One Formula Thinking

Speak­ing of Einstein–have you ever want­ed to explain the world on a nap­kin? The Edge, self-described as “an online col­lec­tive of deep thinkers,” has teamed up with the Ser­pen­tine Gallery in Lon­don to par­tic­i­pate in a month-long Exper­i­ment Marathon. The Ser­pen­tine has been ask­ing lead­ing sci­en­tists and thinkers “What Is Your For­mu­la?” and the Edge is now host­ing the fas­ci­nat­ing answers on their site. Rickard Dawkins, Bri­an Eno and Benoit Man­del­brot are just a few of the con­trib­u­tors.

by | Permalink | Comments (2) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (2)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Lahlou says:

    je suis intéressé par les cours et tout ce que vous défusez

  • socratus says:

    Sci­ence and Reli­gion: Is there a con­flict ?
    Or maybe:
    Sci­ence with­out reli­gion is lame, reli­gion with­out sci­ence is blind.
    / Albert Ein­stein. /
    Or maybe:
    All reli­gions, arts and sci­ences are branch­es of the same tree.
    / Albert Ein­stein. /
    Sci­ence and Reli­gion: Is there any con­flict?
    Or maybe there isn’t any con­flict.
    Reli­gion or Physics ? Faith or Knowl­edge ?
    Or maybe our stu­pid­i­ty asks these ques­tions.
    === .

    Where and Who is God ? / My opinion./
    – .
    By idea the God ( HE / SHE / IT ) must be :
    Some­thing Infin­i­ty Absolute it means to be in every place
    And some­thing Absolute Concrete/ Lim­it­ed it means
    to be exact­ly in the con­crete place.

    Can God cre­ate our World with­out physics laws and for­mu­las ?
    The answer is: No !
    Have physi­cists found these two Absolute para­me­ters
    in the Uni­verse ?
    My answer is: Yes !
    One Infin­i­ty Absolute Para­me­ter is Vac­u­um: T=0K.
    Sec­ond Absolute Concrete/ Lim­it­ed Para­me­ter is speed of
    Quan­tum of Light in Vac­u­um: c=1.

    Using these two Absolute Para­me­ters I explain
    the cre­ation of the Uni­verse step by step.

    And there­fore I say: The secret of the con­cep­tion ’ God ‘
    is hid­den in the ‘ The­o­ry of Vac­u­um & Quan­tum of Light ‘.
    == .
    Thomas Jef­fer­son wrote in the let­ter to Joseph Mil­li­gan, April 6, 1816
    / …the more a sub­ject is under­stood,
    the more briefly it may be explained. /

    Ein­stein said:
    / You do not real­ly under­stand some­thing unless
    you can explain it to your grand­moth­er. /

    I think every­body can under­stand my the­o­ry.
    ==== .
    Best wish­es.
    Israel Sadovnik. Socra­tus.
    ===================== . .

  • socratus says:

    What does Reli­gion expect from mod­ern Sci­ence ?
    What can mod­ern Sci­ence learn from Reli­gion ?

  • socratus says:

    Vis­it anthro­pol­o­gy depart­ment of a uni­ver­si­ty near­est to you
    and ask if they have found an eth­nic tribe in any inac­ces­si­ble
    land which did not have a reli­gion.

    Reli­gion expects sci­ence to under­stand the facts about reli­gion.
    / d_r_siva /

  • socratus says:

    John Polk­ing­horne and his book ‘ Quan­tum the­o­ry’.
    === .
    I like to read his books because they raise many ques­tions.
    And these ques­tions give infor­ma­tion for brain to think.
    John Polk­ing­horne took epi­graph of his book ‘ Quan­tum the­o­ry’
    the Feynman’s thought : ‘ I think I can safe­ly say that
    nobody under­stands quan­tum mechan­ics. ‘
    Because, he wrote:
    ‘ ‚we do not under­stand the the­o­ry as ful­ly as we should.
    We shall see in what fol­lows that impor­tant inter­pre­ta­tive
    issues remain unre­solved. They will demand for their
    even­tu­al set­tle­ment not only phys­i­cal insight but also
    meta­phys­i­cal deci­sion ’.
    / preface/
    ‘ Seri­ous inter­pre­ta­tive prob­lems remain unre­solved,
    and these are the sub­ject of con­tin­u­ing dis­pute’
    / page 40/
    ‘ If the study of quan­tum physics teach­es one any­thing,
    it is that the world is full of sur­pris­es’
    / page 87 /
    ‘ Meta­phys­i­cal cri­te­ria that the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty take
    very seri­ous­ly in assess­ing the weight to put on a the­o­ry
    include: .…’
    / page 88 /
    ‘Quan­tum the­o­ry is cer­tain­ly strange and sur­pris­ing, …’
    / page92 /
    ‘ Wave / par­ti­cle dual­i­ty is a high­ly sur­pris­ing and
    instruc­tive phe­nom­e­non, . .’
    / page 92 /

    John Polk­ing­horne, as a real­ist, want to know
    ‘ what the phys­i­cal world is actu­al­ly like’, but until now
    physi­cists don’t have the whole pic­ture of Uni­verse.
    And in my opin­ion John Polk­ing­horne was right writ­ing
    what to under­stand the prob­lems of cre­at­ing the Uni­verse:
    ‘ They will demand for their even­tu­al set­tle­ment not only
    phys­i­cal insight but also meta­phys­i­cal deci­sion ’.
    === .
    Best wish­es.
    Israel Sadovnik. Socra­tus.

  • socratus says:

    God does­n’t play dice: cause and effect
    (causal­i­ty and depen­dence)

    Ein­stein said “God does­n’t play dice” because he didn’t accept
    the prob­a­bilis­tic argu­ments of quan­tum the­o­ry. He thought
    that behind the prob­a­bilis­tic argu­ments of quan­tum the­o­ry some
    real process is hid­den. This real process makes the sit­u­a­tion
    prob­a­bilis­tic. Think­ing so — Ein­stein wasn’t alone.
    P. Langevin told, that to speak about crash of uni­ty between
    cause and effect is ‘ intel­lec­tu­al lech­ery’. And Lorentz,
    de Broglie, Schro­ding­er believed that the sit­u­a­tion in the
    micro world can be explained in details. All of them con­sid­ered
    that the par­ti­cles and fields exist in real space and time and they
    can move from one point to anoth­er. And this sit­u­a­tion is pos­si­ble
    to describe not only prob­a­bilis­ti­cal­ly but in details too.
    But oth­er group of sci­en­tists didn’t agree with them.
    Their lead­ers, Bohr and Heisen­berg, said in micro world we must
    refuse to describe particle’s behav­iour to the small­est detail.
    Here is enough to use Heisenberg’s Uncer­tain­ty Prin­ci­ple.
    Most sci­en­tists agreed with them say­ing: ‘There isn’t bet­ter
    inter­pre­ta­tion quan­tum physics than Heisenberg’s ’.
    From time to time some­body tried to give new inter­pre­ta­tion
    and expla­na­tion quan­tum sit­u­a­tion (more con­crete ) but with­out
    suc­cess. And at last Feyn­man said: ‘I think I can safe­ly say
    that nobody under­stands quan­tum mechan­ics.’ And some­body
    agreed with him say­ing, we can­not under­stand, but we can
    accus­tomed to it.
    Yes, they accus­tomed to the para­dox­i­cal quan­tum micro world
    and now, devel­op­ing it, they cre­at­ed new para­dox­es ( quarks,
    dark matter/ ener­gy, string the­o­ry, new par­ti­cles, new dimen­sions
    and new sym­me­tries …and etc)
    I try to under­stand the sit­u­a­tion.
    We have dual­is­tic par­ti­cle as a ‘ math point’.
    We have two kinds of space:
    a) Minkows­ki ( ‑4D) and a its shad­ow -
    b) sep­a­rate inde­pen­dent space and inde­pen­dent time (3D+t)
    The dual­is­tic particle/wave point can move from one point
    to oth­er, or (maybe) from one space (-4D) to anoth­er (3D+t).
    This sit­u­a­tion was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved.
    Is this sit­u­a­tion hard puz­zle ?
    Isn’t clear that we need to know: dual­ism of particle,(-4D )
    and its shad­ow – (3D+ t) to solve this puz­zle – prob­lem ?
    But these cat­e­gories of being sci­en­tists try no debate now.
    Maybe they are busy solv­ing oth­er prob­lems … and …
    … cre­ate new para­dox­es ….… . . I don’t know.
    I remem­ber that about 50 years ago I have read one inter­est­ing
    book. Maybe this book will help me to under­stand the sit­u­a­tion.
    I must reread it again.
    Where is it? Here it is:
    Desiderius Eras­mus Rotero­damus: ‘The Praise of Fol­ly.’
    All the best.
    Israel Sadovnik Socra­tus


  • socratus says:

    Physics: Iner­tia and … Spin.
    Every object needs force/power/energy for its mov­ing .
    If no force, no mov­ing.
    Of course great Aris­to­tle is right say­ing that there is no move­ment
    with­out forces . I respect him very much and I won’t make a fool
    myself quar­relling with him. How­ev­er I can say more and explain
    Aristotle’s opin­ion by the for­mu­la F=ma. It means, the force of mov­ing
    object depends on accel­er­a­tion which it gives to this object’s mass.
    But here I have two oppor­tu­ni­ties /possibilities.
    The accel­er­a­tion appears as a result of out­side influ­ence.
    One body (mov­ing body) inter­acts with anoth­er body (mov­ing or
    But if I have only one, sin­gle body mov­ing in the straight line
    and it doesn’t inter­act with anoth­er body it means that this body
    also must have an accel­er­a­tion. In this sit­u­a­tion I don’t know
    how the accel­er­a­tion appears, I don’t know if it is inner
    accel­er­a­tion of body, I know noth­ing about this accel­er­a­tion.
    But this kind of accel­er­a­tion must exist and I will name it “iner­tia”.
    New­ton doesn’t know the rea­son of iner­tia, but maybe iner­tia depends
    on all stars, on all the mat­ter in the Uni­verse.
    Newton’s iner­tia is very strange, and Mach’s idea too. But if I will take
    that our Uni­verse looks like a “black body “ then I can sug­gest that
    must be some very small par­ti­cle (quant) which can move “iner­tial “
    with con­stant speed c=1 over a peri­od of time. I will write this “iner­tial “
    mov­ing of quan­ta by for­mu­la: h=Et. But real­ly, it is hard for me to
    believe that I am right.
    Of course Planck is right. But I don’t like the way he reached the result.
    He says noth­ing con­crete about the par­ti­cle and the rea­son of this
    acceleration’s begin­ning. I will take anoth­er road. If I use the Boltz­mann
    rest­ing par­ti­cle (R/N=k ) and give him Wien’s dis­place­ment con­stant (b),
    as an accel­er­a­tion, then the par­ti­cle will have the Planck’s impulse but
    now the for­mu­la is h=kb. Planck’s for­mu­las and my own are equal, as they
    explain behav­ior of quant (light quan­ta) from dif­fer­ent point of view.
    Goudsmit – Uhlen­beck.
    It is all well.
    But we can see dif­fer­ent kinds of mov­ings in the real Nature And look at
    Planck’s for­mu­la h=Et. It includes time (t). And time, by its nature, is a
    lim­it­ed para­me­ter. It means that this par­ti­cle can­not go straight at all time
    with con­stant speed c=1. This kind of mov­ing must be tem­po­rary
    and can change. So, anoth­er pos­si­bil­i­ty is that the par­ti­cle can spin
    around itself and we will write this kind of mov­ing by for­mu­la h=h/2pi.
    L. de Broglie and Heisen­berg.
    These two spins of par­ti­cle are very impor­tant para­me­ters, so we will
    try to explain all phe­nom­e­na in the Nature using only these para­me­ters.
    But, unfor­tu­nate­ly, they both didn’t have suc­cess. Why did they fall?
    In his Mir­a­cle 1905 Ein­stein wrote the Fourth paper:
    “ On the Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics of mov­ing Bod­ies.” ( SRT).
    And as a post­script to his forth, the Fifth paper:
    “ Does the iner­tia of a body depend upon its ener­gy con­tent?”
    As he real­ized the answer was:
    “ Yes, it depends on its ener­gy E= Mc^2.”
    It means what SRT must be con­nect­ed with E= Mc^2 .
    It means what must be con­nec­tion between Lorentz’s
    trans­for­ma­tion and E= Mc^2.

    April 2009.
    The same Einstein’s ques­tion in a lit­tle detail inter­pre­ta­tion:
    “Does the iner­tia of a body ( for exam­ple: of a light quan­ta
    or of an elec­tron) depend upon its ener­gy con­tent E=Mc^2 ?”
    Think­ing log­i­cal­ly, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.
    When new ques­tion arise:
    How is pos­si­ble to under­stand the con­nec­tion
    between E=Mc^2 and ‘ iner­tia of a body’ ?
    ============== . .
    Some­one wrote to me:
    “An old pro­fes­sor of mine used to say
    that any­one who can answer that ques­tion
    what iner­tia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
    ! !
    Best wish­es.
    Israel Sadovnik. Socra­tus
    =========================. .

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.