A strange question perhaps, but I thought I'd give it a shot.....
Adrian Powell
i.e is there a finite granularity to the movement of energy and matter ?.
Perhaps I'm not asking the correct question !
Thanks,
half_pint.
driving..
"Adrian Powell" <a...@cray.com> wrote in message
news:cg5799$ki6$1...@flapjack.cray.com...
Robert J. Kolker
Adrian Powell wrote:
You ask an important question. I suspect it has not be answered in a
complete and satisfactory way. The mathematics of physics assumes
compactness and continuity. As far as the mathematics is concerned there
is no minimal distance. As to the physics, I am not sure.
Bob Kolker
Greg Mortar
two answers, Scientific American had an article about this in FEB?? or
earlier
Hisenberg uncertainty theorem
gooogleit
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Uncertainty_principle
Uncle Al
Planck distance. Look it up.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Sam Wormley
These have bearing on you question. The first deals with granularity
and the second, limits on measuring position, and therefore, distance.
Planck Length
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckLength.html
Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Adrian Powell wrote:
>>
>> What is the smallest distance that a particle can be moved ?.
>> i.e is there a finite granularity to the movement of energy and matter ?.
>> Perhaps I'm not asking the correct question !
>
>Planck distance.
Based on?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Dr. Jai Maharaj
There's more information about Alan Schwartz
in the public archives at:
[ Subject: Profile: Schwartz, Alan
[ From: serialki...@hotmail.com
[ Newsgroups: sci.physics
[ Date: 21 Mar 2004 13:34:46 -0800
[ Message-ID: <b31a8173.04032...@posting.google.com>
[ NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.11.26.150
[ X-Trace: posting.google.com 1079904887 30505 127.0.0.1
[ (21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 GMT)
[ NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
[
[
[ Name: Schwartz, Alan
[ Country: USA
[ Residential Address: SANTA ANA, CA 92705
[ Map: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&countryid=250&addtohistory=&address=&city=SANTA+ANA&state=CA&zipcode=92705&submit=Get+Map
[ Postal Address:
[ Alan Schwartz
[ 49 Fabriano
[ P.O. Box 005
[ Irvine, CA 92620-2525
[ E-mail(s): uncl...@ix.netcom.com, Uncl...@ix.netcom.com
[ Tel: 714-771-2526 (+1 714 771 2526 for international callers)
[ Spouse: Jackie Schwartz
[ Spouse Occupation: Para-legal
[ Spouse workplace: <pending disclosure>
[
[ ISP: http://www.earthlink.net
[ Email: http://support.earthlink.net/support/MYACCT/forms/csform.jsp
End of forwarded message from
Or,
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b31a8173.0403211334.25f9abc5%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
In article <43d9f575.04081...@posting.google.com>,
eagleso...@yahoo.com posted:
> > EXPOSED - Lying scum and stalker 'Uncle Al' aka "Alan Schwartz"
> <uncl...@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > How to handle stalkers and
> > 'Uncle Al' aka "Alan Schwartz" <uncl...@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > [ Subject: How to handle stalkers and Uncle Al
> > [ From: Archimedes Plutonium <plut...@willinet.net>
> > [ Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.archaeology
> > [ Message-ID: <3A6128B1...@willinet.net>
> > [ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
> > [
> > [
> > [ Ryan Doherty wrote:
> > [
> > [ > Uncle Al (24.16.181.181),
> > [ >
> > [ > I am consider this message of yours SPAM, so please
> > [ > keep your childish postings to yourself!
> > [ > By the way, Grow up.. you are wasting more bandwidth
> > [ > with your repeated responces that Archimedes and his
> > [ > questions!
> > [ >
> > [ > Ryan
> > [
> > [ > Ryan, you are talking to a fence post when you talk to
> > [ > Uncle Al. He and his motley crew of cohorts have stalked
> > [ > me for years. In fact they have stalked me nonstop for 7
> > [ > years now.
> > [ >
> > [ > Uncle Al feels he is a police cop of sci.chem and
> > [ > sci.physics and wants to chase out any poster he does not
> > [ > like. Many chemistry professors have put Al Schwartz into
> > [ > their killfile. That is about the only real solution.
> > [ >
> > [ > Some say Al Schwartz is a failed chemistry professor of
> > [ > 80s in age living in Tallahassee Florida or Denton Texas.
> > [ > He is old, cranky with nothing to do but post to the
> > [ > Internet. He feels a righteous duty to stalk me. No
> > [ > matter if I post pure chemistry to sci. chem or pure
> > [ > physics to sci.physics, Uncle Al feels that none of my
> > [ > posts belongs to those newsgroups.
> > [ >
> > [ > He has set himself up as a self righteous self imposed
> > [ > police cop of sci.chem.
> > [ >
> > [ > Many other people have complained about Uncle Al in sci.
> > [ > chem.
> > [ >
> > [ > SOLUTION: the only solution that I can see is to killfile
> > [ > Uncle Al and all Al supporters. And to add sci.chem and
> > [ > sci.physics to all of your posts to the Internet. Let
> > [ > Uncle Al stalk you everywhere, not just sci. chem or sci
> > [ > physics. Make it so that everyday Uncle Al wakes up, his
> > [ > chores and work are to stalk people on the Internet. Make
> > [ > it such that the essence of life for Uncle Al will now be
> > [ > to stalk 1 or 3 or 20 or 117 people every day.
> > [ >
> > [ > So, I am asking of all those people on the Internet who
> > [ > have been attacked by Uncle Al, to give Uncle Al what he
> > [ > craves. Add sci.chem and sci.physics to all of your
> > [ > Internet posts. And killfile Uncle Al.
> > [ >
> > [ > Uncle Al is already a crackpot and is insane, but drive
> > [ > him wildly insane.
> > [ >
> > [ > Force him to waste minutes and hours every day of his
> > [ > life stalking you.
> > [ >
> > [ > And you just sit back and laugh at how the idiot Uncle Al
> > [ > is making himself a monkey idiot.
> > [ >
> > [ > Last year someone emailed me saying that sci.chem was
> > [ > back to normal and that Uncle Al had been put under
> > [ > sedation and it was safe to post to sci.chem again.
> > [ > Sci.chem was flooded by outsiders because Uncle Al had
> > [ > pissed them off.
> > [ >
> > [ > Well, that is not the way to handle the self imposed
> > [ > sci.chem police dog of Uncle Al. The way to handle Uncle
> > [ > Al and other stalkers like him is to "killfile them" and
> > [ > then force them to stalk you all over the Internet. Let
> > [ > everyone see what a fool he is, not just sci.chem folk.
> > [ >
> > [ > I wish that someone is archiving all of the Uncle Al
> > [ > stalks of Archimedes Plutonium. I have him killfiled and
> > [ > so I have zero. But I would imagine that Uncle Al has
> > [ > about 500 posts per year of attacks.
> > [ >
> > [ > So, I ask everyone who knows Uncle Al, to add sci. chem
> > [ > to their Internet posts and to killfile Uncle Al. Let the
> > [ > fool make himself a larger fool.
> > [ >
> > [ > And it takes little energy for me or for you to add
> > [ > "sci.chem" but think of how much energy and how much rage
> > [ > it gives Uncle Al. Why, I just burst out into laughter at
> > [ > all the energy spent by Uncle Al in stalking this and
> > [ > other posts of mine. Uncle Al is too stupid to realize he
> > [ > has been defeated and that the world laughs at his cop
> > [ > enforcement. That method (if they have a newsgroup
> > [ > hangout) will deal with all stalkers of the Internet, not
> > [ > just Uncle Al.
> > End of copy
> >
> >
> >
> > [ Subject: Re: How to handle stalker Alan 'Uncle Al' Schwartz
> > [ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004
> >
> > In article <ZcednUDSG4Z...@comcast.com>,
> > Bill Vajk <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> posted:
> >
> > > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> > > news:<Stalker-Uncle-A...@news.mantra.com>...
> > >
> > >>> In article <404D34BE...@hate.spam.net>,
> > >>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> posted:
> > >>>>[... reference to lies and defamation...]
> > >>>How to handle stalkers and "Uncle Al"
> > >> - snip -
> > >> Thanks, Jai, looks like this fellow was not worth my attention. It is
> > >> depressing to think, that those in power in the field of modern
> > >> physics are what chaps like these want to be.
> > >
> > > Al is a chemist wannabe physicist.
> >
> > Alan Schwartz has published his contact information:
> >
> > Alan Schwartz
> > 49 Fabriano
> > P.O. Box 005
> > Irvine, CA 92620-2525
> >
> >
> > http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Nu16TComWkEJ:www.mazepath.com/uncleal/advert.htm+%22Schwartz%22+%22Uncle+Al%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> >
> > and e-mail addresses:
> >
> > "Alan Schwartz" <uncl...@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > "Alan Schwartz" <Uncl...@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > - - - - -
> Thanks for the warning about the modern sceintist who defends
> science all the time. Uncle Al is ignored. He is the
> flip side of the open thinking philosopher scinetist.
>
> Meaning he requires litterally a falsified predicate thinking.
Robert J. Kolker
Uncle Al wrote:
>
> Planck distance. Look it up.
Has it been experimentally established that Planck distance is the least
possible distance?
Bob Kolker
FrediFizzx
news:GKsVc.287244$a24.188287@attbi_s03...
No it hasn't and you know that. We are about 13-some orders of magnitude
away from that to be able to tell. IMHO, small distances depend on energy
level starting at around hbar/m_e*c. There is a natural free space boundary
condition.
FrediFizzx
Uncle Al
If teh limit were a smaller distance, what would it mean? If the
limit were a larger distance, what limits it?
Robert J. Kolker
FrediFizzx wrote:
>
> No it hasn't and you know that. We are about 13-some orders of magnitude
> away from that to be able to tell. IMHO, small distances depend on energy
> level starting at around hbar/m_e*c. There is a natural free space boundary
> condition.
O.K. let me change the question a bit. Could we -in principle- establish
that Planck Length is the shortest possible length.
I am bothered by assertions that cannot be tested, at least in principle.
Bob Kolker
Dr. Jai Maharaj
FrediFizzx
|
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| >
| > No it hasn't and you know that. We are about 13-some orders of
magnitude
| > away from that to be able to tell. IMHO, small distances depend on
energy
| > level starting at around hbar/m_e*c. There is a natural free space
boundary
| > condition.
|
| O.K. let me change the question a bit. Could we -in principle- establish
| that Planck Length is the shortest possible length.
Only if you (or anyone) believes that c, hbar, and G is all there is to the
Universe. We also have those nagging coupling "constants" which G is really
one of them. What happens if there is a fourth unknown limit and G is a
result of hbar, c and the fourth unknown limit?
FrediFizzx
Lucius the avenger
I don't think such a question can be answered. Although if there
was granularity, then stringtheory would be DOA.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>
>FrediFizzx wrote:
>
>>
>> No it hasn't and you know that. We are about 13-some orders of magnitude
>> away from that to be able to tell. IMHO, small distances depend on energy
>> level starting at around hbar/m_e*c. There is a natural free space boundary
>> condition.
>
>O.K. let me change the question a bit. Could we -in principle- establish
>that Planck Length is the shortest possible length.
>
for such assertion.
Igor
The Planck length. Maybe.
Harry Conover
Bob, that's a bit of an over-generalization, and incorrect at that.
Taking you last claim first, obviously the physics of today does not
assume continuity, otherwise you would not have quantum jumps, quantum
tunneling, and whatever.
Now addressing your first point, no physics makes no assumptions about
'compactness' exist except for the fact that the analytical technique
frequently employed in classical mechanics treats an object as being a
distributed system of point masses to allow a workably mathematical
solution to be derived. Without this technique, you would be hard
pressed to analyze and predict the behavior of a rigid mass structure
in three-dimensions, much less to predict the behavior of a gyroscope
(stability, nutation, precession, etc.).
I would agree with you that in physics there are no generally
stipulated minimal distances, hence the limits to the definite
integral employed are frequently from x=0 to x= whatever. Still, there
are probably special cases, but you would have to identify the
specific situation to name one.
Harry C.
Harry Conover
Damn, I really slughtered english grammar in my last post (reading it
after it was already posted), but still the concepts expressed stand
on their own merits.
Harry C.
Robert J. Kolker
Harry Conover wrote:
> Bob, that's a bit of an over-generalization, and incorrect at that.
> Taking you last claim first, obviously the physics of today does not
> assume continuity, otherwise you would not have quantum jumps, quantum
> tunneling, and whatever.
Both Hilbert spaces and semi-Reimanian manifolds are locally compact
topological spaces. No shortest distances.
Bob Kolker
hanson
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2onaamF...@uni-berlin.de...
>>> Adrian Powell wrote:
>> >>What is the smallest distance that a particle can be moved ?.
>> >>i.e is there a finite granularity to the movement of energy
| Uncle Al wrote:
| > Planck distance. Look it up.
| >
> | > No it hasn't and you know that. We are about 13-some
> | > orders of magnitude away from that to be able to tell.
> | >IMHO, small distances depend on energy
> | > level starting at around hbar/m_e*c.
> | >There is a natural free space boundary condition.
> |
> "Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VMtVc.45063$mD.36294@attbi_s02...
> | O.K. let me change the question a bit.
> |Could we -in principle- establish that
> |Planck Length is the shortest possible length.
>
> Only if you (or anyone) believes that c, hbar, and G is all there is
> to the Universe. We also have those nagging coupling "constants"
> which G is really one of them. What happens if there is a fourth
> FrediFizzx
>
[hanson]
== If AP's particle happens to be of macroscopic/bigger than
atom size then one has to specify what the surface is and where
said surface begins/ends, because the "smallest" distance lays
certainly within the fog of the surface thickness.
== If AP's particle happens to be a stable atomic piece of matter
like the electron then Freddy's length, l_F, may apply
::: *** l_F = hbar/(m_e*c) = 3.86E-11 cm ***, which when
multiplied with the Finestructure constant [a] , since we describe here
an event that take place in EM environs, produces nothing less then
the classical radius, r_e, of the electron, m_e, itself.
::: *** r_e = hbar*a /(m_e*c) = 2.82E-13 cm ***, or which when
divided the Finestructure constant [a] , we get
::: *** r_H = hbar/(m_e*a*c) = 5.29E-9 cm ***, a length which
can be expressed now for the first time as an experimentally verifiable
measurement as/of the Lyman series limit wave length of
::: *** l_L= 4*pi*r_H/a = 1/Roo = 9.11E-06 cm ***
Now, comparing Freddy's EM unit length of
::: *** l_F = hbar/(m_e*c) = 3.86E-11 cm ***,
to unit lengths in the realm where gravitational effects do prevail we
get to the Planck Length unit, constructed/proposed in 1899, which says
::: *** l_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^3) = 1.62E-33 cm ***
But, that is by far not the smallest conceivable unit length we can
construct, imagine or conjure up.
Consider the Kerr event horizon for the mass of the electron, which
gives you a length that you can use as another "smallest" unit with
::: *** l_e = m_e*G/c^2 = 6.76E-56 cm ***, .... then for good
EM measure throw in the Finestructure constant (a), pi and sqrt(3) in,
to give it some flavor and flair and you get:
::: *** l_a = m_e*G*pi*a*sqrt(3)/c^2 = 2.68-57 cm ***
which gives you a new unit length, l_a, that beats the ass of the
Planck length l_pl, by some than 6E+23 magnitudes. (see N_A below)
A few years back I made a post on this subject of max/min length
units and showed that one can drive this game to any desired size
up or down. BUT, whether these unit lengths constructs do have any
REAL physical significance is, at present, in the eye and mind of the
beholder.
To the OP Powells's issue whether there is a "finite granularity"
MLT, the question is still wide question. We know from daily
experience that nature is discrete and ordered (Chaos organizes
spontaneously .... otherwise you wouldn't exist...ahahahaha....)
and that gross matter consists of atoms one gigantic divisional
step downward, atoms being N_A, 6E-23, times smaller then one
mole of its ponderable matter. Similarly, heavily bodies can be seen
and classified the same way, N_A, 6E-23 times larger, 1 mole up
the ladder.
This N_A, Avogadro's Number, phenomenon is manifest in the above
equation of
::: *** l_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^3) = 1.62E-33 cm ***
as the following, which can be written as
::: *** l_pl = r_H * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)^(-1) ***
suggesting that 1 mole amount (N_A) of Planck length units (l_pl) is
nothing more than the measurable Bohr radius of the Hydrogen
atom. So, a bottle of Hydrogen gas obeying the smooth PV= RT law,
shows granularity one N_A step further down in it's luminous emissions
and then again another N_A step further down it is manifests again
as a granular event, N_A times smaller, at the Plank unit level...
........ahahahaha........AHAHAHAHA......... here are the other N_A
connections, for the stuffy morons who believe and think that
the N_A-mole thing only describes a specific amount of mass of
C12 carbon.......ahahaha...........
::: *** tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit
::: *** r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius
::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass
::: *** r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius
......and then "naturally" the next N_A step further down into
::: *** l_a = m_e*G*pi*a*sqrt(3)/c^2 = 2.68-57 cm ***
where 1 mole of l_a length units produces 1 miserly Plancklength...
ahahahaha.......AHAHAHAHAHaha....ahahahanson
Old Man
Space isn't known to be quantized. However, In order
to move a particle a distance, delta_x, one might supply
an impulse, delta_p = m (delta_v). Then, each momentum
state occupies an area, "h" (Planck's constant), in phase
space, such that
(delta_x) (delta_p) = h
[OLD man]
Dr. Jai Maharaj
jmfb...@aol.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Yay!
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Uncle Al
Monkey with a keyboard Jay Stevens
No brains, no balls, no knowledge. Send complaints plus attach
abusive posts to his ISP.
http://www.geocities.com/drjosemariachi/jay_faq.html
Troll FAQ for Jai Maharaj (Hindi for "cracked athletic cup")
His real name is "Jay Stevens" and he runs a front called
"Mantra Corporation."
http://www.cyclingforums.com/archive/index.php/t-55527.html
http://www.lart.com/auk/whiners.html
Kook of the Month for June 1995
news:alt.flame.jay-stevens
http://mathquest.com/discuss/sci.math/a/m/387192/387198
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/minifaqs/jai.maharaj.miniFAQ
Sam Wormley
Amanda
attention, I suggest that you go running around on the street during
busy traffic and you will get immediate attention, at least from the
police. You migth even become popular locally (via a local newspaper).
FrediFizzx
news:TgyVc.8274$3O3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yeah... Some good stuff here, hanson. The concept of length gets very funny
at the quantum level. We can take the expression for Planck mass and show
it this way as a coupling "constant"; G*mass^2/hbar*c = dimensionless
number. Planck mass makes this number equal to one. So what? What this is
really showing us is that there might be a very small mass quantum of less
than 3 eV/c^2. A fourth limit to the Universe? G times the mass quantum
squared is part of the coupling constant for gravity.
FrediFizzx
Edward Green
> In article <41264B32...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> writes:
> >Adrian Powell wrote:
> >>
> >> What is the smallest distance that a particle can be moved ?.
> >> i.e is there a finite granularity to the movement of energy and matter ?.
> >> Perhaps I'm not asking the correct question !
> >
> >Planck distance.
>
> Based on?
(1) The Planck distance (length?) is a cool-sounding buzz word.
(2) It is very small.
Surely you see the logical necessity now!? ;-)
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Right on:-)
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Mohammed Farooq
> PROFILE OF ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ aka 'Uncle Al' <uncl...@ix.netcom.com>
>
> There's more information about Alan Schwartz
> in the public archives at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5qjmw
Do you think anybody would be interested in Alan Schwartz home address
or his personal details? It would better to put a bill-board
displaying those details in front of your house or file an appeal
against him in the court, do whatever you want except posting crap in
sci.chem. Thankfully this newsgroups is returning to its normal mode.
Lydia Marie
> Whoever you are Maharaj, if you are so bored and need desperate
> attention, I suggest that you go running around on the street during
> busy traffic and you will get immediate attention, at least from the
> police.
alt.fan.jai-maharaj is already a newsgroup.
Jay Stevens (Jai Mirage, Jai Maharaj) is one of the founding officers
(the other being Joan Miller) of Mantra Corporation, which was
incorporated in Hawaii on November 30, 1990 issued a 1000 shares.
It's an astrology scam masquerading as a business consulting and
marketing outfit, and they are the only 2 shareholders.
His business phone (last time checked) was (808) 948-4357; and
his residence (also, last time checked) was in Honolulu, area
code 96817, at 51 Coelho Way, phone (808) 595-3947 and -4913.
But things change and this may be out of date.
He's caused disruption in various newsgroups on the USENET after
getting on the Internet in the early 1990's; out of the confines of
BBS world where he likewise created a disruption.
> You migth even become popular locally (via a local newspaper).
Amongst some of the writings, besides threats of mass murder against
Indian Christians, Muslims and other minorities, are writings trying
to rile up separatist sentiment in Hawaii.
After the changes in 2001, there's no doubt the Homeland Security
Department is keeping a closer watch over him. There's always the
possibility that he could end up getting swept in the undertow of
"enemy combatant" designation if anything he says ends up proving
to be more than mere words; particularly the separatist leanings.
Notwithstanding the recent Supreme Court rulings, in fact the US
Constitution, in the second part of the second paragraph of Section
9 of Article I calls for the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus
in situations that would apply there.
Uncle Al
Thank you.
hanson
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:TgyVc.8274$3O3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Re: A strange question perhaps, but I thought I'd give it a shot.....
i.e is there a finite granularity to the movement of energy
and matter ? Perhaps I'm not asking the correct question
>
Uncle Al wrote:
Planck distance. Look it up.
>
FrediFizzx wrote:
No it hasn't and you know that. We are about 13-some
orders of magnitude away from that to be able to tell.
IMHO, small distances depend on energy
level starting at around hbar/m_e*c.
There is a natural free space boundary condition.
>
O.K. let me change the question a bit.
Could we -in principle- establish that
Planck Length is the shortest possible length.
>
FrediFizzx wrote:
Only if you (or anyone) believes that c, hbar, and G is all there is
to the Universe. We also have those nagging coupling "constants"
which G is really one of them. What happens if there is a fourth
unknown limit and G is a result of hbar, c and the 4th unknown limit?
>
::: *** l_a = m_e*G*pi*a*sqrt(3)/c^2 = 2.68-57 cm ***, where
1 mole of l_a length units = 1 miserly Planck length...
............ahahahahaha.........ahahahahanson
>
[Fredi]
Yeah... Some good stuff here, hanson.
The concept of length gets very funny at the quantum level.
>
[hanson]
Right, just as the concept of length does get funny at high speeds.
SR, GR etc. It also show us that this "funny" behavior is applicable
to mass and time too. --- This off the linearity or proportionality
behavior may however simply indicate that our observer based
story telling aka our current theories are domain limited in their
applicability and true capability. --- In this connection it is wise to
remember that NO theory is/was ever required nor needed to design
& produce any hardware, be it Radar, TV, GPS, or nuclear bombs, etc.
Hardware production goes grandfather style, experimenting and
building on preexisting proven designs solely per ("try/do/check/test")x
until you have a saleable item. After the item/instrument is built and
ready for Sale (to pay for it and make a buck off it) the Sales-department
makes a big song and dance about it with theories galore to sell their
newfangled machines. ---- It is then that band-wagon of pathetic physics
fanatics and (ex)school teachers do tell their live audiences & in NGs here
that theory was essential for the development.........ahahahhahaha....
But let'em sing....all of'em....it's a beautiful choir.........ahahahaha..
[Fredi]
We can take the expression for Planck mass and show
it this way as a coupling "constant";
G*mass^2/hbar*c = dimensionless number.
Planck mass makes this number equal to one. So what?
What this is really showing us is that there might be a very
small mass quantum of less than 3 eV/c^2.
>
[hanson]
Right, at the =< 3 eV/c^2 mass level you have entered the
aetheral/ethereal/aetheric......ahahaha........world of the elusive
realm where the various, currently "ghoslty", particle masses
of neutrinos, photons, gravitons, and others are hotly debated
subjects of such objects.
>
[Fredi]
A fourth limit to the Universe? G times the mass quantum
squared is part of the coupling constant for gravity.
>
[hanson]
By which you mean what? Some k_F = G*m_pl^2 construct of yours?.....
with m_pl = l_pl*c^2/G wherein m_pl/l_pl = c^2/G is the Kerr converter
that links/turns mass expressions into length & visa versa.......therefore
::: *** G = l_pl^2 *c^3/hbar or, and using also e^2= a*hbar we write
::: *** G = a^(-1)*(e/m_pl)^2 or
::: *** G * N_A^2 = [1/3] * [ hbar * c] / [pi* a* m_e]^2 = const = k_F
or equivalently:
::: *** G * N_A^2 = [2/(3pi)] * [c^3] * [r_H^2 / h] = const = k_F
::: *** G * N_A^2 = f(tau, etc) = f(Lyman freq, etc) = const = K_F
or which of many other such ways ?? ....ahahaha....it's all the same, dude,
just looked at and expressed differently from different povs...ahahaha.......
There is another much simpler & clearer way to look at the grand show.
SELF SIMILARITY: an atom looks similar to a solar system, a solar system
looks similar to a galaxy, each one being ~some N_A magnitudes larger
then the preceding smaller one. Connect these self-similar domains with
the standard coupling constant, N_A, known since the late 1800's, (on which
Einstein worked and Perrin was awarded the 1926 Nobel price), like in the
::: *** universal gas constant, R(gas) = k*N_A
linking the description of gas behavior in the atomic & gross world, or
::: *** Faraday = e*N_A
linking macroscopic currents in a wire to the electron behavior, or
::: *** Hubble, H = (1/2) * ((a^2)/2)^2 * f_L / N_A,
linking the cosmic domain with the atomic domain behavior....ahahahaha...
this one now, with a bit of rewriting, turns into a rather exquisite form to
be loved and embraced by the haters of N_A, for it is also and equally
::: *** Hubble, H = (3/2) * pi *c * l_pl^2 / (2*r_e)^3
linking 3 domains: Planks, QM's and the cosmic realms, where
f_L = Lyman series limit frequency, k = Boltzman, e= e-charge,
r_e the classical electron radius.
See, dude, very many ways to skin the cat....ahahaha....AHAHAHAHA....
It's all just theorizing, = fucking story telling about nature...that's all!....
Well, I can't swear about the fucking, but it's somewhere in there too...
and they knew all this stuff above and its equations presented since
around the turn of the 2nd last century, Planck stuff since 1899....
BUT then enter Einstein and the "Juden physics" ....ahahahaha...
with its immense propaganda machine......and we are still stuck in the
coul de sac of relativity with no apparent way out......ahahahaha.....
Read the hilarious, tormented twists and turns they take in their blurbs
in xxx.lanl.gov, arXiv.org/, spr, etc, them trying to escape out of their
rel-sac they maneuvered themselves into, by making grand math
assumptions, .... only to apply & use at ever turn and corner in their
"ground-breaking" works the simplest of the good, old fashioned
NEWTONIAN tools and his definitions.......ahahahahaha.......which is
why their physics comedies made the eminent Professor Carver A. Mead
of Caltech assess the situation with:
"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century
will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics." ..... or an
even more damming view was expressed in the sentiments of F.A Hayek,
a Nobel Price winner:
"In the future, Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition,
essentially associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein !
AHAHAHAHAHA.........ahahahaha.....ahahanson
FrediFizzx
No, no, no. The opposite! G*m_q^2/hbar*c = the true gravitational coupling
"constant". Where m_q is a mass quantum > 3 eV/c^2. This puts length
starting to get "funny" at atomic scales ~ 10^-8 meters. Unification comes
from the bottom, not the top. A fourth undiscovered limit to the Universe
in addition to hbar, c and G.
I don't see it being all that bad. Soon light particles will flip back to
being a wave again--more like "wavicles". Everything is pointing in that
direction due to the discoveries of the last half of last century.
FrediFizzx
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2osnsvF...@uni-berlin.de...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:bx8Wc.10032$3O3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...
There was a fellow on NPR the other day, that published a paper in which he
claimed to have simultaneously detected both wave and particle features of
light...
URL:http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3804795
David A. Smith
FrediFizzx
message news:IAcWc.7873$L94.1855@fed1read07...
Here is the problem in a nutshell. IMHO, photons really are wavicles. The
problem is why doesn't a photon disperse? What keeps it together? No one
could figure this out initially so it had to be a particle with wave
properties. This is not so critical now-a-days as there are ways for a wave
to "hang together" ala phonon-like or soliton. The quantum vacuum has a
natural boundary condition that does the trick. Yes, you will be able to
detect both wave and particle features for light. There is no doubt in my
mind about that. However, all gauge bosons are not particles in the same
sense that fermions are particles. And fermions also have wave properties
but I would not call them a wavicle like I would a gauge boson. Gauge
bosons are simply the manifestation of *bound* vacuum fermionic charge due
to the real matter anomaly.
FrediFizzx
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ot8hbF...@uni-berlin.de...
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:IAcWc.7873$L94.1855@fed1read07...
...
The only features that photons express as waves are the ability to
self-interfere, and the "towards" and "away" from normal thing on
entering/leaving a region with restricted propagation velocity. All
particles do this, if they have some "extension" transverse to the line of
flight. So lack of dispersion simply says that photons are no different
than other "wavicles".
David A. Smith
deprofundis
Is there a gibberish translator in the house? I can't make head nor
nail of that uber-babble you flung onto the screen during your latest
spasmodic seizure. Dullard, do yourself and everyone else a favor:
disconnect your computer from the Internet.
You get even more ridiculous with every word that comes tumbling out
your over-used mouth. Are you always this ignorant, or are you making
a special effort today? If you knew what you're talking about, you'd
be dangerous. As Abba Eban so aptly said: "His ignorance is
encyclopedic."
You are a bore, and a very dull one at that. You are nastier than a
five-dollar whore getting a shit enema. You're a waste of time, space,
air, flesh, and the rectum you were born from, retard. Maybe you
wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you
weren't so stupid that even single-celled organisms out score you in
IQ tests; if your weren't so fat that the elephants throw you peanuts
at your local Zoo, or if you didn't have a face that people shove in
dough to make monster cookies. No, come to think of it, you would.
In conclusion, as your clue meter is reading zero, lets see if this
registers: Get lost, creep!
mhop...@cc.edu (Lydia Marie) wrote in message news:<825b6629.04082...@posting.google.com>...
Repeating Rifle
dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com wrote on 8/23/04 6:50 AM:
> The only features that photons express as waves are the ability to
> self-interfere, and the "towards" and "away" from normal thing on
> entering/leaving a region with restricted propagation velocity. All
> particles do this, if they have some "extension" transverse to the line of
> flight. So lack of dispersion simply says that photons are no different
> than other "wavicles".
In total internal reflection, fields extend into the "rare" (low index)
medium. Does that mean there are no photons there?
Bill
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Repeating Rifle" <salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BD4F7518.214A7%salm...@sbcglobal.net...
Think of it like this. Not all of *any* photon can be said to be anywhere
particularly until absorbed. So since any position is grey, then more so
is any path. If a single photon travels through all slits in a diffraction
grating, being "a little bit" in the rarefied space is no stretch.
And by "no photons" I am assuming you are referring to "none of the
internally reflected photons"...
David A. Smith
harmony
people.
from uncle al also i have learned some, one among them being that india
needs a lot of toilets.
"Lydia Marie" <mhop...@cc.edu> wrote in message
news:825b6629.04082...@posting.google.com...