Hi Don,
I enjoyed your "Elephant in the Room" and haven't seen anything glareingly false in your reasoning. I must admit, however, that I didn't follow up on the details yet, so the rating of 9 is not due to any insuffiencies in your article, but my own slowness in getting time to do the math.
Just in case you get a Nobel Prize, can I have your autograph now?
Cheers,
Bob Gellert
Hi Bob,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I am glad you enjoyed the essay and feel it rates a 9.
I wish I could have hidden the equations, but it is an important part of the essay. Scientific American articles are just about devoid of equations and Nature is not far behind. They know that equations are like sleeping pills and are guaranteed to lose an audience. Additionally there is not just one technique for solving algebraic equations, if your technique is like mine the equations flow easily, but if your technique is different than mine then you will be wondering "what is he doing? at every step.
I am hoping you go over the equations and when done post your results back here.
The theory presented here is spectacular and will cause the rewriting of a lot of textbooks, it may even be worth a prize, but first two things need to happen: 1. an experimental physicist (the people who do the real work) needs to demonstrate it has some validity. and 2. It needs to provide other theorists a base for more discoveries.
And as the community voting stands right now, I better not give up my day job.
Wishing you the best.
Don L.
Hi Don, I read with great interest your very interesting essay.
The Planck length and time are also basic assumptions in "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION", but in another way as your perception. The only reamrk I make is that these limits may change in the future, I use them "in principle".
Thank you for all the usefull data.
I hope that you will also read/comment/rate/ my essay
Wilhelmus
Hi Wilhelmus,
Thanks for expressing interest in my essay. I am very interested in your use of the Planck length and time. I will be vacationing for a few days and hope to read and comment on your essay by the middle of next week at the latest. I look forward to it.
Don L.
Dear Don Limuti,
I like your enthusiasm on foundation of Science. In this Essay you raises interesting points. I am going to give you an high score.
Good luck in the Contest!
Cheers,
Ch.
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
Hi Peter,
Thank you for your generous comments. And I am looking forward to visiting your essay.
I am not sure if Cern can get protons going fast enough to see the limit effect on mass? It would be wonderful if they could!
A young friend of mine was looking at my essay blog and commented ...."Is he THAT Peter Jackson!". So of course I must ask: Are you that Peter Jackson?
I think we have both participated in all the contests, and they just keep getting better. And there are plenty of "elephants" to support many more contests.
Best of Luck,
Don L.
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
Hi Yuri,
Thanks for your reference to Frank Wilczek's article. He would like to add a few constances to Planck's G,c, and h. He would like to add the charge of the electron, the mass of the electron and the mass of the proton. With these added constants he can develop interesting relations.
However for my work in removing the elephant; G, c and h all by themselves can do the job.
One of the things that is important about Planck's original triad is that they are independent of relative motion, whereas constants like the mass of the electron and the proton are not.
Thanks for your reference,
Don L.
Hello Hoang,
I think you have the answer as to why the FQXi community is so quarrelsome: "Because, seems God not to teach communication theory" :)
I believe you got to my blog via Wilhelmus' blog where I agreed with his comment that the "reference of reference is "You". I usually would not agree with such high philosophy, it is out of my league. However I had been sitting on a concept of how light moved, and it hit me that Wilhelmus was correct philosophically as well as logically. My notion (see my website) is that each period of light has two speeds, 0 and c. And I go into how this makes sense in terms of the Planck-Einstein equation. The thought that struck me was that 0 speed means 0 speed with respect to the observer (you or I) and the speed c also means with respect to the observer. This means that each of us is in lockstep with the speed of light.
Why do we always measure light as moving at c .... yes it is linked to us. There are some fine details as to the linking .... see www.digitalwavetheory.com (the section on the mechanics of digital waves.
I have looked at your questions, but alas lack the horsepower to answer them.
But let me share my favorite question: What is a thought that a man may know it?
This is a wonderful contest,
Thanks for being part of it.
Don L.
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.
Hi Pentcho,
You are exactly correct about relative velocity. An observer can be in a rocket ship moving away from the particle. This causes the particle to be measured at a faster speed. Your equation for relative velocity is perfect, AND it has limits. That is what this essay is about. And sure you can ignore the limits and insist your math is perfect (which it is), and therefore the velocity can go beyond c.
Everything is correct and you are in the soup.
Now I have to admit, that my explanation about how Vmax comes about does not satisfy me completely. I am waiting for John Baez to provide the added insight. I think he has the horsepower to provide the needed insight.
Thanks for your question.
Don L.
The above anon was me.
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)."
Hi James,
In the model considered here the speed limit of a particle is only a function of the rest mass divided by the Planck mass. The medium will certainly effect how easy or not it is to accelerate the particle.
The limiting effect is not a gradual one. It is like running out of gas, one instant everything is fine the next instance there is no more power to accelerate. In the case of a particle it is like running out of space, there is no place to go.
It is interesting that I can show how a limit to speed comes about, but I cannot tell you the meaning of it. So, all ideas are welcome.
Thanks for your question,
Don L.
Don,
You seem to have dug up the missing math. It looks like something that should make the finals, so you get my ten.
