4 of 8
4
Physics by socratus (Merged)
Posted: 07 March 2011 07:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31

SRT: The Essence. 
1.
On the one hand Einstein used quantum of light in SRT.
According to SRT postulate:
When quantum of light moves in a straight line with speed
c=1 its geometrical form must be flat – as a circle.
We can say that its flatness has infinite density.
SRT is theory about relativity of motion, of every motion (!),
including the motion of quantum of light too. (!)
Therefore this quantum of light can change its parameters
( according to the Lorentz transformations ).
2.
On the other hand Lorentz used electron in SRT which had
geometrical spherical form and lost it, changed it during its
movement. And when it reachs speed c=1 its geometrical
form will be infinite flat ( according to the Lorentz
transformations) .

Source: / Book:  The story of physics.
By Lloyd Motz and Jefferson Hane Weaver.
Chapter15.  Page 254. /
‘ . . . Lorentz . . . to explain the Michelson-Morley
null-result, using his electro theory of matter. . . . .
His analysis showed that a moving spherical electron is
flattened somewhat in the direction of its motion owing
to its electrical properties, and the faster it moves,
the more it is flattened.’
3 What can be the reason of their moving and changes?
The reason of these motions and changes can be only ‘spin.’
There are three kinds of spins:
Planck’s: h=Et., Einstein’s: h=kb and
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck:  h = h/ 2pi.

What is their philosophical essence?
4.
Can quantum of light and electron be one and the same
particle in different conditions?
================.
Socratus.

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2011 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

Socratus.
4. What is their philosophical essence?
Can quantum of light and electron be one and the same particle in different conditions?

Isn’t a photon a quantum of light? And yes it has dual properties.

[ Edited: 07 March 2011 02:13 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2011 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31

SRT: The Essence. 
To understand SRT we need to answer to the simple question:
In which Reference frame does SRT take place?
One of the SRT postulate says – in Galileo/ Newtonian space.
The other postulate says - in the vacuum.
But the common opinion – the SRT takes place in Minkowski
absolute negative 4D.
My opinion is:
The SRT explains how quantum of light, using Lorentz
transformation, can transfer from one Reference frame –vacuum
to another Reference frame- Galileo/ Newtonian space.
And of course, according to ‘ The law of conservation and
transformation energy/ mass’ this process can go vice versa.
====.
Socratus.

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2011 09:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31

Our knowledge.

Quantum of light (photon) is a point.
Electron is a point/ sphere.
Proton is a point / sphere.
They created an (point / sphere) atom.
The atoms form :
a) stars . . .planet,
b) cells . . . . life.
All the rest are trivialities.
==.
Question.
Why does Physics have many branches which
don’t incorporate and doesn’t have Unified theory?

=============.

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 02:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
socratus - 20 March 2011 09:35 PM

Question.
Why does Physics have many branches which
don’t incorporate and doesn’t have Unified theory?

Finally, something addressable.

Look at the history. Science has always started from “look at this, I wonder if I can find a pattern.” There is no Unified Theory because science started at the opposite end: with bits and pieces. It is arguable that science now is more unified than it was 200 years ago, but will it ever become “perfectly” unified? I think that the answer is “no,” but this is largely an answer that can’t be confirmed. My reason is that all of science is based on building better and better models, and models, no matter how elaborate, can never exactly equal reality. If they did, then we wouldn’t call them models any more.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 04:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31

I think that the Unified theory must answer to the question:
Where does consciousness come from?
Then speculations will be less.
===.

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 08:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
socratus - 21 March 2011 04:53 AM

I think that the Unified theory must answer to the question:
Where does consciousness come from?
Then speculations will be less.
===.

I don’t think that this is the case, but I have a specific reason:

This is something that is currently being researched in neuroscience. The general consensus at this point seems to be that consciousness is an illusion, and we aren’t actually conscious of as much as we think we are. The brain “fills in” a lot of gaps, which both helps us interpret our senses, and makes it possible to fool our brains in certain ways. Even our sense of morality seems to have these kind of “gaps.”

In any case, because this is an area of neuroscience, I don’t think that this will be an essential part of a “Unified Theory” in terms of understanding the entire universe. It is, however, extremely important information to have in order to understand ourselves, which I suppose one can call a whole different kind of “Unified Theory.”

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 08:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

I think that the Unified theory must answer to the question:
Where does consciousness come from?

Now why would that be? Physics could care less about conciouness comes from. Try biology.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31
TromboneAndrew - 21 March 2011 08:26 AM
socratus - 21 March 2011 04:53 AM

I think that the Unified theory must answer to the question:
Where does consciousness come from?
Then speculations will be less.
===.

I don’t think that this is the case, but I have a specific reason:

This is something that is currently being researched in neuroscience.
The general consensus at this point seems to be that consciousness is an illusion,
and we aren’t actually conscious of as much as we think we are.
The brain “fills in” a lot of gaps, which both helps us interpret our senses,
and makes it possible to fool our brains in certain ways.
Even our sense of morality seems to have these kind of “gaps.”

In any case, because this is an area of neuroscience,
I don’t think that this will be an essential part of a “Unified Theory”
in terms of understanding the entire universe.
It is, however, extremely important information to have in order
to understand ourselves, which I suppose one can call a whole different
kind of “Unified Theory.”

At what step begin consciousness ???
  / Laurent DAMOIS /
=.
The organization in living systems happens first
at a level of Quantum World.
1.
Book ‘The Nature of Consciousness.’
Pages 175-176.  by Evan H. Walker.

‘Consciousness may be associated with all quantum
mechanical processes . . . .  , the universe is ‘inhabited’
by an almost unlimited number of rather discrete conscious,
usually nonthinking entities that are responsible for the
detailed working of the universe’.
2 Book ‘The Physics of Consciousness.’
2000.  Evan Walker

“... indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of
consciousness must provide the basis of an improved
understanding of quantum mechanics.”
3 http://consciousness.arizona.edu/
4 Keynote Luc Montagnier,
Nobel Laureate, Pasteur Institute,
Lecture:
The transfer of biological information through
electromagnetic waves and matter.
5.
Book: Quantum physics meets biology.
/ By Markus Arndt, Thomas Juffmann, Vlatko Vedral /
http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/Arndt2009a HFSPJ…
===============.

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31

What is the material basis of Quantum Consciousness ?
Will Physics explain Consciousness?
Our brain works on dualistic basis:
usually consciousness (logically)  and rarely unconsciousness
(at first it seems illogically but at last it shows as very wise act)
In his last autobiographic article, Einstein wrote:
” . . . the discovery is not the matter of logical thought,
even if the final product is connected with the logical form”
In book ‘ The Holographic Universe’  Michael Talbot
on page 160 explained this situation in such way:
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be
the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness
that creates the appearance of the brain ’
#
In our terrestrial world the Information ( some basis of
Consciousness)  can be transfer to you only by Electromagnetic waves.
Lorentz proved: there aren’t Electromagnetic waves without Electron.
Therefore I say,
only Electron can be the Quantum of Information/ Consciousness.
We don’t have any other theory of Information’s transfers.
#
We know the Electron is very important particle in our live.
It acts in Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
It acts in the atom.
But how Electron acts in cell and in Outer space we don’t know.
We need time to understand this fact.
And when we understand the Vacuum and Electron
we will know the Ultimate Nature of Reality, it means we
will know the material basis of Quantum Consciousness too.
==========.
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means:  e= +ah*c and e= -ah*c.
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Question.
Why does electron heed five ( 5 ) formulas?
====.
#
Now nobody knows what the Electron is.
1
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
    / Albert Einstein /
2
Tell me what an electron is and I’ll then tell you everything.
    / One physicist /
=====================.
#
Evan Walker wrote:
“... indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of
consciousness must provide the basis of an improved
understanding of quantum mechanics.”
In my opinion it means that to answer to the question
‘ where the consciousness come from?’
we must understand not only the brain but electron too.
# Once again.
Human brain works on two levels:
consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain
create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and
subconsciousness from physical point of view ( interaction
between billions and billions neurons ). It can only mean
that the state of neurons in these two situations is different.
How can we understand these different states of neurons?
How does the brain generate consciousness?
We can understand this situation only on the quantum level,
only using Quantum theory. But there isn’t QT without
Quantum of Light and Electron. So, what is interaction between
Quantum of Light, Electron and brain ?  Nobody knows.
Therefore I say:
we must understand not only the brain but electron too.
=================.
According to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents ” Siamese twins”.
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such cells.
And therefore the human brain has only one Electron.
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
As the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ says:
Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form.
They do not know My transcendental nature and
My supreme dominion over all that be.
/ Chapter 9. Text 11./
# Michael Brooks:
‘ The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere.’
/ Book ‘ The big questions’.  Page 195-196. /
================== .
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==================.

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22

No, I disagree totally. If consciousness is an illusion, than this whole question of “at what step begins consciousness” becomes moot. I’m not talking about an illusion like a rainbow that has a physical reason for existing; I’m talking about an illusion like:

http://www.optillusions.com/dp/1-25.htm

where the image, in reality, is not moving yet our brains thinks that it is. I think that consciousness is more like this kind of illusion; in this case, the brain “generates” consciousness in a similar manner to how it generates all other illusions. At this point, there is no reason to try to break things down to the subatomic level to try to understand it.

Also, nowhere in neurology is it accepted that the brain operates at any level lower than chemical. You’re making unsupported assertions, and I’m skeptical.

And even if your premises are true that the brain operates at the quantum level and that consciousness must be reduced to the smallest possible “conscious” state, this does NOT mean that the smallest possible conscious state is a quanta. And, as stated earlier in this thread, there are more kinds of quanta than electrons and photons.

I think that you have some patterns of thinking that don’t conform to how the rest of us apprach things. This can sometimes be useful, but this can also be highly deceptive if you don’t use the tools of critical anaysis that the rest of us use. You need to be more critical of making sure that your conclusions follow your premises. Right now, they don’t, no matter how much you try to disguise them in physics technobabble. Your knowledge of quantum physics terms is not serving you well.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

Could one draw a distinction between animate and inanimate matter? Obviously animate matter (living thing) has a functioning neural system and a processing center or centers, primitive as they may be.
A beautiful example is the “Venus fly trap”. When an insect lands inside the “mouth” it needs to disturb at least two of the sensory hairs before the trigger mechanism is actived. The trigger mechanism itself is a hydraulic system which pumps water into the outer layers of the flower, forcing it to close on itself, trapping the insect. A rather sophisticated set of responses to stimuli.
A Goldfish will come swimming in expectation of food, when the owner approaches. Is that intelligent?

These examples may not show a self-awareness, but they definitely indicate an awareness of environment and response to stimuli.

Can that be considered “intelligence”?

My own question is if a metaphysical universal operating system (natural laws) could be considered as being (pseudo) intelligent. That would answer the question of God (sans motive and intent).

[ Edited: 21 March 2011 12:54 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 07:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31
Write4U - 21 March 2011 12:41 PM

My own question is if a metaphysical universal operating system
(natural laws) could be considered as being (pseudo) intelligent.
That would answer the question of God (sans motive and intent).

Could natural laws be considered as being intelligent ?
That would answer the question of God.
    “Write4U”
# Do categories that were called ‘laws’ have a law-maker, i.e. God ?
===========.

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 08:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
socratus - 21 March 2011 07:27 PM
Write4U - 21 March 2011 12:41 PM

My own question is if a metaphysical universal operating system
(natural laws) could be considered as being (pseudo) intelligent.
That would answer the question of God (sans motive and intent).

Could natural laws be considered as being intelligent ?
That would answer the question of God.
    “Write4U”
# Do categories that were called ‘laws’ have a law-maker, i.e. God ?
===========.

Sorry, I was not clear on the basic premise of my post.

I did not mean to ask if natural laws were intelligent; of course they are not intelligent of themselves. They are more or less predictable, but are certainly not self-aware which is a fundamental property of a motivated intelligence.

I meant to posit that the totality of the universe, of which natural laws are properties, might exhibit (present itself) as a psuedo intelligent condition. It acts seemingly as an intelligence, but without “intent or purpose”. Similar to a computer, which we call “artificial or pseudo intelligent”, but which cannot qualify as having self-awareness and motivation.

The argument that a Motivated Intelligence would be needed to create a universal computer is persuasive only if you consider that a computer is created for specific puposes (motive and intent). What would be God’s motive be to create a universal computer, which when “turned on” is completely self sustaining and has no further need for a motivated creator?
Least of all God being a universal computer techie, who tweaks the universal computer until it computes the universe as we know it.

But your answer of a creative intelligence having created this mathematical matrix is the very thing I was trying to address.

My question was if the seemingly intelligent, mathematically predictable way natural laws “govern” the evolution of the universe; a metaphysical universal matrix (having logical but not intentional properties), is not the same universal matrix called God or Deity,  to which has been awarded the additional property of conscious self-awareness and “motivation”.

Motive and intent are the only things that set the two concepts apart. All other properties of the universe can be explained by science. And to date, science has not discovered any reason why a motivated and intentional God is a necessary condition for the existence of the universe.

The scientist identifies with “the way it works” (mathematical inevitability).
The theist identifies with “the way it was made to work” (intentional creation).
But there is no practical difference, the universe has begun and it is what it is.

[ Edited: 22 March 2011 02:24 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2011 06:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31

- Occam’s Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
The principle states that:
“Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”
Now the Occam’s Razor is in conflict with mainstream science.
==.
At first I take the simplest reference frame –
- the Euclidean space ( 2D).
Now I will put a virtual - ideal particle in this 2D.
The 2D is a very thin and flat homogeneous space,
so my particle also must be thin and flat and symmetrical.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited line- string?
No. In my opinion even this very thin and tiny line
under good microscope will be looked as a rectangle.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited loop?
No. The geometrical form of a loop is too complex,
needs supplementary forces to create it. 
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited circle?
Yes.
From all geometrical forms the circle is the most symmetrical.
The surface of a circle takes up the minimal area it can and
I will write it by formula:  C/D= pi= 3.14.  (!)
But I can put many particles there, for example,
Avogadro’s number of particles:  N(a).  (!)
# What is my next step?
If I were a mathematician I would say nothing.
But if I were a physicist I would say that 2D must have
some physical parameters like: volume (V), temperature (T)
and density (P). Yes, it seems the idea is right.
Then, volume (V) is zero,
temperature (T) is zero
but . . but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real space
then its density can approximately be zero.
# What can I do with these three parameters?
I have only one possibility, to write the simplest   formula:
  VP/T=R ( Clausius Clapeyron formula ! )
What is R?  R is some kind of physical state of my 2D.
And if I divide the whole space R by Avogadro’s
numbers of particles then I have a formula R/ N(a) = k,
then k ( as a Boltzmann constant) is some kind of
physical state of one single virtual- ideal particle. (!)
# But all creators of Quantum theory said that this space,
as a whole, must have some kind of background energy (E).
And its value must be enormous.
But the background mass of every Avogadro’s particles
in 2D has approximately zero mass, it is approximately
massless (M).
Fact.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
  p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that physicists say: ‘  More than 90% of the matter
in the Universe is unseen.’
And nobody knows what this unseen ‘dark matter’ is.
So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately dark
massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single
virtual- ideal particle ( according to Einstein and Dirac) is
  E/M=c^2 (potential energy/mass E/M=c^2   ! )
( I don’t know why physicists call E/M= c^2 ‘rest mass’
and never say potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .)

In potential state my particle doesn’t move,
so its impulse is h = 0. 
# My conclusion.
I have virtual- ideal- massless particle which has
geometrical and physical parameters:
C/D= pi= 3.14 . . . . ,  R/ N(a) = k,  E/M=c^2,  h=0. 
All my virtual- ideal- massless particles are possible to call
‘ bosons’ or ‘antiparticles’ . These bosons are approximately
massless but have huge potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .
But I have no fermions, no electric charge, no tachyons,
no time, no mass, no movement at this picture.
# ===================..
Now, thinking logically, I must explain all the effects of
motions.  And. . . and I cannot say it better than Newton:
‘For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces.’
# How can one single virtual- ideal particle start its movement?
At first, it will be right to think about some simple kind of
movement, for example: my particle will move in straight line
along 2D surface from some point A to the point B.
What is possible to say now? 
According to the Michelson-Morley experiment my particle
must move with constant speed: c=1 and its speed is independent.
Its speed doesn’t depend on any other object or subject, it means
the reason of its speed is hidden in itself, it is its inner impulse.
This impulse doesn’t come from any formulas or equations.
And when Planck introduced this inner impulse(h) to physicists,
he took it from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this inner impulse (h) intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced his unit (h) phenomenologically.
At any way, having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my
particle flies with speed c=1. We call it photon now.
Photon’s movement from some point A to the point B
doesn’t change the flat and homogeneous 2D surface.
Of course, my photon must be careful, because in some local
place some sun’s gravitation can catch and change its trajectory
I hope it will be lucky to escape from the sun’s gravity love.
# My photon can have other possibility to move. This second
possibility was discover by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck
in 1925. They said the elementary particle can rotate
around its diameter using its own angular inner impulse:
h * = h /2pi. So, when photon rotates around its diameter
it looks like a string ( open string) and this string vibrates.
My god, that is a strange technical terminology the physicists
use: ‘ vibrate, vibration’.
If I were a physicist I would say no ‘ vibrate, vibration’ but
‘ frequency’, ‘the particle rotates with high frequency’.
The frequency is a key to every particle, by frequency we know
the radiation spectrum of various kinds of waves.
Now I can say: then my photon starts to curl its rotation
goes with enormous frequency, faster than constant speed
of photon. Now its speed is c>1. We call it ‘tachyon’.
The tachyon’s spinning creates electric charge and
electrical waves and now we call it ‘electron’ or ‘fermions’.
So, in my opinion, virtual- ideal particle, photon, tachyon
and electron are only different names of one and the same
particle – quantum of light.
# My particle is a circle. When this circle started to curl around
itself its form changed. Now it has volume and looks like a sphere.
What is the law between particle’s volume and energy?
I think: big volume – low energy, small volume – high energy.
The more speed / impulse——> the more particle (as a volume)
compress——> the more energy .
And when the speed decrease – -  the energy decrease too –
but the volume of particle will increase.
My particle behaves like ‘ a springy circle’ (!)
This springy circle can curl into small sphere which must
have volume and therefore can be describe as a
‘stringlike particle with vibrations’ only approximately .
Springy particle - it means the particle is able to spring back
into its former position. In my opinion this is the meaning of
‘ The Law of mass/energy conservation and transformation’
  #
Once more.
Quantum of light has potential energy (- E=Mc^2 ).
When it starts to curl around its diameter the potential energy
(- E=Mc^2 ) is hidden and we can observe its electronic
energy ( E=h*f).
But there is situation when this hidden potential energy goes
out and we can see its great active power ( + E=Mc^2 )
looking the destroyed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 
In my opinion the particle’s transformation from one state into
the other was legalized as ‘ The Law of mass/energy
conservation and transformation’.
# Different conditions of particles are also reason of new
situation in 2D. Now the surface of 2D is changed.
On the one hand we have the spinning electron ( E=h*f)
On the other hand there are masses of Avogadro’s particles.
( kT logW )
The spinning electron changes the temperature of the
surface in this local area.
Now this local area has Debye temperature: Q(d)= h*f(max) / k.
In this space a grain of quantum gravity theory is hidden.
The scheme of quantum gravity is:
1.  h*f = kT logW.
  2.  h*f > kT logW.
3.  h*f < kT.

At first the temperature is going from T=0K to 2.18 K (−271 °C)
( at first kT logW is Helium II ).
Then the temperature is going from T=2.18 K to T= 4.2 K,
( kT logW is Helium I ).
And then the protons are created. . . .  etc.

E=h*f - - -> He II - - -> He I—->  . . . . - - > H . . . – - >
Plasma reaction…—>  Thermonuclear reactions ...—>......etc.
( P. Kapitza , L. Landau , E.L. Andronikashvili theories).
(Superconductivity,  superfluidity.)
# Now on the one hand we have quantum of light/ electron.
On the other hand we have proton.
Their interaction creates atom.
This interaction is evolving process.
# The conception of Time appears as a period of these two actions.
( star formation and atom creation}.
==================..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=======================. 
.

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 8
4