Kramer

Swansont say: You really need to stop calling things controversial simply because you don't know the answer. -------- Sorry that I use in my posts a term with allergic effect. But I think you don’t negate that the secrets of natures reveals themselves, for humans, in form of controversies. For scientists, when a controversy is solved, the secret is no more secret, only but for lay-mans. I am one of them (a lay-man) but i have bad mania that when I am not satisfied to insist and dig dipper. As I recall now The complex resistance in Ohm’s law is: Z = sqrt((RL – Rc)^2 + R^2 ) = U / I I see that all kind of resistance have own post and they are not inverse. I am interested and curious to know which of them is Von Klitzing resistance. Sure not R. I will bring here my simple calculation for my alleged structured electron and proton: Electron : Radius : 2.817940286*10^-15 m. I = 19.79633259 …………..A. U =510998,9258……………V. Z = 25812,81507 Ohm. f =1.23559006*10^20 ….Hz. Proton : Radius : 1.534698246*10^-18 m. I = 36349.0832…………… A. U = 936271820.6…………….V. Z = 25812,81507 Ohm f =2.268731`829*10^23 Hz. For this I am interested to know.Please help.

Controversy: Von Klitzing’s constant vs. Ohm’s rule. It was a surprise for me that consulting Codata found Von Klitzing constant. I had calculated electric current, electric voltage, electric resistance based only in classic radius of particles. This was for my hypothesis. Von Klitzing constant is the same as resistance of electric voltage / toward current (amperage) of electric charges, in alleged circular trajectories on electron particle, proton particle and three imaginary particles. I thought : this is a good supportive argument -- I am in right track with my hypothesis about structure of elementary particles. It is a good argument about hypothesis that an elementary particle posses all kind of energies in the same amount. It is a good argument that precise radius of a particle, is real. It is a good argument that classic physic is not dead. But? …. Why on earth resistance does not depends by radius? May be Von Klitzing had find why his constant, “is constant”, has find what is physics meaning of a resistance that does not respect Ohm’s rule. Now i am in blind end. I tried to consult Vikipedia about this problem. Didn’t find any answer. So I post here my problem. May be expert won’t send me with: go fishing. Happy New year!

Dparlevliet say: Anyway I don't think it does influence "change" if time is seen as “infinite small” (when continuous or “in steps” A lay man say: Here are two thing for dispute: “ infinite” small”, and “in steps”. Both are “speculation” and in contradiction with basement of law of physics. And both are the assets of Quantum mechanic theory in Copenhagen interpretation of physic’s phenomena. It does influence a lot ! Timo say: swansont say:, on 23 Dec 2013 - 9:35 PM, said: ------It might be confusing because that [the Planck time and Planck length being the (smallest) unit of time or space, respectively] is not what quantum mechanics is saying. -----Had the spontaneous urge to quote that. ------ The lay man say: Why “spontaneous” urge and not “ premeditated “ and “well based”?

Big nose say: I walk into your room carrying a box. I set the box down and say "Whew! That box is really heavy." --- Mike say: no big deal! Every body can carry it, even an old man. --- Lay man say: And? I see it. Is a only a box with an approximate weight. --- Greg H say: You “see” it! But when you “don’t see” it, the box disappears. --- Imatfaal say: We trust in maths. In probability. In uncertainty. There is based modern cosmology. Here the computer in lay man’s pot gave alert: I am cracked ! I am bugged. The lay man calm his computer: -- Hush! May be the computer in pot of somebody else is bugged. Do calm!.

May be the idea of " the universe invaded with anti matter is based in assumption that anti matter has gravity repellent ability toward matter . If this assumption will be not true, idea fall out.

Greg H say: "They're not really 0 and 1 at the same time (at least not as I understand it. They have both the probability of being a 0 and the probability of being 1 at the same time." The lay man say this has open the door of absurdities in physic.

CONTROVERSIAL: “COLECTIVISM” OF MATTER --- “INDIVIDUALIZM “ OF ANTIMATTER. Don’t judge, and don’t deride me before listening till end. It is not a thread about sociology, is about physic’s nature of reality, in viewpoint of a lay-man. It’s only a “RHETORICAL’ empty stuff. In the sequel of my threads about particularity of nature ‘s reality, where I suggest that “unique sub-particles” of matter and anti-matter are the only protagonist of this reality, I have get stuck in mud toward questions I made myself: Why electron and proton have different mass and radius from each other? Why the antimatter is so scarce , instead visible mater so abundant? My alleged hypothesis, permit whatever dimensions of those basic elementary particles, structured by sub-particles, both matter and antimatter. AND! Why sub-particles of matter have been able to create stabile elementary particles, why the counterpart of sub-particles have not been able to create stabile antimatter elementary particles. ? Nature must have deviations. In beginning I have supposed that sub-particles : ( -e / -g ), (+e / -g ) of matter , and ( +e / +g ) and ( -e / +g ) for anti matter, have the same electric ability and gravity ability, in each of those four variants of sub-particle, and for both kind of charges. This kind of reasoning, results in a row of strict identities, about laws of physics, and this result in an impasse for explanation of certain facts. Now I go back-ward: For sub - particles of matter gravity ability ( - g ) has a tine predominance toward electric ability. In antimatter sub-particles, this ability is inverse: electric ability has predominance toward gravity ability. Gravity ability is main cause that coalesce particles of matter, in creation of stabile basic elementary particles electron and proton. On opposite: antimatter sub-particles must have predominance of electric ability toward gravity ability. That impede creation of anti matter’s elementary particles ( positron and anti proton), where the repellent factor of electric charges is more potent that gravity attraction. In matter creation, electric influence fade because its ability is neutralized by existence of both charges + , -- . Gravity factor is the only one that “collective” all amount of matter, in globs. In opposite antimatter sub - particles have been unable to create elementary antimatter positron and anti proton, and in their “individualism” they are dispersed and fill all the space. ( ? in Dirac’s sea ) They, causally interact with mater, in energetic individual phenomena. Is their existence, between globs of matter, that hold apart globs of mater and impede the coalesce of all matter in a supper “ collectivism” of matter. They create an pressure in structure of proton via electric ( + ) charge, so the radius of proton is much less of that of electron. Instead in electron particle this factor has an opposite effect. And indeed the mass of particle is in inverse proportion with radius in elementary particles. That is all: a sketch idea.

Swansont Really. A flat universe is a plane? The universe, by inspection, is not a plane. ---- I know that you want to joke. Your scientist colleagues, gave a simplyfied vision of universe for lay-mans, like me, as a huge balloon on the surface of which some dote represents galaxies. I thought that for supper accelerated “inflation” this surface became more and more flat or “plane”. They say that, jets from the supper massive body in the center of our galaxy are orthogonal with this plane. That means geometric form of universe is “plane”. If you want to split hair in two go ahead. My thread is very simple: 1--- Gravity is the cause why our solar system is in a geometric plane”, and so I think is our galaxy and rest of them. 2----Gravity is the cause that sun and planets are geometric spheres, or globs. Here I see a controversy in the “behavior “ of “Mr. gravity” : in micro--- it work in 2D in macro--- in 3D. And something more: Why jets are orthogonal toward “plane” or “flatness”. Isn’t there a strange behavior, “specific” for photons, waves, electric particles and may be for sub particles, by this strange “subject called gravity”? I gave a naïve speculative guess, (to degrade the word “ my hypothesis”), about of three kinds of frequencies. If somebody of forum want to elucidate me about my riddle, please do, if somebody want to discard my “guess” about frequencies please go a head. I will be sincerely grateful giving me the peace of mind. Try answering as if you were being tested for comprehension (because you are). I suspect your post is based on not understanding the issue. If you don't, then say so. If you do, or think you do, then explain what it means. ----Sure I don’t understand. Do you? Why gravity works differently about geometric forming of cosmic objects (mainly --- spherical) and why for geometric form of their movement ( mainly-- plane circular). I am a layman curious, to know what other people know about the issue. .Greg H f you don't even understand what is meant by saying the topology of the Universe is flat, how in the name of Hades do you expect to convince anyone that you actually know what you're talking about? -----Did I give the impression that I understand about the issue of thread? Or that I want to sell my naive idea as a solve problem? . I thought that here is a controversy, or a twist mode behavior of gravity. I don’t want to convince anybody. Instead I hope that somebody will convince me in my doubt. (That's a rhetorical question - it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Consider this a plea to go get yourself educated on the toipic before you continue). ----For education of myself I participate in this forum, to learn by the means of debate about different toipics with benevolent cultured people. If you find not worthy to loose time in debate with an ignorant lay-man, who oblige you?

- Kramer: what does it mean for the universe to be flat? I ask because if you don't get this right, there is no point addressing the rest. ---Plane

CONTROVERSIAL : FLAT universe ------- SPHERIC celestial objects I am sure that moderator will find nothing controversial in this thread. At first because it is not decisive sure that universe is flat. On the other hand we have well crafted scientific theory supported by accurate calculations and observation that flatness is result of immense dimension of universe where million of parsecs are like millimeters on earth surface. In my short lay-mans thought, modern cosmology and astrophysics has not solid arguments to support the “cause” of Big Bang theory, hermafrodit maner of reproduction of space from itself --- SO called inflation, “creation” of everything from nothing etc. Now about the fact: universe is flat , or quasi flat, caused by the spread and MOVING of cosmic objects mainly in circular trajectories in the same immense trey. This is strange and I think that has not any trustworthy explanation for the cause: why in the same trey? I mean why in 2D in scientific language? Sure is scientific fact that is caused by gravity ability of matter. But why it work in flat dimension? The other fact: cosmic objects (I mean material cosmic bodies) are spherical. And so, I suppose, are the base elementary particles of mater. Nobody object the fact that (even in this case) the main factor is gravity. The Question is Why gravity work differently: in moving big cosmic objects in 2D, instead in atomic objects in 3D. I think that the roots of those facts of cosmic dimensions lie in sub –atomic- nature of mater. I would throw the LAY MAN’S speculative idea: The simple and subtle cause is “ interaction of gravity field with electric field of sub “atomic” particles which allegedly structures elementary particles. Those waves of fields are with the same amplitude of frequency, but are orthogonal in space and have different frequencies : fe = c / (2*pi / (alpha*R) for electric field, and fg = c / (2*pi*R) for gravity field. Constant alpha is the cause of spherical forms in elementary particles of bodies. And this constant work only in electric waves, giving them retarded temp in comparison of gravity waves. This kind of interaction results in spherical trajectories of sub- particles, that is in spherical elementary particles. The role of electric field fade in atomic, molecular, and cohesive structures that is in “bodies”, instead gravity field gain force by the number of particles. So out of bodies exist in the end only one protagonist – flat field of gravity. -

NATURE’S CONSTANTS OR KRAMER’S “FUDGE “?! I Constant of space potential inside Particle.--- Ux*rx = ( e*e / ( 4*pi*ε0 *e ) ) = 1.439964393-*10^-9 V*m Ux*rx = ( h*C*α ) / ( 2*pi*e) = 1.439964393-*10^-9 V*m Ux*rx = G*M^2 / e = 1.439964394-*10^-9 V*m Ux*rx = M*R*C^2 / e = 1.439964393-*10^-9 V*m Ux*rx = ( C^2 *R / sqrtG )^2 / e = 1.439964393-*10^-9 V*m ( rx = equal Compton radius ) M (usp) = e / (4*pi*ε0*G) ^0.5 = 1.859389987*10^-9 Kg. R (usp) = e / ((4*pi*ε0 / G C^4)^0.5 = 1.38054385410^-36 m Example Ume = ( 1.439964393*10^-9 ) / ( 2.8170401*10^-15) = 510998.9364 V. 2 Constant of Potential in loop of Particle.--- ( For those that hate radius ) Ux*λx = 1.23984186*10^-6 V*m ( λx = Compton wave-length ) Example Utau = (1.23984186*10^-6) / (0.6977431*10^-15) = 1776931730 V. 3 Constant of Energy of Particle.--- Ex = eUx = e*((1. 439964393*10^-9) / rx) e*V Ex = eUx = e * ( ( 1. 23984186*10^-6) / λx ) e*V Ex = Ux*e = ( 2.307077057*10^-28) / rx joul or Ex = Ux*e = ( 1.986445444*10*-25 ) / λx joul Example: Emuon = (1.986445444*10*-25) / ( 11.7344419735*10*-15) = 1.692833327”10^-11 joul or Emuon = ( 1.43984186^10^-6 ) / ( 11.7344419735*10^-15) = 105658357.1 e*V 4 CURRENT INSDIDE THE PARTICLE I = e * fx = e * (C*α / (2*pi*rx) = (5.578488868*10^-14) / rx A. 0r I = e * fx = ( e C) / λx = (4.80320419910^-11) / λx Example: Ime = (5.578488868*10^-14) / re =19.79633507 A or Ime = (4.80320419910*!0^-11) / λe = 19.79633303 A 5 RESISTANCE Rx = Ux / Ix = 25.812,80392 ohm for radius rx Rx = Ux / Ix = 25.812,80763 ohm for λx

Big nose This isn't sufficient, though. You are asking science to be completely democratic, when it profoundly isn't. Science is supremely meritocratic. -------The democratic science doesn’t exclude merito – valuations. On the contrary. It give real esteem to those that merit it. I don’t like term meritocratic. It tastes badly, ---like dictatorships. It suppress free meditations and dispute, it stimulate servility, it exploits the work and merits of subordinates. But all this is out of theme. Science is only interested in ideas that make good predictions. If an idea is started, and it makes predictions that are opposite of already known facts, it is tossed out. There is no value in keeping an idea that is already known to fail in science. Ideas alone have very little value scientifically. Only when the next steps are taken and those ideas are used to make predictions and those predictions are compared to reality -- then the idea has value. -------This seems like a lecture: how it must be. I agree. Do you know very well how many posts are flushed away only on this forum, how many have gone in trashcan. Do you think we made science in this forum? Please don’t flatter this idea. At least I know my aim in the forum: To change with somebody ( if somebody is interested ) ideas, meditations especially if that somebody has the opposite standing. And this only to pass flow of time (if flow is real as Mr. Swansont has experimented.) in a “cultured manner”. The things you cite above have gone through that. They certainly aren't complete. But if sting theory predicted gravity to repel matter and the sky to be polka dotted... it would have been rejected. As it is, it makes a few predictions that do agree. That's why it is still around. If those ideas lead to predictions that aren't seen or can't be found... the idea will be rejected. ------- And what happen in this forum, alas it happens even in real scientific circles, where people are paid to make science. Let leave string theory to dispute with loop quantum about how they values each other. As for “ predicted gravity to repel matter and the sky to be polka dotted….” Yes ser, it is the main argument that matter and anti matter repel each other that discard or support my hypothesis. If you have proof that this is not true, I give up. So, now we're to your idea. The implications of your ideas are things that have not been observed, when they should have been. It would like if in my idea a flea could push a boulder across a field. Is it possible that in all the experiments done to date that we've missed this? It certainly is possible. But it is extraordinarily unlikely, and no one is going to believe it until some good objective evidence can be presented. That's where this thread was at the last time you posted... it was asking you for some extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims. -------About the idea of: “a flea could push a boulder across the field”. Do you allude about the massive unique –sub particle of my hypothesis? Many time I thought that this argument discards automatically the essence of hypothesis. But in the end I thought that unique sub-particle it isn’t a unique particle. It is able to give particles that create, charge and gravity (or charge-less and mass-less) only, interacting with the partner. Like: needs two to play tango. If it really is only you just tinkering, then consider what has been posted as feedback. If you want to take your tinkering to the next step, then you need to address the questions answered. If you are just tinkering for your own sake, then you need to do that someplace that is not a science forum. Because on this science forum, we value discussions that follow the rules of science. And in the rules of science, just tinkering is not valuable. Value comes from actually doing scientifically useful stuff with that tinkering. -------- Maybe this stuff ” tinkering “ is very precise and appropriate. It made me smile. So until real physicists have not find any break throw that support my “hypothesis” I quit this thread. With good intention to not devaluate our scientific forum. Swansont The questions that have been asked about your model that you have avoided answering. -------You too, in many puzzles that my have asked an ignorant lay-man.

Swanson Posted Yesterday, 11:48 AM ! Moderator Note Similar subjects merged Note that all previous unanswered questions are still unanswered. ------- Right! But about of what kind of questions are you alluding? Do you think that your questions have any answers in mainstream of modern physics? I bet no! For many years hundred mathematicians and physicists of high qualification, are coming around, like housefly without head, about questions on the nature of mater. Have they arrived any “verdict”? They all are in disarray, they for years contradicts each other. But strange a lot: they all gave anathema about “Democritis particle”. I read in another forum, the questions and answers about electron. The crude idea is: electron is nothing else but “excitation” of the infinite electric field, which, beginning from infinity, comes continuous concentrating toward a point dimension-less that we call electron. This concentration is called “electric charge”. So, they say, learn: it is field that gave birth to charge. Not vice-versa. What about mass of particle? Very simple. Another kind of field, Higgs field, has the duty to give this excitation (which is less important than other kinds of excitations ?) some lesser “gravity“! ---- This is the main-stream explanation about the nature of electron. Is proven mathematically, experimentally. It is solid gold. Is it ?? Mister Swansont. I don’t pretend that my hypothesis about “unique particle” has any priority, toward those of main - stream. On the contrary. Only, my hypothesis it is the opposite possibility. Has not any mathematical or experimental support. Is it simple …a hypothesis. How many other hypothesis float in physics circles?: string, loop-quantum, solitons, preons….. Why? Because of “ unanswered questions”. My question to you is: Has main-stream modern physics found why “the stabile particles” or “excitations” have the characters they have, and not different? Why they have that fixed wave-length and not other? etc… If yes, please give me a short explanation about, and I quit to flog a dead horse. By the way in the forum mentioned above, moderators were interlocutor teachers, that is they discarded arguments of O.P. but gave more trustworthy arguments.

---- Spherical structure of stationary elementary particles: Model only. >> t = - 90: 0.05:90; a = 0.0079 c = asin(a.*t); x = sin(2*c).*cos(t); y = cos(2*c).*cos(t); z = sin(t); figure(9); axis square; grid on; plot3(x,y,z) or comete3(x,y,z) This structure of spherical trajectories is created by two “alleged unique sub-particles”. An unique sub-article is supposed to have an electric charge “e”, a gravity ability represented by sqrt G. and the intrinsic ability to move in whatever direction with “C” velocity. ”If accepted” unique sub-particle is represented: ME = e / (4*pi* ε0 *G)^0.5 with real electric and gravity elements. And are those two elements that give “direction” of movement on two sub-particles interacting between them, in the pseudo-structure of “X” elementary particles. The pseudo structure is in fact nothing else as presence of two unique sub-particles during eterne trajectories in a spherical volume, with radius “Rx”. The radius is derived by Compton wave- length. (Doesn’t bell rings about this, as a simplification of Schrodinger’s cloud? ) Now let imagine how this may work in an electron mass particle: 1 – Two unique sub-particles represented by –ME = - e / - (4*pi* ε0*G)^0.5 revolve toward each other with velocity “C”, in circles with radius “re”, from Compton wave length λe = ((2*pi / α)*re). 2—Both unique sub-particles are in equilibrium because, between them acts electric force and equal with it -- gravity force. They are in opposite senses. 3---I am convinced in a law of nature that two sub – particles move in equi -potentials of each other, that means the movement is in perpendicular direction with line of forces between partners, that means they move in circles. 4—In case of alleged sub particles, we have two kinds of forces, (gravity and electric), this means we have two kinds of equi-potential fields: gravito-static and electro-static. ( I say gravito static and electro static because even though sub-particles are always in movement, they doesn’t change the distance between each other) 5 – “First Speculation” is that two kinds of circles (electric and gravity) are perpendicular each other. 6 – “Second Speculation” is that frequencies of circles are different from each other: “Electric charges frequency” is fe = C / ((2*pi / α) * re) “Gravity frequency” is fg = C / ((2*pi)*re) 7 – The “C” velocity consists with two components: the gravity component is 137. 036 times more than electric component. So math-lab presentation above is equal 1/2 Hz. of main frequency ( electric frequency) and 137/2 Hz of secondary frequency (gravity frequency) ---------It is this discrepancy of derived frequencies, in Planck constants compared to Einstein constants. This discrepancy is naturally motivated by “constant of fine structure α “ which seems NOW to have a concrete physic’s meaning. That is “constant alpha” is the cause of sphericity of elementary particles. Constant alpha is the cause of secondary frequencies inside the primary ones. -------- About the same value of energies for each law of physics, in elementary particles: Let suppose we put the center of Cartesians in first sub-particle. The second sub-particle even though is in continuous movement, he stay in the same distance toward first. We may say: Ee = e^2 / (4*pi*ε*re) = me*C^2 = h*(c / ((2*pi/α)*re) = G*M^2 / re = M*C^2*R/re = (C^2 /sqrtG) ^2*R/re…….etc identities. ( here M = Me------ Einstein Mass, R=Re -------Einstein distance)

EINSTEIN CONSTANTS VIS-A-VIS PLANCKS Are derived by hypothesis that elementary particles have two limits where all kind of energies obtain the same value: Upper limit is when C^2 = ( G * Me / Re ) ; Lower limit is when E = h * f = h – Joule ; From this hypothesis we can write a series of identities: Part I (Upper limit of reality) Ee = 167113637.9 joule Ee = e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * Re) ; (1) Ee = Me * C^2 ; (2) Ee = ( G * Me ^2 ) / Re ; (3) Ee = h * fe ; (4) Ee = Kb * Tem.e ; (5) From these equations we derive : Me = e / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * G )^ 0.5 = +-e / +-g = 1.859389987 * 10 ^ -9 Kg. (Sub-particle) Re = e / ( 4 * pi * ε0 / G) ^ 0.5 = +- e / +-J = 1.380543854 * 10 ^ -36 m. fe = C / ( ( 2 * pi / α ) * Re ) = 2 522063136 * 10 ^ 41 Hz. = Ee / h Te = 1 / fe = 3.965007797 * 10 ^ - 42 sec. Tem.e = c2 * fe / C = 1.210397996 * 10 ^ 31 grad Kelvin. = Ee / Kb ------------------------------------------------------------- This thread is posted for people that share ideas different from main – street , which may be senseless speculation, but maybe have something rationale for thought. Lay-man aims to promote idea of Unique sub-particle of NATURE ( “Me” ) as the only brick of reality. I think that SPHERICAL frequency, together with hypothesis of Unique sub –particle, maybe will builds a bridge between classic and quantum, maybe will links together two extremes. This hypothesis is based in disputable hypothesis of antigravity of antimatter. The Unique sub particle of NATURE ---- versus Higg’s GOD particle. It is a Lay-man’s shameless pretense, an ignorant’s hypothesis, that irritate the nerve of honest workers of science. But I can’t resists motto: “ trouble the waters --- to clarify”. They will protest that those kinds of thread derail students with crack-pottery teaching, and loose their precious time. But this hypothesis, it is supported by solid basement of classic particular physic. It goes versus quantum mechanic that consider space as a building, up on this basement, as only a void filled with different kind of fields. So, there is a lot for dispute. Part – II ( Lower limit of reality ) Ee1 = h * f1 = h * 1 = 6.62606876 * 10 ^ - 34 joule Ee1 = h * f1 = h * C / ( ( 2 * pi / α ) * R1 ) = h * 1Hz (1) ; R1 = C / ( 2 * pi / α ) Ee1 = Me * C^2 * ( Re / R1 ) ; (2) Ee1 = e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * R1 ) ; (3) Ee1 = ( G * Me^2 / R1) * (Re / R1 ) ; (4) Ee1 = Tem.1 * Kb. (5) ; Tem.1= c2 * f1 / C R1 = 3.481818608*10^5 m Tem.1 = 4.79923089*10^-11 grade Kelvin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Between two limits exists possibility for a zillion kinds of common elementary particles. They may classified : 1 --- Stationary particles: electron, proton. In spherical structure. Gravitate. Charged. 2 --- Stationary anti particles : positron, antiproton. In spherical structure. Anti -gravitate. Charged. 3 --- Run away particles : Photons. In helicoidal structures, Charge neuter. Gravity neuter. Leptone origine ( electron – positron). Barione origine (proton –antiproton) 4 --- Run away particles: Neutrino. In conical structures. Charge neuter. Gravitate. Lepton –barion origine: (electron-proton = neutrino) and (positron -- anti-proton= anti) 5 --- Highly disruptive structures, when casualty happens momentarily created. Charged. Gravity neuter. Origine: lepton--- anti-barion.( electron – anti-proton) or vice-verse. ------------------------------------------- Mass and radius are variable and inverse induce on each other. Part III 1-- Spatial structures of common elementary particles, created by eterne movement of intertwined unique particles. 2-- The explanation about the same - value of all kind energies, in Planck area, with hypothesis of spherical structures. 3-- A naïve explanation about “alpha” (nature constant of fine structure) and the frequencies inside frequencies.

Swansont It is electric charge, but not the electron charge. (BTW, you are to thank for the confusion on this, because of the terminology you used in your first post.) ------ That electric CHARGE “e” exists in ELECTRON PARTICLE, this doesn’t mean they are the same entity. It exists in many other particles too. Where is confusion? The planck charge is not the charge on an electron. Which is probably at least the tenth time you have been told this. ------Today every body know the unity of ELECTRIC charge ( of whatever particle that has electric charge) is “e” (not because you have repeated it tenth time), but knew Planck in that time? As he didn’t know (seems to me), he derived Qpl, by equalization of two kind of energies ( Coulomb’s and his own) . The same as he made with Newton’s and his own, when derived Mpl. e is the fundamental charge. When the Planck units were derived, nobody had any confirmation that charge was quantized and there was such a thing as a fundamental charge. -----That right. It is important to note that "constant of nature" and "fundamental constant" are not the same thing. For example, the mass of a proton is a constant of nature, even though the proton is not a fundamental particle. It seems you are using the two terms to mean the same thing, and they aren't. ------ I doubt about it. I think, Einshtein asserted, that mass depends by relative velocity. As particles have spatial dimension, and spatial dimensions depends from relative velocity, I don’t understand why modern physic states that particles have R = 0 , and M = constant. No, if you look at the link, only two equations for energy are involved. There is an equation for distance, d=vt. There is an equation for electrostatic force and for gravitational force; and there is an equation for the planck energy being hbar/t, and also equal to kBT. ------ That makes sense. Instead of formulas of energy, Planc had used formulas of force. But I don’t understand what is formula of Planck force to be linked with Newton’s or Coulomb’s forces.” There is no Coulomb energy, no mass energy, and nowhere does the electron charge appear. I made no claim about Coulomb's law. I said, as above, that e was not used and neither was mc^2 You are wrong to claim that these belong in the analysis. No, this is false and a fabrication on your part. You can't arbitrarily choose an energy and say it's a planck energy. There are only five equations involved in finding the base units, and there is a unique solution for the planck energy. ------ False --- no. Fabricated ----no. Arbitrary chosen Planck energy ---no. I make an analysis about Planck’s constants, and wondered how Planck may have deduced them, from fundamental constants, including “e” (It is not important, for the gist of thread, knew Planck or not) . I thought that Planck constants have to do with physic’s laws of force and physic’s energies that derive from them. As “h”, results in all Planck constants, has to do with energy, I concluded that he made comparison between his named energy, with each energy, named by other authors. I made numerical calculation solving each pair of equations, and was convinced that they fit exact, except Coulomb energy with fundamental constant ”e”. I think this is a controversy. 1- Because Planck charge constant was false value, used only to equalize energy equations. 2- On the other hand if we use “legitimate fundamental constant ”e”, for Coulomb energy, this energy has different value in comparison with Planck energy. 3 – I made a speculation about the change of concept of frequency, suggesting that constant of fine structure to be included in frequency, in so called spherical frequencies. That is all about this prolonged thread. I convinced that in Planck area, all kind of energies have the same value (amount). I convinced that concept about frequency must be changed, including in it constant of fine structure together with idea of spherical structures. I think, that is not productive to continue this thread further.

Andy0816 Once more unto the breach.. ----- Welcome! So from this we see that these units were made up wholesale for a specific reason. ------What reason? 1Q = qp = ( h-bar * C * 4 * pi * ε0 )^0.5 ------Which is derived by: qp^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * lp ) = ( h-bar * C / ( 2 * pi * lp -------- without doubt If Planck Charge(Q) did not have this property it would not be Planck Charge. It must equal 1.875 x 10-18 coulombs or it would not be Planck Charge. Electric charge does not equal this, thus, it is not Planck Charge. ----- Sorry but it seems to me a confused sentence. Is it Planck charge -- an “electric” charge ?. Or is a summa of electric unity charges? Bluntly: is it “e” ( the unity of electric charge ) a constant of nature ? If not---- is it dethronet by which person, from this honored status as a constant of nature? And for what reason? This allows us to say something like 5Q instead of 5 times that entire mess up there. It is purely for convenience. In no way does it somehow dethrone Electric charge. This came off stronger than I typically care to write, but I really see no other way of getting through. Please for your own sake take it to heart and consider your stance. ----- Thanks for good intentions, and for care about my “own sake”. That you not share my opinion expressed in this thread -it’s OK for me. I don’t change my “stance” until I find I am dead wrong. And I don’t like conformity, without strong conviction. Swansont Endy0816 has addressed this, so yes, it is wrong. The five basic planck units are derived from five equations, which is what you need to do to find the values of five unknowns. ----- I answered to the post of Andy0816. Those five equations are nothing else but equalization of five kinds of amounts of energies. And, indeed, compared toward Planck’s energy. But the formula doesn't equalize the Planck energy with anything else. The fundamental charge was not used, being unknown at the time. It was also not set equal to the mass- value, since that equation was also not known at the time. You're just making that up. ----- May be I am wrong but Coulomb law was known by Planck. And law with out equation seems to me strange. So I am not just making that up. (BTW, "Coulomb energy" is an equation, not a constant. If you put in different values, you get different answers.) ----In Planck area all kind of energies are defined in the “ terms of the base of Planck units, and indirect are Planck constants. ajb What equivalence of energies? One could use the Planck energy instead of say Joules as a unit of energy, or one can use electron volts or kilowatt hours or whatever units seem natural for the physics at hand. ------ The same amounts , in what ever unity measure you use, of the each Planck derived energies. So the usual interpretation is that it gives an area scale at which we cannot ignore the quantum effects of gravity on whatever physics we have there. If we are nowhere near the Planck scale then we can assume that any quantum effects of gravity are very small and can be ignored. ------This is another topic. Modern physic insists that Planck energy = h*f --- is the base of reality. I speculate that protagonist in real physic is not h*f , but is a “unique sub-particle” with outstanding quality of “electric CHARGE “e”’ and square root of gravity “sqrt G “. Planck energy is only a means for measuring the interactions of “unique sub particles” which take up stance in Planck area. Debating about Planck electric constant, about equation from where it derived in comparison with Planck photon energy and it’s supposed frequency, I intended to demonstrate that (maybe) must be another reality---- again instead of: qp^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * lp ) = ( h-bar * C / ( 2 * pi * lp we my have e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * REj ) = ( h * C / ( ( 2 * pi / α) * R Ej ) = h * fsph. here C / ( ( 2 * pi / α) * R Ej ) is a spherical frequency. Well you are free to simply google the Bekenstein–Hawking formula. ------ I will try about your suggestion, even I am not interested.

Swansont I don't know where you got this idea, but it's wrong, and I also doubt that it resembles anything Planck proposed. ----It’s not wrong if you analyses Planck constants, and asks yourself where they are derived from. Nobody has claimed it is a fundamental constant. Just that it's a constant. ----- For that I say that it has not place in the formula that equalize Planck energy, with Coulomb energy, from where it’s derived. Neither of which is true. ------ Maybe the third it’s true? Ha? I wonder, why you did not rebutted the idea of different kind of frequencies: 1--- linear, 2 ----double vertical linear or circular. 3 ---- three vertical linear or two vertical circular or spherical?. I thought they are the gist of this thread, linked direct with relation of “Qpl” and “e” New BS based on old BS. Understood. ------ If you intend with BS = baseless, it would be better telling openly. You'll have to back this up with some evidence. What kind of evidence? : 1- Planck energy = Newton energy h*C / (2*pi*Lpl) = G*Mpl^2 / Lpl results in Mpl = ( h-bar*C / G)^0.5 2 –Planck energy = Coulomb energy h*C / (2*pi*Lpl) = Qpl^2 / (4*pi*ε *Lpl) results in Qpl = ( h-bar*C*4*pi*ε)^0.5 3 – Planck energy = Einstein energy = Newton’s h*C / (2*pi*Lpl) = Mpl * C^2 = Mpl* ( Mpl*G /Lpl) results in C^2 = (Mpl*G/Lpl) and Lpl = (h-bar*C / Mpl C^2) = ((h-bar*C) / (( h,bar *C / G) ^0.5 *C^2) ) = = results Lpl = (h-bar*G / C^3) ^0.5 4 ---Planck energy = Boltszmann energy = Einstein energy. h*C / (2*pi*Lpl) = Tem.Pl *Kbolts. = Mpl * C^2 results Tem.Pl = (( h-bar*C^5 ) / (G*kb^2))^0.5 -------------------------------------------------------- If you want Planck constant extrapolated on “e” and sqrt G -------next

Kuthber "I am not sure I understand your rebut There may be a reason for that. The reason might be related to my earlier post. ------ Now Kuthber, are you taking the role of advocate for Andy 0816? Well a very clever step to dodge a honest response for my last post on you. Do you have an own argument against my post? If not, please leave me alone. swansont It's equivalent because you keep insisting that qp should be equal to e, and they are not equal, like 1 ≠ 2. qp is a constant, not a variable. Since it's defined in terms of fundamental constants, it must be a constant. ------ Again and again! The excellent idea of her Planck was that all kind of energies , expressed from all laws of physic have the same value, If they are expressed with FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS OF NATURE. And now we know that Fundamental Constant of nature are: “e”, “h”, “G”, “C”, “Cbolc.”, …… “Qpl” is not a FUNDAMENTAL constant, that to have the right to represent Coulomb law, one of the most important laws of Physic, in the ensemble of Planck energies. The gist of this thread is in the dilemmas: 1--- To discard the excellent Planck’s idea about the EQUIVALENCE, by means of Fundamentals, OF ALL KIND OF ENERGIES IN PLANCK AREA? 2--- To give “Qpl” unmerited status of FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANT? 3---To review the relation between two Fundamental constants “e” and “h” in a new, maybe speculative, view point expressed by me, during this debate: Can any specialist opponent tell me why Planck, represents frequency: f = C / (2 * pi * R) ? that is like: “h” moving in circles? That is in plane. Why in circles? Or better: why in plane. When the common idea is that particles are spherical. Here I speculate, that Planck, “missed” the idea that “ h “ move in circles (not in plan) but in spherical space! With this idea I corrects the inequation in equation : e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε * R ) = h * C / ( (2 * pi / α ) * R) !!! Swanson! You know my leitmotif presented in all past my threads: spherical trajectories, unique particle, etc. This thread is an argument about my leitmotif. Now shoot What do you mean that "all kind of energies are equivalent"? That does not mean that all values of energy are equal. ----- In Planck area they must be. It is clear that this was intention of Planck. ajb So you cobble together the fundamental constants you have into an expression that has the units of length squared. It is the interpretation of what this means and where it enters physics that you have questions about? ------ I am not “cobbler author”. Her Planck is. I only dared to interpret, with my layman’s limited knowledge, some discrepancy in his “panorama about equivalence of energies”. As you know in formulas of energies is a simple “length = R Well, at one level it is nothing more than a possibily useful unit of area. The interepretation is that it gives us an area scale at which the effects of quantum gravity cannot be ignored. ------ In Planck area I think, gravity, not only can’t be ignored, but, together with electric charge, are the first protagonists in physic’s nature of particles….. And, maybe, not only in Planck area. One place that the Planck area does explicitly enter physics is in the Bekenstein–Hawking formula, which related the entropy of a black hole to its surface area. ------ Sorry! I have no idea about Bekenstein – Hawking formula. In my narrow mind, I think that Planck is too big to enter in somebody other’s physic’s.

Andy0816 Qpl^2 / ( 4*pi*ε R) != h–bar* C / R (3) This is true. If two things were not equal in the first place they won't be equal in the end. You doing the equivalent of saying: 1 = 2. I don't know any other way to put this. Whatever you think, the two terms are referring to different values. They are not the same. You cannot set them equal. ------ I am not sure I understand your rebut. Why you think, I do equivalent 1=2 ? What are two terms that, you think, are referring to different values? I am posting about Planck constants, and his idea that in Planck area all kind of energies are equivalent. This equivalence, after Planck, is based in the value of Planck constant “h” , quanta of energy, and other fundamental constants : C , G , Boltszmann constant…and an “invented” fundamental Planck constant of electric charge “ Qpl ”, which is not at all a constant. AS we know the fundamental electric charge is ”e”. And this put all Planck constants in a controversy: Are they legitimated? Because changing one fundamental constant you must change “all the panorama” accordingly. Kutbeer Actually, We have quite a clear idea about this. It's only you who is missing it. ------ With “we”, you are alluding: only your opinion, your and ajb’s, the forum staff’s, the world’s scientific forum’s? I would liked your scientific arguments, about the roles of “h” and “e” in physic, about their intertwined relation in Planck area, and, indeed, about my missing’s.

Imatfaal --- That's a pretty ridiculous way to end a thread after the amount of information you have been given by a number of highly qualified physicist. Arguments from personal incredulity and lack of clear knowledge are rarely edifying but your position and refusal to take on board completely valid criticisms has taken the biscuit. And finishing with an accusation of dogmatism is just insulting. May I remind you that the denial of a valid argument due to misunderstanding of its basic tenets does not fall within the parameters of healthy scepticism. ------ Now the debate has taken a serious and in the same time ridiculous sense. Your high stylistic criticism, toward a lay - man, that you charge for self - boasting is very funny, and baseless. On the other hand I am not able to dispute with you, cause of many “my lacks”. I admit that I have personal incredulity, for many weird statements of modern physics. You my call it baseless, the same as Swanson says that I fabricate imaginary “controversy”. At least in this thread I began to doubt in the power of reasoning on both sides. The thread is very - very simple: In Planck case we have one equation that is in flagrant diversity with an inequation in real physic: Qpl^2 / ( 4*pi*ε R) = h–bar* C / R and (1) e^2 / (4*pi*ε* R) < h-bar * C / R (2) Simple question: Which is true? First or second? Is told by Physicists that both are true: Multiply “ e^2” with 137.036 and you will have equation (1), or Divide “Qpl^2” with 137.036 and you will have inequation (1) Let leave aside, even though is very reasonable, the rebut of Sensey that “Qpl” can‘t be a multiple of “e” because 137.036 is not a full number. What I considered as a controversy was question: In Planck area Which is true? Equation (1) or inequation (2)? Because is without doubt that Planck considered all kind of energies equivalents, (Coulomb energy, Newton energy, Einstein energy, Planck energy , Boltzmann energy etc…) toward constants of nature : G, C, h, Q , Boltzmann constant…. And from this consideration are derived Planck constant : Mpl, Lpl, Tpl , Planck Temp.. etc… Ye. I made speculations that instead Planck constant “h” as the main protagonist, I used “e” as main protagonist and derived a little different constants in Planck area , I called them Einstein constants. This is …a little out of what “you call it dogma”. The specialists disregarded the possibility of different constants in Planck area, and avoided debate about them, seems to me cause out of box. Here is nothing insulting. There is an excellent pinned thread on the planck units with their derivations by Martin in the main forum - I would suggest you read it carefully and then you may wish to come back to this thread to discuss any further points you do not understand ----- I will try for curiosity to find recommended source. So you my close this thread until I be able to debate with specialists. Swanson If "insiders" tell you it's no big deal, and you have no cause to doubt that, you should accept it as truth. ---- I think is big deal. It has to do with two view - point about reality. ajb Absolutely there is no controversy here, just now and again they get misinterpreted -----Absolutely there must be a controversy about which we have not a clear concept.

Swansont Planck units can't be "wrong"; they don't refer to a physical object. Nobody is claiming that they represent a fundamental constant. There is no mistake involved, and no controversy. It's merely a different set of units. Miles instead of kilometers. -------- Thanks for your patience, Swansont. So let it be: You in yours “in box teaching”, I in mine lay man’s stubborn doubts.

Sensey e constant was measured in oil drop experiment in 1909 and published to public in 1913. Planck units were developed in 1899. Max Planck simply didn't know about e. -------- Thanks for your interesting historic data. That means once more that the Planck constants were and are out-dated. That means that using Planck quanta as a “ ghost protagonist “ of everything in physics, ignoring “electric charge” and it’s nemesis “ gravity constant”, ( I think--- those are real protagonists of reality) , this gave an unilateral direction in physic and a wrong ones. In my lay-man’s shallow reasoning, Planck quanta is a measuring means of action by really other sounding players in physic. So I think that Planck constants are a controversy with Einstein constants. Swansont. I didn't say use Qpl as a varaible. I said "charge", in general (given by q or Q) is a variable. Anyway, Sensei has provided a very salient detail, that the planck units predate the discovery of a fundamental charge and all of quantum mechanics. ------- This doesn’t change a jota in the gist of this thread: Planck constants are wrong, in flagrant controversy with real data of physic. Instead, the Einstein constants are free by any controversy, they gave a reasonable interpretation where was the mistake in Planck constants. And, if I had prerogative of physicist, I would proposed “them” as universal constants of physics. Thinking now about historic data and for “salient detail” given by Sensey, I don’t blame Planck (who am i ), this giant of physic in the same stature as Einstein, but those “quantum physicist” that have used his reasonable mistakes .

Swansont You have given only two choices. This is a false dichotomy. It's not a flaw, and it's not a law of nature. It's a unit of convenience. -----Sorry but I don’t see it as a “convenience”. It was an absolute necessity, because Planck energy did not fit with Coulomb energy in Planck area, where was supposed that all kind of energies have the same value. e is a constant of nature. But we are not talking about e. We are talking about Q, i.e. an amount of charge. Q is a variable: how much charge do you have. You can charge up a piece of metal, and it will not have a charge of e on it, it will have a charge of many times that. The amount of charge in a system is a variable amount. ------- That right. But our debate is about why it was needed? Another participant in this debate has expressed his rebut about discreteness; I think his rebut is right. Qplanck presume some fraction of “e” which is strange. The planck mass is also a constant, not a variable. It has a fixed value. Same for all of the planck units. ------ Planck mass doesn’t merit to be a constant. As it depend by an arbitrary Qpl. Here is the gist of debate: Is “Qpl” arbitrary or has a physical meaning? No! The general equation does not use e, a constant. It uses Q, a variable. If you put e in there you are specifically talking about something that has one fundamental unit of charge. But the general equation has a variable for each of the charges. ANY value can be put into the equation. In this case, we are using the planck charge as the amount of charge we have. --------I don’t think so. Using Qpl as a variable, there becomes meaningless other Planck constants. Yes, they are different So? Nobody said they were the same. You have yet to explain why this matters. . -------- It maters a lot. It gives theory a distorted direction. Why? To make a self-consistent set of units. --------- Self - consistent? Using an arbitrary charge, instead of natural ones? Strange! No, you can't change c. But c is a speed, and speed is a variable. I can pick any value of speed I want. I can define vuEs as the speed of an unladen European swallow and solve problems in terms of that if I want. --------- “C” in Planck area is a steady unchanged unity. (I can define vuEs as the speed of an unladen European swallow and solve problems in terms of that if I want.) This sentence is very subtle for me. Sorry that I can’t answer. I didn't say I had a use for it. I said it was allowed, as an example. There's nothing that prevents it. ------ Anyway. I think that all this debate has to do with CONSTANT OF FINE STRUCTURE—alpha. In Common Physic ------ alpha = (e^2 / (4*pi*epsilon) ) / (h-bar * C) = 1 / 137.036. In Planck area Physic --- alpha = ( Qpl^2 / (4 * pi * epsilon ) / ( h-bar * C ) = 1 Why in Planck area ALPHA, this important constant of nature, is eliminated? And I think artificially!

Swansont Because what is going on in coming up with Planck units is not simply replacing e with qp. “What is going on in coming up with Planck units” was just what the lay-man didn’t understand. I asked, in the beginning of this thread, if this was a human flaw or a law of nature, in Planck area. With my shallow reasoning the only reason for this truck (by the Planck) was to put energy expressed with “ h*f “ in one foot with gravity energy, and with other kinds of energies: h*f = (h * C / (2*pi*R)) = G * Mpl ^ 2 / R and to derive Mpl. = ( h bar * C / G ) ^ 0.5 For Coulomb energy, Planck put the electric “charge” in the same foot with mass “m”. For me, this was wrong. Mass is a changeable amount, instead “e” is a constant of nature. So, putting instead of “e” this quantity of charge “Qpl” ( an arbitrary constant of nature) is “illegal”. Let see slowly: h*f = h * ( C / ( 2 * pi * R ) ) equation Planck’s energy, where f = C / ( 2 * pi * R ) e ^ 2 / ( 4 * pi * ε * R ) equation Coulomb’s energy, where “e” is a constant of nature. Sure, between them is a huge discrepancy. Even though Coulomb energy was steadily affirmed by experiment, Planck replaced “e” with it’s Planck charge “Qpl”. Why? Because it’s: E = h * f was too confirmed by experiment. So he can’t change “h”. He can’t change R the variable in all kind of energies. He can’t change “C” too. So the Planck charge was a desperate initiative. --------------------------------- Now let see a speculative variant, I noted in this thread above, about kind of frequencies ,without attire any comment by opponents. What is electro - magnetic frequency? (This is not at all a different thread , please don’t split it.) The Planck formula for frequency is f = C / (2 * pi * R ). In this formula I see “something” moving with velocity “C” in the same circle, with the same radius R. “The number” of circles realized in “unity of time” is frequency. This frequency happens in plane, as the circle is a plane. Dirak see differently: Something moving in a segment “R” with “C” velocity in a segment, that is with repetitive linear movement. The frequency is f = C / R. But what to do with “2*pi”. They go to “h” and voila: “h bar”. This frequency happens in linear movement. But we have the idea that particles (elementary) are not “plane structure”, not “linear structure”. They have a structure in volume, i.e. in sphere. In this case the frequency will be: f = C / ( ( 2 * pi / α ) * R ) Without need to use Planck Charge. In this case would have ‘double bar h” i.e. h / (2*pi /α ) ! And will have “ Spherical structure of particles” Any "discrepancy" is due to your misunderstanding. You can make up any value of charge you want and use it for convenience, as long as it has the right units. If, for some reason, it was useful to have a unit of charge that was 179.2e, you could make that up and use it in calculations. ------- Give me please that “some reason” useful for “calculations’. You are trying to set two things equal that are not equal, and nobody is claiming they are equal. You are manufacturing a controversy that doesn't actually exist in real physics. -----I am not manufacturing controversy. There are a lot unsolved. Now think about paying in another currency, say GBP or EUR. ----- You may, if they are in not default status.