Israel Sadovnik

Israel, Apr. 24, 2008:
Thanks to: " HFAL", " Bored chemist", Bill Skocpol and Jim Whitescarver, I corrected and wrote this article.

Entropy - My opinion

Probably, in the thermodynamic process there is something that we don't know. Maybe, there is some degradation of the total energy in the system which never disappears . Perhaps, there is some non-useful heat, some unseen process , some unknown dark energy , some another form of potential energy/heat itself which can transform heat from the cold body to the warm one. I will call this conception as " entropy" and as it is not a law I take it as " The second principle of thermodynamics " which says that " the entropy of an isolated system always increases ". Another version: " No process is possible in which the only result is the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body. It is possible some reversible process which is unknown now ."

Between 1870 - 1880 Ludwig Boltzmann said: " Clausius is right. But I can add more to his entropy conception. First. According to Classic physics when an isolated thermodynamic system comes to a thermal equilibrium all particles stop their moving. From one hand it is correct. But the system cannot be at thermal equilibrium (in the state of thermo death) all the time. The situation in the system must change. Therefore I say that at the thermal equilibrium the entropy (some unknown dark/potential energy ) of the system will reach maximum and as a result , the thermal equilibrium of the system will change.

Second. I don't know how exactly the thermal equilibrium of the system changes. But I can give probabilistic / statistical interpretation of this changing process. I can write " The second principle of thermodynamics" by a formula: S= k log W and this formula says:" the entropy ( heat) of the system is the collective result of mechanical motion and friction of all the particles (k)." I will call it as " The second law of Thermodynamics."

In 1900 Max Planck said: Clausius and Boltzmann are both right. But all my life I worked almost exclusively on problems related to thermodynamics. And I am sure that the " The second law of Thermodynamics" , concerning entropy, is deeper and it says more than is generally accepted. I am sure the Boltzmann's probabilistic /statistical version of "The second law of Thermodynamics " is not completed, is not final. Please, look at the graph of the radiation curves of the " black body". They are very similar to those curves which are calculated by Maxwell for the velocity (i.e. energy) distribution of gas molecules in a closed container. Could this black body radiation problem be studied in the same way as Maxwell's ideal gas.... ...electromagnetic waves ? This problem of connection between radiation of black body and Maxwell's Electrodynamics theory doesn't give me peace. Maxwell's theory can tell everything about the emission, absorption and propagation of the radiation, but nothing about the energy distribution at thermal equilibrium. What to do? How to be ?

After trying every possible approach using traditional classical applications of the laws of thermodynamics I was desperated. And I was forced to consider that the relation between entropy, Boltzmann's probability version and Maxwell's theory is possible to solve by suggestion , that energy is radiated and absorbed with discrete individual quanta particle (E= hv). So, now I must write " The second law of Thermodynamics " by the formula: hv = k log W.

But if I look to the Clausius inequality I see that entropy is energy divided per temperature. So the formula hv = klogW is hv = kT logW I think.

I was so surprised and sceptical of such an interpretation of entropy that I spent years trying to explain this result in another , less revolutionary way. It was difficult for me to accept this formula and to understand it essence . It was hard for me to believe in my own discovery.

My conclusion. How to understand this formula? Which process does formula (hv = kT logW ) describe ?

[A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.
Albert Einstein

The law that entropy always increases -- the second law of thermodynamics -- holds I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much worse for Maxwell equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington

.

Israel Sadovnik, Apr. 23, 2008:
Two different opinions about Entropy. I have received two emails.

1. Dear Socratus,
I realize that you sent a brief attempt to describe your search for understanding of a difficult subject. I am knowledgeable about Nonequilibrium Superconductivity from my work in the 1970's. There was a thirty year gap between my studying Statistical Mechanics in graduate school and teaching it to upper-level undergraduates. I am teaching thermodynamics right now as three chapters of an introductory sequence.

With the development of quantum mechanics, we have both theory and experiments that show that E=hf is the energy delivered in packets by wavelike particles of frequency f. (The frequency is often written as "nu" which I take to be your "v".) This energy is a different kind of quantity than Boltzmann's expression for the entropy S = k_B log(*Omega*). You should NOT set them equal. E has units of Joules and S has units of Joules/Kelvin. (Note the 1/T in the thermodynamic definition of S.) Don't try to understand a relationship that is not correct!

B. S., Professor of Physics, Boston University

2. Dear Israel Sadovnik,
I am, at this moment, working on a statistical mechanics section of a text. At the core of this is, of course, the second law. I learn more about the second law almost by the day. I find it particularly distasteful when people try to reduce this to a statement about the number of quantum states, as American advocates of "Thermal Physics" try to.

C. H., Professor of Physics
Goshen College

I want to explain these two classic opinions.
1. So, B. S. says to me: The solution of entropy (its reversion: when heat can go from cold to hot) is only probabilistic/statistical: S= k log W. Don't try to understand it in another way. You should NOT set E=hv (E=hf) equal to the klogW. Don't try to understand a relationship that is not correct!

In another words B. S. says: We shall never know what was before: an egg or a hen. It is only probabilistic/statistical solution. I don't agree with this opinion. Why? Take, for example, the " big bang " theory. According to this theory our Universe exists for 13 ( +) billion years. But to create a child from a cell (zigota) in only 280 days according to probabilistic/statistical theory is not possible. This process will take, maybe, more then 13 ( +) billion years. So, we can understand what the pregnant woman was before the " big bang ". And to answer on the question:" what was before: an egg or a hen ?" we must only look at the beginning, in the Vacuum.

2. C. H. hopes that there is a deaper explanation of Entropy. My opinion.
In 1915 Einstein had finished his GRT. In 1916 K. Schwarzschild described gravitational field, creating with static sphere having constant mass. In 1963 P. P. Kerr described gravitational field, creating with static rotating sphere having constant mass. In 1965 P.P. Kerr and E.T. Newman described gravitational field, creating with static rotating sphere having constant mass and electrical charge. So, when I put E=hv (hf) in the Boltzmann's expression for the entropy S = k logW (*Omega*) it is not heretical idea. So, the relationship between hv (hf) and k logW is possible and correct.

Questions:
1. What is heat?
Heat is the collective result of mechanical motion and friction of all the particles . This process is described with Boltzmann's probabilistic /statistical formula: S= k log W.

2. What produces heat?
The energy E=hv (hf) produces heat, setting in mechanical motion and friction of all particles. This fact is described with Planck formula: hv = klogW.

3. Thanks to Entropy, the homogeneous Vacuum is broken. Thanks to Entropy the micro process changes into macro process. Thanks to Entropy the stars formation takes place. Thanks to Entropy the process of creating elements is take place. Thanks to Entropy the process of evolution is going.

4. Why is " The second law of Thermodynamics" so universal? Because it is based on " The Law of conservation and transformation of energy" And this law is not the simple accounting solution of debit and credit. The sense of this law is deeper and it says more than is usually accepted.

Hfal, Apr. 16, 2008:
I saw your email and thought it to be very good and important. In the formula that s = k(log)W, you put entropy like energy.. But if you look at the Clausius inequality you see that entropy is energy divided per temperature. So the formula hv = k(log)W is hv = kT (log)W, I think.

Israel Sadovnik, Apr. 17, 2008:
The formula hv = k(log)W --> hv = kT (log)W describes the possibility of realization of the macro state from the micro state. This formula explains the beginning conditions of gravitation, the beginning conditions of star formation. 1. hv = k(log)W.

4.Thermonuclear reactions ...-->......etc.

Israel Sadovnik, Mar. 30, 2008:
1.Henry Poincare named the concept of "entropy" a "surprising abstract".
2. L. Landau (Dau) wrote: "A question about the physical basis of entropy monotonous increasing law remains open".
3. The famous mathematician, John von Neumann said to "the father of information theory", Claude Shannon: " Name it "entropy" then in discussions you will receive solid advantage, because nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".

1. Between 1850-1865, Rudolf Clausius published a paper in which he called "The energy conservation law" as "The first law of thermodynamics". But in our nature the heat always flows from the higher temperature to the lower one and never back. In our everyday life we don't see that heat itself' rises from cold to hot. So, it seemed that in thermodynamics "The energy conservation law" wasn’t kept. It was broken. But Clausius had another opinion. He thought: I know people believe that this process is irreversible, but I am sure that "The energy conservation law" is a universal law and it must be correct also for thermodynamic processes. So, how can I save this law?

Probably, in the thermodynamic process there is something that we don't know. Maybe, there is some degradation of the total energy in the system which never disappears. Perhaps, there is some non-useful heat, some unseen process , some unknown dark energy, some other form of potential energy/heat itself which can transform heat from the cold body to the warm one. I will call this conception "entropy" and as it is not a law, I take it as "The second principle of thermodynamics" which says that "the entropy of an isolated system always increases". Another version: "No process is possible in which the only result is the transfer of heat from hotter to a colder body. It is possible there is some reversible process which is unknown now."

2. Between 1870-1880 Ludwig Boltzmann said: " Clausius is right. But I can add more to his entropy concept.

First.
According to Classic physics, when an isolated thermodynamic system comes to thermal equilibrium, all particles stop moving. On one hand it is correct. But the system cannot be at thermal equilibrium (in the state of death) all the time.

The situation in the system must change. Therefore I say that at the thermal equilibrium the entropy (some unknown dark/potential energy ) of the system will reach maximum and as a result, the thermal equilibrium of the system will change.

Second.
I don't know how exactly the thermal equilibrium of the system changes, But I can give a probabilistic/statistical interpretation of this changing process. I can write "The second principle of thermodynamics" by a formula: S=k log W and this formula says: "the entropy of the system is the collective result of mechanical motions of all the particles (k)." I will call it "The second law of Thermodynamics."

3. In 1900 Max Planck said: "Clausius and Boltzmann are both right. But all my life I worked almost exclusively on problems related to thermodynamics. And I am sure that the "The second law of Thermodynamics", concerning entropy, is deeper and it says more than is generally accepted. I am sure Boltzmann's probabilistic/statistical version of "The second law of Thermodynamics" is not completed, is not final.

Please, look at the graph of the radiation curves of the " black body". They are very similar to those curves which are calculated by Maxwell for the velocity (i.e. energy) distribution of gas molecules in a closed container. Could this black body radiation problem be studied in the same way as Maxwell's ideal gas....electromagnetic waves? This problem of connection between radiation of black bodies and Maxwell's Electrodynamics theory doesn't give me peace. Maxwell's theory can tell everything about the emission, absorption and propagation of radiation, but nothing about the energy distribution at thermal equilibrium. What to do? How to be?

After trying every possible approach using traditional classical applications of the laws of thermodynamics I was desperate. And I was forced to consider that the relation between entropy, Boltzmann's probability version and Maxwell's theory is possible to solve by the suggestion, that energy is radiated and absorbed with discrete individual quanta particle (E= hv). So, now I must write "The second law of Thermodynamics "by formula: hv = k log W. But I was so surprised and sceptical of such an interpretation, the entropy that I spent years trying to explain this result in another, less revolutionary way. It was difficult for me to accept this formula and to understand its essence. It was hard for me to believe in my own discovery.

My conclusion.
How to understand this formula? Which process does formula (hv = k logW) describe?

1. In 1877, Boltzmann suggested that the energy/mass state of a physical system (of ideal gas )could be discrete. This idea was written with formula: R/N=k. It means: there are particles with the energy/mass state (k) in a physical system of ideal gas. They don't move, they are in a state of rest.

2. In 1900 Planck followed Boltzmann's method of dividing. Planck suggested that energy was radiated and absorbed with discrete "energy elements" - "quantum of energy"- - "Planck's action constant"- (h) . Its energy is: E=hv.

3. In which reference frame does this process take place? In thermodynamical reference frame of ideal gas and black body (Laue called this model Kirchhoff's vacuum). Now it is considered that these models are abstract ones which do not exist in nature. On my opinion these models explain the situation in the real Vacuum (T=0K) very well.

4. For my opinion, the formula (hv = k logW) says:

a)The reason for "entropy", the source of thermal equilibrium's fluctuation, the source of Vacuum fluctuation is an action of the particle /electron, which has the energy, E = hv.

b) The process of Vacuum fluctuation depends on collective motions of all particles (k) and will be successful if enough statistical quantity of Boltzmann's particles ( k logW) surround the electron.

c) Which process does the formula (hv = k logW ) talk about? This formula explains the beginning conditions of gravitation, the beginning conditions of star formation. ( The article of star formation is posted on this site.)

d) One physicist said :" Entropy is only a shadow of energy“. Maybe now somebody can understand why entropy is a shadow. And maybe now somebody will understand why " The Law of conservation and transformation of energy" is also correct for thermodynamic system.

P.S.: It took me only two month to write this brief article. Plus about three years searching for the key of to the entropy problem. Plus about twenty-three years trying to understand the essence of physical laws and formulas.

Marvin Kirsh, Mar. 24, 2008:
Nature, I think can be defined as a stand alone paradox-interchangeable in name with it. But can we say so and pass it around hand to hand-only to mouth to mouth. The theories of man-if he is also nature....if the mother and father of something are both paradox, anything created from it must be also. If the initial paradox cannot be held in the hand, neither can it's children. Light defines shape, it cannot be given one itself. If there is to be a physical shape important to the "paradox" it must also be present for witness. I think if one considers an egg and the form of animals, that all of the major ratios in dimensions from the egg can be found and passed around. Consider the pretty woman verses the violin bow-which is inatimate. The shape of the woman we know, but what is the shape of the bow with respect to the chemical elements that compose it? First-why do we ask when a pretty woman is around? If we do, that we do, the bow must be composed of the same things that the pretty woman is, but are not things with physical dimensions that can be passed around, are in our minds as is our concept of the woman, as are her concepts, and where in a unity to nature can only exist. The orbits of the planets, elliptical, may, over eons trace an an egg shape in their paths. This might potentially held in the had as easily as an egg from a chicken, but when we see it it is flat. The brain, the eye are all egg shaped. The factor from which they emanate are the same factors from which our thoughts emanate,..we are naturally totally blind to both together, As a living entity with certain natural traits cannot see them in another. A dog can see and know the identity of another dog, a man but has no ability to speak, much less know in actuality the actual exact likenesses to the dog and hence unlikenesses to the man. He is good friend to man, who only finds energy draining paradox that do not exist for the dog. When we discuss relative time, in the same effort we acknowledge in the same thought that time is over there, or over there... and have no actual impetus to find actual mathematical comparison ..i.e. two pursuit of the net difference of two entangled states can only result in the assumption that states are entangled also to one another, with the logical conclusion that everything in the world is entangeld in some way to everything else. What could that imply but that we would by necessity be blind to and produce nothing but incoherencies in the attempt to analyze it.

Things the same inside and out big to little, but something that we are blind to. Like the egg in the hand, we conceived of a whole, question because there exisits something lesser with the same property, that deals tangible problems to us.. implying that it is tangibly handable. The current history of approach is the only conceivable path to a solution, and one might not have an honest/authentic...(evidenced by a moral decadence that has the appearance of good reason and order-and what we should seek in some physical form (in the cosmos, here and over there) as serving a victimizing injustice instead of protest) .... way to be critical of theory if it is understood as conjecture( -it is the practice of theory arrived at earnestly where in from this perspective is is easily perceived to be diverged in course from the good and honest. Socrates, from my philosophy courses believed that "if one knows the truth, he will act accordingly....if one knows the truth he will also be unable to act other wise. "..and thus our courses to find the truth, which both has come about that it depends on what we have already accomplished that way with action that sometimes traverses this line, but have a seeking ecomomic/mechanically oriented audience that holds a second hand relationship to the philosopher and scientist, much as the learning of a doctor treating a disease learns from, but cannot hurt a patient, transmits his learning to a scientist who has no first hand medical patients or medical training/orientation/experience. Acquired learning in some cases gets rearranged and fed back in a form that still looks OK to the doctor, because they are naturally blind to the truth together, less they possess a pretty girl and a violin bow(and an expensive meeting hall at a paradise resort), and a theoretical topic to be held and be behold. This results in a failing grade, of three out of four, as I believe we knew at the outset creation not be held ,but only be behold. It is not conceived of that another matter, the same, inside and out, that can be held is the real (desired) topic. Statistical science application leads us directly away from it. (what I believe is a physical/energy disturbance existing in the cosmos, that misleads perceptually-if not at a neural nonprocessing level -we have become accustomed to, if not of such a very nebulous nature that if an cognitive awareness had come about, description is not attempted,we explore in the dark by intuition with a myriad of assembled ontologies and epistemologies without as yet a serendipidity to find a correct fact to enable us to reorder priorities and concepts-if one can envision a hologram that contains in every corner an entire picture ,we maybe at the verge of or have that, but are constantly in paradox to understand what is in it, and interpet from it only descriptive words from which a linearity/linear progression is conceived rather than a order fitting with the hologram. Absent from the picture is tangible fact to be held.

You words are very clear and help to me gain a clearer wording. Discussion of time over there and time. here, simultaneity, Evolves, at the root into some other lingual meaning than comparison by mathematical ratio. it refers to cause and effect, specific happening in a historical context involving unique particulars, and is not valid as general universal/universe theory. Einstein himself said "phenomenon observed and reconsidered" what would be the relative time between observation and reconsideration with respect to a change over time )(if certain phenomenon are not basic but undergo change).-not a potentially coherent question from one (Einstein) if he based a mathematical device for the description of universal phenomenon on those observations (quote)). The existence of Einsteins doubt and theory together provide the only coherency to my question of the relationship of human psychological time to the observed phenomenon. What could Einsteins actual refelctions concern, the topic of his thoughts? .... not a mathematical sense of psychological time.... psychological time is all that can compose a definition of time-if conceived of as a clock it can both be held and be behold, but all one may really do with time/the world is behold it). You might find interesting my paper Inversion, the Record and the Record Player: With Respect to the Science of Consciousness, Consciousness and Free Will (I am still editing) at this internet site.

P.S.-You might also be interested in the philosophy of George Berkeley (easily found in internet sites (e.g. the Wiki enclclopedia) wh dod not believe in the existence of matter-is a fact perceiving witness man or all present god. )(I interpert some of his struggles to reside in teaching in a second sense that matter is commonly perceived as only that which is hard-solid and that is only a value given in the range of gas to rock- and of the kind of things that can threaten the body as the basis of the division of self/soul -life and matter. The actual details of science become relatively unimportant over history, they are function thought and behavior-response to the environement. All are at the same time, demands of society, human thinking, becoming more over burdened and complex -laiden with an obstruction producing obstructing linear redundancy. Likenes to likeness in cognitive description that one can extend obliviously across domains of the tangible to the intangible, and at the borders of world sorenesses where in all controversary and conflict reside, and resolutions found that are in the violent range of human emotions (if not given a potentially higher standard of propensity towards from accomodation to constant irritating factors) even in the facts of his science applications("genetics needs to be fixed" -"the mites are getting the crops(which feed us in order to accomplish the same endeavors and wasteing much of the available food energy) so we'll turn them all into males"-the A-bomb of which nothing needs to be said-all are eccentrically very scheming, the schemes, the construction of devices,the interpretation in the construction of concepts relating to the life processes/all mysteries and 'appropriate' employments in this regard.

I. Sadovnik, Mar. 24, 2008:
Why is QT paradoxical? The theory which we call Quantum Mechanics is very strange. Because when we are talking about mechanics it means that we can imagine and see this process visually. But QM came with no visual aids, no model to picture in one's mind. Now this theory is a purely mathematical formalism, difficult to use and impossible to visualize. It simply gives the right answers to the most complicated theoretical question. Such situation satisfy maybe 99% of physicists. But there are few physicists who don’t agree with this situation. They want to understand QT without paradoxes. I consider that these paradoxes are connected with only one reason: " Nobody pays attention to the geometrical form of particles".

Now the physicists follow "pure" mathematicians. "Since the mathematical physicists have taken over, theoretical physics has gone to pot. The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not for the tragedy of the waste in time, manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection."- - said Richard Feynman. There is difference between "pure" mathematics and the mathematics of theoretical physics. " Pure" mathematics is infinite and the mathematics of theoretical physics is limited by natural laws. The "pure" mathematicians have all rights to create and use abstract models ( point, line …etc) Physicists must use mathematical apparatus in connection with real objects, with real particles. And they forgot about this fact. For example.

And now let's imagine the bow pressed into a "mathematical point" and the musicians speak seriously about a "mathematical point" which must produce a sound from a violin. Everybody will say I describe an idiotic situation. Well, I agree. But why doesn't anybody say it to physicists when they observe an elementary particle as a "mathematical point" , without paying attention to its geometrical form.

When Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." it was only because nobody took into consideration the geometrical form of a particle.

Jan. 8, 2008:
Questions about Life.

Once again. An electron's mass is 10^-28gr . The size is 10^-13sm. A charge is 10^-19k . With these characteristics it is hard for IT to appear. Therefore it is clear, why we don't know IT in our ordinary life. ITS cognition is achieved by a very hard, thin and laborious work. This work (meditation) demands a person to be devoted to it. All of us have the personal God/Soul and it is a light quanta/electron.

Maybe somebody thinks that the power of the light quanta/electron is so weak that it is possible to scorn it. This is a mistake. In meditation, the imperceptible power of the light quanta/electron unusually increases. I want to give two examples.

THE GENESIS.

Aug. 23, 3007:
SRT , GRT and Minkowski space
SRT doesn't have a gravity field. If there is no gravity field, space will be flat and this space is called Minkowski space (negative 4-D united space/time continuum). Is the Minkowski space abstract continuum, as everybody says? I think this space is a real one. I think this space is Vacuum. Why?

P.S.

If a mathematician makes a small mistake in the beginning of his calculations then after some operations it grows into a big one. And if in the beginning of science's birth (Newton ) the abstract ideas were put into its fundament, then now we are surprised with its paradoxes……… ……and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years but the result will be the same - paradoxical.

SRT is a real theory. The bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved it. But 4-D Minkowski space is an abstract theory. There isn't any proof of its existence. And if we mix these two theories then we are surprised with its paradox. What does the man usually do in such situation? It is clear, he must understand what 4-D Minkowski space is. I say, it is a vacuum. But somebody can say: "You are wrong, 4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space." Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.

Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find God there. In another words, if we don’t know what 4-D Minkowski space is, it is impossible to take SRT as the finished one. The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real interpretation to 4-D Minkowski space. I only hope that a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.

P.S. Sorry.
I forgot that all the Universe began from an apparent big bang. So I must add the apparent big bang to D-space" …………..or to " God "...................... Then ...............

The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only big bang which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore we see background radiation T=2,7K now." And religious man will say: "God exists. He sits at his D- home and plays with all things. For example.

The action, when the God compresses all Universe into his palm, we have named "a singular point". And action, when the God opens his palm, we have named the "Big Bang". I don’t know who is right. But I came to the conclusion: If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists, I will never gather my harvest. Because if I plant, for example, an electron I will get ……a positron, …. …..quark,…baryon,…boson,…..meson,…muon,…..tau,.... .....D- spaces …. and in the future centaurs and sphinxes."

Aug. 19, 2007:
How do energy, entropy and information interact? If energy increases, information also increases. If entropy increases, information decreases. Is the interaction compatible or incompatible? But it seems to me that this scenery of explaining the beginning of creation the Universe is very hard because I explain everything in common words.

I must say: "quantity of energy", "quantity of entropy", "quantity of information". But even these words are common. I must make them more accurate. The smallest quantity of energy has an electron. And we know, there is no quantity of information transfer without a quantity of energy transfer. And the electron has the least electric charge. This means this electron has (carries) the smallest quantity of information. But what is "quantity of entropy"? Nobody knows. I know the answer.

It is Dirac’s particle - antiparticle. As entropy is a shadow of energy, so the antiparticle is a shadow of a particle. And we come to Quantum theory again, with all its paradoxes.

The physicist Jim Whitescarver wrote: 'QM is simply an instance of a complete mathematical logical system unlike classical logic. It describes the universe in terms of information which is necessarily the reality itself, rather than representing some deeper reality.' It is not his own opinion, it is the common physicists opinion. Are they really right?

Is it really impossible to understand QM with usual, human ( classical) logic? Are the physical formulas cleverer than us? I think we say this in such a way because we don’t still understand QM. Nearly 100 years ago the scientists tried to explain electromagnetic theory using balls, springs, blocks …..etc. And now we have the same situation. What to do? We must look at QM from another point of view. We must ask ourselves again: "What is the sense of Quantum mechanics"?

There is still a mistake in this question. Because QM is not a mechanical theory. It doesn’t describe systems of balls, springs, blocks …etc.

Aug. 12, 2007:
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter (all elementary particles and all quarks and their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – were assembled in a "single point". This means that all information also was assembled in a "single point". And then there was " big bang " and all information flew to bits in different sides.

Suppose that every bit of a "single point", every particle of a "single point" is the owner of some information. Then there are two possibilities:

The visible matter of world is only a small part of all mass in the Universe. More then 90% of the matter in the Universe is unseen, "dark matter". Nobody knows what it is and therefore it is possible to say that more then 90% of information is hiding and unknown to us. So our aim must be to study "dark particles" or…..

We know, there is no information transfer without energy transfer. More correct: there is no quantity of information transfer without a quantity energy transfer. And the electron has the least electric charge. This means it has some quantity of the least information. What can an electron do with this information?

Let us look the Mendeleev/Moseley periodic table. We can see at first, what the electron does. It interacts with a proton and creates an atom of hydrogen. This is the simplest design, which was created by the electron. And we can see how this information grows and reaches a high informational level. And the most complex design which was created by the electron is Man. Man is an alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences. And an atom? And atom is also a live design. A free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds. And someone a long time ago has already said that if to give sufficient time to an atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man. Really, it is not beautiful is it? Maybe it is better not to search for "dark, virtual particles" but to understand what the electron is, because even now nobody knows what electron is.

Was I mistaken? No. Because according to the Pauli Exclusion Principle only one single electron can be in the atom. This electron reanimates the atom. This electron manages the atom. If the atom contains more than one electron (for example - two), this atom represents a "Siamese twin". Save us, Great God, of having such atoms, such children! Each of us has an electron, but we do not know it.

Why does only the electron have a quantity of information? Does maybe the proton also have a quantity of information? No. The single proton has no quantity of information. Why? Because information can be transfered only by electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory about proton-magnetic fields.

Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was one "single point" accidentally. Then it accidentally blew up: Big Bang has taken place. It was the reason of accidental creation of some thousands of kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles. Then atom of hydrogen was formed accidentally Then complex atom was formed accidentally. Then stars were formed accidentally. Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally. Then the fauna was formed accidentally. Then the animal kingdom was formed accidentally. Then the man was created accidentally. And this man can accidentally think logically. But of course, unfortunately, not always.

Many years ago man has accustomed some wild animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.) and has made them domestic ones. But man badly understands our four-footed friends. In 1897 J. J. Thomson found a new particle - the electron. Gradually man has accustomed the electron to work for him. But man does not understand what an electron is.

For my peasant logic at first it is better to understand the closest thing (for example an electron) and then to study faraway space and particles (for example dark, black, virtual …etc particles).

Jun. 14, 2007:
What is for whom?
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians. Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature. This simple fact has been forgotten in science.

After the war in Russia, there were many thieving gangs nd I as a boy, rotated among one of them. They had their own language, thieves' jargon. No one could understand them. Now I read some mathematical articles and they remind me of that forgotten thieves' slang. Are you laughing? Is this ridiculous? For me it isn’t ridiculous because mathematicians stole the picture of reality from us. Because they make us poor and stupid. Why do I say so? I will try to prove it and explain my point of view.

It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT, (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour). Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space. Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski's interpretation, said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.

It is difficult to understand SRT using 4D space. "But it is possible using my 5D space" - said Kaluza in 1921. This theory was tested and found insufficient. "Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it. But the doubts still remain. "OK",they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem. We must create more complex D spaces". And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects to solve this problem. Glory to these mathematicians !!!!

But………. But there is one problem. To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter. It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter. And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily (it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).

The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way: "Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…" To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add: "with one more parameter the elephant will fly." The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.Where are our brains?

Please remember, many D spaces were born as a wish to understand SRT (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour). But if someone wants to understand, for example, a bird (photon/electron)itself and for this he studies only its surroundings, will he be successful?

If were a king, I would publish a law: every mathematician who takes part in the creation of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal "To the winner over common sense". Why? Because they have won us over using the absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.

P.S.
I asked some mathematician: Are there many different D spaces in the math/physicist’s works. Are there limits to these D spaces? Maybe is 123 D spaces the last and final space? He answered: "I think there are as many opinions on this as there are people giving thought to the issue." My own opinion is that since the more immediately obvious 123D option (either parabolic, flat or hyperbolic) did not allow, despite all efforts, reconciling the various theories, then there is a need to try something else.

Maybe the time has come to try something else.

And what is mathematical opinion about the photon itself? Here is one example how mathematician tries to solve the problem. Russian scientist professor V.P. Seleznev created a "toro model" of light quanta. According to this model, the light quanta is a constant volume ring (like bublik). The speed of it is different and this fact gives a possibility to understand all the natural phenomena of light, to overcome all contradictions in physics and to offer a new technology. So it is written in the book.

The secrets of Universe, 1998, V.D. Demin. Page 377

Glory to this scientist! Glory to this professor! But I have only one question - Can this toro volume ring model (like a bublik) have volume in the vacuum? The answer is NO. According to J. Charles law ( 1787), when the temperature falls down to 1 degree, the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the temperature reaches -273 degrees, the volume disappears and particles become flat figures. Charles law was confirmed by other physicists: Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein. So, according to Charles law the "toro volume ring model " is only a mathematic illusion.

There are many different models of photon. To choose the correct one, we needs to ask a question. Which geometrical form can a photon have in a vacuum?

Some scientists say: "The darkest subject in the science is light quanta." Maybe now some my readers will better understand the way which we must go. Now mathematics goes ahead of science and physics follows it. Mathematicians carry the posters "Forward to abstraction", "Forward to the absurd" and we all follow them. We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.

My thanks to: Jim Whitescarver, Andre Michaud, Richard Gauthier, R.A. and SI for helping me understand the alphabet of mathematical slang.

Jun. 5, 2007: About i^2= -1, pi=3,14…, e=2,71…
My question is: Can "imaginary and transcendental quantities" belong to a real particle?

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." ~ Albert Einstein.

May 6, 2007:
I have reread the Planck’s article "Scientific Autobiography". It is a small article of 10 pages, but how honest and modest, wise and beautiful it is. I cannot give a whole deep explanation in this article, therefore I will concentrate attention on a small part of it.

You wrote:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

What a pity it is. I want to hope that this sentence isn’t absolutely correct.

P.S.
Does anybody know the website with Max Planck’s "Scientific Autobiography"? Thank you.

May 4, 2007:
Two views on the space and time.
We have many kinds of dimension spaces: 3D, 4D and etc. Is it hard to see three dimension. . .??? No.

Is there a medicine for this illness? Of course there is. On one recipe is written " Vacuum: T=0K". On the other recipe is written " Light quanta". If we don’t take this medicine our human society will remain in the state of "schizophrenia". God Save us.

Apr. 23, 2007:
Max Planck: Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920

"There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive solution could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission?"

This question still waits for its answer.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html

Apr. 19, 2007:
One brief thought:

The common answer 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 studied this concept 50 years ago, but ...50 years have passed... And now I cannot take the school concept seriously. Why? Because:

I see my explanation is difficult. Maybe it is better and simpler to imagine the photon driving 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 like, "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 motion in a vacuum" is not correct.

P.S. Imitating some methodology:

There are birds that 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.

Apr. 9, 2007
About the Vacuum , Ideal Gas and Particles

To solve some difficult problem physicists create a simple abstract model. Beginning from this simple model they learned to solve practical and difficult tasks. In that time it was the right way to solve such problems.

Take, for example, the theory of an "ideal gas". The "ideal gas" represents one theoretical model of gas and the physicists say it does not exist in nature. It was found, that properties of real gases are very close to an "ideal gas". The result, "very close" was quite satisfactory for physicists. But from the time of creation of the theory, about 100 years have passed and quantum theory was created. And from the quantum theory we know that to use the expression "very close" is impossible. Why? Because very small (insignificant) changes in the microworld is a cause of radical transformation in a system. We must be very cautious, using words "very close .... almost equal".

I offer to consider the model, "ideal gas" as a real model of the vacuum. Why? Because the temperature of an "ideal gas" is equal to -273 degrees. And the temperature of the pure vacuum is the same.

Now it is considered that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is in a condition of T = 2,7K (relic radiation of the Big Bang ). But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and decrease down to T=0K, isn't this so? Now everyone knows, that absolute temperature, T=0K cannot be reached. But is it enough reason to think that space T=0K doesn't exist? If Columbus did not discover America, there was no America, was there? We have all theoretical and logical rights to investigate the vacuum T=0K.

Einstein said, "… we have not proven that the Aether does not exist, we have merely proven that we do not need it (for computations)" This is correct. The vacuum does not have any influence on the behaviour of particles. Therefore we will say nothing about vacuum.

But...What is it possible to say about particles in a vacuum?

Apr. 5, 2007:
There was a time when idea of a vacuum was clear to everybody because if the planets travel without friction in it, it means the vacuum is empty space. Then through practical experience it was discovered that the light waves are transverse waves. But transverse waves can propagate only in solid environments.

This is a strange situation:
Oon one hand, for light to spread in a Vacuum, there should be a complete absence of friction, i.e. space should be empty. On the other hand, the Vacuum should have a solid-as-steel structure. uch a combination of different characteristics for the vacuum are not explained logically - And then all physicists became crazy.

Why?
Because it has turned out as in an old joke:
"If on a cage of a tiger you see an inscription “the cat”, do not believe your eyes."

All physicists see, that the vacuum is an empty space, but they did not believe their eyes and composed newer and newer theories about it. All these theories have proved wrong and they are covered with dust on the shelves of the history of science. It is a pity that there was nobody who could stop them at a critical moment and say: " Listen, friend. You see, that all planets move without friction in a vacuum. It means that the vacuum is empty space. So, don't touch the vacuum. Leave it at rest. It is more clever to pay attention to light, a quantum of light. Think, of what form a quantum of light must have, how it must act in your illusion that the vacuum is a firm, steel-like space.”

P.S.
If you think that the situation with the vacuum is clear and somebody understands the structure of it, you are mistaken.

Jan. 13, 2007:
Do physicists understand physics?

All the sources of physics are created by abstract ideas: inertial motion, inertial reference system, ideal gas, absolute black body, negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space, "a method of renormalization", etc.

Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall. And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches collecting cogwheels, springs and small screws, throwing ewerywhere. Does he have many chances to succeed? As many as the scientists who aspire to understand the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators. If not to take into account the initial conditions of Genesis, the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.

Great physicists aren't ashamed admit that they couldn,t understand the basis of physics. The ‘small’ physicists understand physics 100%. The ‘small’ physicists teach physics as dogmatically as the priests teach theology. There are a few men who understand that we already live in Orwell,s ‘1984’ world.

Sep. 2, 2006: What is the First Law of the Universe?

Now it is considered that Newton / Einstein,s laws of gravitation are the first laws of the Universe.

2. Einstein, Bohr wrote down the energy of an electron (in interaction with an atom) by the formula: E=hw.

3. In 1928 Dirac formulated the equation of an electron, (relativistic equation of the electron) in such way that: E = (plus, minus)mc^2

4. Why does no one analyze theinterrelation between the energy of Einstein/Bohr,s electron (E=hw) and energy of Dirac's electron (E = (plus, minus)mc^2) It means, that one electron has three (3) formulas of energy. It means that an electron is really a very complex particle and according to Hertz it is possible to say, that the formulas of an electron are cleverer than the man. If somebody will try to explain why the electron has three (3) formulas, please, recollect that an electron is not a firm figure. An electron can change its own form depending on its speed. It means that energy and form (together) of an electron depend on some kind of movement. And it is impossible that an electron can change its form, its energy but its charge will remain constant. The lectron can also change its charge. This changes of an electron depend on its impulse.

5. In 1916 Sommerfeld discovered the formula of an electron. The formula of electron is:

(e^2=hca)

But nowhere, in no textbook is the formula of electron written down in this way. Why? Nobody can understand what sense of constants in Sommerfeld's formula of the electron is.

The formula of Sommerfeld,s electron consists of three constants:

We know how whole Universe was created from the first second ( from big bang , of course). But on simple question :