Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./

============--------------------.
The Modern Physics was started from two points:
thermodynamics and light.
1.
By studying the effect of thermodynamics, physicists came to the
opinion that the physical parameters like volume, temperature and
density (of particles mass) are enough to discover the laws of
thermodynamics, and they didn’t need to know something
concrete about single particle. But then, soon or later, all mass of
this
particles will stop it’s moving and the thermal/ radiation death
will come. Is it possible? No, it isn’t , some particles will radiate
and then QT evolved from this idea. Now the situation radically
change.
From studying mass of particles in thermodynamics Planck and Einstein
began to study one individual particle (quantum of energy). It seams
that
it was logical to think about geometrical form of this particle, but
this
did not happen. And still now physicists do not think about concrete
particles, they are concerned about the “mathematical point”.
2.
When physicists studied the behavior of light, they came to the
conclusion that light ( light quanta) can sometime be a particle as a
“ mathematical point” and sometime a wave as a “ mathematical
wave". From behavior of light the SRT was born and here the particle
is also “ mathematical point”. It is hard to understand, why nobody
think
about geometrical form of light quanta if it is real particle.
3.
For many years, physicists used Euclidian (static and firm ) geometry
for solving physical problems, and they thought there was only one
geometry.
But Lobachevsky and Bolyai had another opinion.
They thought that to use only Euclidian geometry was not enough to
explain all the effects in the Universe. Why, because our Universe is
not
static and firm. The physical processes in Universe change all the
time
so the Euclidian geometry also has to change. This lead Lobachevsky
and
Bolyai to discover Non-Euclidian geometry which is not static but
elastic.
4.
Between the XIX and XX century, many physicists such Abraham,
Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein came to the conclusion that the
particle
(electron) does not have constant mass, energy and length. This means
that an electron is not a firm particle. The electron is an elastic
particle
and therefore his geometrical form can change. All physicists know
about
this fact and took this fact in their calculations. But which
conclusion can
be done from this fact? They have no answer. Nobody interested about
the borders of this changes.
5.
In 1915 Einstein said the mass and speed (moving mass) can change the
geometry of space. (GRT). It means the physics without geometry is a
limited part of science. It means the physics without geometry is not
complete (whole) part of science.
6.
The situation we see today is similar to the years between 1900 and
1928 when QT was created. Nothing changes.
Mathematicians use Non- Euclidian geometry and they do not know
the power of these changes from Euclidian to Non-Euclidian geometry.
They do not interested how these changes came.
And physicists use forces (energy, impulse, …etc) without know
anything about geometrical changes of particles. They do not think
about
this. For them the particle is only represented by a “mathematical
point”.
After all, they say the situation in QT is crazy, the Nature is
paradoxical.
I know why they say this, because one hand “physical” doesn’t know
that
the other hand “geometrical” does.
7.
Can we understand our “ paradoxical” world?
The answer is clear. In the Natural world, physics and geometry
are one unit part in the evolutionary process, and this fact must be
reflected in any future theory of the evolution of matter (as a mass
and as an individual particle).
8.
There are two ways to reflect this process.
One way explained by Einstein in GRT as a man who observed
the situation from outside.
Another way can be explained by Lobachevsky / Bolyai geometry
using it in conjunction with the inner (!) impulse of Planck-Einstein
(h)
and the inner (!) impulse of Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck (h=h/2pi)..

Questions:
1) Where does the Planck/Einstein factor h come from?
2) Where does the Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck factor h=h/2pi come from?
3) What is the physical difference between h and h=h/2pi in the
Nature.
4) Can the process of evolution go without geometrical changes?
Without the physical/ geometrical theory we cannot answer these
questions.
-----------------------.
The Natural world is not a “mathematical point”.
Even the smallest object must have a geometrical form.
And on my opinion, only when we begin to think about light quanta as
a particle with a geometrical form we come from image to reality.
===================..
SRT.
==========================..
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 interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
“ Einstein, you are right, 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?
===============.
The SRT is a real theory.
But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
Minkowski's mathematic theory has nothing to do with physics,
with the Nature. 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 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 the God there.
And if we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is 4-D negative space
( 4-D positive Minkowski space )
how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?
In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D Minkowski
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a 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.
====== =========
If I 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.
==============..
I think this 4-D negative space is a real one.
I think this space is Vacuum.
Why?
1.“ Minkowski space “ has no gravity field, but has negative
parameter.
2. Only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
but has negative parameter : T= - 273= 0K.
3. The negative parameter is united with space/ time , which are
joined together absolutely and this unit we can see in Vacuum .
4. And the second SRT postulate tells about constant moving
light quanta in Vacuum.
5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
====== ======
P.S.
Sorry.
I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".
So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"
…………..or to " the God "......................
Then ...............
The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only
big band which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore
we see background radiation T=2,7K now."
And religious man will say: " The 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 conclusion:
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
I will never gather my harvest . "
======= ======..
If 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 sciences 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.
=============…
Minkowski spacetime and GRT.
1.
SRT.

Minkowski spacetime was born in SRT.
In SRT gravity is absent.
It means that Minkowski spacetime does not have gravity
and this spacetime is Pseudo-Euclid's flat spacetime.
Minkowski spacetime is absolute conception.

2.
GRT.

When Einstein put mass into Minkowski spacetime
it is curved.
When Friedman put time into Minkowski spacetime
it is curved too.
In GRT the Minkowski spacetime curves.
If Minkowski spacetime is curved it isn’t more Minkowski spacetime.
The curvature is gravity space.
This “Minkowski spacetime” is now Gravity space.
Gravity space has 3-D + time.
Gravity space (3-D + time) is relative and local conception
because gravity depends of mass and speed.
For example. Our Earth has its own local gravity.
The Sun has its own local gravity………etc.
======================.
Herman Minkowski said about his spacetime continuum:
“ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will
preserve an independent reality.”
1.
Minkowski spacetime is absolute and independent continuum.
Minkowski spacetime without mass or time is pseudo - flat space.
2.
Minkowski spacetime with mass and time changes into
curved- spherical – local gravity space.
Gravity space (3-D + time) is relative and local conception
because gravity depends of mass and speed.
For example. Our Earth has its own local gravity.
The Sun has its own local gravity………etc.

Minkowski said about these gravity spaces “ shadows”
because they are relative spaces compare to Minkowski spacetime .
==============..
Why is QT paradoxical?
==============..
The theory which we call Quantum Mechanics is a very
strange theory. Because when we are talking about mechanics
it means that we can imagine and see this process visual.
But the 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 simple 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 on geometrical form of particle".
===============..
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 the " pure" mathematics
and the mathematics of theoretical physics.
" Pure" mathematics is infinite and the mathematics
of theoretical physics is limited by nature laws.
The " pure " mathematicians have all right to create
and use abstract models ( point, line …etc)
Physicists must use mathematical apparatus in connection
with real object, with real particle.
And they forgot about this fact.
For example.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are " mathematical point",
2.
In QT particles are " mathematical point",
3.
In SRT particles are points.
But according SRT the " mathematical point",
cannot be a firm " mathematical point" .
It means it is a " elastic point",
which can change its form. (??!!).
4.
When this " mathematical elastic point " fly with speed c=1
its form become flat circle.
/ not a " mathematical point" fly with speed c=1./
5.
In QED electron is elastic sphere,
which can change its form. (??!!).
6.
The power, impulse, linear and angular momentum
in physics is also a " mathematical point".
7.
Then one a " mathematical point" /particle/ interact
with another a " mathematical point" / power, impulse /
the physicists say: " The micro-world is paradoxical."
8.
If physicist think about particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical.
And I am sure if somebody takes into consideration the
geometrical form of particle the paradoxes of QT will disappear.
========..
P.S.
Italy. Railway station.
It was more then two hours till the departure of the train.
I went to the café and ordered a cup of coffee. Soon two men
and a very beautiful, slim woman took place opposite me.
They ordered something to drink and one of the man opened a
case of violin and took out a bow. He began to explain something
about a bow , carefully and gently touching it. Then another man
took this bow and also enthusiastically continued this conversation.
For half an hour the bow was passed from one hands to another
following with enthusiastic discussion.
And the beautiful woman looked at bow, at both these men without
saying a word. For half an hour I watched this group with admiration
and excitement. What a class! What a cultural level! What a beauty!
=======================..
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 don’t anybody say it to physicists when they observe the
elementary particle as a " mathematical point " , without paying
attention to its geometrical form.
==========..
P.S.
When Feynman said " I think I can safely say that nobody understands
quantum mechanics. " …( and SRT and GRT too) it was only because
nobody took into consideration the geometrical form of particles.
=============..
.

Relevant Pages
Loading