Fight against constant physics

[tomjin]

Electronics engineers also learn physics and quantum physics.

Especially the one who are responsible for building CPU and lasers (used in CD/DVD/Blu-ray for example).

To make efficient laser there is required knowledge about spectral lines, absorption, emission, doubling-frequency etc. etc.

 

CRT (Cathode Ray Tube), legacy television, is quantum physics particle accelerator...

With electron gun, emitting electrons, and high voltage electrodes bending paths of electrons during travel through vacuum..

When high kinetic energy electron hits atom, there are created photons, observed on TV screen.

 

in 19th century, on the basis of ether electromagnetic theory, a lot of new things be invented. generator, electromotor, director current, alternating current, movie, electric lamp, telephone, telegraph , phonograph, voltage transformer, and so on.

 

in 20th century, technology didn't stop step.

 

quantum physics is different from the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity, which is the basis of cosmology, just let us feel good, for example, we know how big the universe is, how old the universe is. how far a star is away from us.

 

I believe there is no Planck's constant, but it doesn't matter, quantum physics is developed with technology, even if the basic concept is wrong, a lot of theories are still valid.

[Strange]

without them, we can still enjoy semiconductor technology. we can still use computer, ic card, atomic clock, and so on.

 

because these technologies were invented by millions of engineers. they know how to figure things out even if theory is wrong.

 

Except we don't have to figure it out as if the theory is wrong. We use the theory as if it were correct. Guess why that is?

 

Do you have any actual evidence that these constants change?

[tomjin]

 

Except we don't have to figure it out as if the theory is wrong. We use the theory as if it were correct. Guess why that is?

 

Do you have any actual evidence that these constants change?

1

it's really very hard to tell whether a theory is correct or not. ether theory just looks perfect for me, it can explain a lot of natural phenomenon which can't be explained by anti-ether theory.

 

2

if I accept constants may change, I have to accept the existence of constants, I don't want to do that.

 

for gravitational constant G, it doesn't exist. Keep distance unchanged, the force between 2 objects varies with surroundings.

 

for speed of light in vacuum, because light is wave on ether, it's very similar to sound wave.

 

for Planck's constant. It doesn't exist. but it doesn't matter, because the mass of proton ( neutron is no different from proton in nucleus) is almost a constant in solar system. That's why quantum physics is valid in many cases.

 

I have an evidence chain which show how proton is produced in galaxy core and how protons form stars later.

Edited January 18, 2016 by tomjin

[Sensei]

it's really very hard to tell whether a theory is correct or not.

...especially when you have no idea about them....

[ajb]

1 it's really very hard to tell whether a theory is correct or not.

It is much more subtle than that. A theory is not correct or incorrect, a theory is 'good' or 'bad'. We decide that a theory is good if it, taking into account the domain of validity, experimental errors and so on, agrees with nature to some satisfactory degree. If a theory does not match well, then it is bad.

 

 

ether theory just looks perfect for me, it can explain a lot of natural phenomenon which can't be explained by anti-ether theory.

So taking into account the above, within your aether theory you can preform calculations of observables and match these with experiment/observation. When you do this, what kind of agreement to you get? Do you run into any troubles?

 

2 if I accept constants may change...

The thread is interesting in one respect. However I am not sure if you are saying something trivial.

 

Physical constant come about from our mathematical models. These constants are fundamental in the mathematical description and by matching this description with nature we can assign meaningful values to these constants. The question of if these constants are 'real' seems more of a philosophical question than a physics one.

 

Moreover, it maybe possible to get rid of some of these constants if they can be understood as being derived from some deeper theory. String theory for example, in its simplest form, only uses the string tension. From there G can be calculated. Maybe all the physical constants can be derived from one starting constant?

[tomjin]

...especially when you have no idea about them....

 

Because I always chase the reason behind a reason, so I'm confused about a lot of things. I fall into metaphysics and don't know how to get out.

[Sensei]

Because I always chase the reason behind a reason, so I'm confused about a lot of things. I fall into metaphysics and don't know how to get out.

 

If you don't believe in that electrons (or other quantum particles) exist, you should ask question in the mainstream physics forum section "how to detect electrons/alpha/positrons/etc?".

And then somebody would come up with description how to build the cheapest particle detector for $30 that you can build and use and see by yourself:

 

I don't want to repeat myself over and over again, so here you have more about it and how to measure quantum particles properties:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92998-universal-evolutionary-process/page-4#entry900023

Which you can do at home, by yourself. Spending just time and a few dollars.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Sensei

[Strange]

1

it's really very hard to tell whether a theory is correct or not. ether theory just looks perfect for me, it can explain a lot of natural phenomenon which can't be explained by anti-ether theory.

 

Not really that hard: the theory makes predictions which are tested against observation or experiment. This can be technically challenging when the measurements require great sensitivity or very high energy for example.

 

But first you need the calculations. So, can your theory reproduce all the results of GR and QM? Can you calculate the black body spectrum? The ground state of a hydrogen atom? The orbit of a geostationary satellite? The gravitational lensing of light passing a massive body?

 

All of those can be easily checked against known data (or, equivalently, against existing theory) so you don't have the excuse that you can't do the experiments.

 

Or maybe those are too complex. Let's start with something simpler, something that we do at school: calculate the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth (with, of course, no reference to Newton's law of gravitation). Can you do that?

 

 

 

if I accept constants may change, I have to accept the existence of constants, I don't want to do that.

 

The real world doesn't really care what you want.

 

 

for gravitational constant G, it doesn't exist.

 

for Planck's constant. It doesn't exist.

 

OK. As you have no evidence for any of these assertions, I guess we have to stick with science and assume you are wrong.

[tomjin]

1

It is much more subtle than that. A theory is not correct or incorrect, a theory is 'good' or 'bad'. We decide that a theory is good if it, taking into account the domain of validity, experimental errors and so on, agrees with nature to some satisfactory degree. If a theory does not match well, then it is bad.

 

 

2

So taking into account the above, within your aether theory you can preform calculations of observables and match these with experiment/observation. When you do this, what kind of agreement to you get? Do you run into any troubles?

 

3

The thread is interesting in one respect. However I am not sure if you are saying something trivial.

 

4

Physical constant come about from our mathematical models. These constants are fundamental in the mathematical description and by matching this description with nature we can assign meaningful values to these constants. The question of if these constants are 'real' seems more of a philosophical question than a physics one.

 

5

Moreover, it maybe possible to get rid of some of these constants if they can be understood as being derived from some deeper theory. String theory for example, in its simplest form, only uses the string tension. From there G can be calculated. Maybe all the physical constants can be derived from one starting constant?

 

1

if a theory is overwhelming, then we can't tell whether it's correct or not, or whether it's good or bad. The option that there is no media in space is too dominant now, which strifes its opponent.

 

2

f=m4π^2/kr^2 this formula were found by Robert Hooke ( based on works of Galileo Galilei and Christiaan Huygens). this equation can do anything that the law of Universal gravitation do in Astronomy.

 

because ether theory deny the option that the speed of light in outer space is a constant, I have to abandon the unit of light year. Ether theory is very weak in cosmology.

 

​if quantum physicists accept the existence of ether, and replace particle exchanging mechanism with resonance over ether, they will see a very bright future.

 

3

reviewing what happened in last 400 years, it's very interesting and meaningful.

 

4

 

Physics constants come about from our mathematical model.

the answer is no, mathematical model is based on physics constant.

 

mathematics is treasure of human culture. without it, we can do nothing in science. But we should be very careful about when we should use it.

 

5

we still need to keep some constants in physics. but we should know they are only valid in a very small domain. String theory is a very good concept, it's amazing. maybe someday, ether model can be derived from string theory.

I have to go to bed. I will start work at 5 am tomorrow morning. I'm going to discuss with your guys and answer questions after 6 pm (Brisbane time) tomorrow. cheers

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

I have to go to bed. I will start work at 5 am tomorrow morning. I'm going to discuss with your guys and answer questions after 6 pm (Brisbane time) tomorrow. cheers

Edited January 18, 2016 by tomjin

[ajb]

1

if a theory is overwhelming, then we can't tell whether it's correct or not, or whether it's good or bad.

What do you mean by overwhelming?

 

 

Physics constants come about from our mathematical model.

the answer is no, mathematical model is based on physics constant.

The answer is yes. Think about it carefully. If there is no mathematical model then what on Earth can a 'physical constant' mean?

[studiot]

 

tomjin

 

we still need to keep some constants in physics. but we should know they are only valid in a very small domain

 

ajb

 

what on Earth can a 'physical constant' mean

 

Because of the language difficulty I suspect tomjin means something different from us for many of the terms he is throwing about.

 

Since this thread is about constants everyone should agree first what that means.

 

Then I suggest that the words isotropy and homegeny are examined because I think tom is mixing these concepts.

[ajb]

Since this thread is about constants everyone should agree first what that means.

Right, so I would understand a 'physical constant' to be some non-dynamical parameter in a given physical theory. One would fix such things by experiment.

 

One could also be a little more restrictive here and be thinking about 'fundamental or universal physical constants', ie. c, G and h.

 

Still the values of c, G and h determined by experiment by matching observations with the theory.

 

Even more than this, without at least Newtonian gravity as a model, I do not see how one could even being to understand what one means by G, for example. The theory and observations are deeply tied.

Edited January 18, 2016 by ajb

[Strange]

f=m4π^2/kr^2 this formula were found by Robert Hooke ( based on works of Galileo Galilei and Christiaan Huygens). this equation can do anything that the law of Universal gravitation do in Astronomy.

 

1. That equation appears to contain two constants and therefore you are not allowed to use it.

 

2. As this equation does not have the mass of both objects, it must give the wrong results.

[swansont]

 

 

we are living in solar system, we also live in earth-moon system.

 

in our earth-moon system,

 

k=t^2/r^3, t is the period of moon, it's about 28 days. r is the distance from moon to the centre of earth.

 

this k is valid for any man-made satellite which moves around earth.

 

engineers have already proved this again and again in last 50 years.

 

there is a reason which is behind Kepler's third law. which is g acceleration is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the object and the centre of big celestial body ( the object moves around it)

 

we know the g acceleration on the ground, then we can easily get the g acceleration of a satellite as long as we know how far it is above the earth. we don't need G and M.

 

So basically all you've done is replace GM with a new constant for each body. The underlying principle is the same . How do you test to see if your idea is right, and Newtonian gravity is wrong?

 

 

the most important constants in physics is gravitational constant (G), the speed of light in vacuum ©, and planck's constant (h)

 

the law of universal gravitation is built on G

the theory of relativity is built on C

quantum physics is built on h.

 

What I mean is these 3 constants don't exist.

 

without them, we can still enjoy semiconductor technology. we can still use computer, ic card, atomic clock, and so on.

 

because these technologies were invented by millions of engineers. they know how to figure things out even if theory is wrong.

 

 

Oh, what BS. People did not sit down and build advanced technology by accident. Science dictates how you put all the parts together.

[Phi for All]

I have to go to bed. I will start work at 5 am tomorrow morning. I'm going to discuss with your guys and answer questions after 6 pm (Brisbane time) tomorrow. cheers

 

!

Moderator Note

Please focus on the questions that have already been asked of you, and don't introduce new topics. Evidence to support EVERY assertion you make (especially when you're claiming mainstream science is wrong) will help you, but if you don't provide it we'll have to assume these theories are overwhelming you, so you have no idea if they're right or wrong. The thread will be closed then.

 

Please take advantage of this chance to be rigorous in your science.