularity; and, there is only one singularity . . . Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109).

One might say that accelerating, galactic recession is the galaxies "falling" away to the infinite.

Appearing to operate from the infinite is no more ludicrous than appearing to operate from the infinitesimal. Who has ever found a gravity wave. Caltech is in the process of spending a billion dollars searching for such waves after half a billion dollars failed about a year ago.

Gravity waves will NEVER be found beyond the minds of pomo theoretical physicists.

Einstein understood the necessity of the cosmological constant; but was unaware of accelerating, galactic recession. He was right that a force opposing gravity was structurally required (the big bang could never be acceptable as a standard model as long as Einstein lived); but, wrong concerning the source, the direction, and that it was a "constant" force . . . without acceleration.

Neither GR nor Newtonion gravity accounts for inertia as a force. Mach and Sciama were well aware of the problem; as was Einstein who never for a day believed in SR, GR, or QM being anywhere near complete or infallible. Of course, none of the academic elite bothered much with Einstein's concerns; so why should they bother with those of Mach, Sciama, or others such as Sir Fred.

[Albers]

That is a powerful reply upon which I will meditate and study. I don't feel as you do about action-at-a distance. I am starting to feel something of your approach: I like the use of waves regenerating from all points, if I read you correctly, because that is how a wave medium is. The sum of all the evolutions moves the manifestation forward.

[Epsilon=One]

I like the use of waves regenerating from all points, if I read you correctly, because that is how a wave medium is. The sum of all the evolutions moves the manifestation forward.That's about how I rationalize. Don't forget to throw in hyper-relativistic for the regenerating part and the SOL as they move along. I don't believe Einstein ever paid much attention to this concept. I suspect that if he had, academic physics would be nothing like we know it today.

Why should speed have an arbitrary cut off limit???

Morrison suggested I discuss the possibility with AE; I was on the way there when I heard he had died that morning.

[Albers]

If you envision our reality as a phase manifestation of a deeper field, you can construct almost anything, and you seem to have done so coherently. We do measure a speed of light, so this begins our picture. Help me with the terms here: group velocity, etc.

[Epsilon=One]

If you envision our reality as a phase manifestation of a deeper field, you can construct almost anything, and you seem to have done so coherently.Thanks. That's the only goal other than that the coherence (rationality) being available to a good junior high student. Actually, to use your term, “phase,” I rationalize four phases in everything I can think of off-hand. I believe a close examination of almost all phases, including numbers (they are not just odd/even), will demonstrate four phases.

Concerning Reality, I submit that the phases (realms) are coalescence, propagation, compression, and dispersion . . .

We do measure a speed of light, so this begins our picture.However, light's speed is measured as a constant. This is a bit of a conundrum for a postulate. Better to begin by digging down and explaining “why?”

A start might be to consider light quanta, or waves, or strings, or whatever, as a background “fabric.”

This reduces the question to what is the “fabric” woven of.

I would think it would have been found by now if it were not hyper-relativistic manifestations.

I have been taunting the theorists with finding gravity waves and hyper-relativistic radiant energy since the spring of ’55. During the intervening time, I have grown surer of my position; while I note, my world-class adversaries increasingly are wavering . . . to the point where some laureates are suggesting a "new" physics is required. On this point, I find it difficult to mount a compelling, contrary argument.

Help me with the terms here: group velocity, etc.I understand group velocity as a very complex velocity because the velocity of the pulse “envelope” has many intrinsic components that run the gamut of direction, speed, and angular momentum. If it is assumed that the “envelope” chugs along at the SOL and it is constant (the variation is most minuscule) than at times the intrinsic components will be relatively motionlessness (non-local) or exceed the SOL (non-local). Not sure if this is what you’re concern is? I suspect that it is group velocity that accounts for the occassional sightings of "photons" exceeding the SOL.

[Albers]

I will read on it again but I think group velocity is defined as d(omega)/d(k). On the other hand, phase velocity has little physical limitation. Imagine two large circular clouds meeting a rapid enough advance so their intersecting arc speads apart very fast.

[Epsilon=One]

I will read on it again but I think group velocity is defined as d(omega)/d(k). On the other hand, phase velocity has little physical limitation. Imagine two large circular clouds meeting a rapid enough advance so their intersecting arc speads apart very fast.I believe you're correct.

I don't quite follow the analogy. What would be the whirling particulate velocity within the colliding clouds?

[Albers]

Imagine two large circles approaching each other. At the moment they meet they touch at a point. Consider the two spreading points of intersecting arcs. At the moment they begin, the velocity of separation of the chord is, I think, asymptotically high! An observer could see this growing chord and be surprised. WEATHER works the sames way. Opposing great pinwheels approach each other, but the locus where they meet can move hugely with smaller shifts of geometry; there can be the same rapid phase advances which have little to do with the actual air mass velocities.

[Epsilon=One]

Imagine two large circles approaching each other. At the moment they meet they touch at a point. Consider the two spreading points of intersecting arcs. At the moment they begin, the velocity of separation of the chord is, I think, asymptotically high! ...the locus where they meet can move hugely with smaller shifts of geometry; ...the same rapid phase advances...have little to do with the actual air mass velocities.I've been staring at groups of tangent circles and think I understand a bit of what you are saying. Is it that the growth of the intersecting chord can be dramatically exponential compared to the rate that the arcs are intersecting???

If this is your point, regarding group velocity, then, "group velocity" as you use the term is not quite as complex a mix of motions as I was implying.

However, I may not be on your wavelength . . . (I did look up at some clouds; all I could conclude was that it looks like rain tonight.)

[Albers]

Yes, the chord, and this deals with phase velocity. Look at the large scale weather map and think of intersecting pinwheels manifesting the same, but more chaotically moving meeting points. The separate discussion of group velocity is more a local physics, involving dispersion.

[Albers]

We've observed things like this from nova shocks plowing into far regions which are more flat. The apparent point of contact moves impressively fast, sideways. This is good geometric entertainment and not current physics, unless some further consideration offerred focussing of energy otherwise not available over a space-like interval. DETAILS: Express a circle as: . . . . . . x^2 + y^2 = 1. Then y= SQRT(1-x^2). Differentiate to see the rate of change of y with x, evaluated at <x,y>=<1,0>. Gloriously the denominator blows up! We're having fun now. (It's like dy/dx= -x/SQRT(1-x^2) )

[Epsilon=One]

The separate discussion of group velocity is more a local physics, involving dispersion.I think I need a wave mechanic. I have the feeling that I’m putting the wrong term on the phenomena that I’m visualizing. You have me thinking that my ellipsoidal wave has more to do with phase and group velocity than I had envisioned.

We've observed things like this from nova shocks plowing into far regions which are more flat. The apparent point of contact moves impressively fast, sideways. This is good geometric entertainment and not current physics, unless some further consideration offerred focussing of energy otherwise not available over a space-like interval. I’m not so certain about entertainment vs. physics. It seems theoretical physicists should spend more time with wave volumes and their motions (such as clouds) than with “strings” and collider subatomic particle paths.

…Express a circle as: . . . . . . x^2 + y^2 = 1. Then y= SQRT(1-x^2). Differentiate to see the rate of change of y with x, evaluated at <x,y>=<1,0>. Gloriously the denominator blows up! We're having fun now.Yes, this is my idea of fun. And, it illustrates problems with calculus and the physicists’ over reliance on extending mathematics beyond limits before understanding its underlying geometry. And, of course the physicists disdain for the complexity of the relationship between the dualities of Infinity.

[Albers]

It is shocking how the small wraps around to the large. We knew this from politics: both left and right yield dictators. . . . . .I imagine there is possible a mathematical eversion to describe a transform between my electron field as locked-up circular light, to opened-up photon such as I describe. I see this. Can you do it? These are the two fundamental states. . . . . PS Why is the speed of light apparently constant? Because we are circles of light who transform right along with it. This is simple.

[Epsilon=One]

I imagine there is possible a mathematical eversion to describe a transform between my electron field as locked-up circular light, to opened-up photon such as I describe. I see this. Can you do it?I also understand it as “locked-up” light; however, not because it’s an eversion from electron to photon. The Light (energy) is “locked-up” because it is being internally reflected between 4 spherical resonances arranged in a tight tetrahedron-like order. Because the energy can neither escape nor be penetrated, it is “dark” matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155) and the Pauli EP is operational; because this is a continuous manifestation there is compression (one of gravity’s actions) until a critical point is reached. At Critical Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=205) one of the 4 spheres (Phorbs (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=147)) is ejected; it becomes a standing wave electron while the other components within the (Soloid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=172)) become neutrinos and the fourth state of Light (dissipents) (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=143). This phenomenon is seen as quasars and gamma-ray bursts deopending upon the mass involved. . . . as I see it.

These are the two fundamental statesWithin Reality, (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=188) there are four fundamental (congeneric) states (realms) (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=130). Two each for what is basically matter and Light. “Dark” matter (prior to atoms) represents a state of compression. Atoms represent a state of dispersion. Fundamental Light is in a state of coalescence while its expansion is greatest along the major axis; as it morphs to a sphere, Light is in a state of propagation.

Why is the speed of light apparently constant? It isn’t quite (I'm pleased to see the qualifier "apparently."); but, it is nearly constant. It does stop and start at its extreme limits. To fully understand the situation from our situation in the Universe (very slow moving), it helps to understand the internal geometry of a light wave. (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=54) It might help to think of light quanta as the background against what everything observable moves. Sorta like AE's warped spacetime. (Both analogies are not very good.)

I have added a few URLs. Everything I post on this site is ad hoc. So, if the URLs appear confusing . . . they probably are. Ask detailed questions.

[Albers]

Cosmologic inflation is an interesting question on which to ask your take. I think I can say that here, a field takes hold, at a particular phase change point, that blows out space 'from the inside' so the usual limitations on communication of information were transcended and fluctuations had opportunity to get quite even.

[Epsilon=One]

Cosmologic inflation is an interesting question on which to ask your take.If you are referring to Alan Guth and Andrei Linde's inflation, I think it is a contrivance that has no firm foundation other than fitting a theory to theoretical data that itself is badly misconstrued.

I know of nothing in modern cosmology that I consider more ludicrous than the big bang and inflation theory. There is even more rationale for black holes depending upon how they are defined.

[Albers]

Does your attitude hold for much of the Higgs theory? I am going through a good debate on Science Fora right now starting with a skeptical statement about Higgs bosons and mass. This is really out of hand and I am having some effect. . . . . . . . . Can you describe something of your cosmology if you are showing other roots for what we see?

[Epsilon=One]

Does your attitude hold for much of the Higgs theory?The Higgs boson is an interesting concept in that it is a form of a quantum that begins with mass. It, however, has many problems.

It is somewhat analogous to what I refer to as an Ultron (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=140) (a proto-atom). You could say that the “aether” of the Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151) (space) is composed of Ultrons (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=140). Ultrons (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=140) are what is conventionally referred to as “dark” matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155).

Where Higgs goes most wrong is that mass is his starting point. There is no explanation of how mass occurs from harmony to resonance to total internal reflection of radiant energy.

I define mass as that ( radiant energy) which behaves in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle (PEP). Thus, as Ultrons (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=140) are created, there is a compression of prior Ultrons (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=140) until atoms are formed at Critical Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=205).

In the congeneric realm of atoms (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=130) (the realm in which we exist), everything is dispersing. In the Ultron (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=140) realm (“dark” matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155)), everything is compressing. These two are the realms of fermions. There are two other realms: coalescence and propagation which are bosons; you may correctly conclude that I believe the Higgs boson is misnamed; however, Higgs, apparently is trying to fit mass into QCD theory???

Can you describe something of your cosmology… Congeneric (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=130) is a reference to the theory that the aforementioned four realms overlay one another (in a congruent manner), while endlessly cycling in a prescribed order. I’m sure that I confuse . . . my cosmological paradigm of which these realms are most important is referred to as the Equilibrium Theory of Reality (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=131) (ETR), which has no beginning; and, is endless.

The Higgs boson and its interactions strongly rely on the “spooky” effects of quantum mechanics which are contrived to provide mathematical results without explaining “Why?”

If any of the above is not clear (joke) ask questions. It is difficult with short answers to know what is being absorbed and what appears as nonsense.

[Albers]

No problem, babe! (I am New York.) I have an old-fashioned, simple attitude here. If an amount of light is hanging out stably, nothing else need be explained. What'n'ell is all the fuss? Now, mind you, I show that dipoles are migrating inward in an electron. Negative pressure is central to Higgs, no? Then too, is the point that THERE IS A PROCESS?

[Epsilon=One]

...I show that dipoles are migrating inward in an electron.I understand the electron as being bound to the proton. It's lower mass is consequent to further distance, and other lesser physical phenomena, from the center of the nucleus. Is this consistent with inward migrating dipoles? What is the substance of your dipole? Does its shape radically change?

Actually, I understand all the subatomic manifestations to be intimately entangled in a rhythmic dance. Sorta like writhing youngsters keeping some space on a disco dance floor.

Negative pressure is central to Higgs, no? Then too, is the point that THERE IS A PROCESS?Negative is another one of those words that confuses me. If gravity is positive pressure than I would imagine Higgs quanta should be positive. If such an animal were to exist.

[Albers]

I construct the necessary field, then ask WTF? Is this a cloud of negative monopole manifestation we must explain to know electrons? No. How about dipole 'stuff' whose attributes we strive to understand? Ah, better. Now refer to my exposition on Chinese yin-yang. I am allowing mathematical physics to speak. Starting almost clueless, I have been led to the almost ridiculous position of saying QM is unjustified in its vacuum representation, but I think this is right.

[Epsilon=One]

Is this a cloud of negative monopole manifestation we must explain to know electrons? No. How about dipole 'stuff' whose attributes we strive to understand? Ah, better. ...I am allowing mathematical physics to speak. Starting almost clueless, I have been led to the almost ridiculous position of saying QM is unjustified in its vacuum representation, but I think this is right.You'll get no argument from me!!!

[Albers]

You said earlier: "I understand the electron as being bound to the proton. It's lower mass is consequent to further distance, and other lesser physical phenomena, from the center of the nucleus." This is sort of wild, as it is backwards; since there are half-MEV states we call electrons, they are the light half of pairings with hadronic nucleii. How do you relate to the seeming breaking of symmetry where we find no antimatter here. Namely, heavier nucleii which would repel normal electrons. Are you throwing out the whole concept? This seems upsetting until I realize that I certainly am doing the same thing, namely, completely deconstructing charge. Where can I hang my hat? Dunce, wizard, or fedora. Are you really doing this, namely explaining why it is illusion? This upsets me of course because I am achieving an excellent synthesis of polar availability constructing the illusion of monopoles. This is a major statement in my thesis. I admit I have no clue as to, "Where has all the antimatter gone: long time passing???" Apologies to PP&M. In any cooling plasma, including cosmologic, condensation phase changes are transited. Over on Science Forums I am seeking help here, also. Underneath temperatures of roughly 2GEV, protons condense. Underneath roughly 1MEV, electrons add to the alphabit soup. Are we somehow relieved of the burden of polarity????? Do you know what I'm trying to say? From things you have said I see you do not perceive the intimate relationships I do in our field equations. Turn the magnets around and they will or will not stick.

[Albers]

Let me guess. You dial this away as bogus? Christ, no mercy. I did accelerators and witnessed a few thousand rams-horns of plus-minus particles spitting out of the 3GEV Brookhaven proton beam at out target. Night shift at the data shack. . . . . . . Yet, things do not add up so well.

[Albers]

You had nothing nice to say about cosmic inflation. I see it as maybe compatible with your constructions. It is an epoch where the superluminal took over 'from the inside'. Can you not see a creative link?

[Epsilon=One]

You said earlier: "I understand the electron as being bound to the proton. It's lower mass is consequent to further distance, and other lesser physical phenomena, from the center of the nucleus."

This is sort of wild, as it is backwards; since there are half-MEV states we call electrons, they are the light half of pairings with hadronic nucleii. How do you relate to the seeming breaking of symmetry where we find no antimatter here.The shorter the distance of oscillation the faster the speed. The faster the speed the greater the bond; the greater the bond the greater the mass.

Antimatter does not exist. All matter is matter. It may vary in form of oscillation, harmony, resonance, spin, phase, speed, angular alignment, etc. What is known as antimatter is one of the above variations or either a misinterpretation of collider data or mathematics. If there were antimatter there would be total annihilation or mirror Universes. I consider each as untenable.

Namely, heavier nucleii which would repel normal electrons. Are you throwing out the whole concept?I understand attraction and repulsion as a question of in or out of phase oscillations. I see phenomena as motion of forces; not as “charges” and equations. Nuclei are complex resonances that are too complex to generalize regarding their phase. Most of the nucleus contains balanced oscillations; however, at Critical Compression within quasars and gamma-ray bursts the oscillations are stressed, which results in the phenomena of expelled waves (light) and extended orbits of oscillations (electrons) which also internally cycle (proton).

This seems upsetting until I realize that I certainly am doing the same thing, namely, completely deconstructing charge.This I think is a good thing.

I admit I have no clue as to, "Where has all the antimatter gone…Nor, has anyone else. My solution has its tidiness.

…long time passing???"Apologies to PP&M.If I had a hammer . . .

In any cooling plasma, including cosmologic, condensation phase changes are transited.I understand all plasma as a result of trauma; therefore, unstable and belonging to the Realm of dissipation. Otherwise, I find plasma controlled and in some other state. What is your view?

Underneath temperatures of roughly 2GEV, protons condense. Underneath roughly 1MEV, electrons add to the alphabit soup. Are we somehow relieved of the burden of polarity?????I don’t know about your condition values; however, I can never imagine an absence of “polarity” as long as there is existence. I can imagine an attenuation to near zero.

Do you know what I'm trying to say?Yes. Do I fully understand what you are saying? I’m not certain.

From things you have said I see you do not perceive the intimate relationships I do in our field equations. I am always apprehensive around concepts like “field equations” until the “what” and “why” of the field is mechanically explained.

[Epsilon=One]

I did accelerators and witnessed a few thousand rams-horns of plus-minus particles spitting out of the 3GEV Brookhaven proton beam at out target. Night shift at the data shack. . . . . . . Yet, things do not add up so well.Good friend started at SLAC when it was new, probably early 60s. He's still trying to reconcile. Not sure which of us will have the last laugh; but, I'm getting a lot more cockier.

[Epsilon=One]

You had nothing nice to say about cosmic inflation. I see it as maybe compatible with your constructions. It is an epoch where the superluminal took over 'from the inside'. Can you not see a creative link?Well I enjoy bashing String Theory. Yet, it is the geometry of force strings that I use to rationalize TOE.

CI is a contrivance to justify the big bang, which I detest as the devil himself.

Can I see a superluminal link? Well maybe. I was "superluminal" in '55; Guth and Linde were in about the 2nd and 3rd grade, accelerating, galactic recession was unknown beyond my theories, and the big bang was a pejorative term.

[Albers]

It is wise to eat smaller meals when the vertigo of deconstruction strikes. It is what we came for. Every time, and these are our better days, the floor drops completely out from under me, my stomach is in my throat and I am in freefall. But didn't someone actually fall through the floor into Tutankamen's Tomb? It was some major archeological dig. At all such moments I know I am changing and that part of my theory is being thrown out. What is left and new has always been better! Dusting myself off I see things of gold in a room I have never before known. I trust this. We have arrived at the nexus of Quantum Field Theory. It was basically created (if I read wikipedia well) to account for the CP violation which is what is in our face in a plasma cooling from high MEV levels. I think I have talent for blundering into the right questions.

[Epsilon=One]

I think I have talent for blundering into the right questions.Such is the way of wisdom.

It takes great intelligence to recognize error. Especially one's own. Such understanding generally contains the ingredients for an eventual solution.

This may interest you. re: QM violates the Equivalence Principle.

http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0601/0601218.pdf

[Albers]

I just glanced at this paper. Here you should understand that I am actually offering further vision. I dare to say it is time to formuate a larger inhomgeneous theory including the mechanics of quanta. This morning I have been meditating on the Schroedinger eq. I am almost ready to speak on what I see, but not yet. I feel good thoughts gathering. Give me a few days. I read good papers saying just what I have said here, though not with my specifics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great intelligence? A.E. was asked about that. I say, intelligence and meditative spirit, i.e., being out of the way. Whoever thinks they know everything learns, surely, no thing. No stone can be unturned.

[Epsilon=One]

I dare to say it is time to formuate a larger inhomgeneous theory including the mechanics of quanta.Yes, a "new" physics is required. I refer to the moment as a Paradigm Shift!

his morning I have been meditating on the Schroedinger eq.Schroedinger I admire. He was always questioning and seldom satisfied with the answers supplied by his peers.

I am almost ready to speak on what I see, but not yet. I feel good thoughts gathering. Give me a few days.Take your time. If possible, factor in simplicity and integers. Leave room for a natural source for arithmetic.

Keep me posted. Use e-mail below if you have it on your computer.

I can't access my personal messages on this forum. Bugs.

I say, intelligence and meditative spirit, i.e., being out of the way.Imagine trying to develope alternate theory with introspection in today's climate of multitasking communication . . .

[Albers]

We must have people on mountains, Russians coming from woods. I see in the wave equation densities, but then a strongarm statement about totals being a mass relating to h-bar. This is where I am going further. Don't hold on too tightly to your cherished quantum mysteries - I declare Planck's constant to be not a fundamental constraint of the radiation field.

[Albers]

I think most excellent mathematics with a beauty we can judge to be relevant (honor to our trashy experimentalist colleagues...ha...ha...barf) have something to offer to our understanding of the world. However, string theory being a case in point, often the nature of the offering is not yet clear, or even as hoped! In my song, GRATEFUL FOR THE BLUES, "It will surely be different from what you had guessed..."

[Epsilon=One]

I think most excellent mathematics with a beauty we can judge to be relevant...to our understanding of the world. However, string theory being a case in point, often the nature of the offering is not yet clear, or even as hoped! In my song, GRATEFUL FOR THE BLUES, "It will surely be different from what you had guessed..."String Theory will never get untangled until it can separate itself from the conventional, current paradigms of pomo physics . . . namely the metaphysical force definitions of light, gravity, the strong force, and the weak force.

[Albers]

You mentioned in panel #63 not understanding what I'm saying. Electrons have a rest mass-energy of 0.511 MEV. Protons and neutrons are worth about 2,000 times that. Therefore, considering a hot plasma (there's a conversion factor of 10^4 degrees if your kinetic elements have about one electron-volt of energy) as temperature cools down through 1MEV, electrons become available, just as ice only becomes available below zero C. The weird thing is that coming down though 2GEV, you have to face the matter-antimatter assymmetry, and this is a mess! If there is a reason why there remain a surplus of protons over antiprotons, this must carry over into electron-positron populations or there won't be charge balance. They, however, are not yet 'condensed', and in equilibrium processes we envision such forms coming together and falling apart in the hot chaos. I don't know much more here but this is an important set of questions where I certainly do feel the weakness of current theory. I already share your attitude vis-a-vis strong and weak force; this is what I speak of here. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SURELY THE ONLY DISUNIFIED THING AROUND HERE IS US.

[Epsilon=One]

Electrons have a rest mass-energy of 0.511 MEV. Protons and neutrons are worth about 2,000 times that. Therefore, considering a hot plasma (there's a conversion factor of 10^4 degrees if your kinetic elements have about one electron-volt of energy) as temperature cools down through 1MEV, electrons become availableI understand plasma as energy oscillations, of disorganized high frequency, that are unnatural results of trauma. As the frequency attenuates there are resonances that stabilize and manifest as particles.

Electrons per se result from the Critical Compression of stabilized particles. I cannot imagine how this can be reversible.

…just as ice only becomes available below zero C.I see the different states of matter as geometric phase alignments with different resonances, etc.

The weird thing is that coming down though 2GEV, you have to face the matter-antimatter assymmetry, and this is a mess!I don’t understand the phenomenon as matter-antimatter; but, rather as different resonance bondings. Not certain where the asymmetry is that you mention; but, I am skeptical; more likely I would think there is something going on that is not understood.

If there is a reason why there remain a surplus of protons over antiprotons, this must carry over into electron-positron populations or there won't be charge balance.Somehow I think you’re falling into the errors of QM.

They, however, are not yet 'condensed', and in equilibrium processes we envision such forms coming together and falling apart in the hot chaos. I don't know much more here but this is an important set of questions where I certainly do feel the weakness of current theory.I do understand the last phrase and surmise this is where your answers lie.

As few post-docs understand: You can’t mix good theory with a little bad theory and expect to reconcile anything.

[Albers]

You don't evidence any appreciation for nuclear cookery! OK, except in the last line.

[Albers]

I understand plasma as energy oscillations, of disorganized high frequency, that are unnatural results of trauma. As the frequency attenuates there are resonances that stabilize and manifest as particles.

Then there is a lot of trauma always as part of the universe process! I agree about the gaping antimatter problem and am happy to read that others admit this. I am a neutral mind here, who personally oversaw the destruction of quite a few billion protons. I don’t understand the phenomenon as matter-antimatter; but, rather as different resonance bondings. Not certain where the asymmetry is that you mention; but, I am skeptical. We observe symmetry in the rams-horns of opposite pair production at every energy level pertaining to that nuclear cooking.

[Epsilon=One]

Then there is a lot of trauma always as part of the universe process! I agree about the gaping antimatter problem and am happy to read that others admit this. I am a neutral mind here, who personally oversaw the destruction of quite a few billion protons.I understand very little trauma until the Realm of Dissipation (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=130) that begins with Critical Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=205).

The other three congeneric realms of coalescence, propagation, and compression are relatively orderly.

[Albers]

It's not trauma, it's high temperature alphabit soup. 'Al Forno', babe, he and Al Dente went to my high school.

[Epsilon=One]

It's not trauma, it's high temperature alphabit soup.Well, yeh! But, Why???

[Albers]

You see no origins from a hot dense 'big bang', I gather. What do you see as origins? Even without those regimes, stellar physics is 'al forno'.

[Epsilon=One]

You see no origins from a hot dense 'big bang', I gather. What do you see as origins?You gather correctly concerning fundamental origins. Origin is a better word than "beginning" for something that is perpetual.

I relate "hot dense" to "fast small"; and, fast-small can morph to slower-bigger without "banging" or tumultous trauma.

See: Equilibrium Theory of Reality (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=131).

[Albers]

We enjoy temperate climates, but most of the rest of the universe does not.

[Epsilon=One]

We enjoy temperate climates, but most of the rest of the universe does not.And, we occupy at the macro level, the slowest and largest known realm of the Universe.

[Albers]

The slowest, largest structures would seem to be what we call gravitational.

[Epsilon=One]

The slowest, largest structures would seem to be what we call gravitational.I suppose that this would depend upon your definition of "structure" . . . and worse, whether to consider Infinity fast or slow.

The gravitational effect is non-local; therefore, its speed, at minimum, is hyper-relativistic. As for size: the gravitational effect IS universally entangled; but, then, so is Light.What tangled webs we weave
. . . with thoughts of size and speed.

[Albers]

I am impressed how you are going for it against gravitational waves. Science fiction time: a brown dwarf comes blasting sideways into our sun at a significant fraction of the speed of light. There is enough momentum and energy transfer that we're all basically history. Will I have eight minutes yet?

[socratus]

--------------------------
The planets travel without friction in vacuum,
it means the vacuum is an empty space.
The light waves are transverse waves therefore
it means the vacuum must be as firm as steel
How quantum of light can move in such
unintelligibly vacuum?
--------------------------------
The common answer is:
The point is that light consists actually of two waves,
an electric wave and a magnetic wave.
According to Maxwell's equations, both induce and thus
maintain each other mutually, and thus there is no need
for a medium and the light can propagate in a vacuum.
==========
I also studied this conception 50 years ago.
But ...50 years have pasted...
And now I cannot take the school conception as true one.
Why ? Because:
1.
I think it is impossible that electric and magnetic
waves are existed at the same time. Between them
very short rupture of time must be.
Then in some moment light will be an electrical wave,
and in another moment a magnetic wave will be .
But this electrical waves must be transverse waves,
it means, that vacuum is as firm as steel.
Unless, am I wrong ?
2.
It is 100% right that " an electric wave and a magnetic wave,
according to Maxwell's equations, both induce and thus
maintain each other mutually". But this statement
is right only according to classic ( macro) electrodynamics.
When Maxwell's electrodynamics is used in the microworld,
then it needs to take an idea of " quantum of light ".
3.
It is not correct to use common word "light" in the quantum theory.
The word "light" is possible to use on a beach, in a market
in every another place, but not in the quantum theory.
Here it is necessary to say " quantum of light ".
4.
And now everybody knows that light quanta is
a wave and particle at the same time.
And when somebody says : " that light consists actually
of two waves, an electric wave and a magnetic wave " ,
He forgets photon as a particle. The usage of only waves
abilities is not enough to explain photon’s moving.
The picture of photon acting is not full.
Then.......
If we want to see the whole picture of photon’s moving
we must imagine that photon in its moving jumps
from an electric wave to a magnetic wave and back,
from a magnetic wave to an electric wave and back,
and back........
I see my explanation is difficult.
Maybe it is better and simpler to imagine the photon
driving on a bicycle when one wheel is an electric wave
and another wheel is a magnetic wave.
Sorry.
I only want to say that to use sentences :
“ light quanta is wave and particle at the same time”,
“ light consists actually of two waves, an electric wave
and a magnetic wave in its moving in a vacuum “ is not correct.
P.S.
Imitating to some methodology.

There are birds who can walk, fly and swim.
The birds who don’t have one of these abilities
are not birds.
/ According to complementarity and the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics./
============ ..

[socratus]

About an Electron.
1.
The energy of electron is: E = hw (E = hf).
In interaction with vacuum electron has infinity energy: E= ∞
Is it possible? No. Because it is against
‘The law of conservation and transformation energy’.
So, what is happen? How to understand this situation?
What means ‘The law of conservation and transformation
energy’ according to one single electron?
How can electron escape its infinity?
#
Robert Milliken told, that he knew nothing
about “ last essence of electron”.
#
"The electron that can be told is not the true electron."
/ David Harrison /
#
If an electron emits a photon, it doesn't mean the photon was
inside the electron to begin with. If an electron absorbs the
photon, that doesn't mean the photon is now inside the electron.
/ From an article. /
Nobody knows what ‘ duality of photon’ or “ virtual photon ” is.
Nobody knows where the electron hides its “ virtual photon ”.
Does ‘The law of conservation and transformation energy’.
allow or forbid an electron to emit a photon?
So, on one hand electron must have “ friend - virtual photon”
and “ girl-friend - positron ”. And on the other hand when
electron interacts with vacuum he doesn’t have any friends.
All his parameters become infinite. So, what is really it means?
#
Cooling an elementary particle like an electron to Absolute
zero ( Vacuum) still leaves you with the zero point energy
and the invariant (rest) energy. So, zero point energy (local)
or infinity energy can electron have in interaction with
vacuum?
#
Electron spin turns out to be a relativistic quantum property
arising from Dirac's equation, one which behaves like spin,
but nobody really knows how it is "spinning".
The use of a " spinning top model " for the electron
is only figurative, it is not meant to suggest that electrons
are like tiny hard balls spinning. It's much more exotic than that.
/ From an article./
So, what is really ‘ spinning ’ ?
=======..
Formal modern physics says;
many particles as electron or photon have not structure,
but there are many reasons that we should believe that
they have structure.
I think attention to structure of photon and electron
lead us to resolve many physical problems.
===================…
========================================…

[xersanozgen]

Flojiston was first definition for "fire". The Experiments were harmonious with this definition. It remained for 70 years. At last, Lavoisier revised it by oxygen.

Also SR will be revised by advanced scientific paradigm.

The postulate of SR: The light travels by its velocity "c" in every frame.

New postulate: The light's velocity is measured the value "c" in every frame. But it does not mean that its relative speed is "c" according to every frame. The light travels with value "c +/- V" according to local frame; but we can measure its speed again with the value "c". Because our measurement mechanisms can not measure light's relative speed. They can measure always the relative value according to most external frame ("c").

The experiments about SR support the new postulate too. And the analyzing does not need deformations for units.

[xersanozgen]

To : The flashing moment of light
Tı : The perceiving moment of the light by observer or detector
Do : The position of detector or observer at the moment of To
So : The position of the source at the moment of To
Dı : The position of the detector or observer at the moment Tı
Sı : The position of the source at the moment Tı
Do(p): The projection of point Do on the line of SoDı
Sı(p) : The projection of point Sı on the line of SoDı
Vd(p): The projection value of the velocity of observer
Vs(p): The projection value of the velocity of source

The values of all velocities are relative according to same reference; it is important (paper's surface or monitor's screen is reference frame for our example).

The light flashes at the moment of To (We may/must think the source will be dark after To). It has potential of confusing the considering the light actor at format of continuity. So we will take the light actor as an impulse or flashing.

The light impulse travels the distance SoDı by its velocity "c". But the point So is not significant; because the source arrived to the point Sı at the perceiving moment of light impulse.

Tı is perceiving moment of light impulse by observer or detector.
If we organize relativity between light impulse and observer, we must consider the partners' positions at the moment To for scientific integrity. And the distance SoDo(p) was traveled by the relative speed "c+ Vd(p)" This definition does not spoil the reality of the light traveled the distance SoDı by its velocity "c" for t = Tı - To.

[socratus]

Photons drive nanomachines.

Photonic circuit in which optical force is harnessed to drive nanomechanics. (c) H. Tang, Yale University
Science fiction writers have long envisioned sailing a spacecraft by the optical force of the sun's light. But, the forces of sunlight are too weak to fill even the oversized sails that have been tried. Now a team led by researchers at the Yale School of Engineering and Applied Science has shown that the force of light indeed can be harnessed to drive machines - when the process is scaled to nano-proportions.
Their work opens the door to a new class of semiconductor devices that are operated by the force of light. They envision a future where this process powers quantum information processing and sensing devices, as well as telecommunications that run at ultra-high speed and consume little power.
The research, appearing in the 27 November issue of Nature, demonstrates a marriage of two emerging fields of research - nanophotonics and nanomechanics. - which makes possible the extreme miniaturisation of optics and mechanics on a silicon chip.
The energy of light has been harnessed and used in many ways. The 'force' of light is different - it is a push or a pull action that causes something to move.
'While the force of light is far too weak for us to feel in everyday life, we have found that it can be harnessed and used at the nanoscale,' said team leader Hong Tang, assistant professor at Yale. 'Our work demonstrates the advantage of using nano-objects as 'targets' for the force of light - using devices that are a billion-billion times smaller than a space sail, and that match the size of today's typical transistors.'
Until now light has only been used to manoeuvre single tiny objects with a focused laser beam - a technique called 'optical tweezers.' Postdoctoral scientist and lead author, Mo Li noted, 'Instead of moving particles with light, now we integrate everything on a chip and move a semiconductor device.'
'When researchers talk about optical forces, they are generally referring to the radiation pressure light applies in the direction of the flow of light,' said Tang. 'The new force we have investigated actually kicks out to the side of that light flow.'
While this new optical force was predicted by several theories, the proof required state-of-the-art nanophotonics to confine light with ultra-high intensity within nanoscale photonic wires. The researchers showed that when the concentrated light was guided through a nanoscale mechanical device, significant light force could be generated - enough, in fact, to operate nanoscale machinery on a silicon chip.
The light force was routed in much the same way electronic wires are laid out on today's large scale integrated circuits. Because light intensity is much higher when it is guided at the nanoscale, they were able to exploit the force. 'We calculate that the illumination we harness is a million times stronger than direct sunlight,' adds Wolfram Pernice, a Humboldt postdoctoral fellow with Tang.
'We create hundreds of devices on a single chip, and all of them work,' says Tang, who attributes this success to a great optical I/O device design provided by their collaborators at the University of Washington.
It took more than 60 years to progress from the first transistors to the speed and power of today's computers. Creating devices that run solely on light rather than electronics will now begin a similar process of development, according to the authors.
'While this development has brought us a new device concept and a giant step forward in speed, the next developments will be in improving the mechanical aspects of the system. But,' says Tang, 'the photon force is with us.'
Tang's team at Yale also included graduate student Chi Xiong. Collaborators at University of Washington were T. Baehr-Jones and M. Hochberg. Funding in support of the project came from the National Science Foundation, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the Alexander von Humboldt post-doctoral fellowship program.

Source: Yale University

Source: www sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08112701
-photons-drive-nanomachines
=============== . .
Physics and Consciousness

P.S.
But,' says Tang, 'the photon force is with us.'
www sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08112701
-photons-drive-nanomachines

#
Our brain works like a nanomachine- computer.
#
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' is hiding
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
============= . .