Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[ben m]

Let's review the history of measurement units and what they were defined from.

Time: Second
Original: Mean solar day
1956: Year (a specific one)
1967: Cs-133 ground-state hyperfine transition

Lest someone think that this makes the second a "physics-based" unit, I'd put it like this:

Time: Second
Original: a particular fraction of a Mean solar day
1956: a particular fraction of a Year (a specific one) (arbitrary fraction chosen to be close to original definition)
1967: a particular number of Cs-133 ground-state hyperfine transitions (arbitrary number chosen for consistency with 1956 definition)


Length: Meter
1795: Earth size
1799: Platinum bar, later platinum-iridium bar (arbitrary length chosen to be close to previous definition)
1960: a particular number of Kr-86 electronic transitions: 2p10 - 5d5 (arbitary number chosen to be close to previous definition)
1983: Second with c fixed

This makes it clear that the units remain arbitrary, despite the use of non-arbitrary physics to define/measure them, and it explains how multiple unit systems can coexist and differ. For example, the meter is the distance light travels in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. The inch is the distance light travels in vacuum in 1/11,802,852,677 second. You can't derive either of those numbers from the laws of physics; they're both arbitrary human choices.

The SI second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of the 133Cs hyperfine transition. The French revolutionary decimal second was 7,942,433,849 cycles of the 133Cs hyperfine transition. You can't derive either of those numbers from the laws of physics, they're both arbitrary human choices.

Unless you're Andrew Worsley, in which case 1⁄299,792,458 and 9,192,631,770 are important inputs to how Nature determined the mass of the electron.

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight: What is the definition of n in Worsley's paper

Edd: I dealt with it.

I agree with edd, Farsight. You have not "dealt with it".

You have made unsupported assertions that are quite ignorant according to what you have cited.
QM states that everything is waves and particles.
Electron orbitals have both wave and particle properties.

Note that the wave nature of matter is not in doubt.
Note that the particle nature of matter is not in doubt.
Everything is waves.
Everything is particles.
​

This is wave-particle duality that you are in complete denial of, Farsight.

Another bit of ignorance from you, Farsight: neutrinos never move at c because they have a non-zero mass as shown by neutrino oscillation.

We also have what looks like at least a mistake or even a lie about the definition of n in Andrew Worsley's rather idiotic paper. You are insisting that n has really strange units but Worsley says in at least one place that he has arbitrarily set it to an integer frequency, i.e. units of inverse time such as 1/s.

Farsight: What is the definition of n in Worsley's paper?
First asked 15 August 2013. 0 days and counting.

But then we have:
What are the units of "c½/3πn", Farsight?
First asked 27th June 2013. 49 days and counting, Farsight!

 

[CapelDodger]

JGlossing over the previous shocking errors ...

Shocking in your frame of reference perhaps, but not universally. Don't get out of bed for anything short of egregious from Farsight.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
...

Unless you're Andrew Worsley, in which case 1⁄299,792,458 and 9,192,631,770 are important inputs to how Nature determined the mass of the electron.

This is the result when narcissistic amateurs with half-baked notions try to do the work of professionals.

 

[Farsight]

No you haven't.

You show not the slightest sign of understanding what the problem is, let alone how to handle it.

Where exactly have you answered this:
Why 1.0 m^2.5s^-1.5?

Whatever claimed physics you have cannot be right if you cannot balance the units without introducing completely arbitrary and not even remotely justified factors.

This is too basic an error. The way to move on is for you to admit it's complete nonsense and ditch it.

It isn't nonsense. This factor gives you a new style of natural unit based on the Planck scale, one which avoids the issues you can see here where you can read E=m.

Now can we move on? For example did you see Infinity's End in New Scientist? Sadly the article didn't live up to the cover.

What are the units of "c½/3πn", Farsight?

As I've said before, this is a dimensionless ratio. It has no units.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed forum management comments; feel free to re-post in the FMF section if you wish.

 

[edd]

As I've said before, this is a dimensionless ratio. It has no units.

So does this mean you're admitting the value of n has been pulled completely out of nowhere to make the formula give an approximately right answer?

I'm guessing not...

 

[ctamblyn]

What are the units of "c½/3πn", Farsight?
First asked 27th June 2013. 49 days and counting, Farsight!

As I've said before, this is a dimensionless ratio. It has no units.

Astounding. That's not even consistent with your previous definition of n.

If n has dimensions of (length)^5/2(time)^-3/2, as it must do for the electron Compton wavelength formula to work, and as you agreed above, then c^1/2/(3πn) is certainly not dimensionless (recall that c has dimensions (length)(time)^-1).

So to rescue the electron-proton mass ratio formula (the one which uses c^1/2/(3πn)) you need another parameter with different units to n. You need to introduce two dimensionful parameters to "explain" two values. Are you beginning to spot a pattern?

ETA: For the benefit of newcomers who may have missed the fun, earlier in this thread (and in various other places) John Duffield (aka Farsight) gave us these two formulae for the electron-proton mass ratio and the electron's Compton wavelength:

m_p/m_e = c^1/2/(3πn)
λ = 4πn/c^3/2
where n is supposed to be a new fundamental constant (although Duffield does not describe it as such, preferring to try to sweep it under the rug by choosing units where n happens to be approximately 1.0 of whatever units n happens to be in).

However, what the above formulae don't make clear is that it cannot be the same n in both cases. In the first, n must have dimensions of (length)^1/2(time)^-1/2, while in the second n must have dimensions of (length)^5/2(time)^-3/2. Therefore you actually need two new constants to "explain" the electron-proton mass ratio and the electron Compton wavelength. In other words, these odd-looking formulae are basically useless except as a test of someone's knowledge of basic physics concepts.

 

[Farsight]

I've said previously it wasn't the same n, and recall using n1 and n2 on a previous post. You don't have two new fundamental constants at all. As I said in post #1226 what you have a world comprised of waves moving through space, from which all your dimensionality is derived. There isn't anything else. When these waves move through themselves they can form standing-wave "resonances" resulting from optical-knot quasi-spherical harmonics, as per my background in post #1198.

But since you're familiar with natural units you already know about conversion factors along with this:

"In Natural Units, the fine structure constant becomes α = e²/4π = 1/137. This clearly shows that an electric charge e has no dimensions in the Natural Units and now equals to 0.303".

So it's crystal clear that your complaints concerning dimensionality aren't sincere, and all you're doing is trying to get in the way of the physics again. Yawn.

 

[sol invictus]

So it's crystal clear that your complaints concerning dimensionality aren't sincere, and all you're doing is trying to get in the way of the physics again. Yawn.

What's crystal clear is that you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. You don't understand dimensions, one of the very first things a high-school student learns in physics.

 

[ctamblyn]

I've said previously it wasn't the same n, and recall using n1 and n2 on a previous post. You don't have two new fundamental constants at all.

You just named them: n1 and n2. You have introduced two new constants, the values of which you cannot derive except by measuring the electron mass and the proton mass^*, the two very things you introduced those constants to "explain".

^* It was the proton-electron mass ratio and the electron's Compton wavelength, but it amounts to the same thing.

ETA: I've just looked over your posts for keywords "Worsley", "wavelength", "Compton" and "ratio" (and replies to such posts), and nowhere did you point out that two different constants were required.

ETAA: Worse, some of your earlier posts on these formulae omitted your so-called "conversion factors" entirely, for example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8778807#post8778807
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8186818#post8186818
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8135770#post8135770

It's pretty clear what's going on here. You made an error.

(...snipped meaningless incantations...)
So it's crystal clear that your complaints concerning dimensionality aren't sincere, and all you're doing is trying to get in the way of the physics again. Yawn.

Please, keep persisting with this Mr Duffield. If people should ever search on Google for "Relativity+", this material will be useful to them in forming judgements as to its trustworthiness. A theory (in the loose sense) which does not understand the arbitrariness of human unit choices, does not appreciate the importance of dimensions, does not understand the basic logic that it is exceedingly silly to add parameters (whose values cannot be derived theoretically) to a theory in order to "explain" an equal number of other values, is based in wishful thinking, and is completely useless for making any sort of predictions at all, is pretty untrustworthy.

For the benefit of those people, elsewhere in these forums there is a nice commentary on Worsley's paper by W.D.Clinger, and an entertaining illustration of the worthlessness of Worsley's and John Duffield's numerology by ben m.

What's crystal clear is that you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. You don't understand dimensions, one of the very first things a high-school student learns in physics.

+1.

 

[ctamblyn]

But since you're familiar with natural units...

John Duffield's increasingly silly argument is (again) hoist with its own petard. Why doesn't he work out the values of his n₁ and n₂ in the "natural units" his link defines? We'll see why.

First, rearrange his formulae as follows, eliminating the Compton wavelength in favour of the electron mass using λ = 2πħ/(m_ec):

n₁ = c^1/2m_e/(3πm_p)
n₂ = (1/2)c^1/2(ħ/m_e)

Now set the units, according to the link provided. This sets c = ħ = 1 and means that, in terms of dimensions,

(time) = (length) = (energy)^-1 = (mass)^-1
while velocities become dimensionless (see the first table in the PDF). Using GeV as the energy scale, as per the document, and rounding to three significant figures:

n₁ = (m_e/m_p)/(3π) = 0.0000578,
n₂ = 1/(2m_e) = 978 GeV^-1.

So even in the system of units John Duffield himself suggested, he was wrong - neither n₁ nor n₂ is 1.0 (indeed, n₂ is not even dimensionless).

ETA: Note that any system of natural units in which c = 1 will yield the same value for n₁. This includes, among many others, a system based on the Planck energy, length and time. While you can get a dimensionless n₂ by setting the Planck energy to 1, it's value is

n₂ = 1.19 × 10²²,

which is pretty far from 1.0.

 

[Farsight]

What's crystal clear is that you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. You don't understand dimensions, one of the very first things a high-school student learns in physics.

I do. I'm the one who does understand them. Our little conversation here refers to c, which has the dimensionality of length over time. But take a look at and wikipedia for the definition of the second:

"Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom"

Now take a look at the NIST caesium fountain clock. In essence lasers and a microwave cavity are employed to cause hyperfine transitions, which are electron “spin flips” within caesium atoms. The hyperfine transition emits microwaves, which is light in the wider sense. There’s a peak frequency in the emitted light, which is found and measured by the detector. But note that frequency is measured in Hertz, which is defined as cycles per second, and the second isn't defined yet. What the detectors essentially do, is count incoming microwave peaks. When they get to 9,192,631,770, that's a second. Hence the frequency is 9,192,631,770 Hertz by definition. Now take a look at the metre:

"Since 1983, it has been defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

Both the second and the metre are defined using the motion of light. Because that's the most fundamental way of doing it, and is in line with relativity. And then you use the second and the metre to measure the motion of something. But all you're really doing is expressing its motion in terms of the speed of light. And this something might be light. This is why you always measure the speed of light to be the same. Check out The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. Note his reference to the wave nature of matter. Like I said, waves moving through space is all there is. All your definitions and all your dimensionality point back to that.

 

[Farsight]

...So even in the system of units John Duffield himself suggested, he was wrong...

Groan. You can lead a theoretical physicist to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Anybody want to talk about the easy stuff, like gravity, or how to quantize it? Anybody want to talk about anything to do with physics or cosmology? Or are you only here to make sure nobody does?

 

[edd]

Where do you think the numbers 9,192,631,770 and 299,792,458 come from?

 

[ctamblyn]

Groan. You can lead a theoretical physicist to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Anybody want to talk about the easy stuff, like gravity, or how to quantize it? Anybody want to talk about anything to do with physics or cosmology? Or are you only here to make sure nobody does?

Since this thread is about the collection of crackpot ideas you call "Relativity+" and associated misrepresentations of physics, that's what we're here to discuss.

I note that you have absolutely no valid answer to the objections raised against your and Worsley's numerology.

 

[ctamblyn]

Where do you think the numbers 9,192,631,770 and 299,792,458 come from?

Equivalently, why does n₁ = 0.0000578 and n₂ = 978 GeV^-1 in natural units? Is there any way to determine those except by (in one way or another) using the known values of the proton and electron masses?

 

[ben m]

Where do you think the numbers 9,192,631,770 and 299,792,458 come from?

Oh, those are just the MKS numbers. In my home country of Mypos, the base units are the decimal minute (794,243,384,928 cesium oscillations) and the inch (the distance light travels in 1/1,019,766,471,307 decimal minutes).

 

[Farsight]

Nobody wants to talk seriously about physics and cosmology then?

OK, I'll get on with something else.

 

[Roboramma]

Nobody wants to talk seriously about physics and cosmology then?

OK, I'll get on with something else.

Are you admitting that the above mentioned derivation of the proton/electron mass ratio is not serious physics?

Because it seems that everyone else is talking seriously about what you presented.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Nobody wants to talk seriously about physics and cosmology then?

OK, I'll get on with something else.

Perhaps that might be best for all concerned. Your lack of serious training in physics is clearly manifested by your confusion with dimensionality. This is not a subject for the faint of heart; an honest step by step effort to master these concepts is a prerequisite. You're only fooling yourself.