Comprehensive coverage

The Conservative Revolutionary: On Max Planck and the Early Days of Quantum Theory

Max Planck did not want to be a revolutionary. Today, when we look back at the work of the German physicist, it is clear that he was the one who started rolling the monstrous snowball known as 'quantum theory' - but for Flanac it was an unplanned avalanche

Planck at the ceremony of awarding the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918 for the discovery of quantum theory
Planck at the ceremony of awarding the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918 for the discovery of quantum theory

Max Planck did not want to be a revolutionary. Today, when we look back at the work of the German physicist, it is clear that he was the one who started rolling the monstrous snowball known as 'quantum theory' - but for Flanac it was an unplanned avalanche.

Max Planck was born in Germany in 1858 to a wealthy family, from the intellectual elite of German society. At school he was considered a talented child, although there was no real improvement: his two strongest areas were music and discipline. As we will see, this discipline had a decisive effect on Planck's career and his scientific discoveries, and also intensified the cruel tragedy that followed his son's entanglement with the Nazi regime.

When he graduated from high school, Plank was debating which career to choose. He was a gifted musician, an excellent player on the piano and violin. On the other hand, he was fascinated by the natural world. One of his teachers in high school, who noticed the tremendous potential that lies in the child, and introduced him to science. When Planck enrolled at the University of Munich, he approached one of the physics lecturers and asked him if he should focus on a research track. The lecturer replied that in his opinion there was no point in engaging in research because there was nothing more to discover in physics - the laws of nature were quite clear and there were no important discoveries on the horizon.

This foolish answer from the honorable lecturer emphasizes the wisdom of the high school teacher. There was, in the lecturer's answer, a small spark of the mindset that prevailed in science almost two centuries after Newton. Classical physics was a very successful theory that produced accurate predictions regarding a very wide range of observations: almost everything that could be seen and measured, the classical theory knew how to explain. There were still unsolved questions here and there (like the question of the black body, which we will get to know later) but it seemed that basically, almost everything was known and clear.

Despite the professor's warnings, Planck decided to continue with physics. Even if it would be impossible to innovate anything, he still wanted to learn and understand the basic laws of nature. He decided to specialize in thermodynamics, and particularly focused on the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law states that heat always flows in one direction: from hot areas to cold areas. In common scientific parlance: the amount of disorder in a system (known as 'entropy') always increases. We see the second law in action all the time around us: if we put an ice cube in a glass of boiling water, the heat will flow from the boiling water to the frozen ice cube and melt it.

The second law of thermodynamics attracted Planck precisely because it was so self-evident. Planck considered this law to be the most basic principle of nature and unbreakable. For him, the most sublime ideal was to arrive at important insights about the nature of the universe from this basic law.

In 1887, the chair of theoretical physics at the University of Berlin became vacant. The university management offered the position to scientists of stature such as Heinrich Hertz, but he and all the other candidates refused for various reasons - and Planck won from the loser. In Berlin, Planck continued to work on his favorite subject, the second law of thermodynamics, this time to try and solve a problem that troubled many scientists at the time: blackbody radiation.

A 'black body' is a theoretical object that is able to perfectly absorb all the radiation that falls on it. I mean, if we were to shine a light on the body with a flashlight, no light would return to us or pass through the body - hence, it would appear black as coal to us. Another feature of this imaginary body is that all the heat it contains inside leaves it only in the form of radiation, and not as vibrations or explosions, for example.

A lump of iron is a good example of a substance that behaves more or less like a black body: it reflects very little of the radiation that falls on it, and when the iron is heated it ignites and emits a reddish light, like a lump of lava for example.

Gustav Kirchhoff discovered that there is a relationship between the temperature of the black body and the radiation it emits: the hotter the body, the higher frequency radiation it emits. When talking about visible light, frequency is actually color. The iron in the previous example emits red-orange light at a certain temperature, and if we heat it even more, its color will change to a yellow shade, which is a higher frequency color.

The problem facing the physicists was to precisely define the relationship between the temperature and the frequency of the emitted radiation. When Planck began to deal with the problem, there was already another physicist who had found a formula for the relationship between the temperature and the radiation in the black body. Wilhelm Weiner's formula was accepted by most scientists, and well predicted the results of laboratory experiments on approximate models of black bodies. The difficulty was explaining why Weiner's formula worked: it did not fit the predictions produced by the classical theory, the same theory whose predictions were so successful in almost every other field.

Planck had to find the explanation for the formula. He didn't want a casual equation that works by chance - he wanted to understand where it comes from, what are the fundamental physical reasons why it is true. More precisely, Planck wanted to start from the very basic starting point of the second law of thermodynamics - and from there reach Weiner's formula.

At that time, a very heated debate developed within the world of physics. Some physicists, led by Stephen Boltzmann, believed that all matter in the world consisted of atoms. Another part, led by Ernst Mach (from the famous Mach number) and the chemist Wilhelm Ostwald, saw the idea of ​​atoms as a nice and useful mathematical trick - but not necessarily a true reflection of reality.

Planck tried not to be a party to this heated debate. Nevertheless, he clearly sided with those who did not believe in atoms. The reason was that Boltzmann proved that if atoms do exist, then the second law of thermodynamics is not one-way. In other words, heat can flow from cold places to warm places - and a glass of water standing on the windowsill on a hot sunny day can turn into a frozen block of ice. The chance of such a thing happening is extremely slim, but it does exist. Planck was not ready to accept this: if the second law of thermodynamics is not one-way, then his whole world picture of an orderly and organized world, which acts deterministically and is known in advance - simply falls apart.

After a lot of sweat, hard work and coffee, Flanac managed to find the connection between the second law and the black body formula. Planck was especially proud because he managed to reach the required proof when he assumed as an axiom that the second law is indeed unidirectional, namely: heat always flows from hot places to cold places. This proof confirmed his world picture, contrary to the (seemingly) contradictory claims of Stephen Boltzmann. The joy, unfortunately, did not last long.

One day a friend came to visit him and told him shocking news. A group of scientists in one of the laboratories discovered that Weiner's formula is incorrect! It turned out that the formula is not compatible with measurements of radiation emission from a blackbody at very low frequencies. Plank listened attentively, and returned to the drawing table. Within a few hours, he was able to find the error in Weiner's formula, and corrected it to match the results of the new experiments.

Now he faces the really difficult task: to prove that the new formula is correct. That is to say, start from the starting point of the second law of thermodynamics, and from there explain the nature of the emission of radiation from a black body. After a few weeks of feverish work, Planck realized that he was in serious trouble: the only way to prove the formula was to agree that Boltzmann was right. Atoms exist.

Planck was willing to accept some of Boltzen's ideas, but he was not willing to give up the unidirectionality of the second law of thermodynamics. His mixed approach forced him to turn to completely different lines of thought to try and circumvent the directionality problem. In the end it turned out that Boltzmann was right and the second law is not one-way, but Planck's intellectual maneuvers led him to come up with an equally revolutionary idea. This idea, which Planck defined as 'a solution out of desperation', was that the radiation emitted from the black body is not continuous but comes in tiny and individual packets. These packages of energy, which Planck called 'elements of energy', are what we call today 'quanta', the basis of a theory that will change physics from end to end: quantum theory.

It is important to understand that Planck did not believe that energy was truly divided into small and discrete elements. For him, this revolutionary idea was only a mathematical tool, a mental trick that allowed him to deal with the calculations and formulas but not a real world picture. He expected that once the physicists developed a more successful theory, there would be no need to divide the energy into discrete portions and this idea would become redundant.

But in 1905, five years after Planck published his revolutionary ideas, Albert Einstein came out with his own important paper on the nature of light, taking Planck's "mathematical trick" and declaring it a fact: this is how nature behaves.

Planck initially did not agree to accept Einstein's explanation even though it was based on his own ideas. Ever since James Maxwell established electromagnetic theory in the mid-19th century, most scientists have agreed that radiation is a continuous and continuous wave. Planck claimed, and to a certain degree of justice, that the electromagnetic theory cannot be thrown away so easily. It took Einstein several more years to convince Planck that he was right, and that radiation sometimes behaves like a wave and other times like discrete particles.

As the scientific community digested the idea of ​​dividing energy into quanta and its far-reaching implications for the world picture, Planck was greatly respected. He received the Nobel Prize in 1918, and was a dominant and highly influential figure in the scientific community in Germany. His career went and soared to new heights, but in Plank's personal life the state of affairs was completely different.

In 1909 Plank's wife died. This was the opening shot for a series of personal tragedies that destroyed his world. Five years later his son, Karl, was killed in the killing fields of the First World War. Shortly thereafter, Plank's daughter died while giving birth. Two years later, her twin sister died under the exact same circumstances. Plank was completely devastated. And still - the worst of all was ahead of him.

On July 1944, XNUMX, Adolf Hitler entered the meeting room in his bunker in Berlin. He didn't know that under the table was a suitcase with several kilograms of explosives in it. The meeting proceeded as planned and then - a huge explosion shook the bunker. To this day it is not clear how Hitler managed to survive the assassination attempt. Four of his men were killed, but the Führer himself escaped with only minor scratches. The suitcase may have been pushed to the corner of the room, or the heavy wooden table may have absorbed most of the force of the explosion. we will never know.

In the days after the assassination, an extensive hunt began in Germany for members of the underground. Hundreds of conspirators, including senior military officers and German civilians, were captured and executed. One of the conspirators was Erwin Plank, Max's son. Erwin was not only his beloved son and one of the only two children to survive the chain of family disasters, but also Plank's best friend and close advisor. After the assassination attempt, Irwin was caught, imprisoned and executed by hanging. It was a fatal injury to Max Planck, from which he did not recover until the day of his death, two years later in 1947.

Planck's story is interesting and inspiring because it demonstrates how powerful the principles behind scientific process and progress are. Planck is considered one of the fathers of quantum theory, although he himself refused to accept it for a long time. He belonged to an earlier generation for whom the radical ideas of uncertainty and randomness were too difficult to digest - but the objective truth is so firm and solid that it comes to light even against the will of those who discover it. In Planck's own words: "A new scientific truth does not win by convincing those who oppose it...but because those who oppose it eventually die and a new generation grows up that accepts it as a matter of course."

(The article is taken from the program 'Making history!', bi-weekly podcast about science, technology and history)

Comments

  1. Michael
    Surely then why wait for them to fix the wiring there. I also have a problem here with the LAN 802 cable causing too much attenuation for a distance of more than 20 meters. It turns out that everything requires a preliminary examination.
    I really enjoyed your last comment here. Thanks.

  2. Hi Michael,

    You wrote a really nice comment!

    Mabruk

    (I'm not being cynical - it's from the bottom of my heart)

  3. A few more details for the big brother:
    It really doesn't belong in the debate, but your claim as if all the things I enjoy today originate from inventions and discoveries from fifty years ago is not fair and not even true.
    It is unfair because it often takes a long time for science to mature into technology.
    Many revolutionary inventions and discoveries of today will be used by the public in fifty years.
    This is the way of the world and it shouldn't make you wait fifty years to understand that there were revelations even today.
    Take for example the whole subject of tissue engineering, cloning and the like.
    Take the subject of quantum computing.
    Take the development of nanotechnology.
    All these things were not dealt with fifty years ago.
    Of course there are also technologies that mature much faster and the entire computing world is full of them.
    Here we are talking about technologies that serve us today even though the basic research that led to them was done not long ago.
    For example - the whole issue of biometric identification.
    Another example is MRI machines, CT machines and other medical imaging technologies.
    The subjects of bioinformatics, including our ability to sequence a genome at ever-increasing speeds, are also recently developed technologies that are already being used by us today.
    With or without connection, today we are engaged in genetic engineering and provide plants that themselves produce required food additives to populations that lack these additives and plants resistant to extreme conditions to areas where extreme conditions prevail.
    The truth is that there really isn't a shortage.
    Now - don't come and tell me that genetic engineering is based on the discovery of DNA.
    This is true, but it is not relevant because it is also based on later discoveries.
    I won't be the first to say (and this time not sarcastically) that we are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants but these giants are not just certain characters but an accumulation of many dwarves who lived in the past.

  4. The little brother
    Judah's? What about big brother as well?
    Please, from Wikipedia, enter the entry below on the website and follow the various links, you will get a clearer picture of the technical model, field theory and calibration symmetry.

    The Higgs boson is a hypothetical particle whose existence is predicted by the standard model. The Higgs mechanism, based on spontaneous symmetry breaking, predicts the existence of a Higgs field, which can be used to explain the mass of the other particles and of the Higgs boson itself.

    The existence of the Higgs boson, sometimes called the "God particle", was first predicted in the 60s by the British physicist Peter Higgs. The way it gives other particles mass was first proposed in the context of condensed matter physics to explain how particle-like structures in metals can behave as if they had an effective mass.

    The Higgs boson itself has mass. Experimental physics estimates its mass at more than 114 GeV. Due to theoretical considerations, its mass probably does not exceed 1000 GeV.

    One of the purposes for which the LHC accelerator at CERN was built is the discovery of the Higgs boson.

  5. Big Brother:
    You really don't understand me.
    Because of this, or for your own internal reasons, you suspect my intentions.
    Actually - you don't just suspect - you make them up.
    I have no problem with Yehuda looking for alternative theories.
    The only problem I have is with his attempt to sell theories that have been proven wrong as if they were true.
    This is called fraud and I, probably out of conservatism, do not like fraud.
    I was not left alone.
    I don't know how many of the readers here agree with me and how many don't, but it's quite clear to me that none of the readers wants to be called "wretched", "anti-Semitic", "arrogant", "defamatory" and so on, so I guess they are quite reluctant to confront you and Yehuda.
    In any case, I am not commenting here for the company.
    Probably another thing you don't understand is that there are people for whom the truth is important.

  6. Michael,

    I really don't understand you, but I'm a little suspicious of your intentions.

    I don't feel threatened by things that Yehuda says, or anyone else. That's why I probably don't reach your levels of distress.

    I manage to sympathize with the frustrations of most thinking people (among them Yehuda and Higgs) regarding the "explosions" of science. It is frustrating to think that all the scientific breakthroughs that we enjoy engineering today broke out 50-100 years ago: I mean the splitting of the atom, radio, radar, electricity, electronics, computing, aviation, jet propulsion and more. So we learned about black holes but how does it actually improve our lives?. What if we are back in the "Middle Ages": we will carve more complicated wood carvings, draw more beautiful paintings and delude ourselves that we are progressing?

    Therefore, in my eyes, it is human to see a frustrated person banging his head on the door in order to break it. I also don't see the logic in that rationally, but I have the emotional intelligence to appreciate the effort and courage. I see your aggression only as conservatism, you are afraid of anyone who doesn't touch your cheese. Don't you notice that you are left alone?

  7. little brother:
    You just don't understand what I'm saying.
    An experiment does not have to be carried out in a laboratory. It is enough for there to be observations of what is happening.
    After all, Newton and Einstein did not formulate their theories in empty space (although they also dealt with empty space).
    They found explanations for existing phenomena and then made predictions according to the theory they proposed as an explanation and these predictions came true.
    Let's take the theory of relativity for example.
    Don't you know about the light bending experiments they conducted during a solar eclipse?
    Don't you know about the clock experiments in spaceships?
    What were these experiments for?
    to pose a challenge to general relativity.
    If they failed, the theory of relativity would be disproved.
    Since they succeeded, they confirm the Torah.

    I did not demand any experiment from Yehuda.
    I was just pointing out the fact that without an experiment he is not concerned with disproving existing theories.
    There is another way to disprove existing theories, but it is also not used by Judah. This way is finding a logical flaw in the theory.
    Yehuda does not take any of these ways and therefore does not engage in refuting the existing theories.

    By the way, Brother Patso, did you hear Yehuda say that he is engaged in refuting the existing theories?
    I don't remember such a claim on his part and he rightly did not make such a claim.

    Beyond that, Yehuda's theory has already been put to many tests and failed miserably.
    For example - as I have shown - according to this theory the earth would evaporate within a second.
    The fact that I was able to complete this response disproves the theory.
    There are, as mentioned, many refutations, but you avoid reading them because you have one goal in life (and I will refrain from publishing the devious means you take to achieve this goal for now).

    So you say: "You are only strengthening my argument, which is anti-Semitism for its own sake."
    I agree with that - your argument is antisemitism for its own sake.

  8. Michael,

    You only strengthen my argument, which is antisemitism for its own sake!.

    Why didn't you ask Newton and Einstein for experiments?

    We'll see you do an experiment to prove that galaxies are eddies in a sea of ​​particles, huh? Huh?

    PS - Is Higgs the last name or Boson?

  9. Higgs:
    This is what happens.
    He does not try to refute the existing.
    Disproving the existing is possible only through an experiment.
    Did you do any experiment?
    What he does is try to convince us of the correctness of a theory that failed the experiment and that its internal developments are mathematically incorrect and that its formulas do not correctly express the behavior of the model proposed in it.

  10. Michael
    To his credit, he puts a lot of effort into it, if he persists in it, he may definitely come up with something in the future. Every real innovation begins with an attempt to refute the existing even if the refutation is not strong enough, it serves as a starting point for the continuation.

  11. And I repeat that ideas that predict phenomena that contradict those that occur in reality are not even worth investing.
    The investment, of course, is worthwhile regardless - simply to understand the issues, but the whole essence of science is the selection of theories that stand the test of experiment and when you choose those, you discard the others.

  12. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    On the contrary, even though there is something in your words about raising children. (Anyone can have children, but unfortunately not everyone can raise them - but this is in a framed article)
    I strongly assert your right to refute and try to smash the tooth towers. But... not as a man to a man. There's no point in yelling at the windmills it won't stop them.
    I personally work in the above-mentioned hedged field and personally treat risk just like any hedge fund that has been funded recently. The people I work with do not belong to the mainstream of physics. And for your information, their opinions and many other good opinions in the field are much more extreme than Pauli's opinion of their colleagues. There are physicists Many who refer to today's central modern theories in the field of strings and particles as delusional. But this is not due to a lack of knowledge, on the contrary. The holes in the theoretical infrastructure have become so large that all the researchers and their assistants can be passed through them, and there will still be room for all kinds of enthusiasts. There is no denying that the correct model, despite His successes and great accuracy are quite shaky, despite all the very impressive mathematical boasting and the symmetrical patterns without going into details.
    That is, the professionals do not need Yehuda to tell them that the business is a bit screwed up. Do you think that for nothing they would have invested 10 billion dollars and ten years to build the monstrous LHC. They had a very good reason, actually many good reasons (10 billion we said).
    But they are reasonable people and will not look under the flashlight for something they lost elsewhere.
    If someone wants to invent something completely new in a completely different direction. He should prepare a very strong head shield for him so that it does not break.
    And in our eyes, the direction you pointed to, that is, the measurement interval, has not gone unnoticed by many and is certainly one of the key points for new directions. In any case, to say something meaningful, it is necessary to walk a little longer. It is not enough to build something of lasting significance on it.
    Something that doesn't fall into the "not even wrong" category.
    You should also know that this has nothing to do with mathematical technical abilities, this still does not lead to the possibility of presenting an acceptable alternative. A very, very deep understanding and the ability to integrate on a very large scale is required.
    In order to make your unique ideas meaningful, you cannot avoid delving deeper and reading several books on the subject such as the ones I mentioned and add to that the two books of the Israeli scientist who was in charge of the Hubble Telescope project for several years.
    The language of symmetry - the equation for which no solution has been found
    And the cutting of gold - the events of a miraculous number
    Both by Mario Livio.
    He writes in a language equal to everyone, no prior knowledge is necessary.
    His writing is done from the perspective of the big picture, how his universe points to a miraculous unification of all patterns and complexities.
    There are many books and many ways of course. You can also study physics and astrophysics at the Open University for example.
    In conclusion, I think that in order for ideas to mature and not get lost, it's worth investing a little.

  13. to the Higgs boson

    Ballad words and provoke a lot of thought.
    But, isn't the conclusion from your words potentially too extreme?
    For example, are we not allowed to vote in the elections because we did not study economics, citizenship, etc.?
    Is it really not possible for us to express our opinion on the accelerator in the axle because we do not understand physics?
    Can't I decide how I want my vegetables to grow, even though I don't understand botany?
    Can only Shankar graduates (like me) express their opinion about their clothing, and how fashion will develop
    Am I not allowed to raise children, even though I have not completed a course on the subject, a university degree?
    Can a person express his opinion on how to repair plaster even though he is not a building engineer?
    Is Yehuda really unable to express his opinion that he is exhausted in the stories of the dark mass, and that gravitation is not proven beyond a thousand light years, just because he does not have a doctorate in physics??
    I will make it even harder
    After all, today the greatest expert does not know much beyond his field, would you also tell him not to offer a solution?
    Where is the line between what is legitimate and what is not?
    Why do you think that I, as a graduate in business management and a business owner who has been streamlining business for decades, cannot offer interesting ideas in streamlining lame aspects of science
    Don't your words make scientists a closed guild that looks down on everyone else, including colleagues in science?
    Is the obvious conclusion that in fact only virtuous individuals who know almost everything can do it?
    Please respond gently, and with understanding
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  14. For a moment I saw a comment from Amalia Kupferald and then it disappeared, am I hallucinating?

  15. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    I forgot to address your courage as you defined yourself.
    Along with all the other qualities sticking to the goal and hard work, etc., a lot of courage is needed as I saw you quoted Feynman whose motto was no matter what others say.
    And again, courage for those who are fearless at all is not courage but a foolish custom.

  16. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    By and large... you are very right, that is, in presenting the naked king as a basic weakness of the theories.
    Our era excels in technology and is weak in basic science. The amount of questions and refutations that have accumulated in recent decades about the basic structure of understanding the universe from large to small and vice versa, do not satisfy physicists. The business has become incredibly complicated and requires a lot of mathematical knowledge and careful understanding. Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't work technically in practice. Electronics engineers don't have to rack their brains and solve partial differential equations or mess with leeches to create wonderful new machines. And this is because the infrastructure works well, even though it is full of holes and cracks. But it is very true what you say as a simple person with a healthy intuition something stinks in the infrastructure. But as I mentioned, it is very difficult, in fact impossible, to come up with something contradictory without understanding the details of the overall framework and knowing the complex connections that create it.
    Your case like many other things has a known precedent below the quote.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Not even wrong
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The expression "not even wrong", is an expression from the field of philosophy of science, which refers to a scientific idea which cannot be refuted in the Popperian sense, or which is not coherent enough to produce scientific predictions about the physical world. The expression is attributed to Wolfgang Pauli, one of the first physicists of quantum mechanics, who was known for his colorful objections to wrong or sloppy thinking.

    Scientific statements that are not even false may be well constructed, but do not refer to anything physical or tangible (such as "souls are immortal", since the concept of "soul" is not well defined in terms of experimental results). Other statements may be nothing more than a meaningless jumble of words (for example the following "claim": "The green wind will sleep in fury").

    The phrase "not even wrong" is often used to describe pseudoscience, and is considered quite negative.

    The source is from Pauli
    "...a friend introduced him to a paper by a young physicist, which he suspected was not of much value, but wanted to hear Pauli's opinion about it. Pauli sadly commented 'It's not even wrong'…”
    ——————————————————————————-
    But don't see the above as an insult to relax your hand. Because it is true that the theory as they say about it today is not intuitive. But surprisingly most of it originates from the intuitive minds of scientists throughout the ages. It is this intuition that ultimately leads you to a safe beach. However, this does not stand on its own because without the investment of real work and sweat, intuition alone does not stand and is of little use. You who invest a lot of your energy and time in thinking about things will surely come up with valuable things.
    It takes a lot of persistence and sticking to the goal and a lot of luck for that.
    However, it is unthinkable that someone would come and throw out some word combinations without putting in real work and the things would have real meaning.
    This is what I mean
    For Hugin, she doesn't read the details, she doesn't understand a thing and a half about how things communicate. And I think that with enough concentration and effort if she imagines that she is them and the others worship her just because she mumbles something incomprehensible that seems to have some kind of code in it. And not her. She never wrote anything clear except tricks and manipulations. Her behavior offends herself and no one else.
    And not only that, but she insists that her Jumble Mumble contains something ethereal and sparkly.
    And it is not without organized work and sweat and delving into details and weighing things, etc., etc. There is no existence and no results, this is the way of the world. Shortcuts are discovered only after putting in a lot of sweat and effort. The fantasy world for the time being remains there and does not tend to mix with the harsh and unforgiving reality. If you see someone who suddenly sparkles like a meteor and didn't put in proper work and a lot of effort, the result will always be like any meteor that sparkles for a moment and burns. From reading your words on different occasions I conclude that you are a serious person who knows the value of these things.

  17. There are no protections in the core (the core of the central sun) like the rest of the eternal spirit, in the noble empire of the sky/earth/universe and its entirety.
    There is no partiality. And without blemish all justice will be administered.

    Hugin: Cipher Jorel pure/and conscience all - upper heart.

  18. to hug

    I really don't understand your conclusions in your last response, and the exclamations of boooozzzzzz attached to it.
    My attitude towards the Higgs boson is one of mutual respect, at least from me and it seems to me from him as well. The exchange of comments between us added to my understanding and I am happy about that.
    Another story is your conduct, yours and Higgs's, on the internet waves and for that I regret and apologize.

    Good day to you Hugin
    Good day to you too Higgs boson
    Good day to the other commenters as well

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  19. Higgs boson
    I understood your words. I understand that my lack of knowledge has a flaw in it. However, I would like to clarify a few things.
    You will notice that my words are based on the most basic principles which are:
    A. The measurements and uncertainties in them.
    B. People's historically unfounded psychological hold on their paradigms.
    third. The advantage I have is actually being a simple person.
    and explained it
    Section A. we already talked
    Section B. For example you will convince people that gravitational force is a local phenomenon, or that the speed of light changes. They will look at you as a strange chicken and most likely will not be willing to listen to you.
    Section C. As a simple person, I find it difficult to accept the things that a scientist might avoid asking, for example
    Why gravity?
    Why is the speed of light what it is?
    Why would the mass increase at great speeds?
    Will you have enough courage, dear Higgs, to say that creationism is the highest stage of evolution?
    You'll probably dismiss it outright. I have courage!
    And other strange things like Schlesinger's cat and wrestling through two holes.

    But I'm aware of my lack of knowledge and was careful enough to say in comment 35 about the dark mass that "It could be true, but, I don't believe it."

    The general claim, regarding the lack of logic in the examples I gave, that this is a different kind of logic unknown to my world, did not exactly make an impression on me.
    And so you don't have any doubt, I knew how to do the calculations in my relativity physics classes and my grades were 90-100.
    My role as a common man is like that baby who cried "The king is naked!"
    The most talented researcher is the one who does not have all the knowledge but also knows how to ignore some of it knowing that it may be wrong, and he should also be brave enough to say so.
    These are individuals of virtue.
    I'm not like that, I'm just a simple, brave person who asks questions and comes up with ideas.

    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  20. Higgs
    Now I understand..poor scientist..you so wanted to express yourself to Yehuda who probably wasn't exactly literate in books, but was only busy with one thing. And in addition to exhausting wars with Michael,
    And to you, the poor guy, Hegsy Bozoncik, he didn't exactly refer to it (how do you say that?? Didn't you notice? Or..didn't you name a dick?? That you are "something"!!!!! Poor Bozon, poor thing.. I just interrupted you to show the

    Your news…
    And Yehuda!!!!! "You're not cute" ..
    Show me your friend and say who you are - we understand.

    And from heaven to you in the name of the grandchildren:: Boozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  21. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    Physics is not particularly new, there is no need to overexert yourself. There are reviews in a language that is easy for the reader without prior knowledge. Books such as Journey to the Consciousness of Nature - Zvi Yanai, Fabric of the Universe - Brian Green and more.
    Yamanu's physics excels in its accuracy from the micro to the macro, even though it is not complete. It is a bit difficult to come up with any theory at a certain point such as gravitation, even though it is problematic anyway, and to succeed in creating a new model that will be consistent enough with the existing one. Especially if prior knowledge of the other parts of physics is lacking. The texture of connections is so complex and dense that it is impossible. You cannot ignore in a cosmological theory the understanding of quantum physics. Because the measurements of the different types of radiation and the understanding of the types of particles and the different rotations they go through. That is to say, what is actually measured is itself based on measuring tools that are built and calibrated according to a certain concept, therefore it is meaningless to take certain parameters such as a very large distance and the like because it is itself based, as is true, on one consistent model. Black holes and all their cousins ​​are different. Everything refers to one generalized model. Every theory you come up with is based on the same measurements themselves, so inevitably there is an essential need to understand the rest of the model. A theory that does not include this as part of it is shaky to begin with.
    So keep in mind that the beautiful words you mentioned are not some kind of decoration.
    We live in a time when it is very difficult to innovate without prior knowledge.
    except under the condition of a. that you change all fundamental paradigms. and in that the new paradigms include everything that already exists and has been tested experimentally.
    And again even then you need a good knowledge of the existing.

  22. To Omri

    On the home page of the Hidan site, on the top left, there is an empty search bar, enter there my name "Sabdarmish Yehuda" and you will receive a file of all my articles.

    Regarding my last article, call my email and I will send it to you.

    sevdermishy@gmail.com

    We will go see who won in Herzliya

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  23. Higgs boson

    I have a feeling that you think something real can be deduced, beyond the range of measurements. I am much more skeptical.
    I do not agree that the margin of error can converge beyond the range of our measurements, in my humble opinion it can only be entertained.
    But, I hope we both agree with the (difficult) logical conclusion that it cannot be deduced from the correctness of the gravitation formula that has been proven to be correct (along with countless other formulas), within a measurement range of only a thousand light years (the solar system), also correct for a distance of a hundred thousand light years (galaxies ) or about billions of light years (the entire universe).
    So to rely on the correctness of the formula, and therefore to require dark mass and also push energies of the void in huge quantities, is ridiculous!
    That could be true, but, I don't believe it.
    Besides, I must compliment you (with a little envy) on the great knowledge you show in the new physics. When I find some time, I will study the subject.
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  24. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    At least you made your starting point plain.
    I agree that this point is an opening for additional and new possibilities.
    But the argument that links the measurement error margin with a different model formulation is not so strong.
    For a simple reason, there are many mathematical models that describe complex patterns with error margins and yet they are logically closed and give very accurate predictions.
    Through a precise definition of the maximum error limits, you get a consistent and closed model.
    Whether it is numbers like pi and phi that define irrational mathematical relationships with a convergent margin of error or whether it is quantum calculations that include margins of error that originate from the uncertainty of situations. In fact, paradoxically, it is these converging margins of error that ultimately provide the natural basis for any model framework of any kind.
    It is indeed contrary to intuition, but it is not the only case that all quantum theory is not intuitive and provides incredibly accurate predictions.
    I don't have enough time now but there is also another side to the coin that I am willing to accept.

  25. Omri:

    There are many links on the subject and with your permission I will try to save you some of the effort by referring to some of the discussions held here on the site in which the criticism of the things was also presented.
    Yehuda presented his teachings at this link:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/sevdermish-on-gravitayion-part-2-1505078/#comment-129073
    This is an article that was written long before I joined the activity on the site, so I didn't respond to it until recently - after I found it thanks to Hogin's response.

    The comments I made to him there do not encompass all my reservations because I raised most of the reservations in the discussions I encountered before, even though they started later.

    The first discussion in which I responded to Yehuda's words about the "simple universe" idea is this:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/could-antimatter-be-powering-super-luminous-supernovae-1612072/

    I suggest you read here the discussion I had with Yehuda.
    I think it's interesting.

    Another discussion took place here:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/glast-in-orbit-1306088/
    Here I gave Judah an opportunity to show us how much he knew about particle collisions - a phenomenon on which he based his entire teachings.
    This happened, as mentioned, even before I read what was said in the first link I provided.

  26. Yehuda Sabdarmish
    Can you provide a link with an explanation of your physical theories so that I can check them and give my opinion on them?
    Thanks

  27. Yehuda:
    And the fact that you diverted the debate to your mistake regarding the appropriation does not constitute an answer to any of the substantive claims against the theory you are trying to sell.

  28. Yehuda:
    Your incorrect response has already been answered in my response 20.
    I repeat and implore you to stop making up reality.

  29. Higgs boson

    Below is a proof of the reason that there are infinitely many correct formulas for every physical phenomenon

    A. To prove the correctness of a physical formula, measurements must be used
    B. But in measurements there is always uncertainty, the deviations arise from the measuring device from the environment in which they are measured and also from the scale of the measuring device.
    third. The measurements can only be made in a finite range of measurements, we cannot make measurements at infinity.
    d. Therefore, proving the correctness of the formula can only be done with a certain uncertainty, and only within a certain finite range.
    God. Therefore, it is possible that another formula that is slightly different from the one being measured is the correct one if we are more precise.
    and. But, there are many such formulas that are correct within uncertainties in measurements.
    G. There are actually an infinite number of such formulas
    H. That is, for example, within our field of measurements there are an infinite number of correct formulas of gravitation, and in addition there are an infinite number of formulas similar to Einstein's formula E=M*C^2, and it is possible that beyond the field of measurements the formula will not fit. For example, a background temperature different from 2.73 degrees Kelvin.
    ninth. The cosmological principle is not correct, because which of the infinite number of correct formulas is it supposed to operate on?, on the average (?) on the simple star according to Ockham? Or maybe otherwise?

    Now you will decide that it is suitable for calibration, quantization and all the other nice words in your question.

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  30. Enough, stop pretending!

    Michael's quote from response 12:-

    "This is different from what Yehuda did who took a disproved theory and appropriated it to himself by claiming that Sage was wrong about the collisions between the particles"

    So did you say I appropriated her or not?
    Ugh!
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  31. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    Do a favor without references, something short and simple that fits in one sandwich.
    Calibration symmetry is actually the very successful mathematical method for a consistent description but with a lot of freedom regardless of the conditions or a specific framework of the correct model of the quantum theory for both electroweak force calculations and quantum chromodynamics respectively.
    In this way the laws maintain invariance regardless of how you measure.
    I asked if when you point out that the existence of an infinite number of solutions converges with this idea of ​​invariance. In such a way that these solutions can be mapped using some symmetry of transformations.

  32. Yehuda:
    Why do you say and repeat and say even after I have shown you that you are wrong - that I say you stole Le Sage's ideas?
    Can you point to where I said that?
    If you want to be an example I suggest you start sticking to reality.
    Despite the verbal proximity between the words - the word reality is not derived from the word invention and the claim that I am saying that you stole the idea from Le Sage you simply invented!

  33. I have no desire to talk to a person who criticizes me and claims that I steal other people's ideas. I want to talk only to those who know that I am honest and fair.
    We had more blessed times in the science that we also knew how to laugh (and also tease a little) at the glory of the science site.
    But, sorry, I'm not ready to hear anymore that I'm a thief, a fraud and what not.
    And the truth is, I don't know why you do it? It's interesting that it's only with you. And we are not one of the young people on the site, we should have been an example!.
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  34. Listen, dear science responders, in addition to all that, he also became a philosopher:-
    Reminds me of the trackers:-"Who am I?, What am I?, It's not me."
    Aren't you tired?

    Oh well.
    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  35. to the Higgs boson

    Regarding your question about the infinity of correct formulas, there is a good explanation in the short article I wrote on this subject here on the knowledge site

    "Yehuda Sabdarmish/In Praise of Persistence in Science"

    Enter this name in the search bar on the website's home page at the top left and you will reach the article.
    In the article you will see an interesting proof of this. I hope this satisfies you.
    Regarding your questions about the calibration symmetry and the invariance of the laws, (I hope I wrote well), I'm sorry, but I missed this class in high school.
    Let's just smile
    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  36. By the way - it turns out that the matter of appropriation did not even appear here.
    Here, all I said was that when I (remember who I am? It's not Judah!) say "the theory of Judah" then I (again, remember who I am?) sin against La Sage.
    Now tell me, Yehuda, when I say that *I* sin in something - am I talking about you?
    Do you think we are the same person?

  37. Notice how Judah twists even what you can read without any link.
    I said that he is appropriating the Torah to himself by attributing an error to Le Sage (something that cannot be done if the existence of Le Sage is hidden) but what does it matter? After all, the end justifies the means, and the goal of presenting me as someone who bullies him instead of someone who has an objective criticism of things is the holiest of all.

  38. to the little brother
    It's fun to read your comment
    It seems to me that you missed the most serious option, what can be done with an accelerator in the axle and that...
    mosque! All that has to be done is to destroy half and then we are left with the crescent moon, for the glory of Islam.

    Differentiate about the reaction of the obsessive
    He again claims that I am lying to you, impersonating, and not telling you that my idea started with Le Sage. So here is a reference from the science site, from my articles:- "On spiral galaxies, gravitation and dark mass, part II." :-

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/sevdermish-on-gravitayion-part-2-1505078/

    a quote:-
    "Note that according to Le Sage's approach, gravitation is neither a property of matter nor of space, it arises from the momentum of tiny particles moving through space.
    So much for what the above-mentioned Sage said to her." End quote.

    So I did say that Sage is the creator, and I also showed differences between his ideas and mine.

    How does he not get tired of criticizing me, what does he achieve with his lies?, something is wrong there!

    I hope that the readers of the science show maturity and refrain from referring to his slanderous comments.
    You have to send it to some black hole for a period of one or two years and make sure that nothing leaks from there.

    Higgs boson
    I will answer you after a deeper study of your words.
    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  39. After each quantum and so-called random particle that comes to bounce a thought is required for consciousness to temporarily dominate a world. At the threshold of the border, the consensus is stuck until a shameful death that overshadows and shadows, on the rest of the soul of the entire universe. Fate will collect many world orders, as it encodes no hidden and visible end to all the theories that have been collected throughout all its billions of years.
    And so, as is known to every seeker of truth-wisdom, everything will return to strength! For there is no embracing fate that will arise and its fullness will be broken out by the ghosts of the nomads who mock the whale's beak.
    And everything is over and done with.
    Greetings from Hogin. In the power of all eternity, hallelujah.
    And peace and tranquility from the brotherhood of the world.

  40. Today, I, who do not understand anything about physics, but am interested in the storytelling in it, enjoy it the most!
    There are no cosmic philosophies in the dime (with a hole) or whimsical commenters - and those who understand will understand. Total discussion on the matter - nice!
    Thanks to Ran Levy who writes the most interesting biography of Plank - and to you!!

  41. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    Note: From the above starting point it is quite easy to issue certain predictions so that it may help to confirm the consistency of your theory. Or vice versa.

  42. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    Your last comment caught my attention:
    "that every physical phenomenon has an infinite number of correct formulas that express it"
    Do you know the calibration symmetry underlying the repair model?
    You point to invariance of the laws or something more general.
    On this subject I would be interested in reading your ideas that you write here or my email at my father's.

  43. Roy:
    As I have already mentioned many times - Yehuda's ideas are at odds with reality itself.
    The fact that theory A contradicts theory B does not indicate that A is wrong.
    What indicates that A is wrong is the fact that its prophecies do not come true.
    This is the case with Judah's theories in almost every aspect.
    Not this one either - his theory is based on mathematical errors, unsubstantiated handwaving and almost anything that warrants skewering.
    On the other hand, the quantum theory gives predictions that are astonishingly precise, it has an impeccable mathematical foundation and its only "problem" is that it is not intuitive - exactly the opposite of Yehuda's theory.
    By the way - when I use the phrase "the theory of Judah" I am sinning against the original inventor of the logical part (the one that at least has no internal contradiction) of the theory - Le Sage who raised it around 1750.
    Le Sage, of course, is not a prick. He presented a plausible theory that was eventually disproved. This is different from what Yehuda did who took a debunked theory and appropriated it to himself by claiming that Sage was wrong about the collisions between the particles, a completely wrong mathematical development of an unrealistic prediction of gravity and the combination of impossible gas vortices fueled by an unknown source.
    Now, note the fact that I am only talking about the theories and how they were developed.
    I say this in the hope that Judah will finally succeed in conquering his creation and will not attack me personally.

  44. It is an exaggeration to say that the axle accelerator is a waste. First, it doesn't work at all, so it still has "lots of potential". Second, with a small additional investment (small relative to what has already been invested) it can always be converted into a large carousel.

    And another insight. No scientific theory "knows everything" and "does everything". The theory of relativity also does not know "who I am and what my name is", as well as it certainly does not know how to make coffee. But this only leads to the next possible explanation. Are you wondering what it is?... So I will explain to you...

    The Gentiles don't like us that much! And if Yehuda Sabdarmish had been called Yehuda Messerschmidt, then without a doubt he would have already won several Nobel Prizes, and maybe even an Oscar... Another possible explanation is that Plank had a lot of problems at home, problems with his wife, problems with the children, and the same, and the same. So they didn't want to insult him.

    And therefore Yehuda, if things were up to me (and you will understand, they are not) you would have received a Nobel Prize a long time ago. If only because you are cute!

    I remembered at the very moment - and there was a definite winner of the toto.

  45. To Roy
    Let's agree to disagree

    Higgs boson
    There is no reason why the explanation of the atom should not be the same as the existing one.
    My particles are very tiny and most likely they build the quarks. Regarding the strong force and the weak force, I have some ideas but it's really not cohesive.
    Regarding Eisenberg's uncertainty principle, again, I have no objection and it does not contradict the simple universe idea.
    However, regarding another uncertainty, an uncertainty that is always present in measurements, I think it is not given the desired attention. I'm just implying that in the article I'm writing (apparently for a drawer, I don't even dare to offer it to my father) I show that every physical phenomenon has an infinite number of correct formulas that express it, and therefore the cosmological principle that speaks of the universality of a physical law/formula is lacking, because on which of the infinite number of formulas does it work The cosmological principle?

    But that's for another time
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  46. Yehuda,

    Software should be written, first of all, in the existing programming engines (according to the existing knowledge). Software that is written in a mixture of programming languages ​​that are not compatible with each other, will not even pass the first run.

  47. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    What is the structure of the atom according to your theory?
    Does the uncertainty principle exist with you or is it being replaced and how?

  48. Oh, my dear friend Roy Cezana

    Yehuda Sabdarmish does not claim that the laws of physics elsewhere in the universe are different from ours, no no.
    Yehuda claims that the laws for small distances should not be accepted as if they were the same laws for large distances. Likewise laws regarding gravitation of very large or very dense masses. It is impossible to take existing laws at the minimum and throw them with absolute confidence at the maximum.

    Therefore, if I show a different set of rules that is correct for both short and long term and as a result several cosmological problems are solved, then it is worth referring to this set of rules even if internal contradictions are discovered in it that require a solution.
    It should be remembered that some of those "internal contradictions" are not such because they arise from the laws of the paradigm that they are trying to abolish.
    You're Roy, you wouldn't throw away innovative software just because while developing it, bugs are discovered that require a solution.

    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  49. for life
    Not exactly.
    It is almost certain that many academic institutions would refrain from taking me just as the scientist admits that he would not publish things that do not meet the consensus. Examples?, please:-.
    There is an example of that poor researcher who studied the connection between the moon and earthquakes, but since his predictions were not accurate and many times he warned and nothing happened, he was warned not to warn anymore and in the end he lost his job. But did he really deserve it, wouldn't it seem to you that the moon and the sun cause tides both in the trend inside the earth and on the tectonic layers, raising and lowering them until at a certain point they move? It seems to me that this is completely logical and it is a shame that only astrologers of various kinds will deal with this important issue.
    It is precisely a person outside the system who can think and dare without fear!, remember that patent officer in Switzerland?, there should have been a newspaper in SA, which, in addition, would dare to publish Einstein's words, and a small scientific newspaper did so. The scientist would not have done it.
    The scientific academy will be willing to invest billions, only if it stands at the forefront of the known paradigm. They will build an accelerator in the axis with an investment of billions to search for the dark mass particles, but they will not invest even a fraction of the amount to conduct experiments that will invalidate this opinion.
    I think about how bitter those two scientists were when they discovered in their calculations that the universe is accelerating. No matter how many waves of laughter they provoked, their academic progress was almost certainly damaged during those fifteen years they tried to convince their friends.
    Those many sailors who for decades encountered huge waves tens of meters high preferred to sit quietly just so that they would not be accused of drunkenness. Today we know that they exist even in calm seas.
    Have you had the chance to talk to a pilot who encountered clouds but preferred to sit quietly? There are such people!
    So if I was in the academy I probably wouldn't have been in the academy already.
    To come and ask me for academic certificates of the paradigm I'm trying to shatter is stupid.
    I'm not going to get a degree on dark mass just to be unemployed in my attempts to smash it.
    I'll just end on a conciliatory note that I understand the problem of websites like the science, which are flooded with articles that don't meet the consensus and have to decide who to kill and who to revive.
    Your decision to kill everything outside of the legitimate consensus, but shows no courage.
    I extended a bit and I apologize
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  50. Haim and the little brother,

    Yehuda's scientific education has nothing to do with the matter, as well as the sponsorship given to him by this or that prestigious university. Einstein was also outside the academic establishment when he conceived the theory of relativity.

    Yehuda bases his theory on physical principles that contradict the principles we know today. To reconcile this, he claims that in other parts of the universe other laws exist. This is not an impossible proposition (and it is certainly possible that we will find out that it is indeed so), but in this case there is no reason to take his theory any more seriously than other unproven theories. At some point we may discover that in other places in the universe there exist laws of physics that are completely different from what we know today, but even then I do not believe that they will support Judah's theory, because it contains internal contradictions even within the laws of physics that it demands of itself.

    In short, at the moment we are left with the theories that require a minimum of change in the knowledge we have. Every bit of knowledge revealed in physical research is used to formulate new theories. Alternatively, some physical studies rely on new theories that the researcher wants to prove, through the discovery of new laws or new physical knowledge.
    If some physics researcher wants to pick up Yehuda's glove and start investigating the subject in depth, that's fine. But as I have already said, since the theory not only requires a complete change of the laws of conservation of energy and mass as they are known to us, but also requires that sometimes the laws will work and sometimes they will not work... I do not believe that anyone from the physics departments in the world will agree to try to prove such a theory.

    Still, good luck.

  51. Hello to the little brother!
    If Judah had the scientific education of Planck and if he would have engaged in theoretical research under the auspices of some prestigious university. Presumably they would have accepted him too and maybe he would also have received a Nobel Prize, who knows.
    But since the situation is not like this there is no reason in the world to take his ideas too seriously.

  52. The ending is really amazing, and shows how much people cling to their paradigms:-

    "A new scientific truth does not win by convincing those who oppose it...but because those who oppose it eventually die and a new generation grows up that accepts it as a matter of course."

    this is so true!. Where are all those who think that if we just find an error in a certain theory then we will immediately abandon it?, theories are like living creatures even if their environment changes completely and they no longer fit it, they will continue to fight for their existence. Just like those dinosaurs who fought for their lives after the asteroid.

    Good night indeed
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  53. My little brother

    You said well about the light, sometimes a wave, sometimes a particle. If you are really interested in the subject, I would recommend Richard Feynman's story "Light and Matter", published in Israel in 1988, published by the United Kibbutz. There you will see that the light in general behaves in a crazy way.
    Among the crazy things that Richard Feynman wrote there, for example, light is only particles, the particles behave like little clocks, light moves in any direction and at any speed. but…. He manages to explain a lot of crazy things about the behavior of light while shattering a lot of conventions about its movement.
    An interesting book. I saw that there are also discussions on the internet about the book, I will try to take a look there.
    It is certain that Avi Blizovsky would never have published the same book if Sabdarmish had written it.

    In any case, it's nice to see that there is someone who is worried about my fate in my difficult times
    Good night, and with a smile
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  54. There is a dilemma that is not clear to me (the truth is that there are several, but I will start from this). It is commonly said that a scientific theory can be disproved by one experiment that contradicts the theory. And on the other hand (hence, for the sake of brevity I will use the concepts of 'understanding of interest' and forgiveness with the rest). Well... on the other hand, the quantum theory gives light the properties of a particle, the 'interference' experiment comes and proves that light has the properties of a wave. From this, some kind of political compromise appeared to her called the 'duality of light' - Ashkara washes words.

    And my question is: Why was Plank given up and Yehuda impaled?

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.

Science website logo
Search