> Nothingness. ? !!!
> ======================..
> Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything .
> ====================.
> Could the vacuum contain dark energy, gravity particles,
>  and frictionless gears?
> by Tim Folger
> published online July 18, 2008
>
> When the next revolution rocks physics,
> chances are it will be about nothing--the vacuum, that endless infinite
> void.
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-o...
> ==============.
> What is the first law of Universe ?
> =========.
> The Physics is first of all Vacuum.
> Vacuum is :T=0K.
> It is the "empty" space between milliards of billions Galaxies.
> *    *    *
> 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.) - was assembled in a "single point".
> It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the "single
> point".
> The answer is :
>  EMPTINESS- NOTHING....!!!
>  Ok!
> But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
>  common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
>  I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
> the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
>  is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
> by the formula  T=0K.
> *       *       *
> Once there was a "Big Bang".
>  But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
>  and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
> Not in  T=0K?
> It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in  T=0K.
> Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
>  in a condition  of  T = 2,7K  (rests relic radiation of the Big
> Bang ).
>  But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
> and decrease.
> What temperature can this radiation reach?
> Not  T=0K?
> Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
>  we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING  T=0K.
> Therefore it is necessary to begin to think from T=0K.
> ===================.
>  About the theory of the "Big Bang" is written
>  the thick (very thick) books.
> But anywhere do not write about the reason of the "Big Bang".
> Anybody does not know it.
> I know.
> Action, when the God opens his palm,
> have named the "Big Bang".
> And action, when the God compresses his palm,
> have named " a  single point".
> ===========================.
> Now it is consider that Newton / Einstein's laws
>  of gravitation are the first laws of Universe.
> ============
> 1.
> Newton was a clever man therefore when he discovered his
> " law of gravitation" he quickly understood that
> soon or later the all matter in the Universe had to gather
> in the " singular point".
> And because this effect does not happen in the Nature,
> Newton , being very religious man , thought that only God's
> power did not give the matter to gather in a " singular point".
> 2.
> And then atheistic time came  .
> They decided :
> As God does not exist, so the all matter in Universe
> must gather in a " singular point".
> ================
> I don't agree that  Newton / Einstein's laws
> of gravitation are the first laws of Universe.
> Why?
> 1.
> Take simple atom: proton and electron,( small distances).
> Nobody interests in gravitation interaction between
> proton and electron . There is not any theory about
> gravitation interaction between proton and electron .
> Everybody interests only in electrical ( nuclear)
> interaction between them.
> It means that Newton / Einstein's laws of gravitation
> are local and limited.
> This law in the small ( nuclear) distance does not work.
> 2.
> Take Universe ( cosmic distances).
> There is not theory about gravitation interaction between
> galaxy  A. and galaxy  Z. We don't need it.
> Why? For example.
> Let,s imagine of all apple- trees on our Earth
> as a galaxy, and apples as  stars.
> Nobody will interest in the interaction between
> an apple- tree in New York ( galaxy  A.)  and
> an apple- tree (cherry-tree) in Varanasi (galaxy  Z.).
> It means that Newton / Einstein's laws of gravitation
> are local and limited.
> This law in the big cosmic distance does not work.
> 3.
> 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 it is not able to isolate all cosmic space in
> sphere.
> It mean that Universe (Vacuum) is infinite.
>  =========
> Conclusion.
> Newton / Einstein's laws of gravitation  cannot be
>  "The first law of Universe."
> ================
>    What is the second law of Universe ?
>  To answer of this question we must ask:
>  " What geometrical and physical parameters
> have  the particles in Vacuum T=0K? "
> 1.
> Thermodynamics point.
> Let us take some area of Vacuum and mark it with letter R.
> The number of particles in this area of Vacuum
>  we will to mark with letter N.
> When every particle of this area has gravity/ mass of rest: R/N= k.
> ===================
>  2.
> Quantum (SRT) point.
> Classic physics asserts, that in a Vacuum ô=0ë cease any motion
>  of particles, and the energy of Vacuum is equal zero.
> The quantum physics asserts, that in a Vacuum ô=0ë there are
>  motion of particles, and the energy of Vacuum is not zero.
> Let us take some energy area of Vacuum and mark it with letter E.
> The mass of this energy area of Vacuum we will to mark with letter M.
> When every particle of this area has energy/mass of rest: E/M= c^2,
> ( E=Mc^2,  M=Ec^2.)
> =======================
> 3.
> Geometry and Physics.
> 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).
> -----------------------.
> 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.
> -------------------.
> In 1787, French physicist Jack Charles found out that at
> a decrease of gas  temperature to 1 ó, its volume decreases
>  to 1/273 : <>.
> According to this law  a particles  at temperature T=0K
>  will not possess pressure and density.
> This law was confirmed by others of physicists:
>  Gay-Lussac ( 1802), W. Nernst ( 1910), A. Einstein ( 1925) .
> All these laws tell, when the temperature goes closer to
> zero T=0K,  then  the particles lose more their volume.
> The volume of these particles aspires to infinity.
> Unless can it be?
> No.
> It prohibits with the "Law of conservation and transformation energy".
>  Its mean, when volume of the particles disappear they
> become "indefinitely flat circles - phantoms".
> What does "indefinitely flat circles " means?
> It means, that we cannot reach Absolute Vacuum T=0K
> and we cannot reach density of the particle in the rest .
> These "indefinitely flat circles - phantoms" are not abstract
> particles,
> they are real ones.
> Quantum of light flies with speed c=1 have such geometrical form.
>  This means, particles have now the geometrical form of a circle,
>  as from all flat figures  the circle has the most optimum form:
>  C/D=pi= 3,14.
> ======================
> 4.
> Mathematical point.
> In mathematics, such condition of the particle in Vacuum
>  is characterized with the imaginary quantity : i^2=-1.
> ==============================.
> The quantum physics approves, that 'virtual particles'
>  exist in Vacuum
> Astrophysics approves, that 'latent mass', 'invisible particles',
> 'missing mass', 'dark matter'  exist  in Vacuum.
> Everything was created from them.
> But nobody knows that it is.
> They say, that 90%% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen.
> They are right.
> Question :
> When is possible to see them?
> Answer:
> These particles is possible to see in their movement.
> Their movement describes by the 'Law of transformation energy'.
> ===================== .
>  We have now whole bouquet of formulas to begin
> to paint the picture of creating the Existence.
>
>    C/D=pi ,  E=Mc^2, R/N=k ,  h = 0 , i^2 = -1 .
>  ===================================.
>  Does not anybody see how beautiful
> this bouquet of formulas?
> ============.
> Israel Ssdovnik./ Socratus.http://www.socratus.comhttp://www.wbabin.net/