What is the largest amplitude for Planck's smallest wavelength?

[gu...@hotmail.com]

E=hc/ smallest_wavelength
where E = energy of one photon
and A = amplitude of one photon


1. Can a thousand photons in amplitude exist in a wavelength that
cannot be wider than that of one photon and still retain the shape of
a sine wave??

2. If not, then can the smallest wavelength be considered a binary
number (since it can only contain one photon or none at all)??


3. Anything in the Quantum Field Theory on this?

[oriel36]

This was dealt with a decade ago although the arguments would have
been re-directed towards more productive issues if I could rewrite it
today -

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/48d48f4234f85118

The preponderance in the early 20th century to set limits to
geometry,time and space is counter-productive as the quasi-periodicity
of certain proportions such as Pi and Phi exclude any possibility of a
limit or a definite digit that closes out a proportion of line to
circumference or the Phi proportion.

[SolomonW]

There is no such limit, what there is a limitations is in measuring the
amplitude.

[Y.Porat]

----------------------
but me .Porat
has a copyright about something near by !!!


for me
THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY IS

h times smallest f !!!

ie
h times the scalar part of Plank time !!!
historic copyright ??!!

iow
no process shorter duration than Plank time !!!
so
and i associated it with the
real SINGLE photon energy !!


( if SO -- my old clime is that E =hf
IS NOT THE REAL FORMULA FOR A SINGLE PHOTON ENERGY !!

BUT IT IS-- A HUGE BUNCH OF SINGLE PHOTONS!
it is solving a lot of current nonsense physics
like
a single photon interfering with itself etc etc etc
AND THAT ''LITTLE THING ''
IS A REVOLUTION IN MODERN PHYSICS !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------

[john]

The Galaxy Model suggests something similar, actually.

The smallest photon *at any one fractal level* is a single
neutrino from the next smaller level. So a photon is
actually a huge bunch of neutrinos from the next level down that
*accreted*.

As the proton/galactic center absorbs neutrinos from
electron fusion, if there are more than are needed to
re-supply its electrons, these are accreted on each side of the
disc until they reach a certain size dictated by the harmonics
of the structure as a whole. Then they are shot
away in pairs of photons/quasars.

john
galaxy model

[PD]

On 2/16/2012 12:32 PM, john wrote:

>
> The Galaxy Model suggests something similar, actually.
>
> The smallest photon *at any one fractal level* is a single
> neutrino from the next smaller level. So a photon is
> actually a huge bunch of neutrinos from the next level down that
> *accreted*.
>

John, if you're going to talk so much about fractals, spend a little
time learning about them.
Fractals don't have levels. They exhibit self-similarity at *every*
scale, not at different levels.
You may be confused by constructions like the Koch snowflake (Google
that), where a triangle is gradually turned into a fractal by adding
triangles midway on the legs, and so on. These are not fractal levels.
The fractal is the thing at the very end of the process.

When you use words because they sound cool without knowing clearly what
the words mean, John, this is called tossing a word salad, and you look
a little bit (or quite a bit, actually) the fool doing it.

Just the barest amount of additional reading, instead of flapping your
jaws self-gratifyingly, would do you well.

[Yousuf Khan]

On 16/02/2012 5:52 AM, gu...@hotmail.com wrote:
> E=hc/ smallest_wavelength
> where E = energy of one photon
> and A = amplitude of one photon
>
>
> 1. Can a thousand photons in amplitude exist in a wavelength that
> cannot be wider than that of one photon and still retain the shape of
> a sine wave??

A thousand photons would occupy a thousand planck units. In other words,
one photon per planck length.

> 2. If not, then can the smallest wavelength be considered a binary
> number (since it can only contain one photon or none at all)??

Not a binary digit, but a quantum bit, a qubit. A qubit differing from a
bit by being either 0 or 1, or both. Various theories suggest that the
universe could be just a big quantum computer at its most basic level.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9912088

Yousuf Khan

[holog]

ok here goes

>
> > The smallest photon *at any one fractal level* is a single
> > neutrino from the next smaller level.

> Fractals don't have levels.

they have iterations

> The fractal is the thing at the very end of the process.
>

fractals are an iteration of a constant force

> When you use words because they sound cool

but it does sound kewl

>
> Just the barest amount of additional reading,

expands your mind


plank constant relies on the electromagnetic spectrum and its observed
limit


is there something beyond the electromagnetic spectrum?

holog

[Y.Porat]

---------------
Thank you!!

anyway not exact!!

my photon findings are historically unprecedented!!!!
it is a porat copyright!!

the mass of Neutrino is ways bigger than the single photon as i
suggested and discovered it
sit still on your chair ::
if you make the calculation of my historic formula about thr real
single photon:

E min photon = h timed the scalar part of OPlank Mass
you get its mass (by devidingit by C^2)
you get it as
(quote from memory roughly )

exp-90 Kilograms !!!!!!!!
do you get it ?? no you dont no one does !!
IT IS SO SMALL THAT NO ONE EVER WILL BE ABLE TO DETECT IT !!
there is and there will not be any human tool that will be able to
detect it

and that is why parots say it is zero
IT IS NOT ZERO ***IN PRINCIPLE ** !!!!!

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS- NO ***REAL PHYSICS **!!!

again
NON ZERO IN PRINCIPLE !!

there is a huge difference between
close to zero
AND NOT ZERO !!
and it is a revolution in modern physics!!
as will be understood in future !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------

[xxein]

xxein: Yes. Things exist. Even idiots.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Set H-bar to one to deal with smallness math that doesn't work.
There is a more fundamental quantity for smallness that rules out
H-Bar. It is related to E=MC squared.

Mitchell Raemsch

[gu...@hotmail.com]

??

I listen to a savants insults, but when one insults in the means of
passing as a savant....

...is another thing.

Regards.

[gu...@hotmail.com]

The above math is wrong because it uses fractions of Planck units
(Example: circumference = pi x Planck unit = fraction).

Since:

All succeeding Wavelengths, Phi, circumference, Fibonacci numbers,
Science has claimed to be Integers (No fractions) of Planck units.


Therefore:

It still seems the smallest Planck Wavelength can also have only one
Planck Amplitude??

[gu...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 16, 2:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 12:32 PM, john wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Galaxy Model suggests something similar, actually.
>
> > The smallest photon *at any one fractal level* is a single
> > neutrino from the next smaller level.

> John, if you're going to talk so much about fractals, spend a little
> time learning about them.
> Fractals don't have levels.

Because of a fractal's definition suggests that both the Planck Unit
and smallest Planck wavelength must also be a fractal.

Seems Euclidean space is a fractal (fractional) view of another more
important Space view, where each child looks exactly like the 1st
Parent?


Example:

For the 2nd smallest Planck wavelength must use a Planck unit that
also resembles a sine wave, otherwise this child will not look like
Planck's larger children: the SMOOTH larger waves??

[oriel36]

On Feb 18, 8:52 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 6:27 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 10:52 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > E=hc/ smallest_wavelength
> > > where E = energy of one photon
> > > and A = amplitude of one photon
>
> > > 1. Can a thousand photons in amplitude exist in a wavelength that
> > > cannot be wider than that of one photon and still retain the shape of
> > > a sine wave??
>
> > > 2. If not, then can the smallest wavelength be considered a binary
> > > number (since it can only contain one photon or none at all)??
>
> > > 3. Anything in the Quantum Field Theory on this?
>
> > This was dealt with a decade ago although the arguments would have
> > been re-directed towards more productive issues if I could rewrite it
> > today  -
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/48d48f4234f85118
>
> > The preponderance in the early 20th century to set limits to
> > geometry,time and space is counter-productive as the quasi-periodicity
> > of certain proportions such as Pi and Phi exclude any possibility of a
> > limit or a definite digit that closes out a proportion of line to
> > circumference or the Phi proportion.
>
> The above math is wrong because it uses fractions of Planck units
> (Example: circumference = pi x Planck unit = fraction).
>

It is fine and it works.A diameter multiplied by Pi creates a
circumference which in turn creates a radius half the diameter of the
original length hence there are no bottom or vanishing limits to
geometry otherwise the choice is to conclude that the Pi value is
periodic.Start off with a Planck length as a diameter and you should
draw the only possible conclusion that such an entity has as much
relevance as determining a meter is the smallest length possible.

> Since:
>
> All succeeding Wavelengths, Phi, circumference, Fibonacci numbers,
> Science has claimed to be Integers (No fractions) of Planck units.
>

Both Pi and Phi reflect quasi-periodic decimals in that the sequence
of numbers are neither ordered nor disordered but finely balanced
between the two.There is an incredible amount of information contained
in quasi-periodicity and not least when there is a hideous perspective
floating out there in terms of the 'no center/no circumference'
ideologies of 'black hole and big bang'.In short,this really does
matter.

[john]

On Feb 16, 6:58 pm, holog <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> expands your mind
>
> plank constant relies on the electromagnetic spectrum and its observed
> limit
>
> is there something beyond the electromagnetic spectrum?

YES.
And not once, but again and again
at faster and faster propagation rates.
Psychics and others refer to them
as 'finer vibrations'.
This is where physics and psychic phenomena meet!
:)
john

[gu...@hotmail.com]

Isn't the Planck unit a bottom unit?

> otherwise the choice is to conclude that the Pi value is
> periodic.

Pi = circumference/diameter = fixed ratio

What is meant by a periodic value?

>Start off with a Planck length as a diameter and you should
> draw the only possible conclusion that such an entity has as much
> relevance as determining a meter is the smallest length possible.
>
> > Since:
>
> > All succeeding Wavelengths, Phi, circumference, Fibonacci numbers,
> > Science has claimed to be Integers (No fractions) of Planck units.
>
> Both Pi and Phi reflect quasi-periodic decimals in that the sequence

I explained bad:

Phi and Fibonacci numbers in computation demonstrate that succeeding
Wavelength's are integers(meaning multiples) of preceding
wavelengths.

[oriel36]

I don't know if it would do any good to repeat the conclusion that
there is no lower geometric limit no more than there is an upper
geometric limit.

> > otherwise the choice is to conclude that the Pi value is
> > periodic.
>
> Pi = circumference/diameter = fixed ratio
>
> What is meant by a periodic value?

Well that is a little more involved and I don't know if you can see
where I am coming from.A Penrose tiling pattern is non-periodic
meaning that it is neither entirely ordered or disordered so that the
arrangement of tiles acts like a geometric form of the non-periodic
arrangement of the decimals in the Pi and Phi proportions,the tiling
patterns reflect a 2d version of what exists in reality as
quasicrystals and their growth -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal

It does raise the issue of fundamentally defining things such as time
and space which are essentially limitless in extent but with readers
here so wound up with other things,it is difficult for the genuinely
curios and innovative to focus on such things as the background
conditions which allow quasicrystals to grow and many forms,both
animate and inanimate,to tend towards the Phi proportion in matters of
natural efficiency.It does appear to indicate that some type of
electromagnetic background is involved in quasicrystal growth as they
have to follow some prescribed path in maintaining a balance between
periodic and random so that should be tempting for those of an
intuitive temperament who are not too concerned about
definitions,axioms and so on.It is ,of course,a wider issue on how to
approach natural and celestial phenomena but at least there are
historical precepts to go on in cutting loose from the one-size-fits-
all 'scientific method' -

"The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical
is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of
mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is
that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the
exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they
have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in
matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such
arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen;
there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do
not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so
numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to
perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are
perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in
order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake
it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a
process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is
rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning." Pascal

> >Start off with a Planck length as a diameter and you should
> > draw the only possible conclusion that such an entity has as much
> > relevance as determining a meter is the smallest length possible.
>
> > > Since:
>
> > > All succeeding Wavelengths, Phi, circumference, Fibonacci numbers,
> > > Science has claimed to be Integers (No fractions) of Planck units.
>
> > Both Pi and Phi reflect quasi-periodic decimals in that the sequence
>
> I explained bad:
>
> Phi and Fibonacci numbers in computation demonstrate that succeeding
> Wavelength's are integers(meaning multiples) of preceding
> wavelengths.
>

The Phi proportion which reflects relationships between geometry and
sequential mathematics exists as a tempting mystery to those who
encounter it in natural at whatever level and there are numerous
excellent websites expressing its prevalence,in short,it is fun.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > of numbers are neither ordered nor disordered but finely balanced
> > between the two.There is an incredible amount of information contained
> > in quasi-periodicity and not least when there is a hideous perspective
> > floating out there in terms of the 'no center/no circumference'
> > ideologies of 'black hole and big bang'.In short,this really does
> > matter.
>
> > > Therefore:
>
> > > It still seems the smallest Planck Wavelength can also have only one
> > > Planck Amplitude??

I am afraid I do not have so much regard for those men in the early
20th century who tried to set limits where there are really
none,whatever advantage it appears to give a person
mathematically,geometrically it shuts off a different approach that is
infinitely more productive.The rise of geometric anomalies like 'big
bang' and 'black hole' are tied to this issue so while appearing very
simple at first glance,it becomes rapidly complicated with further
investigation.

[gu...@hotmail.com]

> where I am coming from.A Penrose tiling patternis non-periodic

> meaning that it is neither entirely ordered or disordered so that the
> arrangement of tiles acts like a geometric form of the non-periodic
> arrangement of the decimals in the Pi and Phi proportions,the tiling
> patterns

#1. Does "non-periodic arrangement of the decimals" mean the values of
Pi's fraction are non-repetitive.....3.141592654 instead of
3.144444444???


#2. I don't see how the above proves that Planck's unit is not the
smallest unit?

#3. Penrose Tiles are similar to complex waves, thus they are possibly
two (or more) additions of repetitive Tiles (example: two transparent
films each with repetitive/periodic tiles that are superposed to form
Penrose Tiles)

Notably since non-periodic complex waves through the Discrete Fournier
Transform can be 100% converted into a series of Periodic harmonic
waves. Thus superposing these harmonic waves recreates the same
complex waves.

Showing the periodic behavior above for waves is also related to
circumference and PI because both are used to form waves:

To plot a wave:

y = r sin (2pi x time)

where r = amplitude of wave = radius of circle

sin 2Pi = piece of a pie = portion of wave's cycle

2 pi r = circumference

thus for wave:

y = r sin (2pi * time)

y = circumference/2 pi sin (2pi * time)
***************

Everything said above shows how even Penrose Tiles are
periodic ....though superposition (superposition means additions of
multiple waves, in this case periodic waves or tiles).

[oriel36]

Non-periodic is mathematically precise and has nothing to do with
repetitive,the value of Pi or Phi as they reflect geometric
proportions contain a sequence of decimals that are neither ordered or
random hence non-periodicity contains elements of order and disorder
as opposed to distinctly ordered or distinctly disordered.

> #2. I don't see how the above proves that Planck's unit is not the
> smallest unit?
>

You may be under the impression that I am throwing good reasoning
after bad but I will repeat the argument once more - a diameter
creates a circumference which is 3.1415.. the value of the
diameter,that circumference has a center so that a radius is created
which is half the length of the original line which in turn create a
new circumference.It spares me setting a lower geometric limit or an
upper geometric limit so when I see the 'no center/no circumference'
ideologies of 'black hole' or 'big bang' I simply see them as
conceptual irritants.

> #3. Penrose Tiles are similar to complex waves, thus they are
possibly
> two (or more) additions of repetitive Tiles (example: two transparent
> films each with repetitive/periodic tiles that are superposed to form
> Penrose Tiles)
>

Please,I don't do bluffing and that is it,this area is too productive
and it does draw a certain type of individual.


There is another participant here called Holog who appears to be on
the right line even if indirectly,the background conditions for
quasicrystal growth assumes that crystals growth is conditioned by the
background rather than individual building blocks stacked one on top
of the other to create a pattern.This is for a different audience.

[Y.Porat]

------------------
you must understand that the ancient Greeks
were right in principle::

THERE MUST BE 'THE SMALLEST' PHYSICAL ENTITY
**THAT IS NOT ZERO**

BECAUSE (by definition )-
ZERO IS-- NON EXISTENT !!!!

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

[PD]

What is the smallest non-zero number?

[oriel36]

That is a loaded question as 'smallest' denotes geometry and volume.

An easier phrasing is - Infinite Volume/Zero Density = Infinite
Density/Zero Volume ,they call it a 'singularity' and it is an
elaborate way to talk about 'nothing' but apparently mathematicians
specialize in doing just that.

[PD]

On Feb 16, 6:58 pm, holog <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> ok here goes
>
>
>
> > > The smallest photon *at any one fractal level* is a single
> > > neutrino from the next smaller level.
> > Fractals don't have levels.
>
> they have iterations

No, they don't. You use iterations to *produce* a fractal.

[PD]

I don't think so. It denotes magnitude.
Temperatures can be small without geometry and volume.
A fraction can be small.
An interest rate can be small.

And if you believe that you cannot separate geometry and volume from
any other physical properties (that is, for every conceivable physical
property, you cannot imagine it without geometry and volume also being
included in the mix), then I'm afraid your mind is pretty well
confined to a narrow-gauge railway.

[oriel36]

Magnitude,volume,its all the same otherwise it would descend into
being pedantic for no good reason.

> Temperatures can be small without geometry and volume.

Fair enough.Temperature assumes a quality of a source whether
gas,liquid or solid and somehow 'small' in relation to temperature
just doesn't sound right,it will get you out of a jam if that is what
you wish but the exercise is to differentiate between smallness and
nothing at all and there is no such lower limit to geometry.

> A fraction can be small.

C'mon now,the obvious question is a fraction of what ?,but this would
amount to the beginning of a chase I just wouldn't be interested
in.The idea of setting lower and upper limits to time and space is the
central issue and those people who really wish to achieve productive
things pay attention to the absurdities of setting limits and then
move on to productive things,the idea of infinite density/zero volume
bears the same relationship to its obverse format and that is why 20
years ago I called the attempt to torture people with a conceptual no-
no of a sinvulgarity as it is an elaborate way to describe 'nothing'.

> An interest rate can be small.
>

Enough !.

> And if you believe that you cannot separate geometry and volume from
> any other physical properties (that is, for every conceivable physical
> property, you cannot imagine it without geometry and volume also being
> included in the mix), then I'm afraid your mind is pretty well
> confined to a narrow-gauge railway.
>

Well,the idea of temperature as a non-geometric property can only get
you so far as it ultimately requires a source and that source will
have geometric properties.The empirical community by and large seem to
have accepted the inability to set a lower geometric limit using
diameter,Pi and the ensuing radius and that is as far as I wish to go
with this issue,mainly because I do not need to.

[PD]

3/426 is a fraction with a magnitude. How much volume does that
fraction have?

[oriel36]

426 represents exactly what ?.You can talk of the 'magnitude' of a
task which is nondescript or the brightness of a star in terms of
magnitude, which like temperature is a quality of a geometric source,
but ultimately you are being far too clever and going nowhere in the
process.Fine if that is what you wish to do and I am sure plenty would
love that type of exercise but generally at the level of Planck length
and Pi is good enough to dispense with lower geometric limits or upper
ones for that matter and it would attract a very small audience who
could move the arguments in a productive direction.

The next time you ask a question like this,be sure to include the
specific object/geometry/volume/magnitude that you wish to divide into
a fraction but you shouldn't go losing your mind over it searching for
a non-geometric fraction as all qualities ultimately derive from a
parent geometry.It spares me from asking where the secondary qualities
of temperature,brightness,hardness,ect come from the parent geometric
properties of a gas,liquid or solid.It is nothing personal but the
reasoning of Planck length and Pi is as far as I wish to take this.

[PD]

Dollars. 3/426 is a fraction with magnitude. How much volume does that
fraction have.

Square inches of surface area. 3/426 is a fraction with magnitude. How

much volume does that fraction have?

Years. 3/426 is a fraction with magnitude. How much volume does that
fraction have?

[oriel36]

A dollar is a piece of paper unless you wish to imply a nondescript
value balanced against some other geometric quantity such as gold or a
slice of bread.

> Square inches of surface area. 3/426 is a fraction with magnitude. How
> much volume does that fraction have?

Where exactly are you going with this ?

>
> Years. 3/426 is a fraction with magnitude. How much volume does that
> fraction have?

A year is an orbital cycle of the Earth,it represents a circumference
hence your answer can only be represented in terms of distance
traveled or as rotations per circuit which happen to be 365 1/4
rotations for 1 circuit.

If you are talking volume and year in the same sentence as quantities
then it is hardly the reasoning of a person I need to speak with and
therefore I concede the point to you and whatever direction you were
going with it.

[PD]

Not a dollar in my bank account or on a loan. No paper token
transacted.

>
> > Square inches of surface area. 3/426 is a fraction with magnitude. How
> > much volume does that fraction have?
>
> Where exactly are you going with this ?

Precisely the circus you are now executing, that's where I'm going.

You have so wedded yourself to your statement that all numbers must be
aligned with a volume or a geometry that you will go through elaborate
dances to find a connection -- any connection at all! -- to something
with some volume or geometry. It does not even occur to you to rethink
things and to even consider the possibility that numbers may not
always correspond to something with volume.

>
>
>
> > Years. 3/426 is a fraction with magnitude. How much volume does that
> > fraction have?
>
> A year is an orbital cycle of the Earth,it represents a circumference
> hence your answer can only be represented in terms of distance
> traveled or as rotations per circuit which happen to be 365 1/4
> rotations for 1 circuit.
>
> If you are talking volume and year in the same sentence as quantities
> then it is hardly the reasoning of a person I need to speak with and
> therefore I concede the point to you and whatever direction you were
> going with it.

Good, thank you. Sorry that was so brutally difficult for you. It
seemed like such a minor thing to settle.

[oriel36]

On Feb 21, 7:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not a dollar in my bank account or on a loan. No paper token
> transacted.
>
>
>
> > > Square inches of surface area. 3/426 is a fraction with magnitude. How
> > > much volume does that fraction have?
>
> > Where exactly are you going with this ?
>
> Precisely the circus you are now executing, that's where I'm going.
>
> You have so wedded yourself to your statement that all numbers must be
> aligned with a volume or a geometry that you will go through elaborate
> dances to find a connection -- any connection at all! -- to something
> with some volume or geometry. It does not even occur to you to rethink
> things and to even consider the possibility that numbers may not
> always correspond to something with volume.
>

Naughty,naughty,the issue is setting lower and upper geometric limits,
which of course implies volume.If you want to believe a nondescript
entity like the dollar without refering it to some quantity then be my
guest,a number without geometry attached to it whether a thousand
apples or one molecule is a condition I wouldn't care to consider as
it would reflect an affliction of the mind.

>
>
> > > Years. 3/426 is a fraction with magnitude. How much volume does that
> > > fraction have?
>
> > A year is an orbital cycle of the Earth,it represents a circumference
> > hence your answer can only be represented in terms of distance
> > traveled or as rotations per circuit which happen to be 365 1/4
> > rotations for 1 circuit.
>
> > If you are talking volume and year in the same sentence as quantities
> > then it is hardly the reasoning of a person I need to speak with and
> > therefore I concede the point to you and whatever direction you were
> > going with it.
>
> Good, thank you. Sorry that was so brutally difficult for you. It
> seemed like such a minor thing to settle.

You are welcome.A person who attaches significance to number without
quantity ,and even secondary qualities like temperature and brightness
require geometry/volume as a source,has his own thing going that I
wouldn't care to disturb least I be associated with it.In other
words,thank you.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> -------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What if the amplitude is smaller than the planck wavelength?

Mitchell Raemsch

[PD]

On Feb 21, 2:27 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> What if the amplitude is smaller than the planck wavelength?

No such thing as "planck wavelength". Google it to be sure.
Then come back to me and announce that Planck wavelength has been
suppressed from the digital record and that people have hidden things
on purpose.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

It would overlap.
No. There is a better asnwer. It lies in the Continuum Hypothesis.
The infinitely small has sizes of infinity that we associate with the
finite...

Mitchell Raemsch

[PD]

On Feb 21, 2:39 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I'm sure there is a better answer. I'm certain it doesn't like in the
multicolored tower of dragons and fictional prizes where you live.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> multicolored tower of dragons and fictional prizes where you live.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

But are you sure about what that asnwer is?
If you don't agree on that you are stupid.

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize

[PD]

On Feb 21, 3:08 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>

wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 2:39 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 21, 2:27 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > What if the amplitude is smaller than the planck wavelength?
>
> > > > No such thing as "planck wavelength". Google it to be sure.
> > > > Then come back to me and announce that Planck wavelength has been
> > > > suppressed from the digital record and that people have hidden things
> > > > on purpose.
>
> > > It would overlap.
> > > No. There is a better asnwer. It lies in the Continuum Hypothesis.
> > > The infinitely small has sizes of infinity that we associate with the
> > > finite...
>
> > I'm sure there is a better answer. I'm certain it doesn't like in the
> > multicolored tower of dragons and fictional prizes where you live.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> But are you sure about what that asnwer is?

Heck no. There are no guarantees. Science never says, "This is the
truth. Forever. Done."
But it DOES have a method for saying, "Which of our *current* ideas is
the best one? The method for doing that is to compare the predictions
of those various ideas against measurement -- let the best idea win.
It's a *competitive* approach.

Think of it being like a footrace. There is a winner in a footrace, if
there are ten runners in the race. This doesn't mean that the winner
will be the fastest runner of all time, past present and future. But
it is true that he is the fastest runner for TODAY.

You want absolute truths from science? Won't happen. Don't ask.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

How are we going to be sure of what we're doing then?
I am not asking I am showing...
Truth is what will lead you away from doubt that is not necessary...
If you say there is none how can you be absolutely sure then?

Mitchell Raemsch

>
>
> > If you don't agree on that you are stupid.
>

> > Mitchell Raemsch; the prize- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[PD]

On Feb 21, 4:29 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>

Only by the competitive measures I described. There are no assurances
of more than that. If you thought that physics aimed to be sure or
aimed to provide sure answers, then I'm sorry that you'll be
disappointed.

[holog]

On Feb 21, 9:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 6:58 pm, holog <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > ok here goes
>
> > > > The smallest photon *at any one fractal level* is a single
> > > > neutrino from the next smaller level.
> > > Fractals don't have levels.
>
> > they have iterations
>
> No, they don't. You use iterations to *produce* a fractal.
>

> but each "iteration" , could be thought of as a level of resolution, our "level" of resolution depends on our technology to observe reality, and as we pear closer and closer it changes .


holog

[micro...@hotmail.com]

We cannot establish a point particle's properties in any way unless it
radiates... How would we know where the light came from?

You cannot calculate to infinity...

[holog]

>
> We cannot establish a point particle's properties in any way unless it
> radiates... How would we know where the light came from?
>
> You cannot calculate to infinity...

thats the point, our technology of observation limits our observation,
mathematically -though you can but, it relies on past experiments--
maybe there is something beyond light

holog