joigus

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.

Nobody can answer a nonsensical question. Example: What is the colour of love? Similarly, the question "how many particles of a certain type are in so-and-so many Joules per Hertz?" is a meaningless frigging question. One can only hope that finally illuminates something.

A double-nail experiment (an interference setup similar to Young's experiment in which the screen is replaced by free space and the slits by nail-like obstacles) would not produce the same results, but the negative picture of the same results with blurry shadows replacing interference maxima. Is that what you're trying to get at? How this relates to aether, fields, and (of all things) consciousness is anybody's guess. Your concern seems to be one of lexicon.

Again, a quantity with dimensions of J·Hz-1 (or equivalently J·s) cannot be a cardinal (number of things). The other members active on this thread are calling you out on the same mistake. And I am free to address your nonsense however many times necessary as long as I comply with the forum rules. And nonsense it is. If you use ergs instead of Jules, or Planck units, it would produce a ridiculously different number of things. That's why: When we study elementary physics, we are taught that physical equations and identities must always be homogeneous wrt the units used. PS: I also recommend you look up "vitriol" in the dictionary.

I'm getting a clear whiff of already-seen nonsense. A dimensional quantity can never be equated to a pure number.

No. I'm saying there's no such evidence. No. I said praising God is demanded by God himself, according to the known monotheistic narratives, which makes that god very suspicious to me in the first place, suggesting it's more a projection of primitive minds, rather than the actual presence it purports to be (who would never be that petty, IMO). @exchemist apparently understood my point perfectly and pressed me for more clarity. You, on the other hand, seem to be answering to points that were raised in your mind alone. I do agree with you, though, that belief has the potential to influence the way you live. Something that's not necessarily good, by the way.

I wouldn't say it's not compatible. There is a correspondence through the Poisson bracket. One closely replicates the other, but there is no \( \hbar \) in the classical Poisson brackets, of course. As to QPS, do you mean the Weyl representation of quantum mechanics with negative probabilities and all that? Theories that cover different scales of phenomena don't have to be "compatible". One must be the limit of the other one. Isn't this a speculation?

Sure. Gratitude towards real people who take real interest in the well-being of others, not towards some imaginary eye in the sky.

Well, if memory serves, it's implied in the Ten Commandments, and those were given to Moses by God himself in Mt. Sinai, according to Exodus/Deuteronomy. In Exodus 20, eg, you find also, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=NIV Praising, if anything, seems to be an understatement. It is also more or less implicit elsewhere in the Bible. As to Sunni Islam, it is believed to have existed forever in the mind of Allah and to have been only revealed to Muhammad by the angel Jibril. And many many surahs end with the words, https://quran.com/6?startingVerse=139 Or, https://quran.com/6?startingVerse=128 Which is clearly a recitation or repetitive formula, and I think it hints of praising. I've only chosen that couple of examples as a sample: It's almost everywhere in the Quran! Both things taken together would make a case for Allah himself indicating how exactly he is to be praised (according to the Sunni tradition). I would be very surprised if Zoroastrianism didn't follow a similar pattern. Says a devout Catholic believer. He might as well have had an opinion on the worst moment for cattlefish. How would he know?

Agreed. It's so easy to see in most of this the hallmark of human beings projecting their own feelings of guilt, inadecuacy, etc onto the external universe in some sense. It's obviously a crude sense of the need for reciprocity. Something like "I've taken too much from you, here's something back". In the most sinister version it involved sacrificing children, like the Phoenicians did.

Enjoying the moment leaves little time for praising. I'll try not to. 😄 Now that you mention praising, I've always wondered why gods almost universally demand praising. If there ever was a clue that gods are made up, that's it. Gods are designed with visibly human vanity.

Wasn't Avi Loeb also involved in an alien-intelligence explanation of sorts of asteroid Oumuamua?

Well, human hallucinations and so-called AI hallucinations are different things. Same word does not imply same concept, or that the analogy should be pursued necessarily, although it could be interesting. I'm not sure if AI is relevant when talking about gods and their arguable "behaviours". Hallucinations, particularly in the way of hearing voices or seeing visions, must have existed for a very long time among us humans. How these hallucinations were "socially channeled" so to speak resulting in some kind of evolutionary advantage (unifying decision making has been suggested as a possible advantage) is a synergy that must have taken place at some point during the upper Paleolithic. It is entirely possible that AI-generated hallucinations might end up encouraging new religions in the future. Especially among ignorant people who are likely to succumb to the fascination of these tools. Who knows.

Explanation is overrated, at least in the usual sense in which most people dabbling in physics use the term. More often than not, when the dust has settled from all the explanationatory attempts, new simplifying and unifying principles emerge that seem to carry little explanatory power, turn out to be considerably more abstract, but prove themselves in the end much more powerful when it comes to calculating, and thereby predicting with great precision a plethora of phenomena. Well-known examples are the principle of stationary action (or "least action") and the principles of symmetry that other members have mentioned. This is a fundamental tradeoff that today we suspect to be inescapable. If you think about it, why would one want to "explain" GR or quantum mechanics in terms of mechanistic models, in the way of little gears and levers, fluids, etc, that act microscopically? Rather, one would expect that the deepest a theory is, the more far-removed from immediate intuition it is bound/likely to be. In other words: Why would Nature "model" its basic workings as simplified replicas of what the denizens of a little planet can picture in their immediate sensory perceptions? Also, it is a symptom of someone who doesn't understand modern physics that they tend to disregard the power of symmetry principles. The successive reformulations of the gauge principle during the 20th century from Weyl to Yang and Mills is a good cautionary tale in this regard. Oh, and Newton and Einstein do not need unifying. Newton is the weak-field, low-speed limit of Einstein. as @KJW has pointed out.

Angel messengers are just cultural derivatives of Middle Eastern mythologies (cherubim). Dreams and visions have to do with the workings of the brain.

Worshipping is deeply wrong. Worshipping is incompatible with questions. If I had any inkling of a god, I would batter it with questions before any worshipping took place. But my feeling is gods could do nothing about that because imaginary beings are incapable of actual actions.

Thank you for the pointers. Things like \( i^{i} \), \( e^{i\pi} \) or \( \left( -1 \right)^{\pi} \) I tend to see as kind of trivial (perhaps wrongly). But I didn't know about the other ones.

I'd be very surprised that only very light element and iron (which has never been involved in superconduction of any type) were the only ingredients of no less than superconductivity at room temperature. That's a very tall order. Your extraordinary claim truly deservers extraordinary evidence. No problem. I tried to react quickly.

No.