Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 109

Thread: Determine the mass of baryonic matter based on relativity constants ?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    It may be hinting at something scientific, but in the absence of any theoretical framework, it is indistinguishable from mathematical gibberish. Until you construct that framework, there can only be a useless exchange about whether what you are doing is science.
    The only minimal framework that I can propose for the moment is:
    - a force must always be of dimension M L T-2 whatever the considered physics (classical, relatist, quantum)
    - we can say the same thing ("must always be of dimension ...) for all the physical notions (acceleration, energy, etc ...) whatever the physics considered.


    This is not new…



    EDIT:

    The physical system used is classical mechanics and the values ​​come from quantum mechanics and cosmology. Strange mixture at first, but gives exact results when the datas are exact (values of Planck)


    I'm waiting an answer for this (it's not urgent)

    about dimensional analysis : ...It also serves as a guide and constraint in deriving equations that may describe a physical system in the absence of a more rigorous derivation.
    I understood (I'm french) :
    "deriving" as : obtain something from (a specified source).

    and

    ...in the absence of a more rigorous "derivation" as :in the absence of a more rigorous developing of something from a source or origin.

    I am wrong ?
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-22 at 11:27 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,166
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    I understood (I'm french) :
    "deriving" as : obtain something from (a specified source).
    and
    ...in the absence of a more rigorous "derivation" as :in the absence of a more rigorous developing of something from a source or origin.
    I am wrong ?
    Yes. You are wrong. It serves as a guide and constraint. It is not the sole method used to create new equations from scratch with no rationale. If you are just making up equations and stopping there, saying that 'dimensional analysis' justifies your guesswork then you are not doing useful science. As I have said - you need to take the next step.

    If you have no model, if you have no intention to develop a model, if you have no conceptual system to justify your guesswork then I don't see the point in discussing it further.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Yes. You are wrong. It serves as a guide and constraint. It is not the sole method used to create new equations from scratch with no rationale. If you are just making up equations and stopping there, saying that 'dimensional analysis' justifies your guesswork then you are not doing useful science. As I have said - you need to take the next step.
    Thank you.



    If you have no model, if you have no intention to develop a model, if you have no conceptual system to justify your guesswork then I don't see the point in discussing it further.
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    The physical system used is classical mechanics and the values ​​come from quantum mechanics and cosmology. Strange mixture at first, but witch gives exact results when the datas are exact (values of Planck)
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-22 at 11:52 PM. Reason: add "witch"

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Ok, I still have no theory but,

    for relativity, I can try enhance my proposition with formula (It comes, without achieving the result you want, following my research to try to satisfy you), instead of the exact numbers that were used for the Planck units.


    in message #2, I have :

    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    ...
    In cosmology, I haven't found an equivalent to but we can but we can calculate with :

    instead of and instead of





    there is a small error on the numerical value but it doesn't matter.


    . we can also deduce this formula from the message #1 :

    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post

    so





    note: Mb disappears in this part of egality



    edit 2 :




    and this numerical value, (without Mb), is exactly the one obtained when one calculates with Mb calculated in the message # 1. Nothing magic or numerological here, these values are linked by formulas and the sames choices of values to use for relativity in #1 and #2. I think it gives a little more consistency.
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-23 at 07:13 AM. Reason: no sense on some of the text

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post

    Your challenge here, remember, is to convince us, not merely to declare faith in the correctness of your ideas. You seem to have forgotten your burden here. We already know that you believe yourself, so confirming that over and over again is a waste of time.

    Ok,I'll try.

    1st step:

    The frame is the classic mechanics. Take the notion of the classic mechanics of your choice. Look at its physical dimension and the relationships between dimensions. Associate with each dimension of exponent 1, its numeric value in Planck unit. Take account of the exponents for each dimension and make any calculations required by the relations.We will always have the value of the notion in Planck's unit.

    True ? wrong?

    if fake shows an example please

    If true, do you agree that we can say : this is dimensionnal analysis combined with Planck units ?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,166
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    If true, do you agree that we can say : this is dimensionnal analysis combined with Planck units ?
    This is not dimensional analysis. This is just calculating something.

    For example taking F = ma all you are doing is calculating the force on an object of Planck mass that is accelerated at the Planck acceleration. Which can be called the Planck force.

    Dimensional analysis would be taking an observation that objects accelerate linearly with the force applied, so F = ka. k = F/a so this mystery constant must have the dimensions of N s^2 / m. We can then look for other situations involving forces - lets take pressure in a tube filled with liquid. Say we understand that P = r g h. Combining dimensions there we get N = kg . m / s^2. So the units N s^2 / m correspond to a mass. And we can now say "Oh, that mystery constant must be measured in kg ... wait, could it be the mass of the object? Could F = ma?". Then we test it and build up to proudly announcing we have just discovered Newton's second law.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    This is not dimensional analysis. This is just calculating something.

    For example taking F = ma all you are doing is calculating the force on an object of Planck mass that is accelerated at the Planck acceleration. Which can be called the Planck force.
    okay it's not important it's just an error on my part about the name to give

    (edit :
    so you confirm the method of step 1 with your example ? )


    Which can be called the Planck force.
    It's called Planck force :

    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_Planck

    where is acceleration of Planck :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_acceleration

    sorry for french wikipedia but English version isn't complete

    (edit 2 : oops I didn't read the second line :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_force)

    Then we test it and build up to proudly announcing we have just discovered Newton's second law.

    I'm not saying that I discovered the laws of classical mechanics, it's my framework :

    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    The frame is the classic mechanics.
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-23 at 09:56 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,166
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    okay it's not important it's just an error on my part about the name to give
    (edit:so you confirm the method of step 1 with your example ? )
    It's important because you were using the name dimensional analysis, and links to an article about it, to claim your approach was a recognised way of working. It isn't.

    I absolutely don't confirm your method as a valid approach with anything I have said. You have used a method that is not justified to produce a result that leads to no testable predictions.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    It's important because you were using the name dimensional analysis, and links to an article about it, to claim your approach was a recognised way of working. It isn't.

    I absolutely don't confirm your method as a valid approach with anything I have said. You have used a method that is not justified to produce a result that leads to no testable predictions.
    It is possible that I did not write this thread in the right section. I do not propose a new theory indeed just calculations. It seemed to me that you validated it with your example :

    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-23 at 10:31 PM. Reason: latex

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,266
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    It is possible that I did not write this thread in the right section. I do not propose a new theory indeed just calculations.
    stephaneww also PMed me with this same question. And the answer is no, this thread needs to be in ATM.

    Please don't post further questions to the Moderation Team in thread.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    The final fomula that I propose is :...
    As already noted, this is an example of numerology in science which is making up equations out of constants which produces whatever you want it to produce, stephaneww.

    G means that the equation is wrong because that is the gravitational constant that relates gravitational mass to gravitational force.
    The Newtonian law of gravitation is wrong because it fails for strong gravity fields and high speeds.
    The cosmological constant only exists in GR.
    The cosmological constant is not a force.

    You have the use of dimensional analysis backwards. An equation is derived and then dimensional analysis is used to confirm that there are no obvious errors.

    Standard cosmology (Lambda-CDM model) works whether the universe is finite or infinite. No new physics is needed for an infinite universe.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    It's called Planck force :...
    Measurements can be made in any system of units that a person wants to use. There are imperial or English units which has a derived unit of force (pound-force ). There are SI units which has a derived unit of force (Newton). There are natural or Planck units. where the derived unit of force is called the Planck force. Thee is nothing special about selecting Planck units, stephaneww.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,166
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    It is possible that I did not write this thread in the right section. I do not propose a new theory indeed just calculations. It seemed to me that you validated it with your example :

    Quoting the definition of the Planck force does not justify you randomly swapping values into equations, adding fudge factors and arbitrarily equating things just because they have the same units or you have managed to make two expressions arrive at a similar value.

    We are going round in circles now, though. You can't justify your method and you can't produce anything resembling a scientifically useful result from it. Unless that changes I can't see much point carrying on the discussion.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    We are going round in circles now, though. You can't justify your method and you can't produce anything resembling a scientifically useful result from it. Unless that changes I can't see much point carrying on the discussion.
    Okay. I do not see any other arguments for you for the moment.


    EDIT
    Hello and thank you Reality Check

    EDIT 2
    One question however
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The cosmological constant is not a force.
    why you say that ? I use the dimension m^-2 for the cosmological constant in this thread, I don't understand this remark

    EDIT 3
    and :
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmol...stant#Equation
    The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, ρvac (and an associated pressure)
    the pressure have the same dimension than the force
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-24 at 11:57 AM. Reason: add "for you"

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The cosmological constant only exists in GR.
    I don"t understand this remark too :
    I use it in GR, nowhere else

    edit :

    G means that the equation is wrong because that is the gravitational constant that relates gravitational mass to gravitational force.
    uh, witch equation ?
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-24 at 11:07 AM.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Measurements can be made in any system of units that a person wants to use. There are imperial or English units which has a derived unit of force (pound-force ). There are SI units which has a derived unit of force (Newton). There are natural or Planck units. where the derived unit of force is called the Planck force. Thee is nothing special about selecting Planck units, stephaneww.
    except, if you use another system of units, that you must then multiply or divide Planck's mass and Planck's length, and/or, the physical notions G, c, h, Lambda, Mpc. by the equivalents of the imperial units that you use to conserve the consistency between the SI and Planck's units. You do not change anything at the end.

    edit: I thought I was wrong, but no finally. Even the value in 10^122 of the cosmological constant problem is not modified


    be vigilant H0 in s^-1 is not affected if you want to check


    edit :
    Thee is nothing special about selecting Planck units
    The Planck force has something special: I selected because it's related to cosmology and GR (the pound force not)

    see here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consta...nergie_du_vide
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-26 at 04:46 AM.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    except, if you use another system of units, that you must then multiply or divide Planck's mass and Planck's length,...
    Wrong, stephaneww. This is units of measurement. You have inked to the French Wikipedia so you must know that the metre in SI (Système international) units is defined as "The distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458 second.". There are similar definitions not related to Planck units. Any units of measurement. can be used by anyone. NASA used imperial (US) units until officially swapping to SI in 2007. We can convert to Planck units if we want but that is stupid for normal uses, e.g. 1 metre is ~10-35 Planck lengths so why not just use SI and make the math easier?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jan-27 at 11:18 PM.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    why you say that ?
    Because this is the cosmological constant and it is not a force.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Wrong, stephaneww. This is units of measurement. You have inked to the French Wikipedia so you must know that the metre in SI (Système international) units is defined as "The distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458 second.". There are similar definitions not related to Planck units. Any units of measurement. can be used by anyone. NASA used imperial (US) units until officially swapping to SI in 2007. We can convert to Planck units if we want but that is stupid for normal uses, e.g. 1 metre is ~10-35 Planck lengths so why not just use SI and make the math easier?

    actually my way of saying it is bad, one must read:
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Measurements can be made in any system of units that a person wants to use.
    except, if you use another system of units, that you must then multiply or divide to obtain Planck's mass and Planck's length, and/or, the physical notions G, c, h, Lambda, Mpc. by the equivalents of the imperial units that you use to conserve the consistency between the SI and Planck's units in your system of units. You do not change anything at the end. (I have tested for inch and pound)

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    I use it in GR, nowhere else
    Wrong, stephaneww. You have no GR at all in this thread.
    Your very first equation is wrong because G and the cosmological constant do not have anything to do with a baryonic mass. The mass of fundamental particles is determined by the theory that treats fundamental particles. That theory is quantum mechanics which has no G or cosmological constant from GR in it.
    Your second equation is Newton's law of gravitation which introduced G as a constant between massive bodies. That is irrelevant because it is not GR.
    You make the "massive" error (pun intended) of plugging in a QM length (Planck length) into a classic, non-QM equation. We know that at scales well above the Planck length, classical physics does not work. That s why there is QM. At scales of the Planck length we think that neither QM or GR work and we need a quantum gravity theory.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    The Planck force has something special:...
    The Planck force has nothing special. We use Newton when convenient which is a lot of the time . We use pound-force when convenient which is quite rare. We use Planck force when convenient in particle physics and physical cosmology (usually in theory since Planck units are inconvenient in practice).

    The Einstein field equations have a G/c^4 factor and in Planck units this is the Planck force. But cosmologists use a better trick: set G = c = 1 (Geometrized unit system) and GR simplifies.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The cosmological constant is not a force.
    Yes when is dimension is m^-2 but a pressure is equivalent to a force (M L T^-2) and
    A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure,
    (cosmological constant behaves as a negative pressure)
    source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmol...stant#Equation

    if you always aren't agree, please explain how I must understand quote wikipedia's

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    ... But cosmologists use a better trick: set G = c = 1 (Geometrized unit system) and GR simplifies.
    you keep all informations in the dimensions and Multiplication factor : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomet...cal_quantities

    you have the same result than with Imperial Units, all that is said in #1, #2, #34 remains true


    edit 1 :
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You make the "massive" error (pun intended) of plugging in a QM length (Planck length) into a classic, non-QM equation. We know that at scales well above the Planck length, classical physics does not work. That s why there is QM. At scales of the Planck length we think that neither QM or GR work and we need a quantum gravity theory.
    yes, it's surprising but, I don't pretend unify GR and QM, and, following the method of calculation in #1, and #2 the values match. I'm the first surprised but it works

    edit 2 :
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck...l_significance
    The Planck length is the scale at which quantum gravitational effects are believed to begin to be apparent,
    "begin" ok, but on it's exact value what append ?
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-28 at 01:21 AM.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Wrong, stephaneww. The mass of fundamental particles is determined by the theory that treats fundamental particles. That theory is quantum mechanics which has no G or cosmological constant from GR in it.

    uh, : http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/B/baryonic+matter

    edit

    and G is in all definitions of Planck units. example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-28 at 01:01 AM.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    actually my way of saying it is bad, one must read: ...
    Of course we convert between units of measurements as I wrote before. It is that fact that makes them all the same. None is special. The choice of which units of measurement to use is which one is the most convenient, e.g. makes the math easier or makes equations simpler.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    Yes when is dimension ...
    This is the cosmological constant and it is still not a force. Neither is a pressure, a force. A classical force of say a gas against a surface is a force per area. The cosmological constant is not a gas pressing against a surface. When we look at the equation of GR we say that the cosmological constant has an associated pressure: "A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa.". That pressure does not pull on an area. There is no associated force.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Of course we convert between units of measurements as I wrote before. It is that fact that makes them all the same. None is special. The choice of which units of measurement to use is which one is the most convenient, e.g. makes the math easier or makes equations simpler.
    perfect we are okay on one point

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    ...That pressure does not pull on an area. There is no associated force.
    reread #2. I talk about "density surface". you can cut with a force (by add the mass in the equalities) then with the area

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    uh, ...
    The universe includes Baryonic Matter and so astronomers write about it. Your point is?
    This is a baryon
    In particle physics, a baryon is a type of composite subatomic particle which contains an odd number of valence quarks (at least 3).[1] Baryons belong to the hadron family of particles, which are the quark-based particles. They are also classified as fermions, i.e., they have half-integer spin.
    Particle physics is not astronomy or GR. Particle physics is quantum mechanics. The Standard Model that describe the fundamental particles is quantum mechanics.

    Unit of measurements are not GR or QM or scientific theories or even an obviously wrong ATM idea! They include G, c, etc. Planck units setting G = 1 does not make it GR. Planck units setting c = 1 does not make it SR. Planck units setting h bar = 1 does not make it QM. Planck units setting kb = 1 does not make it thermodynamics. Planck units setting ke = 1 does not make it electromagnetism.

    If you were actually using Planck units then there would be no G in your equations. In Planck units Newton's law of gravitation is stated as (G=1 and thus it does not appear).
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jan-28 at 01:46 AM.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    reread #2. I talk about "density surface".
    Talking does not change the textbook physics: This is the cosmological constant and it is still not a force or a pressure on a surface.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •