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.
je suis intéressé par les cours et tout ce que vous défusez
Science and Religion: Is there a conflict ?
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
/ Albert Einstein. /
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. /
/ You do not really understand something unless
you can explain it to your grandmother. /
I think everybody can understand my theory.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
===================== . .
What does Religion expect from modern Science ?
What can modern Science learn from Religion ?
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 /
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 ’.
‘ 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 ’.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
God doesn’t play dice: cause and effect
(causality and dependence)
Einstein said “God doesn’t play dice” because he didn’t accept
the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory. He thought
that behind the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory some
real process is hidden. This real process makes the situation
probabilistic. Thinking so – Einstein wasn’t alone.
P. Langevin told, that to speak about crash of unity between
cause and effect is ‘ intellectual lechery’. And Lorentz,
de Broglie, Schrodinger believed that the situation in the
micro world can be explained in details. All of them considered
that the particles and fields exist in real space and time and they
can move from one point to another. And this situation is possible
to describe not only probabilistically but in details too.
But other group of scientists didn’t agree with them.
Their leaders, Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must
refuse to describe particle’s behaviour to the smallest detail.
Here is enough to use Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
Most scientists agreed with them saying: ‘There isn’t better
interpretation quantum physics than Heisenberg’s ’.
From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation
and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without
success. And at last Feynman said: ‘I think I can safely say
that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’ And somebody
agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can
accustomed to it.
Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world
and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks,
dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions
and new symmetries . . .and etc)
I try to understand the situation.
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
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.
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. “
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus