shuba wrote in message news:tim.shuba-8AA42A.15422926092004@cp...
RVHG wrote:

Do not refer it as "my" system. It belongs to Nature.

As someone who thinks the fine structure constant is best defined
by a model incompatible with nature, you're hardly one to claim
to be some kind of prophet with the true understanding of nature.

Men create models as a way to know Nature. This is an infinite
process, being every model always a temporal step. As Science
developed, an old model is substituted by a new one considered better
than the first. But I do not think is a good idea to consider
"incompatible" with Nature the old model. Until its substitution it
was almost surely the best! In 1913 the Bohr H atom model incorporated
in it the new ideas about quantum. In this context, alpha appears to
be the first orbit electron speed v expressed as a fraction of c
(alpha=v/c). You will see that this is not a new definition selected
by me, it is simply the historical first one. Your criticism to me in
this point has no basis at all.
You gave me the official definition \alpha =
e^2/(4*\pi*\epsilon0*\hbar*c). Have you an idea about how that
expression was obtained? Simply putting alpha=v/c! (similar for the
expression showed in Baez's article). You must calculate what
correspond to v (your [stuff]!) in the specific unit system you are
using. Let me show you the derivation for the SI unit system.
In the SI the force F between the proton and the electron is
F=e^2/4*\pi\epsilon0*r^2=mv^2/r (applying Coulomb law, Newton's
second law and the fact that acceleration a=v^2/r for the electron
orbiting circularly the proton with a uniform angular velocity, where
m is electron mass and r the orbit radio). Introducing the
quantization condition mvr=hbar, we obtain using simple algebra the
result
v/c=\alpha = e^2/(4*\pi*\epsilon0*\hbar*c). This is the rule to follow
if you want to obtain the "definition expression" for alpha in some
determined unit system.
As you can saw here, the key concept is that alpha is a velocity
(electron first orbit one), and that you can express it with a
dimensionless number if you choose some quantity of velocity as the
dimensionless unit (as you did with your bicycle speed choosing c=1).
Alpha was later the basic constant of Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED),
under the c=1 declaration. I see that you do not understand how a
basic entity that correspond to a very advanced theory is defined
using many "old" theories. You must follow the history development to
understand it properly. Rarely a model disappears completely in
Physics (or in any other Science). With some frequency old concepts
remain valid in new advanced models.

Sorry, English is not my native language and maybe I did not use the
right English words.

Well, speaking in riddles is not my first language. I've given
links to information that backs up and clarifies my statements.
You keep on saying that you will make things explicit *soon*, but
you never do so. Whatever system *you* have defined most
certainly is *your* system.

The real important
point is that we have NOT a clear definition about what alpha is.

Speak for yourself.

You will find almost all what I have to say about alpha in this post.
Which are the rules to follow
for obtaining a "definition expression" in some unit system? I do not
know what rules are you following when you put \alpha = [stuff]/c

It's called algebra.

You need here a little more than simple algebra. If you do not realize
that [stuff]=v, first orbit electron speed in Bohr model, you have no
idea about what alpha is, no matter how many "definition expressions"
you can handle. The official definition (or any other one that
corresponds to another unit system, like the one showed in Baez's
article) is insufficient.
When we say c=1, we are really redefining the
units of length and time so that 1 s = 3*10^8 m. We need also to
apply that same redefinition to [stuff], which introduces a
numerical term which precisely cancels how we changed the
numerical value of c when we switched systems.

You have discovered by yourself what is for me a very fundamental
point (and the basis to understand what the Natural Unit System NUS is
all about!), 1 second equals 3*10^8 meter! Some definite quantity of
some physical magnitude being equal to a definite quantity of another
different physical magnitude. If time and length are two different
physical magnitudes, with what right you declare that definite
proportion between them? Why not 137 s = 3*10^8 m, per example? (the
result obtained if you put alpha=1).

You clearly didn't understand either the Baez article or my
explanation. There is no way that \alpha can be equal to 1. We
can define 137 s = 3*10^8 m, and we *still* get \alpha = ~1/137.

Being alpha a velocity (and having a physicist the right to declare
dimensionless 1 what he want), someone can say "Let be alpha equal
dimensionless one, the first orbit speed in Bohr model". As you
already know, I do not accept that right for a physicist. Following my
axiom RV, only one quantity of velocity can be put equal to
dimensionless 1, and I believe its is c, not alpha. As you see, I
accept that alpha is always ~1/137, but I am doing efforts to make
clear why.
How can you decide if a constant is *fundamentally*
dimensionless or not?

As explained in Baez' article, *fundamentally* dimensionless
constants are those which don't depend on the units we use.

And how can you know when some entity is unit-system independent? Do
not answer that they are the *fundamentally* dimensionless constants!

I guess *you* can't know, since you disagree with Baez' article,
and claim that \alpha can be 1. The fact the it cannot means
that \alpha is a fundamentally dimensionless constant.

As a velocity, alpha is not more fundamentally dimensionless than your
bicycle velocity. You can express both in km/hour. You can express the
first orbit electron speed in km/hour. Any physical quantity of any
physical magnitude becomes dimensionless if you express it in Natural
Units. Alpha is equal to ~1/137 Natural Units (under the assumption
that c is the natural constant for velocity, a fact that I suppose
true).
Of course, if you consider alpha not a velocity, but a ratio of two
velocities, then it will be always dimensionless. It is evident that
in this case the number associated to it will be ~1/137 only if you
choose c as the other velocity in the ratio. But you can select the
same v for the other velocity, obtaining the dimensionless 1 value for
alpha that you do not accept.
Axiom RV. For each one of all physical magnitudes there exist a
determined natural constant that are all equivalent among them.

The Natural Unit System (NUS) is simply the unit system that selects
for unit the natural constant of every physical magnitude. We can put
all these constants equal to dimensionless 1, denoted as "the" Natural
Unit (NU).

What is alpha? The electron velocity of the first orbit in Bohr 1913 H
atom model, expressed in Natural Unit under the assumption that c is
the natural constant for velocity.

I hate to break it to you, but the Bohr model is known to not
correctly model nature. There is no electron velocity around the
nucleus. \alpha is much more fundamental than is shown by your
poor definition of it. There already is a useful system that was
proposed by Planck in 1899, and it appears to be free from the
crackpottery of *your* system.

Well, I considered this topic at the beginning already. Even if Bohr's
model was substituted by the more advanced QM one, alpha remain
totally valid, including its definition. I showed you already how the
official definition expression for alpha is derived from the original
concept associated with an electron velocity (for the SI system, but
it can be done for any other). What you named "my poor definition" is
the only historic valid one, that of course has not relation at all
with me. About your Planck reference, I can tell you that today
Planck's Natural Unit system is very close to the NUS respect the
figures for the natural constants used as units. A very curious and
interesting topic is the fact that the original Planck's constant for
action ‘h' was substituted later by ‘hbar'. Today this is a simple
detail without any relevance, but for me is a very important and basic
one. My axiom RV state a UNIQUE natural constant for every physical
magnitude, and only one from ‘h' and ‘hbar' can be THE natural
constant for action. This is related with the natural constant for
angle, the radian or the cycle (unfortunately you skipped some
consideration about this in my last post).
By the way, Planck was not the first talking about a natural unit
system. In 1874, the Ireland physicist George Johnstone Stoney
(1826-1911) showed in a meeting of the British Association the work
entitled "On the Physical Units of Nature". That paper was published
in the Philosophical Magazine, May 1881, Vol.II, p.381. To the natural
constants known in that epoch ‘c' and ‘G', Stoney added the electric
charge of the electron ‘e', being the first postulating the electron
existence and proposing its name. Starting from these constants he
derived others, naming all of them "natural constants". But this work
(and also Planck's one) is far yet to consider an equivalence among
all these natural constants based on their non-dimensional nature and
identification with the dimensionless 1. I wait from you some
attention to the Axiom RV.

\alpha = ~1/137, independent of what unit system we use. That's
why it is fundamental. and c is not. Until you can understand
and accept this simple concept, you really have no business
pretending to have some special insight.

Sorry, without diminishing alpha importance (the basis of QED), I
believe c is more fundamental than alpha, being c the natural constant
for velocity and not alpha. Is c as the natural unit for velocity what
fix the alpha 1/137 value and it is the basis for Relativity. I can
make a similar remark referring to the radian and the cycle, being the
radian the natural constant for plane angle, and fixing the value 2pi
for the cycle. Of course, I have a lot to say yet about how to
discover the natural constants values and about their attributes,
specially the profound physical meaning of their equivalences.
The Natural Unit concept is an overall generalization of some
equivalences found in Physics among some physical magnitudes. The
length-time and mass-energy ones in Special Relativity, the
mass-length one in General Relativity, the energy-angular velocity one
in Quantum Mechanics, …every time a new kind of equivalence is
discovered, a new branch of Physics grows…


---Tim Shuba---

RVHG

RVHG wrote:

[snips loads of crackpottery]

As you can saw here, the key concept is that alpha is a velocity

It is not. If it were it a velocity, \alpha would not be a
fundamentally dimensionless constant.

You will find almost all what I have to say about alpha in this post.

I'll keep that in mind.

If you do not realize
that [stuff]=v, first orbit electron speed

There is no orbital electron speed in quantum mechanics.

The official definition (or any other one that
corresponds to another unit system, like the one showed in Baez's
article) is insufficient.

Then you should consider the physics, instead of repeatedly
stating the falsehood that \alpha is a velocity. The fine
structure constant is related to the probability that an electron
will emit or absorb a photon. Read Feynman's "QED" for the
basics.

Being alpha a velocity (and having a physicist the right to declare
dimensionless 1 what he want), someone can say "Let be alpha equal
dimensionless one

No, the only person I've seen do that is a crackpot who thinks
that \alpha is a velocity.

As you see, I
accept that alpha is always ~1/137, but I am doing efforts to make
clear why.

You keep on falsely stating that it can be one.

As a velocity, alpha is not more fundamentally dimensionless

\alpha is not a velocity.

Of course, if you consider alpha not a velocity, but a ratio of two
velocities, then it will be always dimensionless. It is evident that
in this case the number associated to it will be ~1/137 only if you
choose c as the other velocity in the ratio. But you can select the
same v for the other velocity, obtaining the dimensionless 1 value for
alpha that you do not accept.

We've been over this. Hint: Let a and (nonzero) b be quantities
of the same dimension and k a nonzero constant, then
a/b = (k*a)/(k*b). If you have trouble, find a twelve-year-old
algebra student to help out.

This is related with the natural constant for
angle, the radian or the cycle (unfortunately you skipped some
consideration about this in my last post).

I already commented on your radian crackpottery long ago.

I wait from you some
attention to the Axiom RV.

That will be a long wait.

Sorry, without diminishing alpha importance (the basis of QED), I
believe c is more fundamental than alpha, being c the natural constant
for velocity and not alpha.

\alpha is not a velocity.


---Tim Shuba---

shuba wrote:

RVHG wrote:


As you can saw here, the key concept is that alpha is a velocity

It is not. If it were it a velocity, \alpha would not be a
fundamentally dimensionless constant.


I showed you already how the official definition of alpha is derived
from the 1913 Bohr's model first orbit electron velocity. You cannot
ignore the history and development of Physics ideas.


The official definition of \alpha is that it is a dimensionless
number. Here is the link again. If the first sentence is too
difficult or ambiguous, please ask for clarification.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

The fact is that you disagree with Baez, Feynman, NIST, and every
legitimate textbook and web site on this subject. I suppose you
consider them also as "anti-historical and narrow" as me.


Why you do not comment the derivation I showed you about alpha being
the first orbit electron velocity in Bohr's model, that coincides with
the official definition using the SI unit system?


A velocity divided by a velocity is not a velocity. Unlike you, I
agree with the official definition of \alpha as dimensionless.


Try to define alpha not taking into account its velocity character. Do
you think that you can do it better than the official definition? I
showed you already that the definition is unit system dependent. Give
me a rule about how to obtain alpha in ANY unit system that does not
take into account its velocity character.


I already referred you to Feynman's "QED". Why don't you find a
copy of it, turn to page 129, and read it for yourself?


From where do you take the rule to consider physical
dimensions as they where dimensionless numbers?


I don't. This, in fact, is what *you* do when you disagree with
all reasonable physicists who say that \alpha is dimensionless.


Why per example
meter/meter=dimensionless 1?


To determine how long it takes for my bicycle, moving in a
straight line at a speed of v meters/sec, to go x meters, I use
the equation [time]=[distance]/[speed]. The units are
[s]=[m]/[m/s]. I end up with an answer of x/v seconds.

I'd hazard to call [time] = [distance]/[speed] a definition, not really
an equation. You can freely equate numerical unitless identities with
one another, but when dealing with units you are dealing with definitions.

Let's say you have a gram of C14. You measure it after a LONG while and
now it's half C14 and half C12. You can define time this way (5,730
years have passed.) No distance or speed units involved anywhere.
Another definition for time with some subtle differences in how we might
play around with it.

Paul Bramscher wrote:

shuba wrote:

[..]

To determine how long it takes for my bicycle, moving in a
straight line at a speed of v meters/sec, to go x meters, I use
the equation [time]=[distance]/[speed]. The units are
[s]=[m]/[m/s]. I end up with an answer of x/v seconds.

I'd hazard to call [time] = [distance]/[speed] a definition, not really
an equation. You can freely equate numerical unitless identities with
one another, but when dealing with units you are dealing with definitions.

You can call it a definition, but it's certainly an equation. In
the SI system of units, speed is derived from the base units of
time and distance, and the equation above is an algebraic
manipulation of the definition of that derived unit. In
different unit systems common in relativistic formulae, c is
taken to be equal to dimensionless one. This means that time and
distance are measured in the same units (usually meters), and the
speed in the equation becomes a conversion constant between them.

Let's say you have a gram of C14. You measure it after a LONG while and
now it's half C14 and half C12. You can define time this way (5,730
years have passed.) No distance or speed units involved anywhere.
Another definition for time with some subtle differences in how we might
play around with it.

There is also no distance or speed involved in the official
definition using cesium atoms. It really doesn't matter, as long
as the definitions that we use are consistent with each other to
within the error bars of experiment. Obviously, for measuring
something like processing speed in a computer, a clock based on
the decay of carbon isotopes would be highly impractical. The
choice of using cesium atoms for the official definition has to
with the ability to engineer clocks which use that definition to
within extremely precise error bars. See for example, the link
below, which shows how the world may soon be awash in atomic
timepieces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3656278.stm


---Tim Shuba---

shuba wrote in message ...
RVHG wrote:

As you can saw here, the key concept is that alpha is a velocity

It is not. If it were it a velocity, \alpha would not be a
fundamentally dimensionless constant.

I showed you already how the official definition of alpha is derived
from the 1913 Bohr's model first orbit electron velocity. You cannot
ignore the history and development of Physics ideas.

The official definition of \alpha is that it is a dimensionless
number. Here is the link again. If the first sentence is too
difficult or ambiguous, please ask for clarification.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Very good reference, it contents some history about alpha. At the
beginning ,"The fine-structure constant alpha is of dimension 1
(i.e., it is simply a number) and very nearly equal to 1/137. It is
the ‘coupling constant' or measure of the strength of the
electromagnetic force that governs how electrically charged elementary
particles (e.g., electron, muon) and light (photons) interact"; and a
little after "The quantity alpha, which is equal to the ratio v1/c
where v1 is the velocity of the electron in the first circular Bohr
orbit".
As you see, alpha was in 1916 with Sommerfeld the "velocity of the
electron in the first circular Bohr orbit" measured with the c=1
dimensionless unit, being much later with Feymann a "coupling
constant". Following the development of a concept through the time is
the most convenient way to understand it properly.

The fact is that you disagree with Baez, Feynman, NIST, and every
legitimate textbook and web site on this subject. I suppose you
consider them also as "anti-historical and narrow" as me.

If you search for my posts in this group you will see that I rarely
put adjectives to my opponents (most of the time I ignore the ones
they put to me!). My unique intention this time was to put your
attention to history, and reading your reference I think that my goal
was obtained (I apologize you for it if you interpreted it as a kind
of offense).
I have no problem at all with Baez, Feynman or the NIST institution.
About alpha, Baez used the official CGS definition, NIST the official
SI one and Feynman put the emphasis in the physical meaning inside his
QED. No one of the three put sufficient attention to the underground
unit system problem, at least this is my thinking. If you do not
consider the velocity face of alpha (or any other face like the
coupling constant one), you have no way to found an expression for it
in any arbitrary unit system (of course, if you define simply
alpha=1/137 dimensionless, then you have no clue at all about its
physical meaning).

Why you do not comment the derivation I showed you about alpha being
the first orbit electron velocity in Bohr's model, that coincides with
the official definition using the SI unit system?

A velocity divided by a velocity is not a velocity. Unlike you, I
agree with the official definition of \alpha as dimensionless.

You forgot so soon your bicycle velocity? You obtained already by
yourself a (tiny) dimensionless number that express it, dividing your
bicycle velocity by the c one (in the same way alpha is obtained
dividing v1 by c, as you read in the NIST article). You think that
saying that alpha is a velocity contradict its dimensionless
character, not taking into account that considering a physical
magnitude dimensionless is an old physicists practice. (I have yet a
lot to say about this practice, I do not recognize their right to put
equal to dimensionless 1 any thing they wanted). I referred already to
the electrical permitivity in CGS and the angle in SI (other two cases
where the measure is done dividing two same quality physical
magnitudes), but you cannot understand yet the relationship between
these two apparently not related facts (unless you put some attention
to the RV axiom).
Try to define alpha not taking into account its velocity character. Do
you think that you can do it better than the official definition? I
showed you already that the definition is unit system dependent. Give
me a rule about how to obtain alpha in ANY unit system that does not
take into account its velocity character.

I already referred you to Feynman's "QED". Why don't you find a
copy of it, turn to page 129, and read it for yourself?

Follow your own references to alpha in the course of our talking. You
started with the Baez's article that used the CGS version. When I
stated the unit system dependence for an alpha definition, you turned
to the "official" SI definition and tried to derive all the others
from it (using the "stuff", remember?). Then, when I showed you (in
detail) that that definition was derived considering alpha the first
orbit electron velocity, then you turned to Feynman view. It is not
clear for you yet that alpha has many faces?
From where do you take the rule to consider physical
dimensions as they where dimensionless numbers?

I don't. This, in fact, is what *you* do when you disagree with
all reasonable physicists who say that \alpha is dimensionless.

If I put 2 meter/ 1 meter this is equal to dimensionless 2, or equal
to 2 meter? When you compare a 2 meter length with a 1 meter length
(the used unit) to make a measure you obtain as the result a 2 meter
one or a dimensionless 2 one? Consider then now angle instead of
length. Comparing a 2 radian angle with a 1 radian one what do you
obtain? Dimensionless 2 or 2 radian? If your think that dimensionless
2= 2 radian, then why dimensionless 2 is not equal to 2 meter? Why
meter is a "physical dimension" and "radian" does not? Repeat using
"degree" instead of "radian". Why "degree" is a "physical dimension"
and "radian" does not?
By the way, I accept that alpha~1/137 dimensionless (without losing
its velocity face or any other one). I am just trying to decipher the
1/137 "mystery" (and the unit systems problem in general), and doing
that I conceived the RV axiom.
Why per example
meter/meter=dimensionless 1?

To determine how long it takes for my bicycle, moving in a
straight line at a speed of v meters/sec, to go x meters, I use
the equation [time]=[distance]/[speed]. The units are
[s]=[m]/[m/s]. I end up with an answer of x/v seconds.

Do you really think that [m]/[m] doesn't cancel out?
If so, what is the new unit that *you* use for time?

I said that? I only questioned why (inside this apparently trivial
thing is something very important, you will see soon). Have you some
explanation about why the "meter" up is taken out with the "meter"
down? I know that all of us learned in the school that we can do it as
is "meter" were a simple number (of course, almost sure without any
explanation).
Why do you put "v meters/sec"? I am almost completely sure that you do
not realize that this is valid only in unit systems where length and
time are "basic" physical magnitudes and velocity a "derived" one. In
the Planck's system you cited some time ago, velocity is a "basic"
one.
Why physical dimensions are operated like
dimensionless numbers?

They aren't. That's why \alpha cannot possibly be a velocity.

Yes, they are. You put meter/meter=1 dimensionless in the same way
you put 2/2=1 dimensionless. You handle "meter" and "2" in the same
way.
If you compare 20 meters with the unit 1 meter
you obtain 20 meters, not dimensionless 20.

Nonsense. This is really too stupid to waste more time on.

I understand that this has the appearance of a very trivial thing.
Simply rejecting what you do not understand is not a good choice to
increase the knowledge about it.

"I reject completely the symmetry involved in today
Special Relativity."

Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato



That does not imply that I reject to discuss about it.
If you say that alpha is not a velocity, you must know what is it.

\alpha is a dimensionless constant. Unlike some other
dimensionless constants like \pi or e, \alpha is, so far as we
are aware today, strictly a physical constant. It's value has
been determined by experiment, not mathematics. It's a number
that we insert "by hand" into our theories, which is why it is so
very interesting.

What is for you a "physical constant"? For me this implies that it has
physical meaning. But you seem to interpret that "dimensionless" is
without physical dimensions, without physical meaning (how to
interpret then your resistance to admit that alpha can be considered a
velocity, even when I showed you that the official definition is
derived with that point of view?). Do you really think that \pi and \e
have not physical meaning? How can you forget that one face of \pi is
the ratio of two very relevant lengths? Alpha can be measured by
experiment precisely because it is full of physical meaning. You can
read in your NIST reference different ways to measure it.
Define alpha to me. Let us see if you can do it better than the
official definition. Don't forget that we can use many (infinite
indeed) unit systems.

Go read Feynman's "QED".

You can find in Feynman's QED some reference or study about the
infinite possible unit systems? Until now, unit systems are not
considered fundamental entities in any physical theory, at least this
is what I think about it.
If you cannot define alpha with independence of
any unit system, how can you claim that alpha is unit system
independent? I hope you will not skip this basic point considering it
simply "crackpottery".

Amplitudes don't have units, nor do their squares.

Sorry, I cannot understand the meaning of your last sentence. Maybe
can you put it in a more detailed way?
Yesterday alpha was a
velocity

\alpha was NEVER a velocity.

"The quantity alpha, which is equal to the ratio v1/c where v1 is the
velocity of the electron in the first circular Bohr orbit" (from your
NIST reference).
Putting c=1 dimensionless (any objection?), alpha=v1.


---Tim Shuba---

RVHG

Dear Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato:

"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" wrote in message
om...
....
\alpha was NEVER a velocity.

"The quantity alpha, which is equal to the ratio v1/c where v1 is the
velocity of the electron in the first circular Bohr orbit" (from your
NIST reference).
Putting c=1 dimensionless (any objection?), alpha=v1.

Objection. If c's units are altered to "1", then "v1" must similarly
altered. Also, it is known that the Bohr orbital does not correspond to
any reality. Therefore your intended meaning is for history, and neither
present, nor future.

David A. Smith

shuba wrote:
Paul Bramscher wrote:


shuba wrote:


[..]


To determine how long it takes for my bicycle, moving in a
straight line at a speed of v meters/sec, to go x meters, I use
the equation [time]=[distance]/[speed]. The units are
[s]=[m]/[m/s]. I end up with an answer of x/v seconds.

I'd hazard to call [time] = [distance]/[speed] a definition, not really
an equation. You can freely equate numerical unitless identities with
one another, but when dealing with units you are dealing with definitions.


You can call it a definition, but it's certainly an equation.

Time is not at all well defined and it's clearly used in significantly
different ways. For quantities with composite units (such as velocity),
if you solve for T you are making derivations based on your definition
of the unit in velocity which may or may not make sense for how time is
used elsewhere (such as my radiocarbon example based on a physical
measurement of an object's state change against known rates of decay
(calibrated for variation with various absolute techniques such as
tree-ring dating, etc.)

The passage of time on an object isn't the same as the time required for
an object to pass from physical point A to B. Two fundamentally
different notions of time and what you can derive from them. If you
deal primarily with time in relation to distance & velocity, then it's
no wonder that that time can speed up or slow down -- since it's quite
plain that velocity does this and, hence, if time may be derived from
the others, we can play as fast and loose with time as we do with
distance and velocity. Change the grid, and you change time itself.

But where I differ is that this is a particular view of the nature of
time, a usage with some subtle sampling fiat at play, sure to get us
into later trouble when we try to relate it back to physical properties
of things.

In
the SI system of units, speed is derived from the base units of
time and distance, and the equation above is an algebraic
manipulation of the definition of that derived unit. In
different unit systems common in relativistic formulae, c is
taken to be equal to dimensionless one. This means that time and
distance are measured in the same units (usually meters), and the
speed in the equation becomes a conversion constant between them.


Let's say you have a gram of C14. You measure it after a LONG while and
now it's half C14 and half C12. You can define time this way (5,730
years have passed.) No distance or speed units involved anywhere.
Another definition for time with some subtle differences in how we might
play around with it.


There is also no distance or speed involved in the official
definition using cesium atoms. It really doesn't matter, as long
as the definitions that we use are consistent with each other to
within the error bars of experiment. Obviously, for measuring
something like processing speed in a computer, a clock based on
the decay of carbon isotopes would be highly impractical. The
choice of using cesium atoms for the official definition has to
with the ability to engineer clocks which use that definition to
within extremely precise error bars. See for example, the link
below, which shows how the world may soon be awash in atomic
timepieces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3656278.stm

I've calibrated against atomic clocks for a decade or so, and a radio
atomic clock of my own (not a built-in atomic unit). I'm as much a time
nut as anyone else.

The cesium example is broadly similar to the C14-C12 example. Rates of
decay or clicks (one happening after the other or a state change) with
predictable regularity. This is time intrinsic to a physical property
which we have not defined by fiat -- it comes to us from the workings of
the cosmos itself, as the decay rate of unstable substances. It
something that happens whether or not we observe it, we cannot alter the
fundamental rate (unless we bombard or contaminate the substance in some
way).

If you define time as a composite unit of velocity, divorced from
particular physical substances, something which any substance is subject
to and with varying possibilities you have a different notion of time.
Accelerate a lump of gold to 1 m/s, let it run for 10 meters, then solve
for T as 10 seconds, you have "time" as an artifact of your sample frame
-- not in any way indicative of a property of a physical object. Any
derivations you do with time at this point must be done with the
knowledge that it is an effect of sampling by fiat. It is time of your
system, not of anything intrinsic to any single component of it.

Perhaps we need to get rid of the notion of "time" in physics. We
should be clear if we're talking about rate of physical state change in
relation to itself, or the sample frame of a system including other
things, such as distance and movement. Just thinking about it suggests
to me that these are two very different uses of "time", and probably the
source of great confusion in modern cosmology.

Here's a strange thought experiment, possibly related, possibly not.
Imagine a gigantic mechanical clock, with some gears as large as our
moon. Let's say that it's geared such that "relativistic" effects come
into play, since some of the gears have sufficient angular velocity.
But the clock as a whole keeps very accurate time. Now supposedly if I
weld a normal sized clock on the rim of one of the large gears (say,
earth-sized) and another normal sized clock on one of the small gears
(perhaps the size of a city), they'll all disagree with one another even
though the large clock can still keep fairly accurate time itself.

Has anyone thought of this problem before, and does it have a clean
resolution? Remember, the gears are physically connected, there is no
gear slippage, but angular velocities are such that relativistic effects
kick in.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:zNlbd.138$SW3.42@fed1read01...
Dear Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato:

"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" wrote in message
om...
...
\alpha was NEVER a velocity.

"The quantity alpha, which is equal to the ratio v1/c where v1 is the
velocity of the electron in the first circular Bohr orbit" (from your
NIST reference).
Putting c=1 dimensionless (any objection?), alpha=v1.

Objection. If c's units are altered to "1", then "v1" must similarly
altered.
We are in agreement. When you put c=1 (dimensionless) as the unit for
velocity, one immediate consequence is that ALL velocities must be
expressed by a dimensionless number in the considered unit system.
From a value of v1~(1/137)*3*10^8 meter/seg (if you were using the SI
unit system per example) you must change to the value v1~(1/137)
(dimensionless).
Also, it is known that the Bohr orbital does not correspond to
any reality. Therefore your intended meaning is for history, and neither
present, nor future.

I consider history from another point of view. You cannot have present
or future if you do not have past. More ever, searching in the
past-present relationship is the best option to create the future (in
the sense of science development).
I invite you to read all my talking with T. Shuba (if you do not start
knowing its past, you cannot understand its present state or
participate in its future development!).
You are welcome.
David A. Smith
RVHG

Dear Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato:

"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" wrote in message
m...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:zNlbd.138$SW3.42@fed1read01...
Dear Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato:

"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" wrote in message
om...
...
\alpha was NEVER a velocity.

"The quantity alpha, which is equal to the ratio v1/c where v1 is the
velocity of the electron in the first circular Bohr orbit" (from your
NIST reference).
Putting c=1 dimensionless (any objection?), alpha=v1.

Objection. If c's units are altered to "1", then "v1" must similarly
altered.
We are in agreement. When you put c=1 (dimensionless) as the unit for
velocity, one immediate consequence is that ALL velocities must be
expressed by a dimensionless number in the considered unit system.

Making c=1 is not to make it dimensionless. It is redefining either the
unit of length, the unit of time, or both.

From a value of v1~(1/137)*3*10^8 meter/seg (if you were using the SI
unit system per example) you must change to the value v1~(1/137)
(dimensionless).

It is dimensionless, because the choice of constants other than c, net to
have units of time / length. You might want to review the Buckingham pi
theory.

Also, it is known that the Bohr orbital does not correspond to
any reality. Therefore your intended meaning is for history, and
neither
present, nor future.

I consider history from another point of view. You cannot have present
or future if you do not have past.

An imaginary past is *not* a good basis for future building. The Bohr
orbital is not even a good approximation. It was the "blind man's" first
workable attempt at a solution into a world that cannot be seen.

More ever, searching in the
past-present relationship is the best option to create the future (in
the sense of science development).

Not when this is known to be completely wrong.

I invite you to read all my talking with T. Shuba (if you do not start
knowing its past, you cannot understand its present state or
participate in its future development!).

We all know different pasts. If I knew your past, I'd be you. The present
is built on our participation from our different pasts, and the broader
that experience, the stronger is the present.

Now the past in the last 80 or so years shows that Bohr was wrong. So your
insistence that "all the other constants expect c" has deep mystical
significance, because it corresponds to the velocity in an incorrect model,
doesn't reflect particularly well on you, or your argument.

You are welcome.

We'll see. And Thank you.

David A. Smith

Paul Bramscher:

Let's say you have a gram of C14. You measure it after a LONG while and
now it's half C14 and half C12.

14C decays to 14N