joigus

Really? So are you arguing for a world in which there are no consequences to your actions? I don't think that's how the world of human actions operates, and I don't think one can cogently argue for that to be the case. But those are just your thoughts on the subject. There is no a priori reason to think there should be any message in the natural laws, or in the vastness of the universe, or in the sunset on the surface of Saturn. A message is to do with how information is organised in brains. In particular, the sequential nature of language clearly suggests so.

An example I can think of is: Numbers of states are "combinatorial" wrt numbers of "entities" (I hope the quoted terms are more or less clear). For any number of things/entities etc you can think of, say N, combinatorial numbers are built out of factorials of those. Entropies go like logs of these numbers, which "keeps hugeness at bay" in a manner of speaking, because logs grow very slowly, but phase space gets you back to the hugeness of the combinatorial number, as phase space is roughly \( \exp{S} \) with S= entropy Phase spaces are huge indeed. That's roughly why the chances of something happening again are zero to all intents and purposes.

Why would you think there is?

I don't think so. Karma for Buddhists (and in Indian tradition in general) is a fancy Sankcrit word for "cause and effect". Not the same. In Abrahamic religions God can break the law of cause and effect (think of the Book of Joshua, and the Sun standing still under God's command). Assuming there is a message...

I don't think this is totally fair. Most religions seriously intersect the proper domain of science. For one thing, they tend to start with a cosmogony and anthropogenesis. And for another thing, they appeal to the supernatural only too often. It's not like they are non-overlapping magisteria, as S. J. Gould would have it. Think about it. In these forums, every day and its eve we have a religious character of some kind or another deeply concerned with what science has to say about evolution, the origin of the universe, or whether the world is a simulation (a modern version of a deity) etc. That happens for a reason. Buddhism seems different though.

In a seies of postulates, at least one must be operational. Otherwise, the theory is empty. Thus, quatum mechanics (which has eight or more) starts with, physical system --> Hilbert space state --> vector observable --> operator etc, but closes the deal with, probabilities --> quadratics in Hilbert space Now, probabilities can be measured. No operational postulate can be seen here.

I very much agree with @MigL when he said, In my own wording: It's TVTBU.* Therefore, it's NEW. * = Too vague to be useful

Historians are held to higher standards of accuracy than religious leaders. Reconstructions of the past must match documented facts and salient results from archeology. Let's see: "as any other intellectual construct" implies science as well. Drop the strawman. It's only that science is held to higher standards of accuracy: Predictions must match experimental results. Religious leaders, in fact, aren't held to any standards of accuracy at all. No checking for facts in religion.

I see you're taking a detour... Nothing you said addresses my observation that religion, as any other intelectual construct, is a projection from people's minds, and therefore the way we interpret religion evolves with our collective human experience. Now you point out the way we face life depends on expectations. Sure it does. What's your point? Suffering justifies irrational belief?

Sorry I came so late to this. Are you still interested?

Brilliant points here, including the story. Indeed, energy is frame-dependent. Although I must say, at this point I'm not sure if we're talking about an energy, an action, or a number of particles. The concepts seem to be flailing about.

I re-read our previous exchange and it seems to me that you said God demanding to be praised was in the Old Testament, but we've somehow learnt to interpret praising in a different light. Here: To me, that's very much "growing out of it". "It" = "belief in a personal god". Don't get me wrong. I think that's good! Something like this is exactly what I meant.

Doesn't this imply that we're slowly but surely growing out of it? (Believe in personal gods, I mean).

Both the proton's proper length and the speed of light are GR invariants, as I'm sure you know. Or do you? Are you trying to catch me? 🤣 I'm getting tired of this rambling...

As is the jiffy. Not special. A femtosecond? Much more special. A Planck time? We believe that to be so special that it doesn't even make sense to talk about a fraction of it. A king's foot is not a special measure of length either. You seem to have a problem understanding what I mean by "special". The time it takes a photon to go through a proton is the same everywhere in the universe, because photons and protons are the same everywhere. An alien from Alpha Centauri would immediately understand the relevance of that unit of time, but would have a much harder time understanding what you mean by a second. You could tell them it's the inverse of a certain number of times the frequency of a certain transition energy of caesium. But why exactly that number of times would be a mystery to them. Unless you told them about a place called Earth and a people called the Babylonians. The second is a convention.

LOL. The ancients are an inexhaustible source of wisdom.

A stream, a flux of particles, etc, cannot be defined by a quantity with the units of J·s. Simple as that. I'm not the only one who's been shocked by your atrocious use of physical units. Then you pressed me to answer a question that makes no sense, due to that fundamental mistake. That's the reason for my analogy with a non-sensical question as "what is the colour of love?" This is a standard academic example of an ill-posed question. I mentioned the Babylonians to try to make you understand there's nothing special about the second, while there's something universal about a Planck's time, or a femtosecond (a Fermi divided by the speed of light), etc. I was actually trying to save you many headaches. I find your lack of curiosity quite appalling, to be honest. Then you started the ad hominem game to the point of being quite insulting. But you still haven't aswered any relevant questions concerning your idea. It's never too late to start learning. Why not now?

I love the story of these silent revolutions. Wasn't the last step due to François Viète in the 16th century?

Absolutely. I should have said, "You cannot stick t=one second in a formula defining a physical law and expect it to represent a fundamental constant." That's what the OP is trying to argue, that this quantity built from Planck's constant times 1 second produces another universal constant. That's what's totally bollocks.

How about you answer the questions, given that this is your speculation? Don't worry about my qualifications or my mental health. Worry about your arguments, that should be more than enough to go by. I won't get ad hominem with you either. You cannot stick t=one second in a formula defining a physical law and expect it to mean anything. One second is only relevant in the Solar System because it's a convenient fraction of earthly cycles, and because the Babilonians loved to chop up time in as many parts as to have many convenient small divisors. That's why they loved the number 60. There's nothing special about one second. The time it takes for a photon to go through a proton could be a relevant time. The time it takes a photon to go through the classical electron radius could be a relevant time. A Planck time could be a relevant time. A second simply cannot be a relevant time in theoretical physics.

Why linear? Canonical transformations don't have to be linear. Take, eg, \[ Q=q+\cos p \] \[ P=p \] for a one particle system moving in one direction. The brackets are conserved, and yet, the transformation is non-linear. Canonical transformations are those that leave the canonical commutation relations invariant, not covariant. A quantity is not "left" covariant. It is either covariant or it isn't. We don't say it's left covariant because it changes, it is not "left" anywhere. It is taken somewhere else in a particular way we call "covariant". It is called "covariant" because it varies "with the vectors" or "in the same way as vectors".

(joules)x(seconds) is not an energy. I have. Several times. Others have too. What's the use? It's obvious you don't understand elementary physics. It simply isn't.

What do the words "I'm afraid it's nowhere near what you propose" mean to you? It means "no", of course. Does detecting a photon with an energy a hundred thousandth of a millionth the average energy of a photon from the coldest black-body radiation source that's known to us sound feasible to you? @swansont 's point about interferometry itself should be more than enough. My argument is more about calorimetry: No detector that we know of would "see" those photons. And you have the question about dimensions still pending.

Ok. For that specific part... Depends on the type of detector and particle. Can't you look up on the particle data group yourself? Here's a review as of 2019: https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2019-rev-particle-detectors-accel.pdf You can estimate the energies from spatial resolutions by using HUP. But of course you can do that with no problem, considering your adroitness with units. I'm afraid it's nowhere near what you propose. Keep in mind a typical CMB photon has an energy of roughly 10-23 Joules. We're talking 10-11 times that energy. I'm not aware of the M-M experiments introducing any calorimetry, but only measuring times. Anyway...

I'm fine. You need to address the questions.