CuriosOne

(X^2)^2)^2)^2------->infinity???

I get this idea from meters/second^-1

Meters in this example uses a random number of 3 * 12 inches..

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

OK, you don't know what dimensional analysis is either.
( what have you been doing for years ??? )

A radius is a DISTANCE, such as meters.
A velocity is a DISTANCE/TIME, such as meters/second.

Notice how meters =/= meters/second  ???
( that is dimensional analysis; making sure your units are consistent )

Units consistent, your 100% correct no doubt about this...

And I do tend to forget about those "units" as i dont really use them at all.

Reason:

The meter uses a "random" number of 3

3*12 inches

Speed of light uses a random number of 3

3*10^8 m/s

The root of 5 also uses a random number of 3 as 4/3 in the sphere formula.

Kilogram also uses a random number 3 "expotentially."

Units are not always consistent...

In acceleration for example:

Initial start = 0 then 1, 2 ,3.....So is 0 a unit??

For rotational motion is pi a unit??

At this level units are meaningless.

Do you see what I mean??

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because it can tell you if things can’t be equated.

It’s a scalar. No direction.

And the equation gives that (specifically, the gradient), not any constant used in the equation  

 

The PEE is not heat flow.

 

Gibberish

How so is this Gibberish?

we left out one important connection, and that is, none of this works without the use of pi as it is the foundation of all science..

13 hours ago, MigL said:

Before asserting any similarity, analogy or correspondence between things like radius and velocity, or direction and Planck's Constant, why not do a simple dimensional analysis ?
It will save you some embarrassment.

Why use dimensional analysis on something that curves and bends??

Just call it a piece of pi, easy as that..

Have we forgot about "General Relativity" or Particle Wave Duality, or the measurement problem "a very serious issue?"

Not to mention the correct subset of numbers when dealing with cyphering codes pre-listed in those sin, cos and tangent functions, it doesn't work like that.

I'v done dimensional analysis for years and my research "confirms" that velocity and radius are two sides of the same coin held within a "volume" or simply the sphere formula..

The OP attempts to "RECONCILE" this at the macro level....Thought you figured this out...lol

And where does that 2 come form in h/2 = quantum of energy..Is 2 a random number? or maybe h is a radius of pi dimension..lol

Sarcastic comments derseve sarcastic responses....

Your comment is personal..

18 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it isn’t.

Planck’s constant is not a direction

 

Is his constant atleast "radial" or radiant?

Even heat travels in some x direction to a flat 2d surface....Photo electric effect is a great example..

We know this through direction and distance, velocity is a stright line to a circle.

In QM, is velocity another word for radius?

I'm referring to the idea of quantized angular momentum with magnitude and direction...The Direction is Plank's Const.

From what I gather it appears this vector direction points in "All Directions." That's where the OP question comes from..

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why would you do this? The spin projection is along the z axis. It doesn’t disappear, and projecting this along the xy plane doesn’t make it go away.

 

I keep thinking about - and + polarities...

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. 

Both.

 

It’s nothing specifically related to waves. An electron is a point particle. Talking about a physical rotation makes no sense. (similar to how other classical concepts fail to work in quantum systems)

 

The wave function is a mathematical description. It doesn’t rotate.

 

I don’t see where you’re going or how you arrived at this.

 

That makes no sense.

The spin up and spin down disappearing and re-appearing concepts comes from projected surfaces on the z axis projected on a 2d flat cooridinent plane...

I get this idea from "angles" or slopes, it's just a small piece of a bigger fractural picture. 

I guess that's quantum weirdness..

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s an intrinsic property.

The spin axis is referenced to whatever coordinate system we choose, but if there’s a magnetic field, we usually use that for simplicity, since the spin axIs will have a known alignment related to the field.

It has nothing to do with the earth’s axial tilt

When you say alignment related to the field, is this alignment an "angle?"

On 11/3/2020 at 6:42 AM, swansont said:

The electron has a spin axis - a way of knowing something about its orientation in a coordinate system. We can’t know the actual direction of this vector, but we can determine the projection along an axis (usually the z-axis is chosen, by convention). So we can speak of an electron being “spin up” or “spin down” and that tells us what that vector is, which matters to certain interactions and measurements. 

But there isn’t a physical rotation. Nothing is physically spinning.

Are these "Freed Elections" we speak of, or "Electron Orbitals"???

Several things....

If spin up and spin down are "vectors"

Then where does QM waves come from?? IE "Nothing is physically rotating"

I invision the wave function itself doing the rotating with its use of pi ratio and the unit circle, I suppose.

The reason I say this is becuase spin up and spin down looks like it disappears to reappear??

16 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm afraid you're still not getting the concept of electron spin.
The electron is fundamental, so it is not made up of any constituents, nor does it have a radius ( considered a point particle ).
You cannot identify a certain constituent and see it move around the electron, nor can you mark a point on its surface and see it spin around, as it has no surface.

You may ask, then, how do we know it has 'spin' and what, exactly is meant by the term ?

Now for a macroscopic object, like a spinning top, its angular momentum imparts a certain stability to it, such that the spinning top will not fall over in a gravitational field, but will 'wobble' and right itself. IOW, it demonstrates certain properties in that gravitational field.
Similarly, an electron, without what we would normally consider spin, but with angular momentum, if placed in a magnetic field, will act like the spinning top in a gravitational field. But since we can't actually decide how it is spinning, we say it has 'intrinsic' angular momentum.
Spin directions are then assigned depending on the behaviour demonstrated in that magnetic field.

But again, nothing is actually/physically spinning.

Very Understood, ThanXxxx...

It sounds like the electron is asynchronous then?

Without the spinning..

On 11/3/2020 at 6:42 AM, swansont said:

The electron has a spin axis - a way of knowing something about its orientation in a coordinate system. We can’t know the actual direction of this vector, but we can determine the projection along an axis (usually the z-axis is chosen, by convention). So we can speak of an electron being “spin up” or “spin down” and that tells us what that vector is, which matters to certain interactions and measurements. 

But there isn’t a physical rotation. Nothing is physically spinning.

If there is no physical rotation, then how does angular momentum carry this quanta of energy "in regards" to frequencies and waves?

"Clearly there is some confusion on my end.."

I understand the point of "spin" though...

Now is this spin axis "some arbitrary refference point?"

Do we use the axil tilt of earth at 24 degrees for our electron's axil tilt refference?"

Hello my fellow science members!

I want to create a music audio program to create beat rhythms, audio tracks and even record your voice....

My first inquiry:

What do I need to a create a digital synthesizer that creates "sound" ie piano chords for "example" from "total scratch??"

I know C++ And Python Programming...

But "really" prefer a simple route..

ThnXxxx In Advance!

On 10/28/2020 at 3:12 PM, MigL said:

No, it doesn't rotate like a planet.
An electron's spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum.
For an electron, return to its 'starting point' takes 720^o.

x-posted with Joigus

I just want to make sure one very important fact:

The electron has "no axil tilt of refference?"

And that: From our member joigus quote:

An ordinary rotation is cycling around an axis. An electron is not like that. """"No matter how you look at it""" it always rotates with angular momentum h/2 or -h/2 in any direction you look.

On 10/27/2020 at 4:55 PM, swansont said:

h has units of angular momentum, so no.

Energy levels are quantized, but the frequency values are not integral, so energy is not quantized in steps of h.

Angular momentum is actually quantized. Changes in angular momentum happens in steps related to h.

 

No.

 

 

"Changes" in angular momentum answers "many questions."

😎 THANK YOU...

23 hours ago, joigus said:

An ordinary rotation is cycling around an axis. An electron is not like that. No matter how you look at it, it always rotates with angular momentum h/2 or -h/2 in any direction you look. So no, it doesn't act like a planet.

Electrons do not transform into photons; the either emit photons of absorb them. Electrons might absorb photons if there are photons there to be absorbed.

Electrons radiate when they are accelerated, or when they are in an excited state.

I don't really understand what behaviour you are picturing the magnetic field to inhibit.

What I mean by shouldn't the electrons magnetic field inhibiting this "QM" behavior is its:

Particle wave nature, among some other things I will wait on for now..

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Classically, yes. But not quantum particles 

Why? 

 I want to make sure I get my thoughts clear on this new information and get back to you..

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Because electrons also have charge, having spin means they act like magnets, and that affects their behavior in a magnetic field. The Stern-Gerlach experiment joigus linked to is a famous  early example, showing the discovery of the property. It shows up in a lot of atomic physics.

 

It shows up in the formulas. But angular momentum is tied in with rotations, so one would expect that.

 

 

Does a rotation mean:

An object that completes one cycle per some time interval? "Regardless of its size??

Does the electron act like a planet then?

It's hard to think of something so small with it's own magnetic effects considering how the electron is a fermion, then wave, then transforms into a light photon then obsorbes energy, then releases that same energy..

Shouldn't the electron's magnetic field inhibit this behavior?? IE Descrete values of h, this makes sense, if the theory is correct for QM.

Although I've never seen this electron, it's what I have studied..

3 hours ago, swansont said:

h has units of angular momentum, so no.

Energy levels are quantized, but the frequency values are not integral, so energy is not quantized in steps of h.

Angular momentum is actually quantized. Changes in angular momentum happens in steps related to h.

 

No.

 

 

Angular Momentum, Understood....

But i'm "very very" confused now....

Angular momentum of a particle's "rotational axis?"

How do scientist know this at scales that small???

Does angular momentum use pi ratio??

""I just want to make sure becuase of this from Wikipidia...""" 

In physics, angular momentum (rarely, moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. It is an important quantity in physics because it is a conserved quantity—the total angular momentum of a closed system remains constant.

So Plank discovered that:

Energies obsorbed or emitted by atoms were quantized, which means their values were restricted to certain quantities..If this relation were linked to a car driving, the car could only move at discrete values of h...

So if "nature" ie waves represents the flow of energy, or even disturbances in a medium at rest, (or using time with distance as in our car example) distance/time = rate, similar to frequencies, waves and etc 

Would this mean, all things are accellerating? 

With this information it's hard to understand the link between frequencies, waves and the math used that predicts physical behavior..

12 hours ago, joigus said:

@CuriosOne, while the word 'garbage' wasn't the nicest choice possible, it was directed to your posts, not to you. And I agree that your posts were a bunch of undigested ideas, very difficult to make sense of.

Then you missed the most important comment:

And after that "rude" comment, your next topic improved considerably, focusing on one particular theme and without bringing up just about anything that crossed your mind.

Be positive, and try to get better, clearer. That's good advice.

You will get better and better answers. Good answers to a bad question are impossible.

I agree...

15 hours ago, joigus said:

No, it's not the same thing.

"Random" is the opposite of "determined."

"Causal" means "happening as the result of something."

You can have random variables that show no causal connection between them.

You can have random variables that show causal connection between them.

You can have deterministic variables that show no causal connection between them.

You can have deterministic variables that show causal connection between them.

And then you have "casual," which is the way most scientists dress when they're working.

And then you have cassowaries, which are not casual at all, and seem to dress up all the time.

I think i understand the random numbers part and if they had meaning or "measurable quantities that can be tested phyiscally"  by some "say"scientific claim, they would be casual?

Why do I keep thinking about intrinsic..

15 hours ago, studiot said:

I'm glad you have done the right thing and started a new thread instead of pursuing off topic additional thoughts in one of your many existing ones.  +1 for encouragement.

It is actually very difficult to come up with a satisfactory definition of 'random' , deterministic , causal

I don't know if the question in your OP is in your own words or if you have quoted some source you haven't acknowledged.
Anyway I have a couple of comments.

Firstly casual (the word in the OP title question) and causal are different words with different meanings.

Secondly the statement

 

fails to properly distinguish between variables and a single result or outcome.

Doing this is important.

Now 'random'  is an adjective that is meaningless by itself. Your quote applies it to three different nouns (all important in statistical theory) to create mathematically specific instances of the nouns

variable, experiment and result. It should also equate outcome with result.

Also hidden in the above quote is the distinction between singular and plural.

Which introduces another very important concept - probability.

Strangely enough you need the idea of limits we started to explore in you unfinished calculus thread. You do not need the whole apparatus of calculus however.

Otherwise we are stuck with imprecise statements such as ' a very large number of.....'  , without having any idea how large is large enough.

 

OK so he is a definition of 'random' due to Kolmogorov.

A result is random is it cannot be obtained by any process that is shorter than the statement of the result itself.

so '5' , by itself, is a random number since it is shorter than say (3+2)

If you wish to follow this through and understand what how this all fits together you will have to stay focused.
 

 

Totally forgot where I copied and pasted from..Will give credits next time.

I think the 5 example is pretty clear to me, but casual and random do seem very invloved topics, but I'm glad I encountered them..Random comes up a lot...

9 hours ago, MigL said:

It's kind of like you don't realize there is no paradox, and further, it has nothing to do with length contraction in inertial frames.

 

No, YOU haven't.
Your attitude and 'far removed from science' ideas have.
None of us like talking to a brick wall; take other's comments under consideration, instead of jumping topics all over the place.

I do agree with you on my "Far From Science Ideas." Some ideas work for some, others work for others...

13 hours ago, studiot said:

 

How would you provide inputs to this program ?

The last time I did this was a vibration analysis of an aero engine and propellor system.

Here I digitally recorded the noise generated by the system in a suitable file format for input to a digital spectrum analyser (not an oscilloscope as iNow suggests) and ran it through the spectrum analyser to produce a digital output file both displayable on a computer screen and printable.

But you would need to understand the advanced mathematics to make any use of such a system.

Tip -  a bit of searching will find some freeware spectrum analyser programs you can play with before spending any money.

Totally ""not sure"" about how I would add inputs to the program..

Infact the waves I create are "soundless."

I "can" plot points in my graphing calculator and create a list to put points "which does help." But it's not sufficient.

I create simple vibrations in my 3d program with a sphere and "trace" or "draw by hand"  its motion in the y and x positions and play around with the "cooridinent's numbers" and apply these to calculus and triginometry....Its very intresting stuff....This is why I'm asking all the questions...

My program would need to "allow" imports or drawings of waves, then do what it does with them...I hope I can find one..

I "may" be quite advanced in math in terms of "integration" for some reason i resonate with it..I'm intermediate in all known math and science levels...But I'm still learning "what" it is..

Causal: Cause and Effect Questions Designed to determine whether one or more variables causes or affects one or more outcome variables. 

A random variable is a mathematical function that ""maps""outcomes of random experiments to numbers. It can be thought of as the numeric result of operating a non-deterministic mechanism or performing a non-deterministic experiment to generate a random result.

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Your duty HERE is to make yourself understood, and you're failing. If you don't understand something, ask a question about it (something short, without ALL THE GARBAGE you think is necessary for some reason). Please focus on a single concept at a time, and stop tossing in everything that pops into your head. Your signal to noise ratio is unacceptable.

 

I've been getting rude and sarcastic remarks since my 1st posting...I think u know this, since you appear to know my posts.

Calling someone's post garbage, trash and etc is "very rude" especially from people whom claim to be educated and especially when posts are public..

When members follows the rules of this forum, of which have been broken just now again, I think your suggestion may be applicable to others whom think out of the box and have similar issues with indirect insults, and the "standard" language of math, whatever that is at this point.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

For God's sake...

I thought scientist were atheist??

Is this correct?

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

If you don't know, maybe you shouldn't be using the word ...

Nothing of macroscopic size is truly random, especially not the larger universe.
They are all causal.
( yes even lottery numbers )

A causal relationship is when one variable causes a change in another variable. These types of relationships are investigated by experimental research in order to determine if changes in one variable actually result in changes in another variable.

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because Science.

(Note: There seems to be a problem with your keyboard. The "?" key appears to be be sticking.)

Stop already! You are just spewing a mixed salad of random thoughts and concepts you read somewhere. Think through what you are trying to say and write a cogent post.

And what is science???

By the way, I'm using my cell phone key pad so the "?" key is on the flat screen, and the only thing sticking is my question of which no one seems to be able to answer..Or kind of did already..

Oh, and your getting off topic..lol!

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Like an oscilloscope?

Definitely "no" more like a 3d program that uses Fourrier Series or Taylor Series that "brakes" up waves "bunched up signals or 2 simple signals.

Similar to those like "interference patterns"...Something that deals with "vibrations" between "say"  2 machines vibrating on a table affecting "say" a cup on the surface of the table,

and you want to know which machine has the greater influence on the cup..

These are just examples..

But a program like this would be ideal..

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

When applying length contraction, we use relative speed between the 'moving' object and the one doing the measuring ( of speed and length, from a 'rest' frame ).
If there is no other object in the universe, what do you measure speed relative to ???

Why don't you and CuriousOne just PM each other this nonsense, instead of polluting the forum with misinformation ?

Rest frame meaning not moving?

Or accelerating or orbiting another body in space? 

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

No, your second statement has absolutely nothing to do with your first, either "polite" or rude. It makes me wonder whether YOU exist in another reality.

QM already figured that one out eons ago....I just ask questions about the legitimacy of it all, my duty is to make people ""think.""

After all, the Whole Of Science Is Based On Ideas....Some work for some, others don't...So what is space???? I heard it was volume, or pressure...Does this help you understand my OP?

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

No, the universe is not accelerating randomly.

How do we know this??? 

I think I deserve an answer..

What devices does our small planet with our limited understanding of the atom use to come to such conclusions on something so emmense, profound and complicated?

Does This Include The Areas Of Dark Energy??

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Oh, now I get it ...

Kitchen sinks, haircuts, Range Rovers and walnuts, IE "volume"--> space
Garbage in --> garbage out.

In the years I've been a member never have I wanted to start dishing out down-votes more than now.

So what is random then?

A premiscouse constant such as pi?