An Elephant in the Room by Don Limuti

Dear Christian,

Thank you very much for the vote of confidence, and the boost it gave my morale. I will be looking at your essay again, there is something about it that applies to my work that I need to ferret out.

Best of Luck

Don L.

Don

Nice essay, in you inimitably straightforward style and exposing some much ignored basics. I also agree with the content, indeed you may remember my reference last year to the syncrotron emissions (from the Pe cloud or not) in the LHC, closing up so much that no oscilloscope could distinguish them as the bunch approached c. This gives an intuitive visible analogy to your thesis.

So elephants are not of infinite size. But does this mean they'll always be recognised? I fear not. And I think there is a herd of them! I expose a few in my essay. I hope you'll read, comment and score.

Best of luck

Peter

For better clarification my approach

I sending to you Frank Wilczek's article

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits388.pdf

On Absolute Units, I: Choices

Dear Don,

it is true an elephant is running around in modern physics. But how does this elephant look like? I am sure you know the story of the blind men and an elephant. It has often been used to illustrate a deficit of information and the need to accept different perspectives.

What is the ultimate truth of the Universe? Are its internal processes moving in a digital fashion or are they moving in an analogous fashion?

I think, we still tend to solve this riddle by make a decision in favour of one of these two possibilities and against the other one... But perhaps every one-sided view (including in its most subtle and sophisticated version) is a fundamentally limited view, that does not cover REALITY in its totality.

Though I believe, that your approach is physically fruitful and promising, it does not touch the deepest level of reality. I am convinced, that velocity v = Delta_x/Delta_t is valid from v = 0 until v = oo without any exception or gaps.

This continuum is indeed the underlying branch to make statements - the term of velocity is only valid as long as Delta_x and Delta_t are not smaller than the deBroglie wavelength and period of the particle being - meaningful at all.

This continuous or analoguous spectrum of velocities may still be considered as a metaphysical assumption of physics, but it is to my opinion its central core. The real weakness of this assumption is still its implicit character: We think WITH them and not OF them. (Michael Polanyi). Therefore I am looking for a Modern Metaphysics.

I left a comment on my FQXI-site, too.

Good Luck for your Essay.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Don,

You wrote: "The velocity of a particle will be made such that it cannot exceed a maximum velocity Vmax, if that velocity would cause the Compton wavelength to be shorter than a Planck length."

The velocity of the particle is relative to some observer isn't it? But the observer could also start moving towards the particle and then the relative velocity of the particle and the observer will exceed not only Vmax but also c, irrespectively of what happens to the Compton wavelength. Don't you think so?

Pentcho Valev

Hello Helmut,

Thanks for your question, it is getting at core issues for physics. In my opinion the issue is the math-physics boundary

You are convinced, that velocity v = Delta_x/Delta_t is valid from v = 0 until v = oo without any exception or gaps.

This is entirely correct from the viewpoint of mathematics. Sure, make Delta_x =1 and Delta_t =0, the result will be infinity. Mathematics has no problem with this, however it is not reasonable physics. Why is it not reasonable physics? I will give you a challenge, find an event you can measure with a Delta_t = 0.

And sure you can find numbers that will make the velocity "smooth". But those numbers are mathematical and not obtained from physical measurements.

If you believe the math is the physics, you are stuck with your position (along with many members of this forum).

This is the problem I went after in "An Elephant in the Room". The equation for mass increase is "perfect" mathematically. Too bad the physical universe does not go along and shows it to be goofy. The remedy is easy once it is realized the equation has limits.

I hope this makes sense.

Let me know.

Thanks,

Don L.

Don,

What if you can somehow reduce or eliminate the mass of the medium you are traveling through?

Jim

Again read Wilczek http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4361

"In the strong system of units no square roots

at all appear in [M], [L], [T ].

The philosophical significance of a complete set of units, is that it allows us to express any fundamental constant as a pure number. According to the ideal of theoretical physics expressed by Einstein

I would like to state a theorem which at present can not be based upon anything more than upon a faith in the simplicity, i.e., intelligibility, of nature: there are no arbitrary constants ... that is to say, nature is so constituted that it is possible logically to lay down such strongly determined laws that within these laws only rationally completely determined constants occur (not constants, therefore, whose numerical value could be changed without destroying the theory)."

Don,

You seem to have dug up the missing math. It looks like something that should make the finals, so you get my ten.

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Don,

Please don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay

John Baez? I think he left the sinking ship a few years ago:

John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Baez is a very cautious Einsteinian - he will tell you nothing that can threaten Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

John Baez: "You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."

Pentcho Valev