One Formula Thinking

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

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

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

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

Physics: Iner­tia and … Spin.
1.
Aris­to­tle.
Every object needs force/power/energy for its mov­ing .
If no force, no mov­ing.
2.
New­ton.
Of course great Aris­to­tle is right say­ing that there is no move­ment
with­out forces . I respect him very much and I won’t make a fool
myself quar­relling with him. How­ev­er I can say more and explain
Aristotle’s opin­ion by the for­mu­la F=ma. It means, the force of mov­ing
object depends on accel­er­a­tion which it gives to this object’s mass.
But here I have two oppor­tu­ni­ties /possibilities.
a)
The accel­er­a­tion appears as a result of out­side influ­ence.
One body (mov­ing body) inter­acts with anoth­er body (mov­ing or
rest­ing).
b)
But if I have only one, sin­gle body mov­ing in the straight line
and it doesn’t inter­act with anoth­er body it means that this body
also must have an accel­er­a­tion. In this sit­u­a­tion I don’t know
how the accel­er­a­tion appears, I don’t know if it is inner
accel­er­a­tion of body, I know noth­ing about this accel­er­a­tion.
But this kind of accel­er­a­tion must exist and I will name it “iner­tia”.
3.
Mach.
New­ton doesn’t know the rea­son of iner­tia, but maybe iner­tia depends
on all stars, on all the mat­ter in the Uni­verse.
4.
Planck.
Newton’s iner­tia is very strange, and Mach’s idea too. But if I will take
that our Uni­verse looks like a “black body “ then I can sug­gest that
must be some very small par­ti­cle (quant) which can move “iner­tial “
with con­stant speed c=1 over a peri­od of time. I will write this “iner­tial “
mov­ing of quan­ta by for­mu­la: h=Et. But real­ly, it is hard for me to
believe that I am right.
5.
Ein­stein.
Of course Planck is right. But I don’t like the way he reached the result.
He says noth­ing con­crete about the par­ti­cle and the rea­son of this
acceleration’s begin­ning. I will take anoth­er road. If I use the Boltz­mann
rest­ing par­ti­cle (R/N=k ) and give him Wien’s dis­place­ment con­stant (b),
as an accel­er­a­tion, then the par­ti­cle will have the Planck’s impulse but
now the for­mu­la is h=kb. Planck’s for­mu­las and my own are equal, as they
explain behav­ior of quant (light quan­ta) from dif­fer­ent point of view.
6.
Goudsmit – Uhlen­beck.
It is all well.
But we can see dif­fer­ent kinds of mov­ings in the real Nature And look at
Planck’s for­mu­la h=Et. It includes time (t). And time, by its nature, is a
lim­it­ed para­me­ter. It means that this par­ti­cle can­not go straight at all time
with con­stant speed c=1. This kind of mov­ing must be tem­po­rary
and can change. So, anoth­er pos­si­bil­i­ty is that the par­ti­cle can spin
around itself and we will write this kind of mov­ing by for­mu­la h=h/2pi.
7.
L. de Broglie and Heisen­berg.
These two spins of par­ti­cle are very impor­tant para­me­ters, so we will
try to explain all phe­nom­e­na in the Nature using only these para­me­ters.
…………………….
But, unfor­tu­nate­ly, they both didn’t have suc­cess. Why did they fall?
8.
In his Mir­a­cle 1905 Ein­stein wrote the Fourth paper:
“ On the Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics of mov­ing Bod­ies.” ( SRT).
And as a post­script to his forth, the Fifth paper:
“ Does the iner­tia of a body depend upon its ener­gy con­tent?”
As he real­ized the answer was:
“ Yes, it depends on its ener­gy E= Mc^2.”
It means what SRT must be con­nect­ed with E= Mc^2 .
It means what must be con­nec­tion between Lorentz’s
trans­for­ma­tion and E= Mc^2.

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