  # Kramer

Senior Members

330

## Everything posted by Kramer

1. Magnetism is created by "electric charges" in movement, where do you mean they exists and with what charges interacts.?
2. Swansont What Planck particle? There is no such thing. ----Sorry “alleged”. But why not such a thing, when you admit a “scientific” dark matter particle, or a neutrino kind as particle of dark matter? ---- Again a straw man. You use the constants that are appropriate to the equations. You can't stuff them in arbitrarily What is well known and measured? Which one(s)? ----- They are not arbitrary. Ones may use them as constant and as unity. If you use them as constants you must take them in rate with common unities. If you use them as unities, it is the inverse , common unities in common constants must be in rate with plank unities. Well, let say “Plank h”, which is used both ways, electric charge “e”, which is used one way. Velocity “C” which is used as velocity of spherical loops: “ C / ( (2*pi) / α ) I don't recall symmetry coming up, and don't see its connection here. Without a connection to physics, it's a straw man. What symmetry is being broken, and how does it cause energies to be the same? (And which energies would that be?) ---- As a lay man I see the broken symmetry this way: It was an era when all kind of energies had the same value, this mean were the same. After when the mater was cooled this symmetry was broken. Began the profiling of gravity energy apart, different from others which continued to be the same until a another broken symmetry….etc. The first status I think was the equivalence of plank energies. But I don’t believe even in this kind of explanation. No more than using electron-Volts instead of Joules. It's a term of convenience ----- Electron – volt, it is not about unity. It is about the law that links two electric charges between them and distance in physic space: Ux*rx = 1.439964393 * 10 ^-9 V*m and Ex = e * Ux = e * 1.439964393 * 10^-9 / rx in eV Ex = (2.307077057*10 ^ - 28 ) / rx in Jouls . Strange Please click the button marked QUOTE. You might be amazed at what happens. ---- I don’t have any. Where on earth is? "Believeing" has nothing to do with science. There is no evidence for the particle you describe. It is a figment of your imagination. ----= Right. But in “ speculation” it is “like ones do science” and nobody think It is scientist, but is it a speculator. (I don’t speak about you or others, you may have credentials for scientist....). Evidence can be direct experimental fact, indirect using experimental fact, some simple calculations, some reasons, logic, a little out of box, some time far out of box, and ye most ---- figment of imagination, there where nobody inside the box has given “evidence”, the real evidence. You can speculate all you like, but without evidence it is worthless. ---- It is not for sell, it is an expose of something old in contrast with new brands. Andy 0816 Maxwell Planck who discovered the constant(h) also introduced a unit system. Both the Planck Constant and the Planck Units are named after him for this reason alone. They are not the same thing. Units are not constants, constants are not units. ------As I reasoned above, I think, they may be used both ways.
3. Strange There is no particle with the planck charge. Electrons, which have the fundamental unit of charge, have a charge of about 1/12 Planck charge. ---- For this I insist that equation that links this particle with the “legitimate ones”, is not right. If you don’t want to see the equivalence of energies, created by the same formulas that used in the common particles, as a pattern for all particles, including alleged Plank particle, I think is a issue of believing. That may exists as a so called “black hole” particle (some celebrity think), or non exists because is “incinderated” by high temperature as in the formula of an another celebrity I, brought above in this thread, I think is an issue of personal taste. My speculation is that “alleged corrected Planks constants, exists in alleged “unique sub-particle”, as an unique kind of blocks that structures all common particles. But you still haven't explained what "violation" you are talking about. (Charge is not energy, by the way.) ----Who say that charge is energy? It creates energy because it is always in movement. Two “ unique particles” evolving toward each other in spherically or helicoidally trajectories create a particle, Mass or mass less depends by arrangements of electric charge and gravity charge. There is no reason that any particle should have the mass, charge, size or any other property with the value of 1 Planck unit. And none do. ---- Isn’t “h” a plank constant? Why not [“ sqrt (G) * Mpl.* sqrt ( α )] as a factor of ‘gravity ability’ in common particles? Why “h” is eclipsing all other characters? Again, you are wrong to assign any such meaning to it. As far as I know, all theories that quantize space and time do it at scales much smaller than the Planck length. ----- And just for this we may have : E = h / t => infinity and f = C / t = infinity. O come on. Swansont If you rearrange the Planck units — the actual Planck units — the energies will be equal. If you put other values in the equations, you will get different answers. That's how math works. ----- I put others because they fit in the filling vacancies of some puzzles, and at least one of them is well known and measured. There is no violation of any sort of equal energy concept if you put different values into the equation. There is no justifiable expectation for the value to be the same, because (again) that's how math works. ----- How about break of symmetry? Or you think is a straw man in the debate , as always ignorant do? There is no particle that has a Planck charge. There is no particle predicted to have the Planck charge. ----- Because Plank charge was a fudge, based on the data of the era. Andy0816 There is a Planck Constant(h) and then there are the Planck Units. These are not the same thing. ------ Constant “h” was discovered for explanation of other issue of the era. Other constants, that you call Units, I think, were a search for finding the limits of using this constant. And I think the limit is when all kind of energies take the same value.. I can say: 5 Planck Lengths x 6 Planck Lengths = 30 x Planck Area. Anything you can do with standard metric units, you can do with Planck Units. It think, it is like, the metron used by Heim, which was unsuccessful tentative for the theory of everything. But I was not able to understand his math. And I suppose that “characteristic distance “ of him, was derived by a formula in which were scrambled some kind of energies. Deal of celebrities. But this is a straw man as say Swansont. You have a brain your head just like everyone else. The root issue is that you have mistaken beliefs that you are not recognizing as such. If you can do this, clear away the cobwebs of mistaken thought and think instead of Planck Units as Units you will grow in understanding. ---- eh…. Thanks for encouragement…. And for suggestions. Planck Force in the form of: c4/G C^4/ G = ( G*Mpl^2 / lpl ^2 ) = (G*Mpl / lpl)* (G*Mpl / lpl ) / G C^4 / G = ( G * Mu^2 / Ru^2) = ( G*Mu / Ru) * ( G*Mu / Ru ) / G It is algebra and mostly cancellations at that. ----- You think is more comlicated?
6. Swanson That's just it — the units ARE arbitrary. There is no connection with any physical object. There is no object that has a Planck unit of mass or charge or energy, etc. used as a definition. There's no correlation whatsoever. There is no "reality of equivalence" of energies. ---- Now please explain to me this “units ARE arbitrary”. You mean Plank’s units? Because when I say that electric charge of Plank energy was defined arbitrary, I think that just this was the cause of violation of “ equivalence of all kind of energies”. But this doesn’t mean devaluation of Plank units, devaluation of the idea of equivalence of energies. This means that Plank units must be corrected. The characters of “unique sub-particle”, corresponds, in one way, as a tentative to correct Plank units, preserving the idea of equivalence of energies. And, on the other hand to find a pattern for all kind of particles, using that in Plank area, and the link or relation of common particles with corrected Plank constants. It is wrong, in the sense that you are trying to claim an equation supports your idea. ----- I insist in my idea, because it gave, maybe naïve, but reasonable explanation about more of statements of modern physics. Those statements don’t go further than statement like; mass equal energy, mass changed in energy and vice verse, mass change with acceleration, duality mass wave etc. for which I myself am not sure. If you want to claim that there's a connection, fine. What's your experimental evidence that it's true? Or, how can we test the idea to see if it's true? ---- Experimental evidence? About particles of mass that have gravity, and electric property, and mass-less particles are deprived of them? This is fact. I tried to give an explanation. Give me yours. Or insisting in experimental evidence, and not in abstract debate, is it a call for to close this post? It’s your right.
7. There is only one Planck energy I continue to think that Plank constant were defined in an era of physics, when was not known the value of electric charge, and the calculations were performed in planetary system: (2*pi*L) --- for this they are outdated. And they violate reality about equivalence of all kind of energies in Plank area, including wrong with arbitrary way the electric energy. Swansont My point is that putting G/G into in equation does not link it with gravity. Any more than taking the equation for compound interest A=P(1 + r/n)nt and modifying it to A=PG(1 + r/n)nt /Gmeans that compound interest has a connection with gravity. ---- In quantum mechanic, method of calculation is statistic. Maybe for this, you use statistical examples. I don’t see any resemblance in treating particles as “ unity”, with your example-sarcastic. For my thread the common particle is structured by two sub-particles, that posses always electric and gravity ability. To neglect one of this ability I think is wrong. And they interact with each other in Physics space, that possess too, two kind of property; electric and gravity. So multiplying with constant of gravity (G) both sides: electric charge of particle and (even not evident) electric charge of particle on space (hidden in constant ε ) , is not wrong. There is only one Planck energy ---I continue to think that Plank constant were defined in an era of physics, when was not known the value of electric charge, and the calculations were performed in planetary system: (2*pi*L) --- for this they are outdated. And they violate reality about equivalence of all kind of energies in Plank area, including wrong with arbitrary way the electric energy. Swansont My point is that putting G/G into in equation does not link it with gravity. Any more than taking the equation for compound interest A=P(1 + r/n)nt and modifying it to A=PG(1 + r/n)nt /Gmeans that compound interest has a connection with gravity. ---- In quantum mechanic, method of calculation is statistic. Maybe for this, you use statistical examples. I don’t see any resemblance in treating particles as “ unity”, with your example-sarcastic. For my thread the common particle is structured by two sub-particles, that posses always electric and gravity ability. To neglect one of this ability I think is wrong. And they interact with each other in Physics space, that possess too, two kind of property; electric and gravity. So multiplying with constant of gravity (G) both sides: electric charge of particle and (even not evident) electric charge of particle on space (hidden in constant ε ) , is not wrong.
9. Sensei We have isomer isotope with mass m1. Then it's decaying by isomeric transition to "plain" isotope with mass m2. Energy of gamma photon is Before transition/decay higher mass of isomer was influencing gravity by small factor. After decay total energy is still the same. Before decay we had little gravity influence, after we don't have just because photon was emitted? Makes no sense. ----I am afraid that you misunderstood my (+mx, –mx). They are particles of mater and antimatter. In your example : Ey = (m1 – m2) * C^2 , equation may reduced in Ey = m3*C^2, which is nothing else but Einstein equation. In this case “m3”, that is difference of masses (m1-m2), must be a mass created by equal fifty-fifty from particles of mater and anti mater. Only they are copable to create photons. Other ways you cant accelerate mass m3 with C velocity. If gamma photon will be absorbed by some near material (and don't let escape Earth), and heat it, mass-energy of the system will remain constant. And we will have still the same gravitation as before. ---- I think that this happen because photons “absorbed” by earth and transformed in heat, continue to be in status of microwaves--- after De Vien. If I am not wrong as always? Swansont Great. Now define what the rest of the terms in the equation are. --- There is not any physicist that don’t know what they are as constants, or as physics terms. So please don’t kidding me. I think will be right if debate will direct in issues: 1--- Is, in this formula, any multiply and divide of constants that have canceled each other? 2--- If yes : why is it allowed for Celebrities, and not for every body? If not: how comes that it fit exact with my hypothesis that all kind of energies , at least in Plank area are the same? 3---- Let leave aside if here is any real bogus! If you don’t see it!
11. Swanson I guess that puts your understanding of evolution at the same level as that of physics, and saying that evolution is under the rules of physics is not the same kind of claim as saying that electrostatics and gravity are connected. ------ Another attempt to show your knowledge supremacy, with what I never had any intend to compete. I never boasted with my knowledge, in both sciences. When I say that rules of physics apply in electrons, protons and molecules of organic objects in the same manner as in inorganic particles that doesn’t mean that two kind of natures science are the same. watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome” is not part of physics. But you are making the claim in a physics discussion, so it must represent a straw man of physics. ---- Copenhagen interpretations, popping of particles from nowhere, disappears in nothing, annihilation, change of flavors, colors, without any cause etc. they are not only discussions. You see it done, but you evidently don't understand the meaning behind it, and/or derive meaning that isn't there. Just like cargo cults, building straw airports, thinking it will attract airplane traffic. ---- I am constricted to rebut your “ cargo cults” for attracting airports “traffic”. You mean that I am interested to attract supporters in my “straw airport”? You are wrong. I think that there are real scientists ( not at all like a lay-man ignorant as me), in our country that work on the idea of Democritis atom, indivisible, indestructible , eterne in time (meaning) , unlimited in space. Kind of my sub-particle; may be diverse, but the same in core idea. ----- You tell me “ about my lack of understanding” or “ derive wrong meaning”. Here I bring two formulas: with original and my “wrong interpretation”. I would liked your rebut about. original T = (h / 2*pi) * (C^3 / (8*pi*G) / (kb * M) My variant 1 = (((h*C / ((2*pi/α) *Ru)) * ((C^2 * C^2* Ru) / G) / ((Mu*C^2) * ( kb *cv2*T) 1 = Euh * EuG / EuE + EuB. My interpretentions: 1) Manipulation with four kinds of the “same energy”--- Eu 2) Aim: to derive Tu--- inverse proportional with Mu.—Wrong 3) (Mu*C^2) = ( kb*cv2*Tu) Sensei Sorry, but WTF does it mean? ---- I have no idea what is WTF. Like Feynman lines, showing how udd is changing to udu + e- + V ----- I don’t know how happens this miracle that “d “ gave birth (u + e- + V) You know that Pion+ can decay to Pion0 and positron and neutrino, right? ----- I have not crystallized in myself about structure of “neutrino” and ‘Antineutrino” In this case neutrino v = (-e / +g) + (+e /+g) and antineutrino ~v = (-e /-g) + (+e / -g) If this rule go in contradiction with other cases, this means --- something is in core wrong in my hypothesis. What does mean +g and -g ? If +g-g = 0, their "charges" cancel together? And there is no gravitation from such particle? For outside particles -- right. For inside particles ---- no .
13. Swanson Any more than multiplying and dividing by some biological constant means there's an equivalence between electrostatics and evolution ----- I won’t be surprised. Branch sciences of nature are inter-twined. What I don’t believe is that only “watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome”. As for multiplying and dividing constants in physic, that is a common play for all physicists, in all times. The rule is that “ result must respects “unities” Swanson Any more than multiplying and dividing by some biological constant means there's an equivalence between electrostatics and evolution ----- I won’t be surprised. Branch sciences of nature are inter-twined. What I don’t believe is that only “watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome”. As for multiplying and dividing constants in physic, that is a common play for all physicists, in al times. The rule is that “ result must respects “unities”
14. Sensei Do you realize it's mass of billions * billions * 13 protons? (first: note that this is a speculation about the structure of common particles by means of two sub particles) Now sure “I realize”, but you are speaking about the “Mass” of “Plank particle” mpl = Empl. / C^2 = = (sqrt(G) * Mpl.*sqrt(α) *( sqrt(G) * Mpl.sqrt(α) / ( Lpl.*sqrt(α)* C^2) = = Mpl. (α) * ((G*Mpl. / Lpl.) / C^2) = Mpl (α) *1 Note: Plank area is the only that has “mass particle” “mpl’. equal with “gravity sub particle “Mpl” which I think are two different concept. Now compare above with mass of electron particle (me) : 1) me = Eme / C^2 = = (( sqrt(G) * Mpl. *sqrt(α) * sqrt(G)*Mpl.*sqrt (α) ) / (Re * C^2) 2) me = Eme / C^2 = (( e / sqrt(4*pi*ε) * (e / sqrt(4*pi*ε) ) / ( Re *C^2) 3) me = Eme / C^2 = (( h * ( C / (2*pi / α) * Re ) ) / C^2 …….. Mass of a particle is considered equal energy / C^2. But what gave to mass the gravity property? Energy of a common particle is the energy created by interaction of two unique sub particles. The amount of energy is inverse proportional with distance between two sub-particles) I don't doubt you do, and completely doesn't care about it... I do care a lot. This thread is just about this “monstrous” Mpl*sqrt(α) as a property of alleged sub particle, which has the duty to create gravity energy on the common particles, the same as the electric charge, create electric energy. I want to ask: Why, you don’t rise browns about: e / (4*pi*ε) ^ 0.5 but doubt about sqrt(G )*Mpl.* sqrt(α) Aren’t they the same as the amount? And their results aren’t with the same unity? Electric charge (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant “epsilon zero”, result of electric charges (F/m). Mpl.*sqrt(α) (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant of gravity (G). Both acting in unison create one--two face energy: electric and gravity energy. And the mass of particle, that has gravity property, isn’t equal energy divided by C^2? What gave mass of particles gravity? Why not, gravity energy created by sub-particles. Why suppose it is Higgs? Electric charge (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant “epsilon zero”, result of electric charges (F/m). Mpl.*sqrt(α) (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant of gravity (G). Both are in the same foot. I assume their charges must be -1e and 0e? And then positron has +1e and 0e? Otherwise charges wouldn't match completely. --- Right rebut. I suppose that “two sub-particle” evolve toward each other in spherical trajectories; create a sphere of their existence which is in rest as whole. This is a common particle in rest status. But nobody has found any particle in rest status. They as whole are always in relative movements. I suppose that relative movements are created by a third sub-particle from an antineutrino (antimatter), or from any photon. This antimatter sub-particle with “one” of matter sub-particles, create a photon that evolve around sphere like Broil wave, which we measure as Compton wave. So in total we have: For electron (--) + (--) + (+) = (--) + photon For proton (+) + (+) + (--) = (+) + photon ? Bosons have full integer spins, f.e. 0, 1. How two bosons joined together can give spin 1/2 ? If we would have 1/2 and +-1/2 it can end up 0, or 1. But if they're integer we will never end up with fractions.. Truly I have not treat this problem; for my hypothesis I tried to fit sign of electric charges and sign of sqrt(G) in right correspondence. Swanson All you did here was multiply and divide by G, which cancels. Any claim that this has anything to do with gravity is bogus ----- They are brought here to show that gravity energy and electric energy, of two electric charges and two Plank gravity charges (mass), are equivalent. For Plank area this is indisputable that this fit for Plank length. But seems that this fit even for whatever distance. And it is the augments of distance between charges that causes diminish of the energy, and with this the mass of common particles. We have e / ε0 . There is not any cancellation between electric charges of particle with electric charges of space. I think the same for gravity.
15. Gravity energy --- mass energy, two different concepts. Speculation by a lay-man Here are four equations, three of them “relative static” potential energy, between two electric charges and what derive from them, fourth rest energy of electron particle. 1) - - - - ( e / (sqrt (4 * pi * ε ) ) ^2 / Re = 8.187104683*10^-14 Joul 2) - - - - ( sqrt ( G) * (Mpl *sqrt(α) ) ^ 2) / Re = 8.187104662*10*-14 Joul 3) - - - - ( e / (sqrt ( 4 * pi * ε * G) ) ^ 2 * G / Re = 8.187104683*10^-14 Joul 4) - - - ( me * C^2) = (Mpl * C^2) * (Lpl / Re) = 8.187104145* 10^-14 Joul Note: 1-Equation (3) is to show why formal “gravity potential energy” is equal electric potential energy, if taken in consideration constants of gravity field and constant of fine structure. 2- “Re” --- classic radius of electron particle. Eq.(5) ------- Mpl * sqrt(α) = e / sqrt ( 4 * pi * ε0 * G ) = Mun. Here Mpl*sqrt(α) = “Mun.” is equivalence “mass” of alleged “unique sub particle” Electric potential energy is equal “gravity potential energy of alleged Plank mass “Mpl*sqrt(α)”. And both of them are equal potential static energy of electron particles mass “me”. So “gravity potential energy of a structure of two Plank “mass* sqrt α”, is equal the potential energy of two electric charges and is equal energy of the electron particle, in rest status, even it that has a mass “me” which is 2.041*10^21 time less than Plank mass (”Mpl”). Speculation by a lay-man: 1- electron particle is structured in “rest status” by two sub-particles as in Eq.(5). 2- Sub-particle “Mun.” may be considered as a “ boson ?”, instead and different from “+,- W” or “Higgs”, -- able to build structure for all kind of common particles, mass or mass-less. 3- Static status is only “relative toward each other” because the sub-particles supposed to move always in spherical trajectories with C velocity, and after, with V velocity as whole when associated with one third anti matter sub-particle Mun.
16. ## ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

Strange The experiment was found to be completely consistent with the calculations of the theory. What has this got to do with myths or mysticism? The experiment may be in conflict with your (apparently very confused) understanding of theory but I don't suppose anyone cares about that. ----- That’s more than enough, to close the thread.
17. ## ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

18. ## ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

19. ## ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

20. ## ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

21. ## ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

22. ## ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

Swansont You have yet to provide any context for what circular trajectories you are talking about. This is not the subject of the paper that you referenced (but did not provide a link to; someone else did that???!) "Circular" does not appear in the text. -------- Finding quantum lines of desire Is the title of the article from which I have extracted the next quoted phrases: {The experiments, the first continuous measurements of the trajectories of a quantum system between two points, are described in the cover article of the July 31 issue of Nature. (Here is the figure of the “web of trajectories”, named by me ‘clew’. I was unable to post the figure) Murch lab A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space.} Now if you think that the white lines in the figure are not trajectories, but only fragments of linear trajectories, linked with each other as to give the idea of a circular trajectory, that complicate much more the problem, instead of solving something "Circular" does not appear in the text. ----Circular are all the trajectories in the figure. Many circles. It is not clear if they are in plane or space, and where are the two points ( what they represent?) in space, around which dance in trajectories the quanta Just for clarifying those miss concepts I opened this thread, bluntly attracted by title: “line of desire” Strange More reading on this confirms what I initially thought. The (roughly spherical) trajectories shown are not positions in space. They are a mapping of the values of the quantum state to a spherical coordinate system I don’t understand what has to do the ‘mapping of the values of the quantum state’ with "the trajectories and the line of desire". May be you think that there is a link between the “path and the gout”? applicable in “quantum physics?” Why in a SPHERICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM?
23. ## ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

24. ## ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA. The experiments, the first continuous measurements of the trajectories of a quantum system between two points, are described in the cover article of the July 31 issue of Nature. Murch lab A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space. What is “A PATH OF DESIRE”. “Desire of who” is the meaning? Desire of experimenter? Desire off quanta? --- Men! O men! Only lack of statement that quanta has sex! If trajectories are not traced by “a particle”, under guide “of charges”, what are they and what guide them?
×