What can "Dimensional Analysis Techniques & Buckingham Pi Theory" be used for?
That is the basis for being able to scale experiments so that something like a wind tunnel model of a skyscraper doesn't have to be full scale.
Can it be applied to Particle-Physics?
I don't see any reason why it couldn't. It basis is sound. I, like many others probably, was introduced to it in my fluids classes. As long as you can determine what variables dictate a given scenario, it should be applicable. If you look here in this Wiki article, there is a section about Sir Geoffrey I. Taylor using dimensional analysis to estimate the yield of the first atomic bomb.
Please have a look at the follwing link. The manuscript has been published in a peer reviewed journal:
This then leads to a "quais-unification" of Particle-Physics & Cosmology:
Yet, the Physics community seems to have real problems with anything derived by DA & BPT. In-fact, they don't even seem to know about it. Even though the experimentally verified results presented by the author are vastly superior to anything presented by the Standard Model of Particle-Physics or Cosmology.
Could you provide a citation of this latter paper in a peer reviewed journal?
I "think" its in "Physics Essays". They seem to have a very good editorial board.
If you go to the back of the particle paper link I quoted, you should see it there.
I'm afraid that's not how this works-- *you* provided the article, therefore *you* should provide the reader with a citation to a peer-reviewed journal. Also, I have never heard of "physics essays"-- I wonder whether there is anyone reading this who can confirm how reliable this journal is?
I see your point. Here's the link to "Physics Essays" if you're interested:
The editorial board doesn't look to silly to me.
Forgot something ..... also, what happens when chapters of a book have been peer reviewed?
That is, how does one deal with the citations then?
Looking at the website there seem to be two different definitions of "peer review". One is used by "Physics Essays", the other one is used by everybody else.
In everybody else's version, stuff doesn't get published until the reviewers are happy with it. The "Physics Essays" system where the author can just ignore what the reviewers suggested, and publish in the journal or present at a conference without changing anything, doesn't apply.
I don't understand the question about citations in books. Citations are references to what has already been published. The content doesn't change after it has been published (not outside of "Phys. Essays", anyway) so citations never change. If you have new ideas on a subject, you publish a new paper, you don't edit the old one.
If you publish a new edition of a book, citations will state the edition, the publisher, and the publication date, so there's no confusion about which version is being referenced.
Hmm...you guys scared him off. The whole peer reviewed part always seems to get them.
Back to the question raised...does anyone know of a reason why dimensional analysis can not be applied to particle physics? I know Zapper is on vacation. Anyone else care to chime in? I am curious now.
A book which answers your question!
This little book is just what you want:
Hans G. Hornung, Dimensional Analysis: Examples of the Use of Symmetry, Dover, 2006.
If that tickles your fancy, you should go on to read about Lie's method of finding exact solutions to (systems of) ordinary (partial) (nonlinear) differential equations via symmetry. This turns out to generalize dimensional analysis, and to subsume virtually every technique for solving a DE you are likely to have encountered in school. If you've heard of Noether's theorem relating symmetries to conserved quantities in dynamics, that also has a lovely and powerful expression in this context (indeed, Noether's own statement was far more powerful than the one most often taught to physics students).
(Oh fudge... I sure get sick of saying this, but Geoff, reading on, I see that someone very enthusiastically mentioned a typical "electrogravity" crank site :grumpy: It's amazing how many of these exist...)
Separate names with a comma.