Question.

[socratus]

" 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."

/ Herman Minkowski./

* * *

Question.

What isthe “a kind of union of the two “?

The answer.

It is Vacuum. T=0K..

[Guille]

Yes, I agree. Many of us, in fact, it is simply accepted to be true. But what is vacuum exactly? How does it exist (if it does at all)? Is it necessarily that there is matter for there to be vacuum (space-time)? And around a trillion of billion of million of thousands of other related questions arise. What most amazes me is that we might be able to explain them all by one theory.

[baudrunner]

The space with a vacuum is relative to a space with population. But its space is not necessarily devoid of anything because it still represents the potential for occupation.

A sheet of paper is still a sheet of paper even if it is a blank sheet. It can be filled with the depth of knowledge or thick with art and then it would constitute something in addition to the paper itself. That is what space is like.

The vacuum then is described as relative to that where gravity is an attractor to particles which populate it. The space is then occupied, whereas the space outside of the influence of gravity is only very sparsely occupied and we call that a vacuum. It's all relative.

It's like size. Size is relative. If we were a hundred feet tall then we would regard an elephant as being very small, like a mouse is to us because we think that we are normal and we draw the standard of size relative to our own size in the same way that we draw the standard of what constitutes a vacuum relative to what we call a liveable environment.

[socratus]

The main problem in Physics is an opinion that the Universe only one.

From this opinion there are all paradoxes in physics.

Einstein and Infeld wrote:
“We have the laws, but are not aware what the body of reference system

they belong to, and all our physical construction appears erected on sand”.

They are right.

There are two systems of reference:

1) Vacuum and

2) Gravitational frame of reference ( many) .

There are completely different systems.

[mkirkpatrick]

The main problem in Physics is an opinion that the Universe only one.

From this opinion there are all paradoxes in physics.

Einstein and Infeld wrote:
“We have the laws, but are not aware what the body of reference system

they belong to, and all our physical construction appears erected on sand”.

They are right.

There are two systems of reference:

1) Vacuum and

2) Gravitational frame of reference ( many) .

There are completely different systems.

More like quicksand methinks!
kind regards michael.

[socratus]

"Formulas are cleverer than people".

H. Hertz.

[baudrunner]

An example of relative frames of reference are a gas under extreme pressure vs. the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a vacuum compared to the gas under extreme pressure, and when the pressurized gas is released the atmosphere will behave like a vacuum relative to it.

Einstein was not referring to the vacuum of space vs. the gravitational field when stating "We have the laws, but are not aware what the body of reference system they belong to, and all our physical construction appears erected on sand". He was referring to the Universe. At the time he thought that the Universe was static, which it is not, and his theory no doubt influenced the thinking that led to that statement. He was insinuating that a different Universe may have evolved than the one that we are in and then the laws would be different within it, as if suggesting that we are but one possibility out of a possibly infinite realm of possibilities. He was just talking off the top of his head, because he also once said that "God does not play dice". He was also covering his tracks, just in case his theories fell apart, which some did, as in 1929 when Edwin Hubble proved through observation that the Universe is expanding.

There is nothing special about the vacuum of space. It is just unoccupied territory.

[socratus]

.........“in 1929 when Edwin Hubble proved through observation that the Universe is expanding.”



And now the Universe is static. Yes?

Or, maybe, she is continues to expand. No?



Two views of the Vacuum

In modern science there are two mutually exclusive points of view

on the behaviour of particles in a Vacuum.

One point of view is the position of classical physics which says that:

In the vacuum at T=0K any movement of a particle stops.
And if in the Empire of Cold there is no movement, it is a dead empire.

But another point of view completely rejects this formulation.

This point of view is expressed in the quantum theory. In 1911, M. Planck

stated that energy does not become zero at the approach T=0K.

He declared this on the 1st Solvay congress. So " Energy at T=0K" became

the main problem in physics because " Physics is first of all the vacuum".

Gradually it began to appear that Vacuum at T=0K is not empty dead space.

There live the "virtual" particles. These particles originally have negative and

imaginary mass, and then make a virtual transition » to positive mass,

becoming real particles. But the apparently mystical "virtual particles"

as they make "virtual transitions". explains little.

Let's rethink these "virtual" particles. Let's ask a question:

What is the geometrical form of "virtual" particles in the Vacuum at T=0K?

The answer is:

According to the laws of physics :

J. Charles ( 1787), Gay-Lussac ( 1802), V. Nernst ( 1910), A. Einstein ( 1925)

particles in a Vacuum cannot have volume and consequently should be flat figures.

This means, particles have the geometrical form of a circle, as from all flat figures

the circle has the most optimum form: C/D=pi.

What are these "virtual" circles in the vacuum?

The answer is given in the theory of radiation of absolute black bodies.

The theory considers an area of the space which are in absolute thermal balance.

It is possible only at T=0K. But it is known, that such a condition is a

"thermal death " and is not observed in nature. Therefore Planck, studying this area,

came to the conclusion that condition T=0K has changed. In this space there should be

a radiation of a quantum of light, possessing an internal impulse h=Et=1.

So, « the virtual circle » is transformed to quantum of light.

This quantum of light has an impulse h=Et=1 and travels with constant speed, c=1.

From this assumption Quantum theory was born.

Therefore the Quantum theory is a theory only about a quantum of light and its various transformations.

And classical theory considers all other particles.

These particles have mass much greater than a quantum of light and

move with much smaller speeds. If we understand the difference between

a quantum of light and all other particles, then all contradictions in the physics disappear,
and all of physics becomes a harmoniously integral science.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Great explanations and questions, Socratus. This is the direction we need to go.

Thanks,
Lloyd

[socratus]

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”.

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 in 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 .

Everyone knows about the “singular point”, but nobody knows that it is

EMPTINESS- NOTHING! To understand it, it is necessary to ask a question:

What geometric and physical parameters can particles have in T=0K?

Can they have a volume?

No.

Then they must have the geometrical form of a flat circle: C/D =p= 3,14.

But what these particles do ?

Nothing.

They are in a condition of rest: h = 0. So, maybe they are dead?

In order to answer of this question, it is necessary to more clearly understand

EMPTINESS- NOTHING.

* * *

Has this EMPTINESS- NOTHING a border? No! It has no borders.

EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indefinite. Let's identify it by the formula: T=0K = ∞

And what about time in the EMPTINESS- NOTHING ?

Independent time is absent.

Time in EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indissolubly merged with infinite space.

Stop!

But you see, such space is described by Einstein in Special Relativity Theory.

In SRT, space also has a negative characteristic and there also,

time is indissolubly merged with space.

Only in SRT, this EMPTINESS- NOTHING has another name:

Negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space.

Then it is possible to conclude that SRT describes the behaviour

of the circle-particles in T=0K.