I have a simple question. I don't doubt the quanta and that QM's for the main part makes my computer run. But I have heard there are more speculative sides not altogether been tested by experiment [aka my computer runs.] I am wondering if things like Plank length or Planck time are directly derived from quanta or more or less theorized in order to help explain other theories like string theory.
No one can tell me that the a Planck length is directly derived from Planck's constant?
And if so, how was it derived?
It may seem an odd question, but it is just a suspicion that Planck was dead before the idea of Planck length came out.
:EDIT:
Were Planck length, time and mass just mathematical predictions made in looking for a unity of relativity and quantum mechanics?
And if so, how was it derived?
It may seem an odd question, but it is just a suspicion that Planck was dead before the idea of Planck length came out.
:EDIT:
Were Planck length, time and mass just mathematical predictions made in looking for a unity of relativity and quantum mechanics?
Hi Beer,
I thought that the Planck length was were uncertainty kept space-time from being flat, showing the need for a quantum theory of gravity. That's really the only context I've heard it used.Just fuzzy memories from a pop science book, though.
Peace,
Ron
I thought that the Planck length was were uncertainty kept space-time from being flat, showing the need for a quantum theory of gravity. That's really the only context I've heard it used.Just fuzzy memories from a pop science book, though.
Peace,
Ron
Here is a bit of info from wikipedia:
It's from the page on Planck length.
QUOTE
The Planck mass is the mass for which the Schwarzschild radius is equal to the Compton length divided by π. The radius of such a black hole would be, roughly, the Planck length. The following thought experiment illuminates this fact. The task is to measure an object's position by bouncing electromagnetic radiation, namely photons, off it. The shorter the wavelength of the photons, and hence the higher their energy, the more accurate the measurement. If the photons are sufficiently energetic to make possible a measurement more precise than a Planck length, their collision with the object would, in theory, create a minuscule black hole. This black hole would "swallow" the photon and thereby make it impossible to obtain a measurement. A simple calculation using dimensional analysis suggests that this problem arises if we attempt to measure an object's position with a precision to within a Planck length.
It's from the page on Planck length.
I've heard that relativity and quantum mechanics are at odds ie that they "can't both be right." Hence I was weary, not about Plank's constant, but all those other things: mass, time and length. That seem to have as much to do with relativity c as with the constant.
It seems like taking a quanta from from quantum mechanics and taking the speed of light which relativity was built upon. Putting them together to make mathematical predictions that if were proved, would then assume that there was never a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics.
It seems like taking a quanta from from quantum mechanics and taking the speed of light which relativity was built upon. Putting them together to make mathematical predictions that if were proved, would then assume that there was never a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics.
Hi Beer w/Straw, prometheus, Ron et al,
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+)
I've heard that relativity and quantum mechanics are at odds ie that they "can't both be right." Hence I was weary, not about Plank's constant, but all those other things: mass, time and length. That seem to have as much to do with relativity c as with the constant.
It seems like taking a quanta from from quantum mechanics and taking the speed of light which relativity was built upon. Putting them together to make mathematical predictions that if were proved, would then assume that there was never a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics.
It seems like taking a quanta from from quantum mechanics and taking the speed of light which relativity was built upon. Putting them together to make mathematical predictions that if were proved, would then assume that there was never a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics.
There is a speculative part about where "theories of everything" should "go" from here... There are some who believe that particle theory can be extrapolated to an ideological "extreme" where space and time 'break down" into quantum foam. Prometheus has brought this point up in mentioning Planck Length and 'stuff" going down the quantum drain to "who knows where". I believe this extreme POV may be pure "bunk"... though "bunk" does have it's uses (... beyond endless amusement for the mathematicians). Special Relativity is an exercise in which phenomena are measured in the real world in which the extremes of a theory become the beginnings of "new theory". The old theory was Newtonian Mechanics and the new Theory is Relativistic Mechanics (Special and General Relativity) and Quantum Mechanics. What is important to note is how to interpret this mix in our physical world. A hundred years from now a lot of what we are saying in this area of "philosophy" will be laughable. In hindsight we will consider some of this really 'dumb".
The concept of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) along with the speed of light, the universal Gravitational Constant and Planck's Constant 'defining" a distance which this expected "defect" in spacetime occurs is IMHO a 'failure of imagination" and not a failure of the continuum. It is like saying that spacetime is like a carpet on the floor and if you stand in it in "high heels" it tears a "hole". What any theory of spacetime tearing avoids is discussing what is "under the carpet". In Physics HUP is a measure of the way in which orthogonal observables in many various physical systems 'diverge" when one is measured with greater and greater accuracy. There is a 'granularity" in a product of the precision of these measurables which can never reach zero. When measuring a "measurable" if you try to determine its value to a degree greater than a certain value, it alters the other conjugate variable by an even greater amount.
Wikipedia: Complementarity (physics)
A couple of these linked parameters in a system are position and momentum, energy and time, space and time. This phenomenon is linked to the collapse of a quantum state and a particular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics called the Copenhagen Interpretation... There exists a prior condition in which the measurables are not known (in this situation the values are in a 'superposition of states")... The condition collapses into a state in which two parameters are known but with an imprecision that is strictly "limited".
In the case of position and momentum and we may use "tiny projectiles" to determine the position of a small object such as a nucleus, we have ways to detect "particles" of every kind so this initially sounds like a 'good idea". The deflection and final distribution of these tiny particles can be used to determine where the "unseen" target is. Fire a lot of small projectiles and this gives you an idea, when you look at the distribution of deflections around the targeted position, where you 'think" the unseen particle exists. This is 'good" when the particle you are firing is very small and light and the thing you wish to determine the position is big and heavy. Case in point is firing electrons or alpha particles at a thin gold foil... Contrary to what you may think most will go through suggesting that gold is mostly 'empty space". Some are deflected at high angles suggesting that there are tiny "hard" particles somewhere inside of that 'matter"... the nucleus. An analysis of this deflection gives us an indication of the size of the nucleus to the size of the entire atom in gold. Take the case of a gunslinger practicing with a light tin can and his six shooter. Each "bullet" that hits the can "kicks" it many meters away from it's initial position. This makes gunslinging practice 'fun" but particle physics a "Hell". The target is "scattered" with each "hit" an indeterminable amount.
Perhaps we should use really light bullets traveling at a very low velocity? The "phenomenon" suggests that a fuzzy measurement of one variable would necessary lead to a fuzzy determination of the other variable because the second measurement depends on the first variable. In the past the idea was to improve the measurement of the first variable and this will lead to an improvement in the accuracy second "dependent" variable. IMHO this problem arises with out methods of analysis which are based on the concept of 'point particles" where the position of a point particle can "theoretically" be determined with infinite accuracy (right down to a single point). In actual fact a particle could only be determined up to a limiting condition since a particle is a distributed object so has no "point distribution". You can use bigger and bigger "hammers" to try and probe the "core" of the "point particle" but the more energy you use the more the particle you are trying to "probe" is kicked by this "force" to Hell and back.
Many processes we are trying to measure revolve around small and very light particles compared with your standard blacksmith's anvil. In many cases the energy that even a single photon carries compared with the mass of some of these very light particles is "significant"... so even firing a single photon at it suddenly "boots" the very light object into "the next room". It is like playing billiards with billiard balls weighting a trillionth of a gram. All photons have a relationship to energy that forces it to carry a particular "kick" related to it's wavelength (E = hf). The other problem is the physically smaller the particle you want to "see" is... the shorter the wavelength of light is required to "see" it. If you do not use "short wavelength light" to "see" it with you run the risk of missing seeing it altogether. Conversely larger objects are able to to scatter longer wavelength light but the energy of long wavelength light carries is much lower than short wavelength light.
In the first case we are using sticks of TNT to detect a ping pong ball in the later case we are striking the Empire State Building with a feather. In both cases we wish to see what the "response" of object being "struck". These measurements are are odds with each other. So while we know where the particle "was" we now do not know where it presently "is" after making a "measurement". So a stationary particle at a particular position in a room is now moving with a considerable velocity in some direction away from where it originally was with a certain momentum. The "harder we try to accurately determine position" the worse the estimate of the momentum since these are mutually influencing strategies. The relationship is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
To be strictly correct with your statement above Beer w/Straw the "flavor" of Relativity is General Relativity (Electromagnetism, Quantum Physics were "unified" using Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) in the early 1950's). We know about absolutely 'everything" and how it works... except some "minor" aspects of "radioactivity"... which has to do with 'resonances" in the Nucleus in atoms... Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)... and Gravity. This is the same position science was in at the turn of the 19th century when it was simply a case of 'dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" and then they would have known 'everything... he he eh! What is "work outstanding" is unification between General Relativity (Gravity) and Quantum Physics (QCD and QED). This is the "continuum" vs the quanta or "discretization" of all thing "material" into "packets". Flows easily off the tongue but there are a lot of pitfalls in that "simple" step. IMHO it has led to quite a few "Black Holes" between peoples ears.
The "automatic" approach was to assume to go down the path of quantizing this "manifold" which is continuous in General Relativity to "accommodate" particles... this would mean that way way down below there would be this "quantum foam" at or around the Planck Length. In the opinion of those in the know (not me) this approach is "apparently" mathematically contradictory and does not balance dimensionally (parameterwise). Yet there is a group of hard nosed individuals that think that if you get a big enough hammer the square peg can be driven into the round hole. Some string Theorists and some Loop quantum gravity people believe that it can be dome.
IMHO this approach is not valid. There are other approaches that can be taken. The other problem with these theories that rely on a Planck Length 'failure" in spacetime is this theory is not directly testable. We would need to harness a significant portion of the amount of energy of the Big Bang to actually test it and a particle accelerator the size of a couple of decent galaxies. I am not kidding about that. Our civilization will probably never be able to test these ideas. If we can't test them then it is not Physics... by definition. Physics is not philosophy and every physics theory must be tested to remain physics. One small failure where the theory fails to match the experiment does not mean the Universe has "got it wrong"... the theorists have got it wrong.
If I can express an 'opinion" the direction of progress in these matters is not towards a "breaking down of spacetime". Black Holes are not necessarily a "breakdown" of any kind but a warping in spacetime into "higher dimensions". The "fabric of spacetime" does not "tear" and there is "nothing under the carpet" to explain. The next step is to ask a question about that 'highly stretched" elastic surface which "appears like a boundary"... must separate our universe from something else... It is a surface on the "Light Cone wall of our spacetime". That "something else" may be other spaces in which our Universe is "embedded"... someplace where this universe has originally come from ... before there was a Big Bang.... outside of our time and space.
Wikipedia: Light Cone
Cheers
The concept of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) along with the speed of light, the universal Gravitational Constant and Planck's Constant 'defining" a distance which this expected "defect" in spacetime occurs is IMHO a 'failure of imagination" and not a failure of the continuum. It is like saying that spacetime is like a carpet on the floor and if you stand in it in "high heels" it tears a "hole". What any theory of spacetime tearing avoids is discussing what is "under the carpet". In Physics HUP is a measure of the way in which orthogonal observables in many various physical systems 'diverge" when one is measured with greater and greater accuracy. There is a 'granularity" in a product of the precision of these measurables which can never reach zero. When measuring a "measurable" if you try to determine its value to a degree greater than a certain value, it alters the other conjugate variable by an even greater amount.
Wikipedia: Complementarity (physics)
A couple of these linked parameters in a system are position and momentum, energy and time, space and time. This phenomenon is linked to the collapse of a quantum state and a particular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics called the Copenhagen Interpretation... There exists a prior condition in which the measurables are not known (in this situation the values are in a 'superposition of states")... The condition collapses into a state in which two parameters are known but with an imprecision that is strictly "limited".
In the case of position and momentum and we may use "tiny projectiles" to determine the position of a small object such as a nucleus, we have ways to detect "particles" of every kind so this initially sounds like a 'good idea". The deflection and final distribution of these tiny particles can be used to determine where the "unseen" target is. Fire a lot of small projectiles and this gives you an idea, when you look at the distribution of deflections around the targeted position, where you 'think" the unseen particle exists. This is 'good" when the particle you are firing is very small and light and the thing you wish to determine the position is big and heavy. Case in point is firing electrons or alpha particles at a thin gold foil... Contrary to what you may think most will go through suggesting that gold is mostly 'empty space". Some are deflected at high angles suggesting that there are tiny "hard" particles somewhere inside of that 'matter"... the nucleus. An analysis of this deflection gives us an indication of the size of the nucleus to the size of the entire atom in gold. Take the case of a gunslinger practicing with a light tin can and his six shooter. Each "bullet" that hits the can "kicks" it many meters away from it's initial position. This makes gunslinging practice 'fun" but particle physics a "Hell". The target is "scattered" with each "hit" an indeterminable amount.
Perhaps we should use really light bullets traveling at a very low velocity? The "phenomenon" suggests that a fuzzy measurement of one variable would necessary lead to a fuzzy determination of the other variable because the second measurement depends on the first variable. In the past the idea was to improve the measurement of the first variable and this will lead to an improvement in the accuracy second "dependent" variable. IMHO this problem arises with out methods of analysis which are based on the concept of 'point particles" where the position of a point particle can "theoretically" be determined with infinite accuracy (right down to a single point). In actual fact a particle could only be determined up to a limiting condition since a particle is a distributed object so has no "point distribution". You can use bigger and bigger "hammers" to try and probe the "core" of the "point particle" but the more energy you use the more the particle you are trying to "probe" is kicked by this "force" to Hell and back.
Many processes we are trying to measure revolve around small and very light particles compared with your standard blacksmith's anvil. In many cases the energy that even a single photon carries compared with the mass of some of these very light particles is "significant"... so even firing a single photon at it suddenly "boots" the very light object into "the next room". It is like playing billiards with billiard balls weighting a trillionth of a gram. All photons have a relationship to energy that forces it to carry a particular "kick" related to it's wavelength (E = hf). The other problem is the physically smaller the particle you want to "see" is... the shorter the wavelength of light is required to "see" it. If you do not use "short wavelength light" to "see" it with you run the risk of missing seeing it altogether. Conversely larger objects are able to to scatter longer wavelength light but the energy of long wavelength light carries is much lower than short wavelength light.
In the first case we are using sticks of TNT to detect a ping pong ball in the later case we are striking the Empire State Building with a feather. In both cases we wish to see what the "response" of object being "struck". These measurements are are odds with each other. So while we know where the particle "was" we now do not know where it presently "is" after making a "measurement". So a stationary particle at a particular position in a room is now moving with a considerable velocity in some direction away from where it originally was with a certain momentum. The "harder we try to accurately determine position" the worse the estimate of the momentum since these are mutually influencing strategies. The relationship is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
To be strictly correct with your statement above Beer w/Straw the "flavor" of Relativity is General Relativity (Electromagnetism, Quantum Physics were "unified" using Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) in the early 1950's). We know about absolutely 'everything" and how it works... except some "minor" aspects of "radioactivity"... which has to do with 'resonances" in the Nucleus in atoms... Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)... and Gravity. This is the same position science was in at the turn of the 19th century when it was simply a case of 'dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" and then they would have known 'everything... he he eh! What is "work outstanding" is unification between General Relativity (Gravity) and Quantum Physics (QCD and QED). This is the "continuum" vs the quanta or "discretization" of all thing "material" into "packets". Flows easily off the tongue but there are a lot of pitfalls in that "simple" step. IMHO it has led to quite a few "Black Holes" between peoples ears.
The "automatic" approach was to assume to go down the path of quantizing this "manifold" which is continuous in General Relativity to "accommodate" particles... this would mean that way way down below there would be this "quantum foam" at or around the Planck Length. In the opinion of those in the know (not me) this approach is "apparently" mathematically contradictory and does not balance dimensionally (parameterwise). Yet there is a group of hard nosed individuals that think that if you get a big enough hammer the square peg can be driven into the round hole. Some string Theorists and some Loop quantum gravity people believe that it can be dome.
IMHO this approach is not valid. There are other approaches that can be taken. The other problem with these theories that rely on a Planck Length 'failure" in spacetime is this theory is not directly testable. We would need to harness a significant portion of the amount of energy of the Big Bang to actually test it and a particle accelerator the size of a couple of decent galaxies. I am not kidding about that. Our civilization will probably never be able to test these ideas. If we can't test them then it is not Physics... by definition. Physics is not philosophy and every physics theory must be tested to remain physics. One small failure where the theory fails to match the experiment does not mean the Universe has "got it wrong"... the theorists have got it wrong.
If I can express an 'opinion" the direction of progress in these matters is not towards a "breaking down of spacetime". Black Holes are not necessarily a "breakdown" of any kind but a warping in spacetime into "higher dimensions". The "fabric of spacetime" does not "tear" and there is "nothing under the carpet" to explain. The next step is to ask a question about that 'highly stretched" elastic surface which "appears like a boundary"... must separate our universe from something else... It is a surface on the "Light Cone wall of our spacetime". That "something else" may be other spaces in which our Universe is "embedded"... someplace where this universe has originally come from ... before there was a Big Bang.... outside of our time and space.
Wikipedia: Light Cone
Cheers
GoodElf, & post contributers,
GoodElf/all, I asked someone by PM a question on how to conduct myself on this site, it was extremely instructive in order for me to change my approach with a new purpose. I perceived this between the lines, be open-minded? Hope I did not misread the instructions.
Might this be the site you mentioned some time back that you would like to discuss/exchange different opinions?
I enjoy the discussion on © & what limit can we truly expect to be the smallest with the technology/imagination/creativity (I like how this was stated by you) we have at our disposal?
If you are willing to exchange small amounts of composition as a conversation between many, I would throughly enjoy the subject.
The reason I mentioned small amounts is do to the fact, my time is limited. My wish is that this will not be a problem for you and others?
dawn
GoodElf/all, I asked someone by PM a question on how to conduct myself on this site, it was extremely instructive in order for me to change my approach with a new purpose. I perceived this between the lines, be open-minded? Hope I did not misread the instructions.
Might this be the site you mentioned some time back that you would like to discuss/exchange different opinions?
I enjoy the discussion on © & what limit can we truly expect to be the smallest with the technology/imagination/creativity (I like how this was stated by you) we have at our disposal?
If you are willing to exchange small amounts of composition as a conversation between many, I would throughly enjoy the subject.
The reason I mentioned small amounts is do to the fact, my time is limited. My wish is that this will not be a problem for you and others?
dawn
I guess my question is more precisely: Is Planck time, mass and length part of string theory and not quantum mechanics? It is the association with the name Planck that I find misleading because Planck's constant is quantum mechanics.
Hi Beer w/Straw, dawn, prometheus, Ron et al,
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+)
I guess my question is more precisely: Is Planck time, mass and length part of string theory and not quantum mechanics? It is the association with the name Planck that I find misleading because Planck's constant is quantum mechanics.
It would seem that we have Planck himself to blame for this approach according to Wikipedia's version of History...
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Planck Units+)
Discussion
Physicists sometimes humorously refer to Planck units as "God's units," as Planck units are free of arbitrary anthropocentricity. Thus while the meter and second are incorporated in the SI system for historical reasons, the Planck length and Planck time are conceptually linked at a fundamental physical level.
Some Planck units are suitable for measuring quantities that are familiar from daily experience.
[...]
History
Natural units began in 1881, when George Johnstone Stoney derived units of length, time, and mass, now named Stoney units in his honor, by normalizing G, c, and the electron charge e to 1. (Stoney was also the first to hypothesize that electric charge is quantized and hence to see the fundamental character of e.) Max Planck first set out the base units (qP excepted) later named in his honor, in a paper presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in May 1899.[7][8]That paper also includes the first appearance of a constant named b, and later called h and named after him. The paper gave numerical values for the base units, in terms of the metric system of his day, that were remarkably close to those in Table 2. We are not sure just how Planck came to discover these units because his paper gave no algebraic details. But he did explain why he valued these units as follows: see this article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
Physicists sometimes humorously refer to Planck units as "God's units," as Planck units are free of arbitrary anthropocentricity. Thus while the meter and second are incorporated in the SI system for historical reasons, the Planck length and Planck time are conceptually linked at a fundamental physical level.
Some Planck units are suitable for measuring quantities that are familiar from daily experience.
[...]
History
Natural units began in 1881, when George Johnstone Stoney derived units of length, time, and mass, now named Stoney units in his honor, by normalizing G, c, and the electron charge e to 1. (Stoney was also the first to hypothesize that electric charge is quantized and hence to see the fundamental character of e.) Max Planck first set out the base units (qP excepted) later named in his honor, in a paper presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in May 1899.[7][8]That paper also includes the first appearance of a constant named b, and later called h and named after him. The paper gave numerical values for the base units, in terms of the metric system of his day, that were remarkably close to those in Table 2. We are not sure just how Planck came to discover these units because his paper gave no algebraic details. But he did explain why he valued these units as follows: see this article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
QUOTE (Max Planck+)
...ihre Bedeutung für alle Zeiten und für alle, auch außerirdische und außermenschliche Kulturen notwendig behalten und welche daher als »natürliche Maßeinheiten« bezeichnet werden können...
...These necessarily retain their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, even extraterrestrial and non-human ones, and can therefore be designated as "natural units"...
Wikipedia: Planck Units
...These necessarily retain their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, even extraterrestrial and non-human ones, and can therefore be designated as "natural units"...
Wikipedia: Planck Units
For the "record" I do not believe in "Natural Units" ... it seems to be driven by some desire to find a universal schema behind all things that can be used to measure everything. If Science "needs" natural units I will be the first one to adopt them.... Until then ... well!... 
What I find is the MKS or SI units keep me grounded in the actual practical measurements we need to make. Natural units and their normalization tend to hide the underlying relationships for me (...specifically the dimensional nature of parameters). No disrespect intended mind you! His Planck Constant is more than enough and the truly basic unit in many things... it is most essential. It is a fundamental unit of "action"... the granularity in the energy times the time... the limiting value of ∆E∆T ≥ ћ "spike" area under the curve.
What I find is the MKS or SI units keep me grounded in the actual practical measurements we need to make. Natural units and their normalization tend to hide the underlying relationships for me (...specifically the dimensional nature of parameters). No disrespect intended mind you! His Planck Constant is more than enough and the truly basic unit in many things... it is most essential. It is a fundamental unit of "action"... the granularity in the energy times the time... the limiting value of ∆E∆T ≥ ћ "spike" area under the curve.QUOTE (dawn+)
I enjoy the discussion on © & what limit can we truly expect to be the smallest with the technology/imagination/creativity (I like how this was stated by you) we have at our disposal?
If you are willing to exchange small amounts of composition as a conversation between many, I would throughly enjoy the subject.
If you are willing to exchange small amounts of composition as a conversation between many, I would throughly enjoy the subject.
Dawn... I would love to discuss these matters. You can nominate a thread and I will discuss that point there or you can PM me directly on that... Your choice.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi Beer, Dawn, G.E., Prometheus,
This really is an interesting topic from many different angles. Good Elf, thanks for the 'big picture' stuff. I only have a feel for the smallest implications of how we are 'confined' in our light cone. It's something I've just let sit in the back of my mind. It takes me 3 or 4 reads just to get one more nugget of info from your posts! but they are well worth the digging.
I, personally, have been trying to understand the Standard Model and the 3 microscopic force interactions. (This coming from a part time hobbyist, leaves me in the dark alot!)
Having such a minimal understanding of these things (even though each little bit excites me) leaves me without a good connection to the 'bigger picture'. I am trying to gear myself towards what a higgs field would mean within the confines of the standard model (only because of the need to focus on few things, for time constraints), but any thing that you guys can throw out there (Dawn & Beer also)(mmmm beer at dawn!) I'd appreciate for completeness's (ha ha) sake.
Always good talking to Y'all,
Peace,
Ron
This really is an interesting topic from many different angles. Good Elf, thanks for the 'big picture' stuff. I only have a feel for the smallest implications of how we are 'confined' in our light cone. It's something I've just let sit in the back of my mind. It takes me 3 or 4 reads just to get one more nugget of info from your posts! but they are well worth the digging.
I, personally, have been trying to understand the Standard Model and the 3 microscopic force interactions. (This coming from a part time hobbyist, leaves me in the dark alot!)
Having such a minimal understanding of these things (even though each little bit excites me) leaves me without a good connection to the 'bigger picture'. I am trying to gear myself towards what a higgs field would mean within the confines of the standard model (only because of the need to focus on few things, for time constraints), but any thing that you guys can throw out there (Dawn & Beer also)(mmmm beer at dawn!) I'd appreciate for completeness's (ha ha) sake.
Always good talking to Y'all,
Peace,
Ron
Hi Ron, dawn, Beer w/Straw, prometheus, et al,
I am no authority on the Standard Model. "Big Picture" is what I like but the Standard Model is "too big" for me. I have learned to "trust" the Standard Model but not for one second "believe in" the Standard Model. There are those who need to know the "State of the Art" picture for numerical data concerning the particle interpretation such as those at CERN. Obviously a great deal of attention is focussed on the results that will be obtained from the experiments and how this relates to the "model". I have often compared the Standard Model to an Orrey. A thing of beauty but not the last word in any aspect of how our Universe "actually works". It is more inscrutable than even that to me because it is "designed" by a Committee. I am sure it's "Truth" is buried in the Constitutional By-Laws and Proceedings somewhere but I am not following this flavor of "reality". I am one of those incorrigible types that believe that it is possible "To Know The Mind Of God" and beat him at chess... he he he!
The interpretation of particles enforces a particular approach that leads to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Neils Bohr. I am strong supporter of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory which is the underlying approach Feynman used with his Quantum Electrodynamics. John Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis appears to me to be a sane overall interpretation. However the "flavor" of the wave approach must surely be the answer? A purely wave approach appeals strongly to me. IMHO the experiments appears to indicate that the wave approach is the right approach ... after all.
There are two competing "paradigms" for different "competing" needs... those that want to know the "best available" technical answer and those who want to know the best intellectual approach for human understanding. Both of these "questions" are qualified with the "historical record" and where we are along this "timeline". I do not think we will ever know "everything" about any theory anytime in the future (this is a good thing)... what we know today will always differ from what we may know tomorrow and the amount of insight we can gain depends on our own self limited approaches to this problem. I think that some people in Science think that we are reaching the "bottom of the barrel" regarding human knowledge. In that "paupers view" of the world you save as much of what little enlightenment remains for yourself and the "devil take the hindmost". A self limiting and slowly contracting view of Science. My view is we are all intellectual "savages"... with a long way to go and a lot to learn. The more we learn the more we need to learn and (more importantly) the more there is to learn... a daunting concept of a limitless plenitude with a limited intellect with which to appreciate it. Plenty for all somewhere down the track when we accept that we all need to "share" to advance. Currently we are faced with an unlimited hunger for planetary resources with a limited appetite for the wisdom to manage it. Slight mismatch there!!
I see you have already recently responded on a thread that dawn and myself use in common.
Ron's input on "Light, composition of light"
I will intend to use it as well. Beer w/Straw has a particular interest and I hope my offerings are at least a partial answer to that particular question. I am sure that others would like to help this thread along. It is a "worthy" topic. If Beer w/Straw wants to add a few cents to the discussion on that other thread he/she has an opportunity.
Cheers
I am no authority on the Standard Model. "Big Picture" is what I like but the Standard Model is "too big" for me. I have learned to "trust" the Standard Model but not for one second "believe in" the Standard Model. There are those who need to know the "State of the Art" picture for numerical data concerning the particle interpretation such as those at CERN. Obviously a great deal of attention is focussed on the results that will be obtained from the experiments and how this relates to the "model". I have often compared the Standard Model to an Orrey. A thing of beauty but not the last word in any aspect of how our Universe "actually works". It is more inscrutable than even that to me because it is "designed" by a Committee. I am sure it's "Truth" is buried in the Constitutional By-Laws and Proceedings somewhere but I am not following this flavor of "reality". I am one of those incorrigible types that believe that it is possible "To Know The Mind Of God" and beat him at chess... he he he!
The interpretation of particles enforces a particular approach that leads to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Neils Bohr. I am strong supporter of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory which is the underlying approach Feynman used with his Quantum Electrodynamics. John Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis appears to me to be a sane overall interpretation. However the "flavor" of the wave approach must surely be the answer? A purely wave approach appeals strongly to me. IMHO the experiments appears to indicate that the wave approach is the right approach ... after all.
There are two competing "paradigms" for different "competing" needs... those that want to know the "best available" technical answer and those who want to know the best intellectual approach for human understanding. Both of these "questions" are qualified with the "historical record" and where we are along this "timeline". I do not think we will ever know "everything" about any theory anytime in the future (this is a good thing)... what we know today will always differ from what we may know tomorrow and the amount of insight we can gain depends on our own self limited approaches to this problem. I think that some people in Science think that we are reaching the "bottom of the barrel" regarding human knowledge. In that "paupers view" of the world you save as much of what little enlightenment remains for yourself and the "devil take the hindmost". A self limiting and slowly contracting view of Science. My view is we are all intellectual "savages"... with a long way to go and a lot to learn. The more we learn the more we need to learn and (more importantly) the more there is to learn... a daunting concept of a limitless plenitude with a limited intellect with which to appreciate it. Plenty for all somewhere down the track when we accept that we all need to "share" to advance. Currently we are faced with an unlimited hunger for planetary resources with a limited appetite for the wisdom to manage it. Slight mismatch there!!
I see you have already recently responded on a thread that dawn and myself use in common.
Ron's input on "Light, composition of light"
I will intend to use it as well. Beer w/Straw has a particular interest and I hope my offerings are at least a partial answer to that particular question. I am sure that others would like to help this thread along. It is a "worthy" topic. If Beer w/Straw wants to add a few cents to the discussion on that other thread he/she has an opportunity.
Cheers
I don't put a lot of faith in wikpedia. It says that Planck proposed time and length units before general relativity was out. So its a guess that he didn't put c in the equation.
Hi Ron, dawn, Beer w/Straw, prometheus, et al,
Cheers
QUOTE
I don't put a lot of faith in wikpedia. It says that Planck proposed time and length units before general relativity was out. So its a guess that he didn't put c in the equation.
I think Wikipedia is generally OK in most things. On the "edge" it has to be speculative. In this matter I am not sure what your point is here. Planck well and truly knew about the speed of light. The rest was probably derived from considerations of this primary size and then manipulation using dimensional analysis.Cheers
Well I guess I'd want to see Planck's original equations regarding those units.
Hi Beer w/Straw, dawn, prometheus, Ron et al,
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+)
Well I guess I'd want to see Planck's original equations regarding those units.
QUOTE (Wikipedia Natural Units (alternative)+)
Max Planck's creation of the natural units
Max Planck first listed his set of units [(qP excepted)] (and gave values for them remarkably close to those used today) in May of 1899 in a paper presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Max Planck: 'Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge'. Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 5, p. 479 (1899)
[This is the actual paper ... attributed to Planck from which the idea of "Natural Units" evolved.] At the time he presented the units, quantum mechanics had not been invented. He himself had not yet discovered the theory of black-body radiation (first published December 1900) in which the Planck's Constant made its first appearance and for which Planck was later awarded the Nobel prize. The relevant parts of Planck's 1899 paper leave some confusion as to how he managed to come up with the units of time, length, mass, temperature etc. which today we define using Dirac's Constant and motivate by references to quantum physics before things like and quantum physics were known. Here's a quote from the 1899 paper that gives an idea of how Planck thought about the set of units.
...ihre Bedeutung für alle Zeiten und für alle, auch ausserirdische und ausser menschliche Culturen nothwendig behalten und welche daher als 'natürliche Maasseinheiten' bezeichnet werden können...
...These necessarily retain their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, even extraterrestrial and non-human ones, and can therefore be designated as 'natural units'...
Max Planck first listed his set of units [(qP excepted)] (and gave values for them remarkably close to those used today) in May of 1899 in a paper presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Max Planck: 'Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge'. Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 5, p. 479 (1899)
[This is the actual paper ... attributed to Planck from which the idea of "Natural Units" evolved.] At the time he presented the units, quantum mechanics had not been invented. He himself had not yet discovered the theory of black-body radiation (first published December 1900) in which the Planck's Constant made its first appearance and for which Planck was later awarded the Nobel prize. The relevant parts of Planck's 1899 paper leave some confusion as to how he managed to come up with the units of time, length, mass, temperature etc. which today we define using Dirac's Constant and motivate by references to quantum physics before things like and quantum physics were known. Here's a quote from the 1899 paper that gives an idea of how Planck thought about the set of units.
...ihre Bedeutung für alle Zeiten und für alle, auch ausserirdische und ausser menschliche Culturen nothwendig behalten und welche daher als 'natürliche Maasseinheiten' bezeichnet werden können...
...These necessarily retain their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, even extraterrestrial and non-human ones, and can therefore be designated as 'natural units'...
That is where you will find them. Though I have not been there to confirm that personally. As I said... this process is not really "my thing". Interestingly Planck conceived that there was no specific need for "charge" and all his calculations were in the vacuum. Thus a theory without charge developed and was not successfully bettered until Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics in the early 1950's.... Similarly... It is also a theory without charge (though charge is explained fully but is not a necessary component of a basic theory... obviously) and allowed Feynman to share in another Nobel Prize many decades later. This theory was based on Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory that incorporates the Advanced and Retarded wave point of view. This leads to many interesting conclusions and one of them is Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis of Quantum Theory. On other matters Planck is a truly towering figure at the end of the 19th Century.
and following on...
and following on...
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Natural Units+)
Planck Units
The physical constants that Planck units normalize are properties of free space and not properties (such as charge, mass, size or radius) of any object or elementary particle (that would have to be arbitrarily chosen). Being so, the Planck units are defined independently of the elementary charge which, if measured in terms of Planck units, comes out to be the square root of the fine-structure constant, √α. In Planck units a conceivable variation in the value of the dimensionless α would be considered to be due to a variation in the elementary charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units
The physical constants that Planck units normalize are properties of free space and not properties (such as charge, mass, size or radius) of any object or elementary particle (that would have to be arbitrarily chosen). Being so, the Planck units are defined independently of the elementary charge which, if measured in terms of Planck units, comes out to be the square root of the fine-structure constant, √α. In Planck units a conceivable variation in the value of the dimensionless α would be considered to be due to a variation in the elementary charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units
As a background to this argument I would point to this paper (below) which elucidates the History behind Planck's efforts. What can be said about him is "It should be pointed out from the very beginning that classical theory of black-body radiation" before Planck's efforts did not exist at all. [...] Planck can in no ways be described as a boy lucky to find a law the significance of which he did not understand. As a professional theoretician, Planck was extremely sensitive to the importance of the problem he tried to solve and to the emergence of taking it in the intertheoretic context. He clearly understood the origin of the problem lying in the deep contradictions between mechanics, statistics, electrodynamics and thermodynamics." He discovered the law of...
E = hf
...before Einstein and used a relatively convoluted process in order to discover it through analyzing the black body cavity being made up of an infinite number of "perfect resonators". This is not far from my point of view.
E = hf
...before Einstein and used a relatively convoluted process in order to discover it through analyzing the black body cavity being made up of an infinite number of "perfect resonators". This is not far from my point of view.
QUOTE
Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 25, no 3, 2000 337
Early quantum theory genesis in the intertheoretic context
Rinat M.Nugayev
Tatarstan Academy of Science,
Kazan 420044,Volgogradskaya 49, Russia
ABSTRACT. Genesis of the early quantum theory represented by Planck's 1897-1906 and Einstein's 1905-1907 papers in intertheoretic context is considered. It is argued that in both cases the first quantum theoretical schemes were constructed as crossbreed ones composed from ideal models and laws of Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.
Deriving black-body radiation law Max Planck had to take the experimental evidence into account but it forced him not simply to deduce from phenomena but to use more theory also. Planck's and especially Einstein's theories represented the stages of ambitious programme of Maxwellian electrodynamics and statistical mechanics
reconciliation.
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-253/aflb253p337.pdf
In many ways I still think much of what Planck had discovered remains today as a cornerstone of the underlying theoretic basis of modern quantum theory. Unfortunately he has been underrated. All subsequent researchers including Einstein used his shoulders to stand on... as they should... Early quantum theory genesis in the intertheoretic context
Rinat M.Nugayev
Tatarstan Academy of Science,
Kazan 420044,Volgogradskaya 49, Russia
ABSTRACT. Genesis of the early quantum theory represented by Planck's 1897-1906 and Einstein's 1905-1907 papers in intertheoretic context is considered. It is argued that in both cases the first quantum theoretical schemes were constructed as crossbreed ones composed from ideal models and laws of Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.
Deriving black-body radiation law Max Planck had to take the experimental evidence into account but it forced him not simply to deduce from phenomena but to use more theory also. Planck's and especially Einstein's theories represented the stages of ambitious programme of Maxwellian electrodynamics and statistical mechanics
reconciliation.
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-253/aflb253p337.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 25, no 3, 2000 337 Early quantum theory genesis in the intertheoretic context Rinat M.Nugayev Tatarstan Academy of Science, Kazan 420044,Volgogradskaya 49, Russia ABSTRACT. Genesis of the early quantum theory represented by Planck's 1897-1906 and Einstein's 1905-1907 papers in intertheoretic context is considered. It is argued that in both cases the first quantum theoretical schemes were constructed as crossbreed ones composed from ideal models and laws of Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. Deriving black-body radiation law Max Planck had to take the experimental evidence into account but it forced him not simply to deduce from phenomena but to use more theory also. Planck's and especially Einstein's theories represented the stages of ambitious programme of Maxwellian electrodynamics and statistical mechanics reconciliation. http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-253/aflb253p337.pdf |
In many ways I still think much of what Planck had discovered remains today as a cornerstone of the underlying theoretic basis of modern quantum theory. Unfortunately he has been underrated. All subsequent researchers including Einstein used his shoulders to stand on... as they should...
At first, in 1969-1984 Timothy H. Boyer (see, for instance, Boyer 1975,1984) convincingly demonstrated that most of the early and old quantum theories' phenomena (beginning with Planck 's radiation law) can be explained in a strictly classical way in his "stochastic electrodynamics". The presence of random classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation with a Lorentz-invariant spectrum modifies the ideas of classical electron theory so as to provide three classical derivations of Planck's spectrum.
At first, in 1969-1984 Timothy H. Boyer (see, for instance, Boyer 1975,1984) convincingly demonstrated that most of the early and old quantum theories' phenomena (beginning with Planck 's radiation law) can be explained in a strictly classical way in his "stochastic electrodynamics". The presence of random classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation with a Lorentz-invariant spectrum modifies the ideas of classical electron theory so as to provide three classical derivations of Planck's spectrum.
It is clear that there is a way to utilize this approach even now. IMHO the current particle theory does not preclude these wave solutions to the theory and in many ways the wave solutions are formally more correct especially when dealing with coherent sources in cavities. I have nothing but admiration for Planck and his abilities to extract himself from the quagmire of the 19th century by his own "bootstraps" providing everyone after him with a solid foundation on which to "speculate". Considering the experimental and theoretical "desert" in which Planck worked I am amazed that he was able to come up with such theories in that time and place. Had he been alive today or at least the early 20th Century I am sure we would all have his name on our lips along with Einstein, Schrodinger and Dirac. According to Nugayev... in some ways current Quantum Theory has been the result of a compromise between several lines of experimental and theoretical approach (see paper) to arrive at a mutually acceptable understanding. This was understood in Carver Meads book Collective Electrodynamics in which Neils Bohr seems to be responsible in using his iron will to push through a particular understanding of Quantum Physics (Copenhagen Interpretation) in such a forceful and intimidatory way that it remains "directly" unchallenged by members of the Scientific Community to this day regardless of the weight of some "powerful" evidence against it. Sometimes ideas get lodged so tightly in the brains of students that it becomes "closer" to them than even their irrational religious beliefs. I could point out that this process is extended into the area of the current Standard Model that all physicists have nasty mutterings about but none are willing to openly confront it (hence the need for us "elves" ). As such the theory has been subjected to a number of "shims" which correct the huge number of parameters in the theory to bring it back on target and "provide us with a theory that is not even wrong yet far from being right". We forget that the process of scientific opinion and peer review is not an open and salutary process as it may be publicly portrayed but can be a bitter struggle for the "prize" by organizations and countries for the glory to the exclusion of even the "Truth" itself. Along the way reputations are dashed and others exulted.
This may actually be more complex than I thought a simple yes or no answer to suffice.
If I am to take it for its word, some dude in the department of physics at Texas was dabbling in the same basic question of whether Planck himself wrote those equations
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0143-0807/19...fe-5930a02d10e4
I did look at some wikpedia but it said he wrote a close approximation paper with no algebra that came close to the accepted values of the equations that in honor to him bear his name -yeah I like wikpedia loads
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0143-0807/19...fe-5930a02d10e4
I did look at some wikpedia but it said he wrote a close approximation paper with no algebra that came close to the accepted values of the equations that in honor to him bear his name -yeah I like wikpedia loads
Max Planck first set out the base units (qP excepted) later named in his honor, in a paper presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in May 1899.[7][8]That paper also includes the first appearance of a constant named b, and later called h and named after him. The paper gave numerical values for the base units, in terms of the metric system of his day, that were remarkably close to those in Table 2. We are not sure just how Planck came to discover these units because his paper gave no algebraic details. But he did explain why he valued these units as follows:
). As such the theory has been subjected to a number of "shims" which correct the huge number of parameters in the theory to bring it back on target and "provide us with a theory that is not even wrong yet far from being right". We forget that the process of scientific opinion and peer review is not an open and salutary process as it may be publicly portrayed but can be a bitter struggle for the "prize" by organizations and countries for the glory to the exclusion of even the "Truth" itself. Along the way reputations are dashed and others exulted. QUOTE (from Ludwig Boltzmann :A Pioneer of Modern Physics: D Flamm+)
... Boltzmann could, however, show that this was not true and at the beginning of his second paper answering Planck6 he made the following suggestion to Planck:"It is certainly possible and would be gratifying to derive for radiation phenomena a theorem analogously to the entropy theorem from the general laws for these phenomena using the same principles as in gas theory. Thus I would be pleased, if the work of Dr. Planck on the scattering of electrical plane waves by very small resonators would become useful in this respect, which by the way are very simple calculations whose correctness I have never put in doubt.
Only if Dr. Planck in his second communication claims again that no other process in nature is known, in which conservative forces lead to irreversible changes, I can not agree."
Indeed Planck followed Boltzmann's recommendation and used Boltzmann's statistical methods for the derivation of his celebrated law for the black body radiation. Planck used thereby the additional assumption that classical oscillators absorb and emit energy only in integer multiples of the product of Planck's constant h with the frequency the radiation which gave rise to the birth of quantum mechanics. In fact, in the framework of Boltzmann's statistical approach it was quite common to introduce discrete energy levels to obtain a denumerable set of states. Boltzmann used this method already in his 1872 paper on the H-theorem7. One may ask whether Boltzmann considered this procedure only as a mathematical device or whether he attributed physical significance to it. In this connection Ostwald reports that when he and Planck tried to convince Boltzmann of the superiority of purely thermodynamic methods over atomism at the Halle Conference in 1891 Boltzmann suddenly said:"I see no reason why energy shouldn't also be regarded as divided atomically."
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9710007
Only if Dr. Planck in his second communication claims again that no other process in nature is known, in which conservative forces lead to irreversible changes, I can not agree."
Indeed Planck followed Boltzmann's recommendation and used Boltzmann's statistical methods for the derivation of his celebrated law for the black body radiation. Planck used thereby the additional assumption that classical oscillators absorb and emit energy only in integer multiples of the product of Planck's constant h with the frequency the radiation which gave rise to the birth of quantum mechanics. In fact, in the framework of Boltzmann's statistical approach it was quite common to introduce discrete energy levels to obtain a denumerable set of states. Boltzmann used this method already in his 1872 paper on the H-theorem7. One may ask whether Boltzmann considered this procedure only as a mathematical device or whether he attributed physical significance to it. In this connection Ostwald reports that when he and Planck tried to convince Boltzmann of the superiority of purely thermodynamic methods over atomism at the Halle Conference in 1891 Boltzmann suddenly said:"I see no reason why energy shouldn't also be regarded as divided atomically."
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9710007
..I hope this helps put this in the right context...
Cheers
Cheers
This may actually be more complex than I thought a simple yes or no answer to suffice.If I am to take it for its word, some dude in the department of physics at Texas was dabbling in the same basic question of whether Planck himself wrote those equations
QUOTE
I see no way other than by dimensional
analysis for Planck to have obtained this
length; as indicated in the first paragraph,
most of the physics used in the above heuristic
‘derivation’ had yet to be discovered—by
Einstein.
analysis for Planck to have obtained this
length; as indicated in the first paragraph,
most of the physics used in the above heuristic
‘derivation’ had yet to be discovered—by
Einstein.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0143-0807/19...fe-5930a02d10e4
I did look at some wikpedia but it said he wrote a close approximation paper with no algebra that came close to the accepted values of the equations that in honor to him bear his name -yeah I like wikpedia loads
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I see no way other than by dimensional analysis for Planck to have obtained this length; as indicated in the first paragraph, most of the physics used in the above heuristic ‘derivation’ had yet to be discovered—by Einstein. |
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0143-0807/19...fe-5930a02d10e4
I did look at some wikpedia but it said he wrote a close approximation paper with no algebra that came close to the accepted values of the equations that in honor to him bear his name -yeah I like wikpedia loads
Max Planck first set out the base units (qP excepted) later named in his honor, in a paper presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in May 1899.[7][8]That paper also includes the first appearance of a constant named b, and later called h and named after him. The paper gave numerical values for the base units, in terms of the metric system of his day, that were remarkably close to those in Table 2. We are not sure just how Planck came to discover these units because his paper gave no algebraic details. But he did explain why he valued these units as follows:
Plank Constant?
Ode to Nature,
Century has Past,
Good Ideas Last.
I read about Max Planck years ago (from a small softcover book) came home from an opera (circa 1896) with his wife and friend, and that evening he gave written expression to his idea that the temperature measured from an object (Black Body) might be many oscillating smaller objects sending off radiations that accounted for the classical black body radiation, energy vrs. frequency.
The idea still holds much natural truth.
His son who was killed by the Fascists for opposition to them in Germany.
This adds pain to the simplicity of his thoughts and for his loss he has gained my respect many folds.
There are strings attacked to every thing.
"Connecting the Dots", and the Dots may be spinning, twisting, tunneling, funneling, ... essays specializing, humans pressing their speech, chips off the new or old blocks, now graphene on silicon dioxides, iridium, ... think big by thinking small.
Is it Higgs Strings connecting all " fuzzy dots", Quantum or not?
Layers of scales, flat on skin, deeper than a mind, many may win?
Complimentary implies a choice, between two ideas, attached or not?
Planck got it correct as time as tested, no need to arrest him.
Thanks Max again, and all above for your comments, I have more essays to pounder.
Best, rmuldavin
Ode to Nature,
Century has Past,
Good Ideas Last.
I read about Max Planck years ago (from a small softcover book) came home from an opera (circa 1896) with his wife and friend, and that evening he gave written expression to his idea that the temperature measured from an object (Black Body) might be many oscillating smaller objects sending off radiations that accounted for the classical black body radiation, energy vrs. frequency.
The idea still holds much natural truth.
His son who was killed by the Fascists for opposition to them in Germany.
This adds pain to the simplicity of his thoughts and for his loss he has gained my respect many folds.
There are strings attacked to every thing.
"Connecting the Dots", and the Dots may be spinning, twisting, tunneling, funneling, ... essays specializing, humans pressing their speech, chips off the new or old blocks, now graphene on silicon dioxides, iridium, ... think big by thinking small.
Is it Higgs Strings connecting all " fuzzy dots", Quantum or not?
Layers of scales, flat on skin, deeper than a mind, many may win?
Complimentary implies a choice, between two ideas, attached or not?
Planck got it correct as time as tested, no need to arrest him.
Thanks Max again, and all above for your comments, I have more essays to pounder.
Best, rmuldavin
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.