Philosophy: the best and easy way to understand Nature.

 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  203
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
21 February 2018 06:15
 

  Philosophy: the best and easy way to understand Nature.
==
a) The evolution of Nature began from micro-world,
from laws and formulas of Quantum physics.
b) All quantum particles exist in Dirac’s ‘‘vacuum sea’ but nobody
explains the parameters and conditions of Dirac’s ‘‘sea’‘.
c) All quantum particles must have concrete geometrical form but
nobody explain the g/ form of quantum particle.
==
So, the best and easy way to understand Nature is to begin with
Quantum theory: Dirac’s reference frame and g/ form of quantum particles.
========

 
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  203
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
21 February 2018 22:56
 

In the beginning the Science was developed as knowledge about macro-world
and only in 1900 (thanks to Planck) physicists began to study micro-world.
Today we know: the Quantum laws of micro-world were existed before
the Classic / Newtonian laws of macro-world.
Micro-world is kingdom of Quantum’s laws and it is a pity that we cannot
understand their essence.
‘’ I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’‘
  /  Richard P. Feynman /
In XXI century Philosophy without laws and formulas of Physics is tautology.
===========

 
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  203
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
22 February 2018 04:23
 

there are two ways to understand nature: by logic and by experiment.

Today the philosophy of physics is ‘‘abstract’’ (as Richard* Feynman wrote)
Today the philosophy of physics is concept of pompous words,*
To come face-to-face with a “map”* of the real world is possible only when we
understand the Quantum theory, its reference frame and quantum particles.

Philosophy is LOGICAL knowledge of Nature.
This LOGIC must be based on laws and formulas of Physics.

EXPERIENCE is another way to understand Nature
===

 
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  203
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
27 February 2018 06:57
 

“[Quantum mechanics] describes nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.
So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd.”
/ Richard P. Feynman /

Why ‘’ . . . you can accept nature as She is - absurd.” / Richard P. Feynman /

Because Einstein and Infeld wrote in the book “Evolution of Physics” :
“ We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body
of reference system they belong to, and all our physical
construction appears erected on sand ”.
===
What can be reference frame for new ideas?
  DISCOVER.
FROM THE AUGUST 2008 ISSUE
Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything
Could the vacuum contain dark energy, gravity particles, and frictionless gears?
By Tim Folger.  Friday, July 18, 2008

‘’ When the next revolution rocks physics,chances are it will be
about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void.’‘

‘’ Some physicists like to think that M theory will form the basis of what
they call a theory of everything, a set of laws that will completely
describe the universe in all its strangeness, where dark energy, quantum theory,
extra dimensions, and magazine readers will all fit into one tidy package.
But in the end, the key to cosmic truth may well come from another window
on reality, the looming void. A good theory of nothing just might be the
theory of everything physicists have sought for so long.’‘

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
#
Paul Dirac wrote:
‘‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? ‘’
/ Paul Dirac /
================
If we want to  understand the logical reality of Nature we need to solve
‘‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum’’ . . . /Dirac/

===============

 
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  203
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
01 March 2018 03:52
 

Modern interpretation of Quantum physics cannot replace classical - deterministic  causality 
===========
  These two systems  aren’t closed.
There are interactions between these  two systems where
macro  classical - deterministic  causality   is possible to observe and
micro quantum causality that is hidden -  unobservant
( Heisenberg uncertainty principle )  and  seems ‘‘random’‘.
Planck, Einstein were skeptical towards the only (!) statistical interpretation
of quantum mechanics.
  Niels Bohr said:
‘’ Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.’‘
Richard Feynman said:
“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
. . . . .

And the last scientific opinion:
Why Do Interpretations Of Quantum Physics Matter?
FEB 27, 2018 @ 04:10 PM

A couple of weeks ago, fellow Forbes blogger Ethan Siegel took to his keyboard
with the goal of making me sigh heavily, writing a post about interpretations
of quantum physics calling the idea that you need an interpretation
“the biggest myth in quantum physics.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2018/02/27/why-do-interpretations-of-quantum-physics-matter/#2bab2c357d57

So, ‘‘Shut up and calculate’‘
Richard Feynman / David Mermin

===========