Relativity and the Planck Quantities : What's Absolute and What's Relative?
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket
i.e. frame-independent (unlike SR's Lorentz-contracted lengths); and
the same can be said for the Planck time T(P) vis-a-vis time dilations.
But L(P)/T(P) = "Planck speed" S(P), another absolute. So we have a
"double contradiction", with a twist in the tail. The first two
"relativity-contradicting" Planck quantities give a third which ipso
facto is also frame-independent, an absolute speed, which must thus
give rise to *frame-dependent* values of length and time. And of
course, S(P) is nothing other than our old friend c.
Ear! Wot's goin' on??
Bill Hobba
"Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1132401117.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It has been objected that the Planck length L(P) ought to be absolute,
> i.e. frame-independent (unlike SR's Lorentz-contracted lengths); and
> the same can be said for the Planck time T(P) vis-a-vis time dilations.
>
> But L(P)/T(P) = "Planck speed" S(P), another absolute.
Since c is an absolute the plank length deifies plank time - so your plank
speed is c. And yes - the fact the plank distance and times are absolutes
is an interesting issue not lost on theorists - but it is hardly a show
stopper.
> So we have a
> "double contradiction", with a twist in the tail.
There is no contradiction.
Thanks
Bill
Tom Roberts
> It has been objected that the Planck length L(P) ought to be absolute,
> i.e. frame-independent (unlike SR's Lorentz-contracted lengths); and
> the same can be said for the Planck time T(P) vis-a-vis time dilations.
Search arxiv.org -- there have been some papers on a symmetry group that
has both an invariant speed (c) and an invariant length (the Planck length).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Old Man
news:1132401117.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
By their definitions, Planck length, l_p = sqrt(G*hbar / c^3),
and Planck time, t_p = sqrt(G*hbar / c^5), are relativistically
invariant. l_p and t_p have no empirical justifications.
Compared to known elementary particle masses, Planck
mass, m_p = sqrt(hbar*c / G) = 2.2 x 10^(-8) kg is huge.
m_p is theorized to be the mass of the smallest possible
black-hole with Schwarzschild radius, l_p, and lifetime, t_p.
There are no empirical justifications for m_p.
[Old Man]
FrediFizzx
news:soednSPqwK1TE-Le...@prairiewave.com...
Very true and if LHC finds quantum black holes in a few years, l_p, t_p
and m_p will definitely be invalid. RHIC may have already seen hints of
quantum black holes as well as Fermilab. IMHO, the GUT scale should be
in the TeV range. Not way up by the phoney Planck scale. Newton's G is
not being applied correctly in the derivation of Planck length, etc.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
These are constants, with the dimensions of length, time and mass,
formed from the three physical constants c, h and G, currently
considered fundamental. And that's all they're. They may be
significant with regard to unification of QM and GR, then again, they
may be not. Not enough information available to say. Granted, there
is nothing wrong in speculating but attributing any deeper meaning to
them, at present, is unfounded.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
hanson
news:IuOff.41$25....@news.uchicago.edu...
>>"Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> w/i
>>news:1132401117.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> It has been objected that the Planck length L(P) ought to be absolute,
>>> i.e. frame-independent (unlike SR's Lorentz-contracted lengths); and
>>> the same can be said for the Planck time T(P) vis-a-vis time dilations.
>>> But L(P)/T(P) = "Planck speed" S(P), another absolute. So we have a
>>> "double contradiction", with a twist in the tail. The first two
>>> "relativity-contradicting" Planck quantities give a third which ipso
>>> facto is also frame-independent, an absolute speed, which must thus
>>> give rise to *frame-dependent* values of length and time. And of
>>> course, S(P) is nothing other than our old friend c.
>>> Ear! Wot's goin' on??
>>
> Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> writes:
> in <soednSPqwK1TE-Le...@prairiewave.com>,
>>By their definitions, Planck length, l_p = sqrt(G*hbar / c^3),
>>and Planck time, t_p = sqrt(G*hbar / c^5), are relativistically
>>invariant. l_p and t_p have no empirical justifications.
>>Compared to known elementary particle masses, Planck
>>mass, m_p = sqrt(hbar*c / G) = 2.2 x 10^(-8) kg is huge.
>>m_p is theorized to be the mass of the smallest possible
>>black-hole with Schwarzschild radius, l_p, and lifetime, t_p.
>>There are no empirical justifications for m_p.
>>
> There is, at present, no empirical justifucation for *any* of them.
> These are constants, with the dimensions of length, time and mass,
> formed from the three physical constants c, h and G, currently
> considered fundamental. And that's all they're. They may be
> significant with regard to unification of QM and GR, then again, they
> may be not. Not enough information available to say. Granted, there
> is nothing wrong in speculating but attributing any deeper meaning to
> them, at present, is unfounded.
>
That QM-GR unification may have existed from the moment GR
emerged. But, it was never seriously pursued because the 4th
fundamental constant necessary became a stepchild of physics...
Jako, we went over this before. m_p, l_p and t_p can be
said that they have a very real empirical justification as they
simply represent the 1/mol quantities of Hydrogen. But then
most physicists regard, N_A, Avogadro's number simple
a something for chemists N_A = 12 gr C12/mol....
::: *** 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
Einstein and some of his grand contemporaries worked on this
(N_A) issue before they began to run down into the cul de sac
of relativity. In 1929 Perrin got the Nobel for N_A, declaring
it as a fundamental physical constant.. and with it, only 75
years ago, were atoms accepted by science as real "items".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/df767fb875d01c32
see: hanson B:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f6ccf6ef99e2f79c
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3
One of the less heralded things in contemporary physics is that fact
the mole concept (N_A) allows us to express chemical substances
and processes in remarkably simple ways, as in 2H2 + O2 = 2 H2O
and do it quantitatively using our arbitrarily chosen cgs/MKS/SI units.
.... ahahaha... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
Old Man
news:_1Pff.5384$BC2.1512@trnddc04...
Old Man doesn't subtract credit from Perrin. It's a matter of
taste whether one accepts N_A or k (Boltzmann's constant)
as fundamental. Take one or the other. They aren't independent
physical constants. Physicists prefer k; chemists, N_A.
[Old Man]
hanson
news:D_udnVVHqOGpQeLe...@prairiewave.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:_1Pff.5384$BC2.1512@trnddc04...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1377421f6490052e
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/df767fb875d01c32
>> see: hanson B:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f6ccf6ef99e2f79c
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3
>> One of the less heralded things in contemporary physics is that fact
>> the mole concept (N_A) allows us to express chemical substances
>> and processes in remarkably simple ways, as in 2H2 + O2 = 2 H2O
>> and do it quantitatively using our arbitrarily chosen cgs/MKS/SI units.
>> .... ahahaha... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
>
> Old Man doesn't subtract credit from Perrin. It's a matter of
> taste whether one accepts N_A or k (Boltzmann's constant)
> as fundamental. Take one or the other. They aren't independent
> physical constants. Physicists prefer k; chemists, N_A.
>
I didn't say you did, Jako, but you raise an interesting issue.
While it is true that ALL fundamental physical constants must
be expressible by other ones, else the entire house of physics
will crumble like a house of cards, enlighten me here and write
the above 4 equations with k instead of N_A. -- Thanks.
hanson
Old Man
No need to rewrite hanson's equations:
k = R / N_A
This discussion reminds Old Man of that over ep0, mu0,
and c, whereof
ep0 * mu0 = 1 / c^2
of which one is arbitrarily defined, one is measured, and
the third is derived from that measured and defined.
[Old Man]
hanson
> No need to rewrite hanson's equations:
> k = R / N_A
> This discussion reminds Old Man of that over ep0, mu0,
> and c, whereof
> ep0 * mu0 = 1 / c^2
> of which one is arbitrarily defined, one is measured, and
> the third is derived from that measured and defined.
[hanson]
I suspected that you would say that.
So, with N_A = R/k you want to change i.e.
::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
= 1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass .... {H}
into
::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (R/k*pi*sqrt3) **** ..... {J}
Now, what benefit will that bring, adding an additional constant?
What more, new info does your {J} expression bring over {H}?
hanson
brian a m stuckless
The cgs ..or MKS units are no longer considered complete or coherent.
There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now.
SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol.
Mp*lp = {mph}*ls = me*wls = Moo / 4*pi*Roo = hbar / c = G*Mp^2 / c^2.
brian a m stuckless
There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, duh.
SI GUESS iSS units ..meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol.
SI GiORGi (MKSA) units are ..meter, kilogram, second & Ampere.
What brought you to the dis-information front, retard.?!!
brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> hanson.
FrediFizzx
You guys are forgetting about Fermi's coupling constant which results in
vev ~= 246 GeV from experimental results. If you don't factor that into
what you are doing, then you are just playing numerology. ;-) Planck
mass, etc. are dead issues.
Androcles
AB/(tB-tA) = c (velocity = distance/time)
so the idiot Einstein says
(AB + BA) / (t'A-tA) = c, but it actually = 0.
The reason it reminds me is that is just another divide by zero
when you get to 1/sqrt(1-v^2/0^2), same as
c^2 = 1/ (0*0).
When Michaelson got rid of the aether someone forgot to get rid
of its properties, which is why the speed of light is source dependent
and the confused phuckwit Einstein had to cheat with the math and
promote his cuckoo theory about cuckoo clocks slowing down.
Androcles.
oriel36
Albert did not cheat,he just created a bigger can of homocentric worms
to hide the already existing Newtonian quasi-geocentric can of worms.
Bradley even changed the astronomical method of Roemer to suit Newton's
ballistic agenda agenda applied to planetary which had the great
benefit for English cataloguers of never having to do astronomy
again.All they ever do now is use the celestial sphere and the calendar
system to plot positions.Anyway,you all still run around in the
Newtonian error and never get anywhere for one thing I have learned is
that being an opponent of relativistic homocentricity is just as good
as being a proponent.
I already told you how Newton transfered Flamsteed's
geocentric/celestial sphere equivalency to a geocentric heliocentric
orbital equivalency.To your non astronomical mind,what this means is
that relativists and aetherist still run home to Flamsteed's axial
rotation to the celestial sphere in creating the rotation to inertial
space,aether,absolute space or whatever.
Ultimately none of you are as politically saavy as Newton who really
had to be on top of his game.The guys who supported Albert's
homocentric concept thought they pulled one over Newton but like a
skull grinning in at the banquet,Newton is still pulling the strings.
I never doubted the intelligence of many here but intelligence can
shade off into cunning political agendas or it can shade off into
wisdom where no prejudice or insincerity are admitted.Want to see where
Newton mangles the Keplerian insight on orbital motion with the
Roemerian insight on finite light speed thus wrecking several
astronomical principles at the same time -
"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
hanson
news:3uarhlF...@individual.net...
"Androcles" <Andr...@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:6iZff.58209$Es4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/55bc6e550452f7fa
Jako Epke aka"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:3pydnUoep9J2buLe...@prairiewave.com...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:_1Pff.5384$BC2.1512@trnddc04...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1377421f6490052e
news:IuOff.41$25....@news.uchicago.edu...
"Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> w/i
news:1132401117.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
It has been objected that the Planck length L(P) ought to be
absolute, i.e. frame-independent (unlike SR's Lorentz-contracted
lengths); and the same can be said for the Planck time T(P) vis-a-vis
time dilations.
But L(P)/T(P) = "Planck speed" S(P), another absolute. So we
have a "double contradiction", with a twist in the tail. The first
two "relativity-contradicting" Planck quantities give a third which ipso
facto is also frame-independent, an absolute speed, which must
thus give rise to *frame-dependent* values of length and time. And
of course, S(P) is nothing other than our old friend c.
Ear! Wot's goin' on??
> | >>>>>>
[Jako]
Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> writes:
in <soednSPqwK1TE-Le...@prairiewave.com>,
By their definitions, Planck length, l_p = sqrt(G*hbar / c^3),
and Planck time, t_p = sqrt(G*hbar / c^5), are relativistically
invariant. l_p and t_p have no empirical justifications.
Compared to known elementary particle masses, Planck
mass, m_p = sqrt(hbar*c / G) = 2.2 x 10^(-8) kg is huge.
m_p is theorized to be the mass of the smallest possible
black-hole with Schwarzschild radius, l_p, and lifetime, t_p.
There are no empirical justifications for m_p.
> | >>>>>>
[Mati]
There is, at present, no empirical justifucation for *any* of
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f6ccf6ef99e2f79c
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3
One of the less heralded things in contemporary physics is that
fact the mole concept (N_A) allows us to express chemical
substances and processes in remarkably simple ways, as in
That discussion reminds me of
AB/(tB-tA) = c (velocity = distance/time)
so the idiot Einstein says
(AB + BA) / (t'A-tA) = c, but it actually = 0.
>
The reason it reminds me is that is just another divide by zero
when you get to 1/sqrt(1-v^2/0^2), same as
c^2 = 1/ (0*0).
When Michaelson got rid of the aether someone forgot to get rid
of its properties, which is why the speed of light is source dependent
and the confused phuckwit Einstein had to cheat with the math and
promote his cuckoo theory about cuckoo clocks slowing down.
Androcles.
>
You guys are forgetting about Fermi's coupling constant which results in
vev ~= 246 GeV from experimental results. If you don't factor that into
what you are doing, then you are just playing numerology. ;-) Planck
mass, etc. are dead issues.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
>
ahahaha... Yeah, Fredi, we know that you are in over-drive promoting
your vacuum charge... and you do fall into the classical trap of declaring
things that don't fit into your weltbild as "dead". Actually, Jako said
something extremely provocative in not outright profound by pointing
out the analogy of/between [k = R / N_A] and [ep0 * mu0 = 1 / c^2],
continued and stirred up in/by Androcles' follow-up. Can't you see that?
.... it plays right into your vacuum charge scenario and even beyond.....
ahahaha....
To boot dismissing any discussion like this as numerology, is as
suspect as saying that any numerical fits are just coincidental.
Fundamentally is physics is nothing but comparing measured values
to/with arbitrarily chosen unit standards (cgs/SI etc)... The follow-up
about how many times the unit is contained in the measured event
or entity... is mere story telling... grandly labeled as theory... which
has never yielded any more information nor any more knowledge
than the numerical ratio it is based on... ahahaha... [M]
But then any smooth con-story, presented as "theory", open to
interpretation/falsification (= add more con to it) has always had
much more emotional appeal than a bland, hard-core ratio.
.... ahahaha.... carry on, Fredi.
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahaha.... ahahanson
>
PS:
[M] = ... a few years back, Meron, made a very poignant remark along
these lines when he posted, paraphrased: ... when you see particles
come roaring down the pipe with energies of few GeV/amu,...
= "a nucleus may be considered to be a bunch of free protons and
neutrons which accidentally happen to be in the same place" =
Ross A. Finlayson
positron/electron pairs and an ether?
How can there be right angles if every distance is quantized to Planck
length? Particle a goes from (0,0) to (0,1) and particle b from (0,0)
to (1,0), is not their distance square root of two?
Say there's a photon emitter and a collector. At an agreed upon time,
a photon is emitted, and if the photon reaches the collector at what
can only be light speed, is not its position, at the collector, and
momentum, as a straight line from the emitter, known, as the particle's
maximum speed is c?
The universe is infinite, infinite sets are equivalent.
Ross
Traveler
I am enjoying this thread, thanks to your input, Hanson. I sure wish
someone will figure out the real Planck length/time/mass/etc... in the
near future. I mean, from first principles, as opposed to dimensional
analysis. It would spare me the trouble of spending too much time on
it so I can go on with my work. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
brian a m stuckless
SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol.
Re: (PLANCK mass Mp)*lp = {mph}*ls = me*wls = hbar / c = m1*rA / nA
Moo Moo*loo hbar G*Mp^2 G*M1*m1
= -- -- -- = -- - -- = ---- = --- -- = -- -- --- -- --
4*pi*Roo 4*pi c c^2 nA*(n - 1)*v1^2
G*Mp*{mph} m1*rA (h + 2*hbar) k*{e}
= -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- = -- -- = -- --- -- -- = -- --
4*(pi)^2*nA*(n - 1)*v1^2 nA Ra*c 2*pi
m1*(wavelength wl) m1*c me*wlc Planck's h eH*loo
= -- -- --- -- -- -- = -- - -- = --- -- = -- -- -- -- = -- - --
2*pi*nL 2*pi*fL 2*pi 2*pi*c 4*pi*c^2.
Maxwell's authentic equations applied ONLY between FLAT PLATEs.!!
But that doesn't matter for a point-ONLY on a WORLD-line in GR.!!
A WORLD-point in SPACE-time has NO iNSiDE, or OUTside, ANYways.!!
The SHORTEST GR-geodesic iN the SPACE ON the SURFACE of the POiNT
ON a WORLD-line in GR SPACE-time is NOT UNCLE AL's "other, LONGER
way round" GR-geodesic. Go go Google GROUP SEARCH My BiGGER bang.
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Autymn D. C. wrote: > > brian a m stuckless wrote: > > Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote: > Hi Sue, mostly agree with you...
> > > > > >Sue... wrote: > > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > > Ken S. Tucker
wrote: > > > > > > > FrediFizzx wrote: > > > > > > "Jay R. Yablon"
> > <jya...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > >
news:eLScf.67167$Bv6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> Stop cascading or, if I ever find you, I'll beat your head in.
Greek YAB-a-dab-a-Sue-doo, mu*eps, in SI GUESS= Uo*Eo = 1 / c^2.
> > $ 3*VOLUME / AREA, per DURATiON = RADiAL velocity.!!
> > Delta VOLUME / surface AREA, per second = RADiAL DiSTANCE / 3*sec.
> > Unit TRiAKiSicosa VOLUME / (surf AREA*sec) is TiP-to-TiP / 6*sec.
> > Unit SPHERiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*sec) is, DiAMETER / 6*sec.
> > Unit CUBiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*second) = EDGEside / 6*sec.
> > GRAViTATiONAL impulse per VOLUME; iNERTiAL impulse, per AREA.
>
> No, they're not. You need more subscripts. You should also read
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_(mental_health).
>
> > > > > The force between two charges and the force between
> > > > > two masses represents no energy exchange.
Since "force" x DiSTANCE = "energy exchange" ("force" isn't "energy
exchange" EVEN if "viewed with a CAUTiON", MAY be WHY Sue said SO).
The GUESS iSS SERiAL index of OBSERVED scale-invariance, follows...
The NEW SI GUESS iSS STATiSTiCAL system of SCALE-invariance:
(h + 2*hbar) (pi + 1) (X + 2*Y)
-- -- -- -- = -- --- = -- -- -- = STATiSTiCAL *tensors* ;
h pi X
nL*(h + nA*hbar) nL*(2*pi + nA) nL*(X + nA*Y)
-- -- -- -- -- = -- -- --- -- = -- --- -- -- = nL*Ni.
h 2*pi X
Planck scale ; LOCAL scale ; Each WAY, and BEYOND.!!
So, NATURE doesn't CARE, if we have COHERENT SI STANDARDs.!!
Therefore, AS per WiTH the BOHR Atom, "AS above SO below".!!
G*{mph)*Mp 4*(pi)^2*{mph}*ls^3 2*pi*ls
-- ---- -- = -- -- -- - -- -- -- = me*(-- --- --)^2*wls .!!
(n - 1) ts^2 ts
brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> no caution > > -Aut.
hanson
[h] iT SaiD
[h] >>>> and do it quantitatively using our arbitrarily chosen cgs/MKS/SI units.
[BS]> There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, duh.
[h] .... cgs/MKS/SI "units" are NOT fundamental physical constants... DuH.
[BS]> SI GUESS iSS units ..meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol.
[h] ..... BS, i guess YuO are NOT GOiNG To dANCe VERY far WiTH Kelvin.
[h] Thanks for the laughs, BS
[h] ahahaha... ahahanson
BTW:
BS, it looks like you are still mad cuz of this one... now trying to get even:
BS aka "brian a m stuckless" <bas...@nf.sympatico.ca> aka
<basta...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:435BC5...@nf.sympatico.ca...
> Here, it's reiterated ..it's had it's day.!!
> IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY of WHOLLiES.
> No ABOMiNATiON of DESOLATiON stands BESiDEs.
[1] IAM A WHOLLY WHOLLY ABOMiNATiON
> brian a m stuckless
> >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
>
ahahaha... AHAHHAHA..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA........
......ahahaha... AHAHHAHA..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA........
.............ahahaha... AHAHHAHA..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA........>
>
BS aka "brian a m stuckless" <bas...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:438028...@nf.sympatico.ca...
Ross A. Finlayson
energy? Why would they not if they're virtual? When the virtual
positron is "not there", where is it?
Are photons not deflected but slingshot around the nucleus, i.e. not
repelled?
If particles can be separated by spin, what happens to other separators
in the axis of separation not at the midpoint?
Functions symmetric about the origin have as integrals over the entire
domain zero.
Ross
Androcles
Fretz is fretting and wants to change the subject.
As I recall it, QVC is a shopping channel... not interested.
He's right, though. We are forgetting about Fermi's coupling constant...
and he's forgetting about my bright green flying elephants that lay eggs...
hmm... let me change that.... quantum eggs in black holes.
Androcles.
Old Man
No benefit. Old Man thinks that hanson's equations
are most elegantly expressed in terms of N_A.
Old Man has always thought that the Coulomb ought
to be defined as e*N_A. Seems like the natural thing
to do. Like, one Einstein is a mole of photons. Right ?
[Old Man]
> hanson
Johnny Depp
>
> I am enjoying this thread, thanks to your input, Hanson. I sure wish
> someone will figure out the real Planck length/time/mass/etc... in the
> near future. I mean, from first principles, as opposed to dimensional
> analysis. It would spare me the trouble of spending too much time on it so
> I can go on with my work. ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
I thought Lester Zick had that figured out.
Ross A. Finlayson
Hi,
Hey, you're a very well-regarded actor. Welcome to sci.physics.
Lester Zick's Zickisms, are enjoyable reading, and there is much of
them.
I want to know why there are three space dimensions. Why not five?
Why not eleven? Why?
If there are first principles, primary assumptions, justifiable
assertions, what are they? I think there's something like nothing, as
Dr. Osher Doctorow is recently discussing, and then something else,
i.e., nothing or not nothing or not nothing, ad infinitum. There's a
notion that that doesn't really identify anything, except all possible
things that could be. The easiest way to look at them, as numbers, is
as a continuum. That continuum might be Suarez' continuum of natural
integers, or the continuum of the real number line, or just the unit
interval of real numbers, or all the dimensions of the products of real
numbers. That could be three space dimensions, three positive definite
space dimensions, or it could include a dimension for time. It could
be all the dimensions that are positive definite or space-like
dimensions, all those negative definite or time-like, where positive
and negative are arbitrary.
So if the first principle is that there is nothing, why not instead
start with the universe, everything? Then, something different that
that and something yet different and so on forever forms again a
continuum. Basically, nothing and the universe are reversible, yet
dual, concepts.
That's like the Liar paradox: "this sentence is false." When it
changes its own meaning, change the meanings of true and false along
with it, to each other, when everything's reversed it's
indistinguishable, from itself, so it's OK and doesn't make nihilists
of everyone, because even nihilist philosophers must dine sometime.
That gets into stuff like Goedel's incompleteness and paradoxes, there
are ways to resolve paradoxes, else everything would be wrong.
Anyways, first principles in physics would be kind of harder to define.
If there's a continuum of stuff then basically each of those
individua, individuals of the continuum, would repel each other, they
want to be unique, or uniquification. It's as in physics where like
charges repel, if all there is on an infinite field are individual
things that just want to get away from each other, then they would in
equilibrium fall into each has the same distance to each nearest, and
each of those nearest, with basically spherical packing. That's the
same thing as "nature abhors a vacuum", those individua would
self-organize within the continuum to be dense, within the continuum.
So, in space dimensions, there's a continuum, a real number line. For
natural integers to address those points of the line, they spiral out
through all dimensions. Anyways, there's only one line, and it has
scalar infinitesimals, in the small, and infinities, in the large. So,
I think, and I'm known to be wrong, rarely, that each of those
dimensions is encoded in each of the other. In string theory, as it is
discussed, there are six dimensions for the three space dimensions, two
string dimensions for each of the space dimensions, where differentials
or infinitesimals of each of the other two dimensions is encoded in the
superstring dimensions. Instead, they can all be in one dimension, but
to reflect on each other in the way that they can each be encoded in
either the left or right, and each encoding each of the other, there
are three.
If there was some other explanation for why there are three space
dimensions, I would be interested in hearing it.
Ross
Androcles
"Ross A. Finlayson" <r...@tiki-lounge.com> wrote in message
news:1132533665.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> Hey, you're a very well-regarded actor. Welcome to sci.physics.
>
> Lester Zick's Zickisms, are enjoyable reading, and there is much of
> them.
>
> I want to know why there are three space dimensions. Why not five?
> Why not eleven? Why?
I want to know why Jennifer Aniston won't hop into bed with me
along with Reese Witherspoon and Demi Moore. Why not three?
Why not even two? Why?
http://www.bullz-eye.com/celebritybabes/default.htm
Androcles.
brian a m stuckless
SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol.
Re: (PLANCK mass Mp)*lp = {mph}*ls = me*wls = hbar / c = m1*rA / nA
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Johnny Depp wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:59:39 -0500, Traveler
Ross A. Finlayson
I think it's fair to say that sci.physics has a larger proportion of
belligerents compared to other newsgroups in the sci.* hierarchy.
Consider Androcles here, last I heard from him (her, it) he said he'd
never read nor reply to my posts again. His word is as good as his
bond.
Mr. Depp, Senor Depp, Dr. Depp, I must say I think you're a fantastic
actor. For example, in "Dead Man", as William Blake, Iggy Pop wears a
dress, and Crispin Glover is a philosophical train engineer
coal-blacked in a few early scenes. "My gun speaks for me." Cole the
cannibal guide nemesis, and the halo'ed marshal, except his
despoilment, and his clone, that was pretty good.
Heh, Nobody, that reminds me of the spaghetti western "My Name is
Nobody."
Anyways, I'm writing again to ask about Heisenberg, and those other
questions. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is that not both of
the position, location, and the momentum, or direction, of a particle
can be known at once. So, say there is a photon emitter and photon
detector at opposite ends of a light-tight (lightproof) tunnel, where
the distance of the tunnel is say ten micro - light seconds, or about
30 meters. So anyways experimentalists E and D meet in the center of
the corridor and synchronize their watches. Then they proceed to the
emitter and detector respectively. The tunnel is evacuated to vacuum.
At the agreed time T, E activates the emitter which emits one coherent
laser photon in the general direction of the detector. At time T + 10
us, mu-seconds or microseconds, the detector catches the photon. Is
not its position, at the detector, and momentum, as just having passed
in a straight line from the emitter to the detector, and as a function
of its known requency, at its maximum and invariant velocity c known?
There might be the notion that spurious photons would occur at the
detector, i.e. random virtual photons. Yet, as any photon that arrived
at T + 10 us would necessarily be the photon from the emitter as there
are no coincident particles, would not the photon's position and
momentum be each known at that time?
Well, somebody has already thought of this. For example:
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/heisenburg-refute.htm
So, I wonder, does that simple experiment illustrate a violation of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
Also, Schroedinger's equation is solvable today, no?
I'm interested in that because I want to talk about the particles of
particle physics being mathematical infinitesimals, or point particles.
The more closely subatomic particles are inspected, the smaller they
appear to be.
Then, that gets back into these notions of the continua, continuums,
and their individua, individuums.
Ross