header message




Attention! Exist translational errors



(When mathematicians imagine things…and interpreting mathematic relations)

Dark meanings in the Physics

 Some vague, obscure and allegoric expressions, that don't fall short of imagination from a philosophical terminology, from a research which should be more explicit than philosophy, if it should is called " scientific ". Successful formulation and simplification of meanings strengthen the reliability of knowledge and then we understand more easily.


thermodynamic arrow of time

dark energy

quantum opening up of tunnel

anthropic principle

expansion of space

dark energy density


gradient field

folded or wrapped dimensions

symmetrical forces

quantum foam

vacuum energy density

quantum field

Theory of Everything (with the Life ?)

relative probability

quantum gravity

parallel worlds or universes


shrinkage of strings in the infinity


fluctuation of void space

frozen time

supersymmetric theory

arrow of time, entropy

final theory

closed system

rupture of symmetry

Higgs field

weak nuclear force

soup of particles

curvature of space (or space-time)

absolute zero

quantum space

virtual particles

rest mass




Maybe the above expressions concern real phenomena, they emanate from mature theories and formulated with mathematics. I have learned to think and to be inspired with the vaguest expressions. I can understand with the help of imagination, more than what an other person attempts to say. I am not the unamiable person, who search one word in order to discredit entire an effort and faculty of somebody. On the contrary, I respect and appreciate each effort for research and creative thought, with the all errors that possibly have become. However, for this same reason, I cannot accept the bad faith and scorn to my own philosophical effort. In this case, I wish to become also provocative and find an occasion to dispute, also.

When we make research also in our effort to understand certain things, it is not something eliminable to we think more loosely, with imagination and some words that help us to we describe an unknown phenomenon with another known phenomenon. When however, we are presented itself with the severity of science and we demand to they hear us seriously, then it shows silliness we expressed  philosophically and we use known words in order to we describe new unknown and different phenomena or on the contrary, we devise new words in order to we describe a known phenomenon in a particular field, without we had understood it. Moreover it becomes also provocative for each creatively thinking person, we meet the same thoughts facsimiled in many books and in all media of briefing, with a cultivated impression that we will put knowledge in to our head. While what genuinely it happens is some they put money in their pockets and are advertized persons, magazines and electronic media.







The divergence of a number at 1/10 of the unit can cancel a theory that resulted from interpretation of numbers. Still, it has been proved, that we can cut and sew refuted theories with consequence of mathematics and with any observations they facilitate us. Over-estimate of experiment: We can observe experiments abundantly in nature and they are not every necessary or the shortest way we realize the experiments in laboratory. A big number of scientific discoveries became accidentally. This does not mean, that they could not results after a theoretical search or from a different priority and that scientific discoveries connected from each other accidentally or that each discovery would not lead theoretically to other. 

In a lot of cases, we do not use numbers and we did not need them. We distinguish and seek the truth in police and judicial affairs with the apposition, juxtaposition and correlation with the more elements we can. In the abundance of elements, often only one element is enough in order to betrays the truth. For example a theft, a deceit, a crime. Ask judges and police officers. Daily, we all are sure - uneducated people and scientists - and we achieve in big number of acts and cases with thoughts that they do not need mathematic calculations and without snobbish objective for proofs. Even the most flippant thoughts, crises and our forecasts often are confirmed and we did not make them accidentally. This facility we can know in a multitude of cases, with our frivolity, something would be supposed teaches: 1) those who they believe that have a privilege to knows more rightly than other people, 2) they are tarry at search and 3) those who express easily opinion about the human logic and what it can achieve. 







Suppose that we explain the Universe with combinations of a few fundamental substances and, that we have finished our explanation of the creation of matter and structure of the Universe. Would these explanations contain something inexplicable? What would be, which we would name " substances " and " forces " and which we would know well their possibilities ?


The simple thought that is summarized above, similarly has become from some philosophers, thinkers, even primeval humans from ancient years. We make the same thought and suppose that we achieve to interpret and describe the Universe, with mathematics and paranoid vocabulary, that used in the most modern cosmological theories. Beyond the usefulness of knowledge for technological aims, what we will have comprehended better than the theory of philosopher Spinoza said with few words, that the things are ways on the existence of the substance? The intelligent researcher, which thinks about the nature as a total perceives that a satisfactory interpretation, which will not need moreover an interpretation, it should describe how a multitude from different things are created and converted always maintaining a total (with constant relations and laws) and explains the particularities of things by simple and first phenomena. Not upside-down, he explains simple and known phenomena with unknown and seldom phenomena or with fantastic numerical relations, as many modern researchers try.


The expected impasse of modern cosmology has become perceptible from physicists and very easily, they devised the called " anthropic principle ". It is an interpretation comprehensible, realistic but by no means intelligent and persuasive. Philosophers observed the same expected impasse from ancient years and they dared to give much more intelligent interpretation, which they could not formulate with scientific consequence, proven, well comprehensible and without imagination, in their times and with their knowledge. From ancient years until our century a lot of philosophers thought a similar thought and they claimed, how a substance somehow " incorporates " attributes and characteristics of soul and not only mechanic and chemical attributes.

So, many philosophers formulated dark theories and they thought difficult arguments and crafty, about the concept that the substance which constitutes the objective world is, includes or outmatch some characteristics of soul. A few philosophers determined as substance the thinking, spirit, the god, " blind " will, conscience and the bishop Berkeley (1685-1753) claimed how does not exist exterior substance beyond the data of our senses.

We can easily ridicule these philosophical efforts, find innumerable inconsistencies and errors, observe big voids of knowledge and characterize philosophers as " mad ". However, they did not make the childish thought and they did not dare claim, that entire the world - in their times was perceptible by far smaller, than the world reveals astrophysics to us - was created in order to is presented at physicists and they research. It is an incredible stupid thought !






I intensely repeat the thought that the bigger contribution of Philosophy in human culture and for intellectual culture of a person has been achieved with the observation, that particular things are not so much good known, precisely determined and as they appear in our eyes and with our biases. The particular things that are considered good known, we know these less than as long as we believe also with a lot of fallacies. In (changeable and under conditions) existence of each thing all sciences “ are met ” and after a new knowledge, some new questions are results. And the experience is not always the one that we consider that “ we collected ” and we fall victims in fallacy and erroneous crisis… and it would be better if we ignore. In the big contribution of philosophy, apart from the wider intellectual culture that we achieve, we must evaluate particularly the role of philosophical thoughts in order to we exceed fast our most flippant and foolish opinions. If we take cognizance of thoughts that have been recorded skilful, carefully and with the all arguments in philosophy, we can gain time. We would not insist about foolish opinions or on the contrary, we could to say more in order to we strengthen our opinions, if we better knew their consequences, lacks, errors, impasses and the complexity of the questions.

Note this extract of Henri Bergson: “Could we never doubt for the absolute value of our knowledge, if the philosophy did not show us in what contradictions does trip our logic, in what impasses it leads? ”



You look at more :