joigus

I see you're taking a detour... Nothing you said addresses my observation that religion, as any other intelectual construct, is a projection from people's minds, and therefore the way we interpret religion evolves with our collective human experience. Now you point out the way we face life depends on expectations. Sure it does. What's your point? Suffering justifies irrational belief?

Sorry I came so late to this. Are you still interested?

Brilliant points here, including the story. Indeed, energy is frame-dependent. Although I must say, at this point I'm not sure if we're talking about an energy, an action, or a number of particles. The concepts seem to be flailing about.

I re-read our previous exchange and it seems to me that you said God demanding to be praised was in the Old Testament, but we've somehow learnt to interpret praising in a different light. Here: To me, that's very much "growing out of it". "It" = "belief in a personal god". Don't get me wrong. I think that's good! Something like this is exactly what I meant.

Doesn't this imply that we're slowly but surely growing out of it? (Believe in personal gods, I mean).

Both the proton's proper length and the speed of light are GR invariants, as I'm sure you know. Or do you? Are you trying to catch me? 🤣 I'm getting tired of this rambling...

As is the jiffy. Not special. A femtosecond? Much more special. A Planck time? We believe that to be so special that it doesn't even make sense to talk about a fraction of it. A king's foot is not a special measure of length either. You seem to have a problem understanding what I mean by "special". The time it takes a photon to go through a proton is the same everywhere in the universe, because photons and protons are the same everywhere. An alien from Alpha Centauri would immediately understand the relevance of that unit of time, but would have a much harder time understanding what you mean by a second. You could tell them it's the inverse of a certain number of times the frequency of a certain transition energy of caesium. But why exactly that number of times would be a mystery to them. Unless you told them about a place called Earth and a people called the Babylonians. The second is a convention.

LOL. The ancients are an inexhaustible source of wisdom.

A stream, a flux of particles, etc, cannot be defined by a quantity with the units of J·s. Simple as that. I'm not the only one who's been shocked by your atrocious use of physical units. Then you pressed me to answer a question that makes no sense, due to that fundamental mistake. That's the reason for my analogy with a non-sensical question as "what is the colour of love?" This is a standard academic example of an ill-posed question. I mentioned the Babylonians to try to make you understand there's nothing special about the second, while there's something universal about a Planck's time, or a femtosecond (a Fermi divided by the speed of light), etc. I was actually trying to save you many headaches. I find your lack of curiosity quite appalling, to be honest. Then you started the ad hominem game to the point of being quite insulting. But you still haven't aswered any relevant questions concerning your idea. It's never too late to start learning. Why not now?

I love the story of these silent revolutions. Wasn't the last step due to François Viète in the 16th century?

Absolutely. I should have said, "You cannot stick t=one second in a formula defining a physical law and expect it to represent a fundamental constant." That's what the OP is trying to argue, that this quantity built from Planck's constant times 1 second produces another universal constant. That's what's totally bollocks.

How about you answer the questions, given that this is your speculation? Don't worry about my qualifications or my mental health. Worry about your arguments, that should be more than enough to go by. I won't get ad hominem with you either. You cannot stick t=one second in a formula defining a physical law and expect it to mean anything. One second is only relevant in the Solar System because it's a convenient fraction of earthly cycles, and because the Babilonians loved to chop up time in as many parts as to have many convenient small divisors. That's why they loved the number 60. There's nothing special about one second. The time it takes for a photon to go through a proton could be a relevant time. The time it takes a photon to go through the classical electron radius could be a relevant time. A Planck time could be a relevant time. A second simply cannot be a relevant time in theoretical physics.

Why linear? Canonical transformations don't have to be linear. Take, eg, \[ Q=q+\cos p \] \[ P=p \] for a one particle system moving in one direction. The brackets are conserved, and yet, the transformation is non-linear. Canonical transformations are those that leave the canonical commutation relations invariant, not covariant. A quantity is not "left" covariant. It is either covariant or it isn't. We don't say it's left covariant because it changes, it is not "left" anywhere. It is taken somewhere else in a particular way we call "covariant". It is called "covariant" because it varies "with the vectors" or "in the same way as vectors".

(joules)x(seconds) is not an energy. I have. Several times. Others have too. What's the use? It's obvious you don't understand elementary physics. It simply isn't.

What do the words "I'm afraid it's nowhere near what you propose" mean to you? It means "no", of course. Does detecting a photon with an energy a hundred thousandth of a millionth the average energy of a photon from the coldest black-body radiation source that's known to us sound feasible to you? @swansont 's point about interferometry itself should be more than enough. My argument is more about calorimetry: No detector that we know of would "see" those photons. And you have the question about dimensions still pending.

Ok. For that specific part... Depends on the type of detector and particle. Can't you look up on the particle data group yourself? Here's a review as of 2019: https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2019-rev-particle-detectors-accel.pdf You can estimate the energies from spatial resolutions by using HUP. But of course you can do that with no problem, considering your adroitness with units. I'm afraid it's nowhere near what you propose. Keep in mind a typical CMB photon has an energy of roughly 10-23 Joules. We're talking 10-11 times that energy. I'm not aware of the M-M experiments introducing any calorimetry, but only measuring times. Anyway...

I'm fine. You need to address the questions.

Nobody can answer a nonsensical question. Example: What is the colour of love? Similarly, the question "how many particles of a certain type are in so-and-so many Joules per Hertz?" is a meaningless frigging question. One can only hope that finally illuminates something.

A double-nail experiment (an interference setup similar to Young's experiment in which the screen is replaced by free space and the slits by nail-like obstacles) would not produce the same results, but the negative picture of the same results with blurry shadows replacing interference maxima. Is that what you're trying to get at? How this relates to aether, fields, and (of all things) consciousness is anybody's guess. Your concern seems to be one of lexicon.

Again, a quantity with dimensions of J·Hz-1 (or equivalently J·s) cannot be a cardinal (number of things). The other members active on this thread are calling you out on the same mistake. And I am free to address your nonsense however many times necessary as long as I comply with the forum rules. And nonsense it is. If you use ergs instead of Jules, or Planck units, it would produce a ridiculously different number of things. That's why: When we study elementary physics, we are taught that physical equations and identities must always be homogeneous wrt the units used. PS: I also recommend you look up "vitriol" in the dictionary.

I'm getting a clear whiff of already-seen nonsense. A dimensional quantity can never be equated to a pure number.

No. I'm saying there's no such evidence. No. I said praising God is demanded by God himself, according to the known monotheistic narratives, which makes that god very suspicious to me in the first place, suggesting it's more a projection of primitive minds, rather than the actual presence it purports to be (who would never be that petty, IMO). @exchemist apparently understood my point perfectly and pressed me for more clarity. You, on the other hand, seem to be answering to points that were raised in your mind alone. I do agree with you, though, that belief has the potential to influence the way you live. Something that's not necessarily good, by the way.

I wouldn't say it's not compatible. There is a correspondence through the Poisson bracket. One closely replicates the other, but there is no \( \hbar \) in the classical Poisson brackets, of course. As to QPS, do you mean the Weyl representation of quantum mechanics with negative probabilities and all that? Theories that cover different scales of phenomena don't have to be "compatible". One must be the limit of the other one. Isn't this a speculation?

Sure. Gratitude towards real people who take real interest in the well-being of others, not towards some imaginary eye in the sky.

Well, if memory serves, it's implied in the Ten Commandments, and those were given to Moses by God himself in Mt. Sinai, according to Exodus/Deuteronomy. In Exodus 20, eg, you find also, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=NIV Praising, if anything, seems to be an understatement. It is also more or less implicit elsewhere in the Bible. As to Sunni Islam, it is believed to have existed forever in the mind of Allah and to have been only revealed to Muhammad by the angel Jibril. And many many surahs end with the words, https://quran.com/6?startingVerse=139 Or, https://quran.com/6?startingVerse=128 Which is clearly a recitation or repetitive formula, and I think it hints of praising. I've only chosen that couple of examples as a sample: It's almost everywhere in the Quran! Both things taken together would make a case for Allah himself indicating how exactly he is to be praised (according to the Sunni tradition). I would be very surprised if Zoroastrianism didn't follow a similar pattern. Says a devout Catholic believer. He might as well have had an opinion on the worst moment for cattlefish. How would he know?