SRT , GRT and " Minkowski space ".
=================
SRT doesn't have a gravity field. If there is no gravity
field , the space will be flat ( Pseudo- Euclid's space),
but usually this space is called "Minkowski space "
(negative 4-D united space/time continuum).
======.
Is the " Minkowski space "abstract continuum, as everybody says?
I think this space is a real one.
I think this space is Vacuum.
Why?
1. " Minkowski space "has no gravity field, but negative parameter.
2. Only Vacuum space has negative parameter : T= - 273.
3. And this negative parameter is united with space/ time ,
which are joined together absolutely .
4. And the second SRT postulate tells about moving
light quanta in Vacuum.
5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
============
P.S.
a) SRT is a right theory .
But " Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
b) Our planet Earth is home for us.
We live and act in this planet.
And " Minkowski space " is home for SRT.
All SRT particles live and act in this
" 4-D negative continuum - Minkowski space " .
But nobody knows what " Minkowski space " is.
c) These two ideas are mixed together and therefore
the interpretation of physics is paradoxical.
========= ===========
SRT has only one space - "Minkowski space ".
But in 1915 Einstein put a " MASS " in the
"Minkowski space " and it curved.
In 1921 A. Freedman put " TIME " in the
"Minkowski space " and it also curved.
And Einstein had to agree with Freedman's idea.
What is the reason of "Minkowski space " change?
==============..
The SRT is a real theory.
The bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved it.
But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
There isn't any proof of its existence.
And if we mix these two theories then we are
surprised with its paradox.
What does the man usually do in such situation?
It is clear, he must understand
what " 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.
But somebody can say: " You are wrong,
4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space."
Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose
that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space
in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.
Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.
In another words, if we don't know what " 4-D Minkowski
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
The proof of SRT isn't over yet. We must give a real
interpretation to " 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that
a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.
====== =========
P.S.
Sorry.
I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".
So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"
…………..or to " the God "......................
Then ...............
The atheist will say : " There isn't any God. There is only
big band which destroyed all "D- spaces" and therefore
we see background radiation T=2,7K now."
And religious man will say: " The God exists.
He sits at his " D- home" and plays with all things.
For example.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
I don't know who is right.
But I came to conclusion:
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
I will never gather my harvest . Because if I plant ,
for example, an electron I will get ……a positron, ….
…..quark,…baryon,…boson,…..meson,…muon,…..tau,....
.....D- spaces …. and in the future centaurs and sphinxes."
=====================
If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
beginning of his calculations then after some
operations it grows into a big one.
And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
then now we are surprised with its paradoxes………
……and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
but the result will be the same - paradoxical.

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

quote:

Only Vacuum space has negative parameter : T= - 273.

Vacuum has no special temperature - it is the same temperature as the nearby matter-filled space due to electromagnetic energy exchange. A vacuum can actually be quite hot.

But leaving that aside, the negative temperature is just a feature of the scale, and attaching cosmic significance to it is laughable (really, I laughed). Take the -273 (degrees Celsius) temperature you've chosen for your particular vacuum - it's zero Kelvin (it's also zero degrees Rankine).

" 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. "
/H. Minkowski./

" Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things,
you just get used to them."
John von Neumann .
========
The teachers taught me, that " I must just learn
what others have spent their lives researching.
Knowledge is based on the knowledge of our ancestors.
You don't need to demand proof for these theories;
just trust them and learn it. "
?????????????
You should just learn what others have spent their lives researching.
Knowledge is based on the knowledge of our ancestors.
You don't need to demand proof for these theories;
just trust them and learn it.
??????
=========

Just because someone with obsessive-compulsive disorder spent a lifetime busting his brain trying to integrate certain statements -- themselves cultural icons and untestable -- is no reason why we should believe his conclusions.

Nor ought we to carry over one insight or metaphor from one discipline to another.

No matter what jargon you borrow in which to clothe your beliefs, Sock, you are essentially doing what cavemen did -- adoring and reifying and deifying the mystery itself.

"Now there's a right broad." --Big Julie, in Guys and Dolls.

Babs, as usual, calls it as she sees it, and is willing to say what the more timid of us merely wish we said.

The tedious, logorrheic postings of socratus show that he reads about modern physics but lacks the grounding in basic science to integrate these ideas into a coherent picture of reality.

Socko, here's some friendly advice: Try to pick just one idea at a time to discuss, limiting your initial posting to a sentence or two. You're more likely to get useful answers from us, or at least links to relevant resources.

Read books by Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, and other world-class physicists who have a talent for explaining cutting-edge theory to laymen.