Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008

Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
--------------------.
The Classic 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
an as a individual particle).
8.
There are two ways to reflect this process.
One way explained by Einstein in GRT as a man  who observed
the situation from outside.
Another way can be explained by Lobachevsky / Bolyai geometry
using it in conjunction with the inner (!) impulse of Planck-Einstein
(h)
and the inner (!) impulse of  Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck (h=h/2pi)..

Questions:
1) Where does the Planck/Einstein factor h come from?
2) Where does the Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck factor h=h/2pi come from?
3) What is the physical difference between h and h=h/2pi in the
Nature.
4) Can  the process of evolution go without geometrical changes?
Without the physical/ geometrical theory we cannot answer these
questions.
-----------------------.
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.
===================..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik /Socratus,