Precision

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

‘I believe there are
15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’

Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the
Chapter XI, The Physical Universe.

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>
> ‘I believe there are 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
>
> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The Physical Universe.

Lol.

I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)

Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?

Bruno




>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>
> ‘I believe there are 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
>
> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The Physical Universe.

Lol.

The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood number.

To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

LC

 

I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)

Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?

Bruno




>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>
> ‘I believe there are 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
>
> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The Physical Universe.

Lol.

The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood number.

To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

LC

 

I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)

Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?

Bruno

\

The number of electrons and protons stays the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair production often refers specifically to a photon creating an electron–positron pair near a nucleus. 

In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was used to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers.

 

That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would explain telepathy and precognition.

@philipthrift

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number
of particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256. To show it more vividly, he has
written this result in full.

Evgenii

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

Am 15.05.2019 um 07:59 schrieb Philip Thrift:
>
>

...

>>>> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ‘I believe there are
>>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
>>>>
>>>> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science.
>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter
>>> XI, The Physical Universe.
>>>

> The number of electrons and protons stays the same?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>

Eddington has written it at times where the number of known particles
has been quite limited.

Evgenii

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/14/2019 10:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would explain telepathy and precognition.

Only the way "God did it." explains the miracles at Lourdes.

Brent

[Philip Thrift]

If there is only one electron, what are you doing with my electron?

@philipthrift 

[Lawrence Crowell]

I have not been entirely happy with this list since Cosmin Visan showed up hustling his nonsense. Now he claims the reports of moon landings are no more credible than claims of the paranormal. I wish this crap would end. There is no scientific basis for this rubbish, it has been put to various tests since the late 19th century and nothing whatsoever has ever been found. Please, don't join this chorus of morons.

LC

[Philip Thrift]

But, in order:

1. Precognition.

2. Telepathy.

3. The moon landing in July, 1969 was faked.

4. There is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

The tests claimed to support 1 and 2 are bogus (as far as I've ever seen). 

3 is crazy.

But 4 is in its own world of bizarre beliefs. One with that idea can't really say the others are "crazy", can they?

@philipthrift

[Lawrence Crowell]

Well ... if there is only one electron that weaves across space and time to create this multifold appearance this electron crosses horizons. That means information other than quantum numbers for electrons, spin, charge, isospin and mass, does not traverse all of space and time. This means that while the electrons in my body or brain may be really manifestations of the same electron defining those in other brains that reading thoughts is not possible this way. Think about it, if this is right then this one electron manifests itself with electrons in white dwarf stars. So does it make any sense that we might have some psychic connection to the degenerate electron pressure in white dwarf stars? Of course not, the idea is preposterous.

LC 

[Brent Meeker]

The problem with #4 is there are not equal numbers of electrons and positrons.  But there are some positrons.  There aren't any of #1 and #2.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>
> ‘I believe there are 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
>
> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The Physical Universe.

Lol.

The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood number.

To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical object, it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to make the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and persistent histories decorum.

I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.

Bruno

LC

 

I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)

Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?

Bruno




>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eae6b0b3-4255-4262-8f1b-08cf26418660%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>
> This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256.

Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea where this estimation comes from, and why it would be exact?

This assumes a lot of thing about the universe, when we still don’t have a coherent descriptive theory, nor unanimity of what that could, and if that exists.

Then how to verify this?

Bruno

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39a59c3a-e560-1967-7571-5d44741183f9%40rudnyi.ru.

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

Am 16.05.2019 um 19:05 schrieb Bruno Marchal:
>
>> On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>>
>> This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256.
>
> Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea where this estimation comes from, and why it would be exact?
>
> This assumes a lot of thing about the universe, when we still don’t have a coherent descriptive theory, nor unanimity of what that could, and if that exists.
>
> Then how to verify this?
>
> Bruno

I have not read the Eddington book so I cannot explain on how he came to
this result. Basically he thought that mind somehow is related to the
Universe and God. Some kind of mystics.

My source of information is

Helge Kragh, Higher Speculations, Grand Theories and Failed Revolutions
in Physics and Cosmology, 2011. Chapter 4, Rational Cosmologies.


Evgenii

[Brent Meeker]

Eddington wrote a book "Fundamental Theory" which was apparently never
quite finished.  I only know of it because there's a book I have by
Higman "Applied Group Theoretic and Matrix Methods" that devotes the
last chapter to a review of Eddington's "Quantum Relativity" in which he
says he gives a shortened version of Eddington's argument.  It's 41
pages long.  Higman's book is out of print, but cheap used copies are
available.

Brent

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>
> ‘I believe there are 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
>
> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The Physical Universe.

Lol.

The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood number.

To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical object, it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to make the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and persistent histories decorum.

I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.

Bruno

An electron is the occurrence of some quantum numbers in a small local region with the occurrence of a measurement. Prior to a measurement in one sense there is no such thing as the electron as a particle. There are experiments where the spin of an electron can manifest itself in one place and the charge somewhere else. Certain interferometers can separate the electron's quantum numbers.

LC

 

LC

 

I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)

Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?

Bruno




>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eae6b0b3-4255-4262-8f1b-08cf26418660%40googlegroups.com.

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>
> ‘I believe there are 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
>
> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The Physical Universe.

Lol.

The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood number.

To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical object, it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to make the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and persistent histories decorum.

I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.

Bruno

An electron is the occurrence of some quantum numbers in a small local region with the occurrence of a measurement. Prior to a measurement in one sense there is no such thing as the electron as a particle. There are experiments where the spin of an electron can manifest itself in one place and the charge somewhere else. Certain interferometers can separate the electron's quantum numbers.

LC

 

LC

 

I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)

Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?

Bruno




>

Prior to a measurement in one sense there is no such thing as the electron as a particle.

That is just a quasi-theological view in the catechism some physicists.

@philipthrift

 

-

[Bruno Marchal]

Thank you all for the precisions.

Bruno

 

-

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0fd3d0ae-dfb9-429e-a4e7-fea266ab25fe%40googlegroups.com.

[Lawrence Crowell]

What I say is the way quantum mechanics really works, and is backed by loads of experimental data.

LC

[Bruno Marchal]

I agree on this as seen as a phenomenology. I mean, yes, that is quantum mechanics.

Nevertheless, with digital mechanism, quantum mechanics (if correct) must be derived from elementary arithmetic, or equivalently from a combinatory algebra. Physics is given by a statistics on first person view based on all computations, which are executed in arithmetic (as we know since Gödel 1931 + Turing 1936). 

The theory of everything can be chosen to be just Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz), and a few identify rules. I cannot use physics without risking to cheat. Physics has to be derived from machine’s theology, which must be derived from those two axioms (with CT + YD at the meta-level, if only to motivate the definition, but here Neoplatonist theology can help, like the though experiments should help too.

Bruno

LC

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b97a9bc0-944b-46e3-aa46-9f107f375063%40googlegroups.com.