Science may not know "size" of anything around us.

[Steven Hawkins]

Science may not know size of anything around us, do to some un-known dimensionless unit called the fine structure constant.

http://en.wikipedia....ucture_constant

 

 

From what I understand it is a dimensionless unit that somehow allows scientist to be able to distinguish multiple copies of fine color spectra used in Quantum Electro Dynamics among other theoretical models.

 

I also understand it describes the forces of electro magnetism, if this is so and I assume it is coupled with the fact that electrons are virtually copies of each other, then I think it is legal to question the science community as to why even use the fine structure constant in the first place?

 

If it is a dimensionless number, this means it has some type of hidden unknown value right? if this is the case, then I think it is also legal to say that this unknown value is yet a fix value, which presumes that science does not know the color nor size of anything around us...

 

How then can we rely on scienctist to explain what we have known to be as real, and expect any progress in our further evolution of the unseen forces of nature and the seen forces of nature....

 

Can this be why the h constant is a 1 unit quantum of action?

 

Can this h constant be squared some how in relation to this fine structure dimensionless number in a cube?

 

 

Would it be ever possibly to change constants and units in SI so that:

 

 

h, c and e all = 1 The Theory Of Everything, Unification Higgs Field and etc..

 

or simply a way I thought of here??

1/1508996212705581.8 = 6.62692186753095e-16

So that h in its exponent of ^-16 is a 2*8 cube matrices and matrix volume of time, length and demension, coupled with copies of the strong nuclear forces of both the e and p in precession cycles of 1/2 integer spins of inside and out = 720 degrees.

 

Although hyper cubes may sound a little pop science here, at-least it is an attempt to understand what that fine structure constant means and may spur others to be compelled in thinking in terms of solutions here. dimensionless numbers, hence perhaps volume could be a better name than cube.

 

But then there comes the very interesting question:

What does that one in red represent???

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks!

Edited April 4, 2012 by Steven Hawkins

[Joatmon]

This may not be that relevant but, one of the things I like about geometry is that what is proved is independent of size. Unless you are given a scale (if you like a length of 1 is given), the construction you examine could be any size. Geometry, it seems to me is all about ratios.

[swansont]

Science may not know size of anything around us, do to some un-known dimensionless unit called the fine structure constant.

http://en.wikipedia....ucture_constant

 

Yes, it's so unknown that it's had a name since 1916 and an equation, and been measured to better than a part per billion.

 

From what I understand it is a dimensionless unit that somehow allows scientist to be able to distinguish multiple copies of fine color spectra used in Quantum Electro Dynamics among other theoretical models.

 

I also understand it describes the forces of electro magnetism, if this is so and I assume it is coupled with the fact that electrons are virtually copies of each other, then I think it is legal to question the science community as to why even use the fine structure constant in the first place?

 

You use the fine structure constant because it shows up in the math and is useful.

 

If it is a dimensionless number, this means it has some type of hidden unknown value right? if this is the case, then I think it is also legal to say that this unknown value is yet a fix value, which presumes that science does not know the color nor size of anything around us...

 

The value is not unknown. It is given to reasonably high precision in the wikipedia link you provided.

[Steven Hawkins]

Yes this is very true indeed, in fact i think geometry can also be used for precise measurements on lets say a relative system referencing another relative system, in this case when I say system here I mean a system such as earth and GPS. Hence, GPS needs "manual" upgrading every " I think" every 15 minutes or so, not sure, but I can look this up later.

 

Now imagine placing GPS on lets say the planet Venus.. Geometry can be used as a system of measure of which can track other subsystems pertaining to the main relative inertial system of systems" within both geometries of both, like paralleled dimensions, hyper planes slopes etc. Each system then is tracked with the "again" systems virtual time keeping system " "within its precession" the circles of movement. In this we have location and length as 1 for both systems! This would be h unified for both systems, a dimensionless union like the fine structure constant, only for BIG SYSTEMS FOR OTHER BIG SYSTEMS.

 

That may sound pop science, but geometry and length hold the key to what math formulas and constants do not allow due to the laws of algebra... I have often wondered what the quantum of action truly is here in relation to what I just mentioned.

 

 

h quantum of action is = to 1, but there needs a reference to this 1 because 1s are vertually copies of the same things " I ASSUME"

 

1 then [1+1] = 2 [1+1+1] = 3

and etc... could this explain integer spins as 1/2 = 0.5 and other fraction of particle charges??

 

 

making them all as again: 1 then [1+1] = 2 [1+1+1] = 3

I believe Unification can be possible once we know what 1 defines and the fine structure may have wayyyyyyyyy more usage!!!!!!!

 

I think the fine structure defines relative positions of very very big systems, like that of our own planet and everything in it, people, computers, math, cars, houses, economies everything in it. This is why GPS as it follows earth works as it does i am thinking but not sure of yet.

 

Thanks!

 

This may not be that relevant but, one of the things I like about geometry is that what is proved is independent of size. Unless you are given a scale (if you like a length of 1 is given), the construction you examine could be any size. Geometry, it seems to me is all about ratios.

 

 

 

 

I think my grammar must have been wrong: what I meant is if it has no dimension, does this mean its values is also dimensionless?

including what it "represents" in any form used as any type of length used, and or usage?

 

Like a bond with no money value, or a counterfeit copy of one, i think that's a better example.

 

And come to think of it, can this fine structure constant, be scaled to fit proportionally within larger scales lets say planetary geocentric systems? yes i know that was a weird question, but if it is dimensionless I think this can be possible..

 

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

Yes, it's so unknown that it's had a name since 1916 and an equation, and been measured to better than a part per billion.

 

 

 

You use the fine structure constant because it shows up in the math and is useful.

 

 

 

The value is not unknown. It is given to reasonably high precision in the wikipedia link you provided.

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2012 by Steven Hawkins

[John Cuthber]

"Hence, GPS needs "manual" upgrading every " I think" every 15 minutes or so,"

 

http://xkcd.com/285/

Now let us be quite clear about this.

That idea ( that GPS needs tweaking every 15 min) is a prediction based on your hypothesis.

If the prediction is false then the hypothesis is false.

 

If you cannot demonstrate the accuracy of that assertion you need to accept that your hypothesis is simply wrong.

 

Similarly, you ask "If it is a dimensionless number, this means it has some type of hidden unknown value right?"

and the answer is simply "no". It's value isn't unknown or hidden at all.

The Wiki page you cited makes it perfectly clear that "The current recommended value of α is 7.2973525698(24)×10−3 "

 

At best this thread should be moved to "speculations"

[swansont]

At best this thread should be moved to "speculations"

 

Yes, that is now quite clear. Done.

[questionposter]

I suppose geometry like length and width and etc is relative, but physics isn't. No matter what scale your on, atoms will always make up bigger objects and never the other way around.

Edited April 4, 2012 by questionposter

[Joatmon]

I suppose geometry like length and width and etc is relative, but physics isn't. No matter what scale your on, atoms will always make up bigger objects and never the other way around.

Yes, but until you decide on a scale you can say you have one atom, but cannot say what its size is. (IMO)

[MigL]

The fact that the fine structure constant is dimensionless just means that in the common expression of alpha the numerator e^2 is somehow related to the denominator hbar X c . Alpha is nothing more than the proportionality constant. The fact that we don't yet know how/why the two are related or that alpha is dimensionless does not imply anything about our scaling/size system.

[The Observer]

The fine structure constant is basically a number to deal with the fact that our units of measurement are arbitrary. Dimensionless means that it is essentially just a ratio.

[Steven Hawkins]

No, my "thoughts here" is based on fact for the manual tweaking on GPS, here is the video, i have been studying time and precision now for about 25 years since I was a child :

http://watchdocument..._eda079a64.html

 

This video is really good, somewhere within half of the film, navy officials tell how they manually update GPS about every 15 minutes or so, give or take, this still does not change how GPS, would work relative to earth on "other celestial bodies" not following earth.

 

 

About the fine structure constant, here is the scientific facts:

http://www.motionmountain.com/

 

The pdf in-titled "Quantum Theory The Smallest Change" on # page 166 States this:

 

 

The great physicist Wolfgang Pauli used to say that after his death, the first thing he would

ask the devil would be to explain Sommerfeld's fine-structure constant.

 

 

It goes onto to this which I would love to see others prove:

 

 

The problem of the fine-structure constant is so deep that it leads many astray. For

example, it is sometimes said that it is impossible to change physical units in such a way

that ħ, c and e are all equal to 1 at the same time, because to do so would change the

Challenge 139 s number α = 1/137.036.... Can you show that the argument is wrong?

 

 

Personally I think that anything dimensionless should be further investigated because their may be more usage to them, since it is a dimensionless unit, this means that all that represents it, must also be dimensionless...I think of this like a counterfeit bill with no value..

 

But mind you, "we all" may be wrong because no one still has no idea what the "strong nuclear force truly is, let alone what Special Relativity is, in relation to my later question: RELATIVE TO WHAT?????

 

 

 

 

"Hence, GPS needs "manual" upgrading every " I think" every 15 minutes or so,"

 

http://xkcd.com/285/

Now let us be quite clear about this.

That idea ( that GPS needs tweaking every 15 min) is a prediction based on your hypothesis.

If the prediction is false then the hypothesis is false.

 

If you cannot demonstrate the accuracy of that assertion you need to accept that your hypothesis is simply wrong.

 

Similarly, you ask "If it is a dimensionless number, this means it has some type of hidden unknown value right?"

and the answer is simply "no". It's value isn't unknown or hidden at all.

The Wiki page you cited makes it perfectly clear that "The current recommended value of α is 7.2973525698(24)×10−3 "

 

At best this thread should be moved to "speculations"

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that is now quite clear. Done.

 

 

 

 

I assume something like pi ratio then right? but what does this ratio represent within it define dimension?

This is almost like asking what is the absolute decimal representation of pi ratio?

 

Surly not all the numbers in pi ratio are used though.

The fine structure constant is basically a number to deal with the fact that our units of measurement are arbitrary. Dimensionless means that it is essentially just a ratio.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Steven Hawkins

[pantheory]

No, my "thoughts here" is based on fact for the manual tweaking on GPS, here is the video, i have been studying time and precision now for about 25 years since I was a child :

http://watchdocument..._eda079a64.html

 

This video is really good, somewhere within half of the film, navy officials tell how they manually update GPS about every 15 minutes or so, give or take, this still does not change how GPS, would work relative to earth on "other celestial bodies" not following earth.

 

About the fine structure constant, here is the scientific facts:

http://www.motionmountain.com/

 

The pdf in-titled "Quantum Theory The Smallest Change" on # page 166 States this:

 

The great physicist Wolfgang Pauli used to say that after his death, the first thing he would

ask the devil would be to explain Sommerfeld's fine-structure constant.

 

It goes onto to this which I would love to see others prove:

 

The problem of the fine-structure constant is so deep that it leads many astray. For

example, it is sometimes said that it is impossible to change physical units in such a way

that ħ, c and e are all equal to 1 at the same time, because to do so would change the

Challenge 139 s number α = 1/137.036.... Can you show that the argument is wrong?

 

Personally I think that anything dimensionless should be further investigated because their may be more usage to them, since it is a dimensionless unit, this means that all that represents it, must also be dimensionless...I think of this like a counterfeit bill with no value..

 

But mind you, "we all" may be wrong because no one still has no idea what the "strong nuclear force truly is, let alone what Special Relativity is, in relation to my later question: RELATIVE TO WHAT?????

 

I assume something like pi ratio then right? but what does this ratio represent within it define dimension?

This is almost like asking what is the absolute decimal representation of pi ratio?

 

Surly not all the numbers in pi ratio are used though.

"Relative to what?" is the only question concerning anything and everything of a quantitative nature concerning measure. Strictly mathematical ratios are a different matter. Some must always remain constant if the laws of math do not change. Pi is a prime example.

 

The fine structure constant, on the other hand, is a ratio based upon particle physics which is hypothetical/ theoretical proposal and therefore no certainty as to its continuing constancy, ~ 1/137 . Another constant in physics having the same problem is called mu ( μ ) which is the ratio of a proton to an electron which is ~ 1/1,836. Again theory alone predicts the constancy of this ratio.

 

One can never validly say that "no one still has any idea of this or that", or that "no one really understands or knows" as a general statement because there may be tens of thousands of people who in every way truly know and understand the truth of the subject, but such published explanations (if any) are very rarely read by mainstream theorists so therefore the public could never learn a valid alternative explanation or have knowledge of the persons having such knowledge or understandings. The internet may help in time concerning some rare cases, whereby an unknown scientist could be decades, scores, hundreds, or even many thousands of years ahead of his time which could be based upon very advanced knowledge with great complications, or instead such knowledge could be the simplest of logic, and understanding that has for whatever reason totally escaped the realization by the mainstream. I think the latter is much more likely, but most would guess the former is more probable.

//

Edited April 11, 2012 by pantheory

[swansont]

No, my "thoughts here" is based on fact for the manual tweaking on GPS, here is the video, i have been studying time and precision now for about 25 years since I was a child :

http://watchdocument..._eda079a64.html

 

This video is really good, somewhere within half of the film, navy officials tell how they manually update GPS about every 15 minutes or so, give or take, this still does not change how GPS, would work relative to earth on "other celestial bodies" not following earth.

 

 

They don't say that and in the GPS segment he's not talking with navy people at all, he's talking with Air Force people at 2SOPS. You hear the Naval Observatory Master Clock voice announcer; USNO provides the time to GPS and the alternate master clock is located there. But they do not claim that the clocks are updated every 15 minutes in the segment I watched. The clock adjustments Brian Cox mentions happens on the satellites themselves: the frequency of the satellite clocks is changed to compensate for the relativistic effects. This is not a repeated adjustment. The info uploaded to the satellite are small corrections fro time an also for the satellite's position. But it does not rely on continual uploaded information — this is a military system. It's designed to run autonomously for some time, not fail after 15 minutes if someone were able to disrupt the uplinks. That claim doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

edit to add: the satellites orbit twice per day, so there are > 6 hour stretches where the satellite simply isn't visible to the uplink station. No way to update them every 15 min.

[Mr Rayon]

http://htwins.net/scale2/