Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #395718 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-15 07:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-26 09:50 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 111 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 07:11 -0700
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-04 13:38 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-04 05:53 -0700
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:33 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 16:15 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-04 12:53 -0500
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-04 11:20 -0700
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 19:25 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 18:47 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-13 23:28 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:44 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 22:22 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 07:36 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-17 07:23 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 02:50 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 09:11 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> - 2016-11-17 22:03 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 19:25 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 19:39 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 22:22 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> - 2016-11-18 21:35 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:58 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> - 2016-11-18 22:04 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 23:06 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-19 11:25 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 08:59 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-20 00:19 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 10:27 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-20 22:37 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 16:55 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-21 05:26 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 00:23 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-21 09:20 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 03:08 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-21 13:09 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 12:17 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 07:40 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 23:56 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 09:07 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 00:48 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:09 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 03:13 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 12:45 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-21 12:16 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 13:29 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-21 12:44 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 11:34 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 22:15 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 14:27 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Shayne Crownover <vrrrnveeaeoowSy@vrrrnveeae.owSy.vrr> - 2016-11-26 22:33 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 23:54 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 17:44 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-19 19:14 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-21 11:35 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-21 19:18 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-22 09:39 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-17 00:22 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 09:57 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 10:02 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-18 04:05 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 07:36 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-18 05:56 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-18 18:49 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:02 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 07:40 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-21 00:53 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:14 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-22 02:06 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-22 02:27 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-22 12:08 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-23 06:13 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-24 05:54 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-24 07:01 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-24 20:01 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 11:10 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:41 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 07:59 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-27 04:50 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:15 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 21:50 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-25 22:53 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:10 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:14 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-26 12:26 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 22:07 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-11-04 17:35 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-04 21:36 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-11-04 22:03 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-07 22:33 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-07 22:58 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-04 14:41 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-11-04 17:36 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-04 10:42 -0700
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-11-04 22:00 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-04 21:46 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:54 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:59 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 13:47 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 13:50 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 13:51 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 14:45 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 14:47 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 15:11 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 15:30 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 15:42 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 16:35 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 16:35 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-11-23 23:37 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-11-25 00:28 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 10:40 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:50 -0800
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 07:11 -0700 |
| Subject | h the Planck message in a bottle |
| Message-ID | <fefcce14-99ad-44a2-b64d-268afa64c826@googlegroups.com> |
Many years ago we adapted a length standard of one yard , 36 inches. It happened so long ago that it is hard to put a finger on when this happened. There were objections from the church when England wanted to convert to metric. It was the opinion of the church that the 1 yard length standard had special meaning. If one were to visit the earth 2000 or so years ago how could you leave a message in a bottle that you were there? Planck's constant would be one way. As science evolves the value h would be recognized as having meaning therefore convey the message that there were visitors 2000 years ago. How to convey Planck's constant h to a race that at best can only count beans. Trade was a serious business 2000 years ago that required standards such as weight , volume and length. If 1 yard is introduced as a length standard then the time interval of 1 second is also seeded. A string with a length of 1 yard with any weight attached will clock out a time interval of 1 second. A photon with a frequency of 1 cycle per second has a energy of precisely Planck's constant h 6.626 * 10-34 joules. In summary an indirect way to send a message in a bottle to the future would be to standardize a length of 1 yard therefore a 1 second time interval for a pendulum clock that leads to Planck's constant h for a photon. An encrypted message in a bottle that only those in the future would understand.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 13:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <581c8181$0$55953$b1db1813$a437145d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #395718 |
On 2016-10-15 16:11:16 +0200, John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> said: > Many years ago we adapted a length standard of one yard , 36 inches. It hap > pened so long ago that it is hard to put a finger on when this happened. Th > ere were objections from the church when England wanted to convert to metri > c. It was the opinion of the church that the 1 yard length standard had spe > cial meaning. > > If one were to visit the earth 2000 or so years ago how could you leave a m > essage in a bottle that you were there? Planck's constant would be one way. > As science evolves the value h would be recognized as having meaning there > fore convey the message that there were visitors 2000 years ago. > > How to convey Planck's constant h to a race that at best can only count be > ans. Trade was a serious business 2000 years ago that required standards su > ch as weight , volume and length. If 1 yard is introduced as a length stand > ard then the time interval of 1 second is also seeded. A string with a leng > th of 1 yard with any weight attached will clock out a time interval of 1 s > econd. A photon with a frequency of 1 cycle per second has a energy of prec > isely Planck's constant h 6.626 * 10-34 joules. In summary an indirect way > to send a message in a bottle to the future would be to standardize a lengt > h of 1 yard therefore a 1 second time interval for a pendulum clock that le > ads to Planck's constant h for a photon. An encrypted message in a bottle t > hat only those in the future would understand. Planck's constant is not a constant of nature. It's value only tells you something about what units you are using. Any truly intelligent alien civilization, so not us, will have it equal to 1 What we can do, probably next year, is to give hbar a defined value. Albert2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 05:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2cc85f73-bd7b-4d99-9646-36d3747f221d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397683 |
W dniu piątek, 4 listopada 2016 13:39:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Albert2 napisał: > Planck's constant is not a constant of nature. It's even written in its name. I would try to generalize: if it has a number in it - it's not natural for sure. > Any truly intelligent alien civilization, so not us, will have it equal to 1 Of course. Whoever doesn't follow your enlightened concepts has to be stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 15:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <581c9c6e$0$1748$b1db1813$eb72b5d4@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #397686 |
On 2016-11-04 13:53:40 +0100, mlwozniak@wp.pl said: > W dniu piątek, 4 listopada 2016 13:39:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Albert2 > napisał: > >> Planck's constant is not a constant of nature. > > It's even written in its name. The same for any other conversion -constant- between units. > I would try to generalize: if it has > a number in it - it's not natural for > sure. You are wrong. There are true numerical constants of nature, like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. >> Any truly intelligent alien civilization, so not us, will have it equal t > o 1 > > Of course. Whoever doesn't follow your > enlightened concepts has to be stupid. Uninformed, or misinformed will do. Albert2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 16:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvi8m2$qbq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397691 |
On 11/04/2016 03:33 PM, Albert2 wrote: > You are wrong. There are true numerical constants of nature, > like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. Or the somewhat mysterious constant of the fine structure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 12:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <896dnbVfBcS0VoHFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #397697 |
On 11/4/16 11/4/16 10:15 AM, Poutnik wrote: > On 11/04/2016 03:33 PM, Albert2 wrote: >> There are true numerical constants of nature, >> like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. > > Or the somewhat mysterious constant of the fine structure. It's not really that mysterious, as it is the coupling constant of the electromagnetic force. That is, it directly expresses the strength of that interaction. (The name is purely historical.) It is true that any constant with physical meaning must be dimensionless (aka unitless). That's because units are ARBITRARY historical choices made by humans, and human history cannot possibly affect physical phenomena. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02f14d02-2227-42ee-9611-62212f8a1b9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397714 |
Tom Roberts wrote: It's not really that mysterious, as it is the coupling constant of the electromagnetic force. That is, it directly expresses the strength of that interaction. (The name is purely historical.) It is true that any constant with physical meaning must be dimensionless (aka unitless). That's because units are ARBITRARY historical choices made by humans, and human history cannot possibly affect physical phenomena. Tom Roberts So ....... The proper ratio for c would be 1/6.18724162e+34
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 19:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvijqh$5sq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397714 |
On 11/04/2016 06:53 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/4/16 11/4/16 10:15 AM, Poutnik wrote: >> On 11/04/2016 03:33 PM, Albert2 wrote: >>> There are true numerical constants of nature, >>> like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. >> >> Or the somewhat mysterious constant of the fine structure. > > It's not really that mysterious, as it is the coupling constant of the > electromagnetic force. That is, it directly expresses the strength of > that interaction. (The name is purely historical.) > > It is true that any constant with physical meaning must be dimensionless > (aka unitless). That's because units are ARBITRARY historical choices > made by humans, and human history cannot possibly affect physical > phenomena. > > Tom Roberts By mysterious I have meant various attempts to derive it in the past.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 18:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0449662b-e4a4-4a1d-9eb2-e6449b64734c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397714 |
On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 1:53:52 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/4/16 11/4/16 10:15 AM, Poutnik wrote: > > On 11/04/2016 03:33 PM, Albert2 wrote: > >> There are true numerical constants of nature, > >> like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. > > > > Or the somewhat mysterious constant of the fine structure. > > It's not really that mysterious, as it is the coupling constant of the > electromagnetic force. That is, it directly expresses the strength of that > interaction. (The name is purely historical.) > > It is true that any constant with physical meaning must be dimensionless (aka > unitless). That's because units are ARBITRARY historical choices made by humans, > and human history cannot possibly affect physical phenomena. > > Tom Roberts You guys are missing the point. If we evolved on another planet using a 2 second time interval we could say a photon with a frequency of 2 cycle per second equals Planck' constant. If we evolved using a .5 time interval we could say a photon with a frequency of 1/2 cycles per second equals Planck's constant. However we on earth have no need to divide or multiply as the time interval that we use says a photon of 1 cycle per second equals Planck's constant. Planck's constant is an amount of energy not time so it will be constant to all other intelligent life in the solar system. It seems our historical choice for a time interval of 1 second was a fine choice indeed. We must be better than all the other intelligent life in our solar system as we are the only ones that can say a photon with a frequency of 1 cycle per second equals Planck's constant. Everyone else has to say divide by this or multiply by that for their time interval. Who in our history made this fine choice for a time interval of 1 second allowing us to say we are the only ones in the solar system that can say Planck's constant equals the energy of a photon oscillating at 1 cycle per second.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 23:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa44aeb4-0075-47a8-b920-f378bebdcb7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398381 |
Nov 12John Heath >You guys are missing the point. If we evolved on another planet using a 2 second time interval we could say a photon with a frequency of 2 cycle per second equals Planck' constant. If we evolved using a .5 time interval we could say a photon with a frequency of 1/2 cycles per second equals Planck's constant. However we on earth have no need to divide or multiply as the time interval that we use says a photon of 1 cycle per second equals Planck's constant. Planck's constant is an amount of energy not time so it will be constant to all other intelligent life in the solar system. It seems our historical choice for a time interval of 1 second was a fine choice indeed. We must be better than all the other intelligent life in our solar system as we are the only ones that can say a photon with a frequency of 1 cycle per second equals Planck's constant. Everyone else has to say divide by this or multiply by that for their time interval. Who in our history made this fine choice for a time interval of 1 second allowing us to say we are the only ones in the solar system that can say Planck's constant equals the energy of a photon oscillating at 1 >cycle per second. How about having two or more at the same time? Multiple coexisting constants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 08:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0bq0l$dhc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398480 |
Dne 14/11/2016 v 08:28 jaymoseley@hotmail.com napsal(a): > Nov 12John Heath > >> You guys are missing the point. If we evolved on another planet using a 2 second time interval we could say a photon with a frequency of 2 cycle per second equals Planck' constant. If we evolved using a .5 time interval we could say a photon with a frequency of 1/2 cycles per second equals Planck's constant. However we on earth have no need to divide or multiply as the time interval that we use says a photon of 1 cycle per second equals Planck's constant. Planck's constant is an amount of energy not time so it will be constant to all other intelligent life in the solar system. It seems our historical choice for a time interval of 1 second was a fine choice indeed. We must be better than all the other intelligent life in our solar system as we are the only ones that can say a photon with a frequency of 1 cycle per second equals Planck's constant. Everyone else has to say divide by this or multiply by that for their time interval. Who in our history made this fine choice for a time interval of 1 second allowing us to say we are the only ones in the solar system that can say Planck's constant equals the energy of a photon oscillating at 1 >cycle per second. > > How about having two or more at the same time? Multiple coexisting > constants. > Non dimensionless constants have as many values as there are unit systems distinguished in units in involved quantities. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 22:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21d431d8-ecdf-4d1f-b71e-05fd2d0c5f58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398482 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:44:55 AM UTC-5, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 14/11/2016 v 08:28 jaymoseley@hotmail.com napsal(a): > > Nov 12John Heath > > > >> You guys are missing the point. If we evolved on another planet using a 2 second time interval we could say a photon with a frequency of 2 cycle per second equals Planck' constant. If we evolved using a .5 time interval we could say a photon with a frequency of 1/2 cycles per second equals Planck's constant. However we on earth have no need to divide or multiply as the time interval that we use says a photon of 1 cycle per second equals Planck's constant. Planck's constant is an amount of energy not time so it will be constant to all other intelligent life in the solar system. It seems our historical choice for a time interval of 1 second was a fine choice indeed. We must be better than all the other intelligent life in our solar system as we are the only ones that can say a photon with a frequency of 1 cycle per second equals Planck's constant. Everyone else has to say divide by this or multiply by that for their time interval. Who in our history made this fine choice for a time interval of 1 second allowing us to say we are the only ones in the solar system that can say Planck's constant equals the energy of a photon oscillating at 1 >cycle per second. > > > > How about having two or more at the same time? Multiple coexisting > > constants. > > > Non dimensionless constants > have as many values as there are unit systems > distinguished in units in involved quantities. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > A wise man guards words he says, > as they say about him more, > than he says about the subject. h is the the minimal increment of energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant You may have 1 h or 2 h but not 1.5 h. This would make h the smallest allowable amount of energy. How could we have a 1 second time interval that exactly equals the frequency of a photon of energy h ? Where did we get this 1 second time interval from? From what I could google it came from the church a long time ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 07:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0guog$ves$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398585 |
Dne 16/11/2016 v 07:22 John Heath napsal(a): > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:44:55 AM UTC-5, Poutnik wrote: >>> >> Non dimensionless constants >> have as many values as there are unit systems >> distinguished in units in involved quantities. >> > > h is the the minimal increment of energy. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant > > You may have 1 h or 2 h but not 1.5 h. This would make h the smallest allowable amount of energy. How could we have a 1 second time interval that exactly equals the frequency of a photon of energy h ? Where did we get this 1 second time interval from? From what I could google it came from the church a long time ago. > h is not minimal increment of energy. It does not even have the dimension of energy. h.f is the minimal increment of energy for frequency related quantities like EM radiation or vibration of quantum oscillators. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 07:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e950mqF3n9qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #398587 |
Am 16.11.2016 07:36, schrieb Poutnik: >>> Non dimensionless constants >>> have as many values as there are unit systems >>> distinguished in units in involved quantities. >>> > >> >> h is the the minimal increment of energy. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant >> >> You may have 1 h or 2 h but not 1.5 h. This would make h the smallest allowable amount of energy. How could we have a 1 second time interval that exactly equals the frequency of a photon of energy h ? Where did we get this 1 second time interval from? From what I could google it came from the church a long time ago. >> > > h is not minimal increment of energy. > It does not even have the dimension of energy. > > h.f is the minimal increment of energy for frequency related quantities > like EM radiation or vibration of quantum oscillators. > > I personally think, the 'h' has something to do with angular momentum. IOW atoms are 'standing rotation waves'. And 'unrolling' such waves would create a usual wave (of - say - light). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 02:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <061a1e6e-6e13-46b9-a4a9-12b77ef2ecac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398655 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 1:23:26 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 16.11.2016 07:36, schrieb Poutnik: > > >>> Non dimensionless constants > >>> have as many values as there are unit systems > >>> distinguished in units in involved quantities. > >>> > > > >> > >> h is the the minimal increment of energy. > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant > >> > >> You may have 1 h or 2 h but not 1.5 h. This would make h the smallest allowable amount of energy. How could we have a 1 second time interval that exactly equals the frequency of a photon of energy h ? Where did we get this 1 second time interval from? From what I could google it came from the church a long time ago. > >> > > > > h is not minimal increment of energy. > > It does not even have the dimension of energy. > > > > h.f is the minimal increment of energy for frequency related quantities > > like EM radiation or vibration of quantum oscillators. > > > > > > I personally think, the 'h' has something to do with angular momentum. > > > IOW atoms are 'standing rotation waves'. And 'unrolling' such waves > would create a usual wave (of - say - light). > > > > TH Both yourself and Poutnik are giving the sensible solution that it is E = hf therefore any energy for a photon is possible including frequency 1.5 cycles per second for 1.5 h energy per photon. However this puts you in conflict with and I quote from Wikipedia "Eventually, following upon Planck's discovery, it was recognized that physical action cannot take on an arbitrary value. Instead, it must be some multiple of a very small quantity, the "quantum of action", now called the Planck constant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant You see the problem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 09:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <QOSdnbYFI44tVbDFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #398675 |
On 11/17/16 11/17/16 4:50 AM, John Heath wrote: > Both yourself and Poutnik are giving the sensible solution that it is E = hf > therefore any energy for a photon is possible including frequency 1.5 cycles > per second for 1.5 h energy per photon. Yes. Nobody has observed any minimum frequency of EM radiation [#], nor any quantization of its frequency. As far as has been observed, both the frequency spectrum and the wavelength spectrum of EM radiation are continuous. It is true that a given monochromatic light beam displays quantization of its energy and intensity. This is QUITE different from quantization of its frequency. YOU are confused. [#] But there are technological limits to generators and detectors. > However this puts you in conflict > with and I quote from Wikipedia > "Eventually, following upon Planck's discovery, it was recognized that > physical action cannot take on an arbitrary value. Instead, it must be some > multiple of a very small quantity, the "quantum of action", now called the > Planck constant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant > You see the problem? No. YOU need to learn how to read. There is no actual conflict. Hint: Action != energy. YOU have confused two quite different concepts. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 22:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0l9fd$68d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398693 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > It is true that a given monochromatic light beam displays quantization > of its energy and intensity. This is QUITE different from quantization > of its frequency. YOU are confused. > [#] But there are technological limits to generators and detectors. This is flagrantly untrue. Monochromatic light is not quantizable. For clear obvious reasons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 19:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a79c7264-3d86-41c2-97b5-e1fddeffb286@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398728 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:03:28 PM UTC-5, Edwin Grünner wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > It is true that a given monochromatic light beam displays quantization > > of its energy and intensity. This is QUITE different from quantization > > of its frequency. YOU are confused. > > [#] But there are technological limits to generators and detectors. > > This is flagrantly untrue. Monochromatic light is not quantizable. For > clear obvious reasons. I will shine a light on the moon. We will now go to the moon to measure this light coming from our light source. As it is a very weak amount of light by the time it hits the moon a photo multiplier tube is required to measure the amount of light at the moon. If you are right that light is not quantified then the photo multiplier should put out an analog DC volt that equals the amount of light. However when this test is done the output is not a steady DC voltage. It makes a tick tick sound much like a Geiger counter. It is thought that these ticks are individual photons hitting the photo multiplier tube. This is a physics 101 experiment that has been done many times in many ways with the same result of tick tick ticking of photons so it can be trusted as true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 19:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d0481809-6082-435c-8a5c-083cc266e452@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398745 |
- show quoted text - I will shine a light on the moon. We will now go to the moon to measure this light coming from our light source. As it is a very weak amount of light by the time it hits the moon a photo multiplier tube is required to measure the amount of light at the moon. If you are right that light is not quantified then the photo multiplier should put out an analog DC volt that equals the amount of light. However when this test is done the output is not a steady DC voltage. It makes a tick tick sound much like a Geiger counter. It is thought that these ticks are individual photons hitting the photo multiplier tube. This is a physics 101 experiment that has been done many times in many ways with the same result of tick tick ticking of photons so it can be trusted as true. http://i68.tinypic.com/2vw69nd.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 22:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <rPudnUvNof-DH7PFnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #398728 |
On 11/17/16 11/17/16 4:03 PM, Edwin Grünner wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> It is true that a given monochromatic light beam displays quantization >> of its energy and intensity. This is QUITE different from quantization >> of its frequency. YOU are confused. >> [#] But there are technological limits to generators and detectors. > > This is flagrantly untrue. Monochromatic light is not quantizable. For > clear obvious reasons. Hmmmm. Whatever "clear obvious reasons" you are thinking of, you are WRONG. Hint: light is NOT a wave. (For those who don't understand this hint, remember that a monochromatic WAVE would have to be of infinite length. But since light is NOT a wave this does NOT apply.) More importantly, monochromatic light sources are OBSERVED to be quantized, in that their energy comes in discrete lumps (called photons). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web