Kramer

Swansont "e^2 / (4*pi*ε*R) unequal h*C / (2*pi*R)" because e and qp are not the same. It's "illegal" to substitute terms when they aren't equal. ----- What am I saying? Why Planck is allowed to substitute “e” with “Qpl”?! You are able to convert erg to joules. Why are you having difficulty in converting values of charge? What about converting inches to centimeters? It's conceptually the same problem. 1 inch is 2.54 cm. If the distance is 1 inch, you wouldn't try and use 1 cm in a formula. ------- Swansont. I am sincerely puzzled : Is it really that you don’t understand discrepancy between common physic with alleged Planck area, (that creates Planck charge) ? It is about correlation of E.M. energy and photons energy? It is about constant of fine structure. Or you have any hidden argument to amaze me with? ajb Right, you are free to measure any distence you want in any units of length you want. Nothing will fundamentally depend on the units you use. However, some units are more suitied to some measurements than others. Sensiable units for measuring the distence between two cities include miles or kilometres. The numerical answer would look horrible in cm or inches, but you are free to do so. The same for measuring it in light-years, astronomical units, parsecs and so on. You could quote the distence between cities in those units, but it would seem rather unnatural. The same is true of electric charge. You have coulombs, ampere-hours, often just units of the fundamental charge are used, so that is e, or you could use units of the Planck charge. None of these change the fundamental physics, they just give sensiable units of charge for different situations. -----The debate is not about convenience. You can use whatever unity you want, but see what is the result. When you go to buy something you may use one dollar bill or a hundred dollar bill. This is not important, even though may be inconvenient. The important is the price.

swansont, on 05 Oct 2013 - 5:27 PM, said: You probably wouldn't want to keep track of a plane trip in inches. \---- Wrong argument. In 1954 is changed cm.gr.sec.e.system in physics with Kg.m.sec.A., together with a changed dielectric constants. The unit of electric charge is changed, but in the same time is changed too the unity of the energy. From “erg” in “Joule” in conformity of changes of the “bases unit”. So we have the same: e^2 / Re*ε01 = E erg = (e^2 / ( 4*pi * ε02*Re) = E joule 8.187104762*10^-7 erg = 8.187104762 * 10 ^ -14 Joule Isn’t this the same amount of energy? Sure is. Because : 1 joule = m^2 *Kg *sec ^-2 *A = 10^2 cm^2 *10^3gr *sec^.2 *e = 10^7 erg. In Planck charge equations is violated the factual un-equalization of energies, changing arbitrarily the fundamental unity: Qpl ^2 / ( 4*pi*ε R) = h * C / ( 2*pi*R) compare with e^2 / (4*pi*ε*R) unequal h*C / (2*pi*R) So here is not a change of unities. Is a change of concept. ajb Or at the other end of the scale, light-years. ----- It’s quite different. Using light –years , doesn’t change the fact if we measure it in let say cm. Jon Kuthber Because others don't think that. ------- The others have the argument that don’t think that. And, if anyone thinks I'm going to buy beer by the half-litre any time soon they are sorely mistaken. The Pint is the fundamental unit for beer. ----- You may buy beer in half-litre : 1 –if the money you pay are comparable with those with pint. 2-- if the beer you by is not donkey pee. ajb It comes in 0.4 litres and 1 litre here in Poland! -----And ?

Swansont I refer you to the comments I made before about unit systems. The planck charge is not the same value as the fundamental charge. It's part of a different unit system. There is no reason for any derived quantities like energy to be numerically equal when you change from one system to another. ----Then why was the need to use a non fundamental charge, for creation a different unit system, instead of the fundamental charge, which I think is the most important unit in physic? In Einstein system of physic’s laws, are used all fundamental units: e. G. h. C, Bol. and are derived all variables as ultimate constants in Planck area : M, R, T, f, Tem. This without need to use a “ convenient” charge, as Planck charge, and to distort reality. It was used Planck charge for creation a system, aiming to “bold” importance oh “h” and to “fade” importance of “factual charge” ? Who know? Any way! This debate is gone too long without any understanding. Non vale la pena , to continue. You may close this thread.

Swansont. The question is why? To what end? In Planck area All kind of energies have the same value. Yes! In factual area this is not true. But in Planck area is changed arbitrarily the value of one of most important protagonist of physics world “electric charge” with “Planck charge”. Why? Only for the aim to equalize Planck energy ( h * C / 2 * pi / R ) with all kind of energies…. And with that are distorted all kind of Planck constants. In my thread I am trying to compare Planck constants with, let say Einstein constants, where the only real protagonists are factual electric charge and factual gravity constant. Why Einstein constants? Because is supposed that in physics formula G*M / R = C2 is the upper mark-area of reality. And the lower mark-- area of reality is h*f = h j. The energies you are comparing aren't supposed to be equal, as far as I can tell. Which means it will not be at all surprising that they are not equal. In Planck area they must be. Here is the Controversy in the title of the thread, here is the gist of debate. And if you permit a speculation, even in between areas must be equalization. The planck charge qp is not the same value as the fundamental charge e. You CANNOT interchange them. The energy using one vs the other will be different. -----Here is the trick. It will be very appropriate if Planck have righted the equations: h * C / ( 2 * pi * R ) = (137,036) * e^2 / ( 4*pi*ε * R) or h * C / ( (2 * pi / α ) * R ) = e^2 / ( 4 pi*ε*R) (Then leaving physicist to scratch their heads why is this so) Than using a new fictive physics constant, leaving the others constants unchanged. Using an unwarranted unity when you have a real one, is strange. Just as if you use a charge of 1 Coulomb in a problem, you will get a different answer if you solve it with a charge of 2 Coulombs. -------I didn’t grasp this example. Then why call 2 coulomb = Qswans. ?

Swanson I'm not dodging anything. I told you I didn't understand what your answer was. You are writing down equations and not saying what they represent, or what the variables are. ----- Yes, you are. Or you see the thread boring and treat it with careless. What is here that you didn’t understand? Qpl^2 / ( 4*pi*ε0*R ) is equal with h * C / (2*pi*R) with Planck constant for charge. This is equalization of two kind of energies: Coulomb and his own (Planck’s). The “variable R” is the same in both equations. So it may be dropped, (reduced). And will have: Qpl^2 / ( 4*pi*ε0 ) = h * C / (2*pi ) and voila Qpl = (h bar*C*4*pi*ε0)^0.5 The same he has made with Newton energy and his own energy, to extract “Planck mass”: G*M^2 / R = h*C / (2*pi*R) ---- reduced R and voila Mpl = ((h bar *C) / G ) ^0.5 . The difference in both cases is that factual mass is a variable, instead factual charge is a solid constant. I see that “Qpl” is an arbitrary fudge and is wrong, caused by necessity to equalize energies. And this doesn’t solve the discrepancy between Planck energy and others. e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*R) is different with h * C / (2*pi*R) in fact? Is it right , or wrong ? It looks here like you are equating the planck charge and the fundamental charge. They are not equal. Nobody has claimed they are equal. ------Right. But, why? I don't recognize some of these equations and I don't know why you are setting them equal to each other. ------- To compare different kind of energies of electron particles. To find their rate toward each other. And to find if Planck energy correspond to them. mc^2 is the Einstein rest frame mass-energy equivalence. -----Yes. 2e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*Re) looks like the electric potential energy for two electrons separated by Re/2, or twice the energy if separated by Re. ------Yes. And they are equal with potential energy of two electric charge in distance Re Is Re the classical electron radius? -----Yes Why should these be equal? ------- The two kinds of energies have the same value. Where did you get hc/(2*pi*R)? What does that represent? ------ From Planck when he compare potencial electric energy with it’s own. This is comparison: me*C^2 =8.18710414*10^-14 J e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*Re) = 8.187104679*10^-14 J h*C (2*pi*Re) = h bar*C / Re = 1.121928074*10^-11 J ?? Endy0814 The "E's" don't represent the same thing. All energy, but different forms in different situations. -------Right. But I wanted to compare the amount of each form of energy.

Swansont I don't understand your answer. Using different systems of units doesn't violate any conservation laws. ----- I don’t say this! At all --- I say the opposite. In Planck constants is changed only “one” constant “e” with “qpl”. And this I am trying to understand: Is it a Planck flaw or a law of nature that : Qpl^2 / ( 4*pi*ε0*R ) is equal with h * C / (2*pi*R) in Planck costants when e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*R) is different with h * C / (2*pi*R) in fact? Or the fact is wrong? Please don’t dodge my question. If you have two things that are not equal, perhaps it's because nobody is claiming they are equal. ------ With this you say that e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*R) is different with h * C / (2*pi*R) ? That means we have not equivalence of energies. Well. In so called annihilation we have: 2 * me * C^2 = 2*e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*Re) different from 2 * h * C / (2 * pi* Re) where is lost the difference of energies? Where is the conservation of energies? Endyo816 I think OP is mixing quantum mechanic, relativistic and classical equations. If there could be some clarification on what each "E" represents it would help to pin down the problem. ---- Right. In Planck area, I may say too in Einstein area, all kinds of energies have the same value. The kinds are expressed with different laws of physics: Coulomb. Einstein, Newton , Boltzmann, Planck ….This is the law of conservation of energy in whatever form it is appears. And my thread is about this. I dare to say that if we speculate ( in lay—mans manner), in some concepts about mass, about structure of matter, we my have for elementary particles: E = ECoulomb = E Ejnstein = Eplanck = E Boltzmann = ENewton….. and a different idea about breaking of symmetry.

ajb Are you asking why charge comes in units of the electric charge (fundamental charge) and not the Planck charge? ------ Do you think --- Planck constant charge is a unit? Different from what we use (Coulomb)? And others stay not changed ? “ Mpl “ is not in Kg ? I really don’t understand, why you deviate from something simple: Why Ee = (e^2) / (4*pi*ε0*R) = me * C^2 is not equal with Ee = (h*C) / ( 2*pi*R) ? Why Planck to equalize the equation, changed “e” with “ QPl “ ? Why he insisted in equalization of energies for different laws? Because for the law of conservation of energy. Once and for ever: Change of one unit in physic attire change of all units in correspondence, if you don’t want to make a mess with conservation of energy. And here we have the controversy: Ee = (e^2) / (4*pi*ε0*Re) = Em = me * C^2 is not equal with Eh= (h*C) / ( 2*pi*Re) ? What to do? We can’t change “e” which is fine established, when instead “Qpl” is only a “convenient unit” without any measure support. We can’t change “h” because is well established in Physic, and especially in modern physic (as it is a “prima dona” in opera.) We can’t change “C”. It is rock established. Why don’t try with others participant in above formulas? In Coulomb potential law of energy “ e “ is electric charge (Forget electron). Re is a distance between them. We can’t change it, it is a distance and fine. But in “Eh.” equation this distance “Re” is linked with the oscillations, with frequency. What is a frequency: 1- is a periodic movement of electric charge in a segment of space, and f = C / Re II – is a periodic movement of electric charge in a circle of space and f = C / (2*pi*Re) III-Is a periodic movement of electric charge in spherical trajectory. A spherical trajectory is a number of circle trajectories with a common center which pursue each other and fill a sphere. And this is one Hz. In spherical oscillations fsph. = C / ( (2*pi /α) * Re) . If we adopt this kind of oscillations the controversy of Planck charge is solved. swansont nits are arbitrary and chosen by convenience. In many cases, using the charge on an electron or proton as the magnitude of the unit is the most convenient, but not always. The thing is, we do this all the time, and it's not "controversial". We measure distances in meters or kilometers. But we also have light-years and parsecs, and some people measure distances in feet and miles. So yes, there are different units of charge. We also have Coulombs and StatCoulombs. No controversy. ---- I suppose that the answer for “ajb” is in the same line with your rebut.

Swansont NOT CONTROVERSY That you don't understand something is not in the least bit controversial. ----- I don’t think so. There is a controversy and a big one. Is it by the nature of matter : mass and mass-less particles, or by the schism of quantum from basic classic , an opera of humans,--- that it is exact, what I want to understand. By the way about the “lack of my understanding” — isn’t this the same as “we speak about what we don’t understand’?. I simple intend to understand. Let see: Qpl = (4*pi*ε0*h-bar*C)^0.5 It derives from the physic’s equations: Qpl^2 / (4*pi* ε0* R) = h * ( C / (2*pi*R) ---I Have you any objection? Simple is Equivalence of energies in classic. Why not, then factual charge: e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*R) = h * ( C / (2*pi*R) ?----II Simple, because system II isn’t true. There is not equivalence’ There appears controversy: energy of two factual electric charges differs from quantum energy. How to correct it? Change factual “e” in Qpl. Why? You tell me. What are h tire, electric mass, electric radius and electric period? (other than nonsense terms) Is " h tire" h bar? (h/2pi)? Is electric actually electron? In any event, what period is this? ----- “h tire” my mistake for “h bar” Electric mass : Electric radius : Frequency : Derived from EQUIVALENCE of all kind of energies in an elementary particle. The same as are derived Planck Constants . Only Planck Constants are “CORRECTED” in conformity with factual electric charge. From equations of energies : E = e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*R) = G*M^2 / R = h*(C / ( ( 2 * pi / α )* R) = M*C^2 = ( C^4 ) / G ) * R etc… Planck units are derived, and depend fundamental constants (some of which comprise alpha), in various combinations that give you the units you want. Taking ratios of some might leave you with a number related to alpha. ---I think that plank constant are extracted by all kind of physic’s laws making equivalence with Planck energy E = h*f. And when there appears discrepancies were infused non dimensional constants as in case with Coulomb law, or Boltzmann law . There is nothing wrong with non-dimensional constants. But to change entity as electric charge, a physic’s one, which is measured many times and it is not fictive, I think is a huge controversy. ajb Absolutly right. Really we have no more than a useful system of units. At best the physics is just giving us handwaving scales at which we would expect new physics. ----- Sorry that I don’t understand perfect English.

HUGE CONTROVERSY: PLANCK’S ELECTRIC CHARGE ---- FACTUAL ONE. ( Lay-man’s motto: Trouble the waters for clarification. ) Comparing the Planck’s constants derived with base “h” (historically) after with “h tire” and the constants with base “ electric charge – e” we see that they differ from each other. by the square root of ‘constant of fine structure”. For example: Planck’s mass = ( h-tire * C / G ) ^ 0.5 = 2.176646195*10^-8 Kg. Electric mass = ( e / ( 4 * pi* ε0 * G ) ^ 0.5 ) = 1. 8593899458*10^-9 Kg. Planck’s mass = electric mass / sqrt α. Planck’s length = ( h-tire * G / C^3 ) = 1.61624*10^-35 m. Electric radius = R = ( e / ( (4 * pi * ε 0 / G ) ^ 0.5) * C^2) = 1.3805438 * 10^-36 m. Planck’s length = Electric radius / sqrt. α Planck’s time = ( h-tire * G / C^5 ) ^ 0.5 = 5.39121 8 10 6 –44 sec. Electric period = ( h / (M * C ^2) = 3 965007875* 10^-42 sec. or ( ( 2* pi / α ) / R ) / C = 3.9650078* 10^-42 sec. Planck’s time / electric period / (2*pi / sqrt α ) etc….. Evident that this discrepancy came from : qpl / (1/ alpha) = e . What is the physic’s meaning of Planck charge? Are real the breaks of symmetry, or are a misconception?

Moderator Note Please, this is a section for discussing mainstream science. Your idea is speculative, and students come to these sections for mainstream explanations. Do NOT hijack other people's threads with your own speculation. We have a whole speculation section where concepts like this can be analyzed and discussed. Thank you. Thanks for your Moderator Note, even I am somewhat puzzled: am I not in Speculation? My intention was to attire the OP in debate, about classic concepts in physic and modern concept of Mainstream. You say that students come in this section for discussing mainstream science. Is it taboo to compare both teaching --- for a stronger understanding? I am a lay-man obsessed with ’mass-particles’ hypothesis in the same way that O.P. has asserted an ‘energy – particles’ hypothesis. And the discuss will be useful for both: OP will learn a “training” how to hush opponent, (which will be very easy), and I will learn how to reconcile the ideas of “zero radius” and “surrogate of mass”. Where am I wrong? If OP has a complaint --- then I am sorry, very sorry.

Swanson The fine structure constant gives the relative coupling of the EM interaction. It's dimensionless, so it has nothing to do with rotation, per se. I ---- A question out of curiosity: What means a faded display of titles of threads and the signs: sphere or star? II ---- It is my speculative hypothesis that frequency of a stabile particle is : f = C / ( ( 2 * pi / alpha ) * R). In this case: 1 / alpha is the number of circles (2*pi) that unique sub particle ( or Photon after an other hypothesis) moving in spherical movement fulfill 1Hz of official frequency fo = C / R. From here comes wrong idea that velocity C retarded or decelerated moving in mass particles. So alpha is a number for all kind of radiuses.

The opinion of a lay -- man. I eagerly hopped a break throw, I am sorry to tell that I am disappointed. Even I sensed that all this is nothing else but the old try to throw out of scene the concepts of mass - radius and to explain them with mean of pure energy (light), in your paper you continue to play with G*M. So like that you or not, the elephant stay in room. Some question from an ignorant: With who will interact your photon (h -- even with tire), to change direction in it’s movement? With it self ? And you think that this may create a particle? In fact you allude about a huge G. It comes from where? But maybe this is very subtle for a lay -- man. So I hush in this direction. When there are some hundred kinds of fields why not a Huge? I understand that my post will irritate you, I sincerely hopped that you may have an idea “to pacify” two extreme: h and Mplank (extrapolated toward fact electric charge). I hoped because your paper seems crafted by a specialist. And to give you a case to joke with an idiot like me , listen my suggestion: Try an equation of interactions between three photons the frequency of which are : fe = ( fplank * fg)^05 . here ---- fg = (G*mx / rx ) / ((2*pi/α) *rx) is a crazy speculation. Maybe the solving of this equation will give all kind of particles.

Swansont To paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, the great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not. IOW, your belief is immaterial to whether something is true or not. You have to come up with something better — a physical reason why it should not be true. The quantum of EM radiation is the photon, with an energy of hv. It's not h all by itself — that's the quantum of angular momentum. h is not a limiting factor on energy. ----- About ”true – the great thing of science” -- I think it is in fact thematic of every “debate” between physicist--humans. Who think , in himself, that “he has discovered the “true” true?” Errare est humanum ( an aforism-- stolen by me, as you like latin) Now about “h”, about “the less portion of energy”, about the quantum of angular momentum , about “h / (2*pi)”, about the “frequency”, about Constant “α” what is the truth? 1 – I believe that “less portion of energy possible to exist” is E = h * 1sec. You say no. Well, you tell me what is less “portion” (quanta) of energy in nature. ( may be you think is E = h / (2 * pi / α ) ?) . Ha. Or you think that doesn’t exist any “less portion of energy? Please --- an answer without any equivokal. Hush me. 2 – I believe that h*1sec. was the real concept of quanta by Plank. I think this differs from Dirac’s concept. Dirac “discovered” that it is portion of energy in movement, not particle as it was supposed by classics. Well. But why he strip perimeter of circular movement by it’s 2*pi and stick them to “h” ? , what change in reality? Frequency was f = C / (2 * pi * R) now it becomes f = C / R . But energy is the equal : E = h * ( C / (2*pi*R) = (h /(2*pi)) * (C/R). There reappears another component in frequency. It is “constant of tine structure” “α”. What is the physical / geometrical meaning of this constant? I speculate that constant “α” has to do with spherical movement of mater (some say energy, some say particle) and it reflected in spectra of photons waves. The frequency must be f = C / ((2 * pi / α) * R) . in this case we will have: E = (e^2 / ( 4*pi*ε0 *R) = m * C^2 = h * (C / ( ( 2 * pi / α ) * R) = ….. ----------- About: (That you are asserting things without this knowledge is the real problem) – you are absolute right.

My point is that if it's a question, it's not a controversy. Even of it's your idea, it's not a controversy. You are, admittedly, a layman. It's a matter of not having a larger exposure to the science. (That you are asserting things without this knowledge is the real problem) The length of the second is a completely arbitrary choice, and not dependent on any fundamental physics. There is no physical reason why a period cannot be longer than a second, and indeed, any pendulum longer than a quarter of a meter has a period longer than a second, and there's no restriction on you building a really long antenna and driving it at a frequency lower than 1 Hz. We could have chosen a different unit, and express h is terms of Joule-minutes. It has absolutely no impact here. ==== Thanks Swansont for your replay and for your patience for debating with me, a lay man stubborn and with scarce knowledge. I understand that this is boring and irritating especially with my lame language, and I appreciate your polite answers. Now about my thread: 1 – Even there exists ultra low frequency in nature ( 0.3 Hz) , I still don’t believe that exist a photon with energy les than h*1Hz. I didn’t find any example in Viki. Giving an example will hush me. 2 – I didn’t say that do not exist period longer than 1 sec. There is “period” of earth toward it’s axis with about “86400 sec”. My thread was about “potential energy” of field by an electric “unity” charge in a distance from unity charge more than about 3.481818762 * 10 ^ 5 m . This energy is less than h * 1Hz. 1 Hz = (3. 4818187262* (2*pi* alpha) ) / C . My conclusion was: As the energy of a photon from electric charge is less than “ h * 1” then farther electric field of unity charge stop to exist. You say no, no must it be. 3 – I am sure that change of unity of time with another unity of ”time”, will asks absolutely change of all characters that posses time. 4-The word was not about unity of time , it was about time itself. -------------- If you consider end of debate you can close this thread.

Swansont .[/size] [/size] ---- joul = h / дt(sec.) = h * f (Hz) It's a tad disingenuous to make a claim and tag it as being controversial, and then plead ignorance. If you are a layman who admittedly doesn't understand something, you have no business proclaiming what you did. Just ask the question. ----- It is not at all disingenuous if I am trapped in a controversial situation, during my meditations, and I ask for a qualified friend to give me a hand. I don’t make a claim, I propound the situation where I am get stuck in mud (my lay man’s ignorance) with good intention to make clear about the difficulties of my problem. And I hope that moderator will give me a qualified help that disperse my doubts about what I “tag” --- a controversy. Time and frequency are inverses of each other. There are circumstances where there is a time interval, but frequency would be inappropriate to use; the latter implies a periodic system. ------ Here are my doubt and my debate. An “interval of time” and frequency are inverse to each other. This “interval of time” is called period. And is a portion of an other interval of time of 1 second, which is the conventional unity of time.. The frequency is number of periods in conventional unity of time : f = 1(sec) / 1 period(sec) in 1Hz But ….. What on earth? It comes that frequency is a rate, and the physic’s unity Hz = sec/sec. An other dilemma…..? And tell me that this is so simple . Now, in what wrong -- reasoning I am stumbled again? Time is not, as far as we know, quantized. That could possibly mean that the quantization is so small we haven't yet noticed it, but as such, there is no way of testing the hypothesis. ------The quantization of energy has any meaning only in correspondence with interval of time or with frequency, I think. What confused me is the assertion that frequency can be les than 1Hz. or period more than 1sec. For example: A moderator asserts that We can have energy E = h / 10^8 = h*10^-8. If this assertion is true then quantization of energy is totally meaning less, I think. So the unity of time (equal with unity of frequency) = 1second = 1Hz is absolute for the minimum possible portion of energy: E = h / 1 sec = h * 1 Hz. I think. And this I name “ the bottom land mark of reality”, in the span of frequency. My thread about which we are debating, is presented because my above implicit assertion is in controversy with an unlimited field of electric charge. I hope that you will be kind to give a thoroughly reviu of this mess.

Knock! Knock! Is anybody home? Is the lost traveler for the answers! Please!

Sure for specialist everything is clear, but the layman need a slowly explanation to understand own ignorance. So please be patient, about my reasoning. I have three simple question: 1 -- Is it any difference between “time” and “frequency”? Time is measured with “seconds”. Frequency is measured with “1/sec. or Hz”. The “seconds” measure an amount of time”. The “f in Hz” (or “1/sec” ) measure a number of intervals of “time”. 2 -- Is time quantised when we speak about energy or not? Or Is equal E = h / t with E = h * f ? 3 – What is the meaning of minimum portion of energy? .

CONTROVERSIAL: The limit extent of electric charge’s field. Theorists say that the field of electric charge is extended in infinity. Doesn’t this statement contradict the other statement about fix quanta of minimal energy? Let suppose we have two unity electric charge divided by a distance: D = [ ( C*1) / (2*pi/α) ) + Δ] here Δ is a space segment “plus” Let suppose we have static situation. The potential energy of two particles will be: E = e^2 / ( 4*pi*ε0 * D) < 6.626068777*10^-34 J or < h * 1 I suppose that in the point of space where the potential energy becomes less than unity quanta, electric field cease to exist. May any specialist will be kind to explain why the layman's reasoning is wrong ? And by the way: Who is “owner” of each other? Is it field property of particle or is it particle property of field?

Mr Foreman. I am a layman that find debates in science very attractive to lose “time” and to forget for while dark predictions of life. With high interest I followed your very argumentative debate with Swansont and others about nature of time. I had. in speculation forum, a debate about time with him and continue to remain uncertain about subject. I had the idea that space and “time” are form of existence of mater which is always in movement.. Without mater space and “time” are meaningless. I thought that space hasn’t limits in whatever 3 directions, and “time” is eterne. Mater together with space and “time” have not a beginning , have not an end. But different from space, which perceived by human senses, the time cannot perceived by human senses. That means that “flow of time “ is a human’s illusion that has it beginning when our primates were divided by animals. The human brain acquired, via evolution, the ability to record what happens in its daily activity and to recall it further when needs them. So he gain the ability to restore in mind what he has perceived in the past, as useful knowledge for his survive. Even animals, in a very low level, have record of their past activity: A dog has recorded where he has hidden the bone, and recall it when he is hungry. But the “flow of time” as an illusion, humans have acquired by the cyclic phenomena of nature: Day and night are the most evident repetitive phenomena, “movement” of sun in sky may divided in smaller portion of sky and use it as measure of “time”; morning, noon, afternoon, evening. And “after” comes the night. For smaller portion of time was used goad : Wake up lazy, the sun is risen two goad! used in some remote villages. Seasons and a full circle of them (year), are used as bigger measure of “time”. So : it is the “time” an illusion? or the “flow of time”? But your ideas for B.B. in your debate were a cold dush.

Sorry that i intervene in your qualified debate with my lay mans hypothesis. ---The only absolute mass is the extrapolated Plank mass = M = e / (4 * pi * epsilon 0 * G) ^ 0.5 . If you see my intervention improper disregard it .

What about frequency? isn't it real? I see two material point moving in circles. The first is moving in a circle with 2 cm radius, the second is moving in a circle with 8 cm. radius. I record that the second has fulfilled 8 circles when(?) the first only one. If flow of time existed independent the same for both they must have the same number of circles. Does this mean that flow of time is the same for both? Or that the flow is in - existent? The illusion of existence of flow of time is only that we compare recorded frequencies of different phenomena.

Mellinia Not all particles are held together by the electromagnetic force. And that "charge in circles movement" was proven to be wrong. Look up on Bohr radius. ------Many concepts are now upside down between classic and modern. As a young man you are, stick with modern and ignore what a layman grand pa, like me, say. Nevertheless isn’t hurt to see everything with criticism, and to dig in controversies. Dispute is an awesome force in progress. For a stubborn chap like me, with an old knowledge baggage, two are the main forces of nature: gravity and electricity, all-ways opponent with each other and in equilibrium. AJB The best thing you can do is get to grips with some of these methods. Thanks AJB for suggestion, but it is far too late for me. . Seems to me, that with my childish threads, I gave wrong impression for me as a media school student. You want to plot Y Vs X? Well you should first write Y(X), see here. You can then plot this with whatever package you like. Excel will probabily do it. ---- Again thanks for guideline. I tried, -- is an unknown field for me. I hoped “a baked pie” , and after, I my helped myself. But there is no lunch free. It is a friendly joke, never mind. Swansont The precision isn't the issue. It's precise because it's defined in terms of well-established (or defined) values. The issue is whether it corresponds to a physical size of a particle: it doesn't. -----Then “ well established values “ are wrong. If they doesn’t corresponds to physical characters of particle, where are they based? Throw all classic physic in trash can together with my threads. What is the value for gamma for a proton at 0.999999991 c according to your formula? That's the speed of protons at the LHC, according to relativity. ----- In this case formula is : Γ = 1 / ( (1 – 0.9999999991)^2)^0.5 + ( ( C*Vgp) / C^2) ^ 0.5 * Γ)) Vgp classic = 2.696794925*10 ^ -8 cm/sec. and (Vgp / C)^0.5 = 2.484481847*10^-10 Then Γ = 1 / ( ( 4.242640689*10^-5) + (2.4269406888106 ^ -10) *Γ ) But gamma is a result that depends from previous values. So it asks a solving step by step that I am not able to solve. When you gave velocity of proton I am sure you intended in the collision head by head. Formula is about relative velocity toward the source of mater that is injected in proton.

Swansont The classical radius is not the actual radius of the electron. It's a handy shorthand for sizes on that scale, just like Avogadro's number is handy for numbers of a macroscopic collection of atoms. ------ This handy shorthand I think is very precise in classic calculations: E = e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*Re) = me * C^2 = Mpl.* C^2* Lpl*α / Re = h / ((2*pi/α)*Re) = G*Mpl^2 *α / Re. Now put instead of “Re” the modern “. “ or “zero”, and joke with idiot lay-mans. Then pick some experiment you can do, or has been done, that can test your formula, as the rules of speculations demand. ------ This is formula about classic particles: mass and radiuses. Γ = 1 / ( ( 1 – β^2 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) ) ; First : For V = 0 it take form : Γ =1 / (1 + ( Vg / C ) ) quite = 1 For V = C it take form : Γ = C / Vg Which is different by infinite and is the rate : Plank constant / constant of particle. As Vg / C is very small both two cases are difficult to perceive with experiment. At least getting rid from absurd 1 / 0 Instead if my hypothesis of “unique particle” is right then instead of Vg / C we must use (( Vg * C ) / C^2))^0.5 then something change. It is possible that for using heavy particles to achieve the max. for V ( during acceleration) in range V = 0.9999999C. in which range β becames critique. After achieving Γmax. it is possible oscillations between Plank Energy and energy of particle. The heck know what will happens in this unstable situation. ??? By the way nobody answered my question about any experiment that surely rejected change of mass by acceleration….. and to get rid from this disgusted thread. AJB The equivalence principal basically tells us that on small enough regions non-gravitational physics reduces to special relativity. In that sense we know how special sits inside general. The two are not completley seperate. nside general. Theorists have used many methods in their searching work, using high math. Those method study physics phenomena in their transitory statuses, to reach in stable situations. I am not physicist, not mathematician. I speculate with which is achieved in stable status. AJB. I friendly will ask you a favor, as I read you are mathematician. I am not able to calculate equations step by step. May you help me about graph of equation; Y = 1 / (( 1 – X^2)^0.5 + A * Y) giving A some value between 1 and zero. Let say A = 10 ^ - 8

Mellinia Does the wavelength of a particle correspond to it's volume?---- The electromagnetic wave length of the particle is created by a periodic movement of a charge in circles movement. So I think this has to do with the radius. AJB We know how special relativity fits inside general relativity. We call it the equivalence principal. ------ In the special relativity of Lorentz Einstein’s formula I don’t see any alleged connection with general relativity. I think they are two different kind. Swanson What electron radius are you using? Sure not re = . = zero ; The classic radius . Gamma is the time dilation factor in SR, and you give a new formula for gamma. If this cannot give the time dilation of a GPS satellite, then of what value is your new equation? ---- When you say time dilation you intend change of period of what? Because change of time in general for me is without any meaning. The fact is that I am not aware about GPS phenomena: who is moving toward who, what is relative velocity, what is gravitational velocity in given distance. ------------------------------- Now, am I with a question for physics experts: Exist any experiment fact that reject for sure change of mass by change of velocity? Because the recommended work of Mr. Okun confused me more, and made more aware that this is an enigma

Mellinia Extrapolating that logic, you have just shown that a 5 megaton lorry has a smaller size than me, or that a proton has lesser size than an electron. Are you sure about that? ---- For friendly joke : I am curious to know how much is your Compton wave-length in comparison of lorry’s? Proton’s is lesser than electron’s. Hence : λe / (2*pi / α) = re > rp Swansont Earlier. SR was introduced in 1905. GR was developed in the decade afterwards. ---- Thanks - My lapse. Just this I wanted to say: the ideas of G.R. were promoted later and for this they were not reflected in S.R. SR has no relation with gravity, which was why GR was developed. ----- To debate about relation of S.R with G.R. is the aim of this thread. Only indirect Einstein promote idea that change of velocity bring change in mass via: m1 = m0 * γ1; m2 = mo*γ2 etc. The modern physic, this assertion of Einstein, considers a mistake. The modern physic, try to throw out of scene of physic mass particles, and to substitute it with overall energy notion without mass. Einstein didn't promote the idea of relativistic mass. He didn't like the idea. See the figure on page 2 http://www.physics.u...ept of mass.pdf ------ This means that not only a layman, like me, is in confusion and turmoil about essential concept on physics science, even they that are affirmed scientist don’t know for sure what they say. Exact: A semaphore in cross rode with the same red and green light on. This means that every-body has the right to speculate about concepts. Indeed. This is confirmed in collisions of relativistic heavy nuclei, where the length contraction is needed to explain the collision dynamics. ---- So the alleged “gravity velocity” = ((G * m) / (r+d)) * γ^2 (ones for m, once for (r+d) is right. Can your formulas properly predict the time dilation of GPS satellites? Please show your work. ---- As you see in my formulas there is not any time in view.