robert bristow-johnson
Jan25-05, 10:34 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>in article Hans.de.Vries.1j0t83@physicsforums.com, Hans de Vries at\nhansdevries@chip-architect.com wrote on 01/18/2005 14:20:\n\n> 2) It\'s simply not true that we can not distinguish if a varying alpha\n> comes from a change in c or e, even though the consequences of any\n> of the two changing can be quite complex.\n\nunless there are a variety of *independent* dimensionless quantities (those\nare what we directly measure in a physical experiment) that all change in a\nway that is consistent with an equal change of c but are not consistent with\nan equal change of any other physical parameter, then i cannot see how we\ncan know.\n\n> In general: If this kind of impossibility of distinction was true in\n> any case of two or more constants then it would only mean that we can\n> describe nature with less constants than we do.\n\nif fact, the physicists tell me that the Standard Model does not have any of\nthese dimensionful constants in it. even if you toss in gravitation (that\nwould just define mass ratios of particles to the Planck mass) and the\ncosmological constant. if i understand them right, we actually *can*\ndescribe nature without c or h_bar or G or epsilon_0 (i presume we do it in\nPlanck units and "e" becomes the sqrt of alpha).\n\nit changes some of the questions we ask. instead of asking why gravity is\nso weak (because, in Planck units, G is just 1), we ask instead why the mass\nof particles like the electron and proton are so small. instead of asking\nwhy is the speed of light so fast, we ask why are we (and our meter sticks)\nso big and why do our clocks tick even more so slow.\n\nthat\'s my spin on it.\n\n--\n\nr b-j rbj@audioimagination.com\n\n"Imagination is more important than knowledge."\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>in article Hans.de.Vries.1j0t83@physicsforums.com, Hans de Vries at
hansdevries@chip-architect.com wrote on 01/18/2005 14:20:
> 2) It's simply not true that we can not distinguish if a varying \alpha
> comes from a change in c or e, even though the consequences of any
> of the two changing can be quite complex.
unless there are a variety of *independent* dimensionless quantities (those
are what we directly measure in a physical experiment) that all change in a
way that is consistent with an equal change of c but are not consistent with
an equal change of any other physical parameter, then i cannot see how we
can know.
> In general: If this kind of impossibility of distinction was true in
> any case of two or more constants then it would only mean that we can
> describe nature with less constants than we do.
if fact, the physicists tell me that the Standard Model does not have any of
these dimensionful constants in it. even if you toss in gravitation (that
would just define mass ratios of particles to the Planck mass) and the
cosmological constant. if i understand them right, we actually *can*
describe nature without c or h_{bar} or G or \epsilon_0 (i presume we do it in
Planck units and "e" becomes the \sqrt of \alpha).
it changes some of the questions we ask. instead of asking why gravity is
so weak (because, in Planck units, G is just 1), we ask instead why the mass
of particles like the electron and proton are so small. instead of asking
why is the speed of light so fast, we ask why are we (and our meter sticks)
so big and why do our clocks tick even more so slow.
that's my spin on it.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
hansdevries@chip-architect.com wrote on 01/18/2005 14:20:
> 2) It's simply not true that we can not distinguish if a varying \alpha
> comes from a change in c or e, even though the consequences of any
> of the two changing can be quite complex.
unless there are a variety of *independent* dimensionless quantities (those
are what we directly measure in a physical experiment) that all change in a
way that is consistent with an equal change of c but are not consistent with
an equal change of any other physical parameter, then i cannot see how we
can know.
> In general: If this kind of impossibility of distinction was true in
> any case of two or more constants then it would only mean that we can
> describe nature with less constants than we do.
if fact, the physicists tell me that the Standard Model does not have any of
these dimensionful constants in it. even if you toss in gravitation (that
would just define mass ratios of particles to the Planck mass) and the
cosmological constant. if i understand them right, we actually *can*
describe nature without c or h_{bar} or G or \epsilon_0 (i presume we do it in
Planck units and "e" becomes the \sqrt of \alpha).
it changes some of the questions we ask. instead of asking why gravity is
so weak (because, in Planck units, G is just 1), we ask instead why the mass
of particles like the electron and proton are so small. instead of asking
why is the speed of light so fast, we ask why are we (and our meter sticks)
so big and why do our clocks tick even more so slow.
that's my spin on it.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."