RVHG wrote:

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

Very good reference, it contents some history about alpha.

[..]

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).

Well, I first posted this reference on the sixteenth of
September, just over three weeks before you posted your "unique
intention", so maybe I've just been coasting, waiting for you to
figure out that I do have some familiarity with the history.

But don't worry, I took no 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.

All of which disagree with you. I will refrain from commenting
on most of your post, since it obviously is leading nowhere. You
haven't told me anything interesting about units, your own
comments about them are full of contradictions, and when someone
asserts that Feynman didn't have a sufficient conception of
units, it's time to move on.

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.

The definition of \alpha given in Feynman's QED is independent of
any unit system.

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?

I don't see why I should. You are quite happy defining \alpha as
the velocity of a particle which doesn't have a velocity, in
spite of the fact that you have never given a reference to
anywhere where \alpha is defined as a velocity. You can stick to
your unphyical ideas. Should you ever decide to link \alpha to
something with physical meaning, you're welcome to pick up
Feynman's book and read it for yourself.

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.

No objection. And putting c= 3*10^8 m/s, \alpha != v1, because
\alpha is not a velocity.


---Tim Shuba---

shuba wrote in message ...
RVHG wrote:

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

Very good reference, it contents some history about alpha.

[..]


\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.

No objection. And putting c= 3*10^8 m/s, \alpha != v1, because
\alpha is not a velocity.

My previous reference to alpha as a velocity in the Bohr's model is
confirmed in the NIST reference that you sent me. If you have no
objection then you accepted that \alpha=v1 as a direct consequence of
making c=1 dimensionless (v1 is then a dimensionless velocity, as the
velocity of your bicycle that you computed). But immediately you wrote
again "\alpha is not a velocity" as a direct consequence of making
c=3*10^8 m/s (and you wrote above "\alpha was NEVER a velocity").
Perhaps you think that c lost its velocity character when the c=1
dimensionless assignment is done? (you skip all my comments about the
Relativistic Unit System, why?, you do not want to hear about
dimensionless velocities, even if they are used by physicists all the
time?). Evidently you fail to understand that a dimensionless entity
can be a velocity (or any other physical magnitude). Unfortunately my
references to electrical permitivity or angle are always skipped by
you (as you did with my little history about all the changes you had
made with your alpha concept in the course of our talking).
As you decided already to stop the talking with me, I end with my
desire that in some future we will meet again to continue it.
In any way, I am glad to you for your attention.

---Tim Shuba---
RVHG

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:qWvbd.908$SW3.260@fed1read01...
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.
I am the one who wrote "Putting c=1 dimensionless", I didn't write
"Putting c=1". Even if normally when you write a "1" it is supposed to
be dimensionless (a pure number), I added the word "dimensionless"
precisely to make completely clear this point that is in the center of
the debate. You have the right to criticize what I did, but not to
change what I did. I am not the first one doing that kind of
assignment to c. For many years it is normal practice among
relativists to do that, working with a Relativistic Unit System where
time and length share the same physical dimension. In that unit system
mass, energy and momentum have the same unit, the electron-volt, that
by sure you know very well. Velocity is in it dimensionless (as
electrical permitivity in the CGS system or angle in the SI one).

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.

It is dimensionless as a direct consequence of the c=1 dimensionless
assignment. I do not understand which "choice of constants other than
c" are you referring. Can you make it clear for me? Sorry, I do not
know what it is the Buckingham pi theory (but I guess that you must be
from England).
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.

Imaginary past? I do not understand what do you mean by it. I conceive
Nature knowledge by men as an infinite process with an infinite chain
of very real models, every one always better (more exact Nature
representation) than the precedent one. Or maybe you have the idea
that all old models are "wrong", being the unique "right" the present
one? The day in which Quantum Mechanics will be replaced by a better
theory you will say by sure that it was not even a "good
approximation".
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.

No theory is "completely wrong". It normally represents the best done
by men in its creation epoch. Which model was better than Bohr's one
in 1913? Which mechanics was better than Newton's one in the 17
century?
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.

I refer to a collective past, something shared by all men, formed by
the most successful theories in every past epoch, the historic
development of men knowing Nature.
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.

Sorry, I do not understand what are you saying I am insisting ("all
the other constants expect c"). I repeat here that I do not know which
"other constants" are you referring. Maybe you refer to the present
official alpha definition, that I showed (in all detail) how it was
derived from your Bohr's "wrong" theory?
You are welcome.

We'll see. And Thank you.

David A. Smith
RVHG

RVHG wrote:

My previous reference to alpha as a velocity in the Bohr's model is
confirmed in the NIST reference that you sent me.

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

Repetition does not make a false statement truer. Nowhere on
this page is \alpha defined as a velocity.

If you have no
objection then you accepted that \alpha=v1 as a direct consequence of
making c=1 dimensionless (v1 is then a dimensionless velocity, as the
velocity of your bicycle that you computed). But immediately you wrote
again "\alpha is not a velocity" as a direct consequence of making
c=3*10^8 m/s (and you wrote above "\alpha was NEVER a velocity").

Look, you either agree that \alpha is a constant indepedent of
unit systems or you don't. Make up your mind.


---Tim Shuba---

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:qWvbd.908$SW3.260@fed1read01...
....
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.

I am the one who wrote "Putting c=1 dimensionless", I didn't write
"Putting c=1". Even if normally when you write a "1" it is supposed to
be dimensionless (a pure number), I added the word "dimensionless"
precisely to make completely clear this point that is in the center of
the debate.

Your intention is clear. The reality is that c is defined as a speed, and
is therefore dimensional. One can assign a length unit, or a time unit, to
give c a value of 1 unit length per 1 unit time. It is an *established*
constant, so it could have this single unit value. It is *still* a speed.

You have the right to criticize what I did, but not to
change what I did. I am not the first one doing that kind of
assignment to c. For many years it is normal practice among
relativists to do that, working with a Relativistic Unit System where
time and length share the same physical dimension. In that unit system
mass, energy and momentum have the same unit, the electron-volt, that
by sure you know very well. Velocity is in it dimensionless (as
electrical permitivity in the CGS system or angle in the SI one).

Speed or velocity is not dimensionless. It involves a relationship between
light in vacuum, length and time. Your argument is baseless.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:R9Zcd.4972$SW3.3115@fed1read01...
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:qWvbd.908$SW3.260@fed1read01...
...
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.

I am the one who wrote "Putting c=1 dimensionless", I didn't write
"Putting c=1". Even if normally when you write a "1" it is supposed to
be dimensionless (a pure number), I added the word "dimensionless"
precisely to make completely clear this point that is in the center of
the debate.

Your intention is clear. The reality is that c is defined as a speed, and
is therefore dimensional. One can assign a length unit, or a time unit, to
give c a value of 1 unit length per 1 unit time. It is an *established*
constant, so it could have this single unit value. It is *still* a speed.

No, I think you are far to understand my intention. You seem without
reading my previous posts in the topic. Take a look at the history of
unit systems. To build one of them some units for some physical
magnitudes are chosen arbitrarily as "basic" and the others considered
"derived". In the Astronomic Unit System (where the gravitational
constant G=1 dimensionless) the basic physical magnitudes were length
and time, being mass a derived one, with physical dimension 3 respect
to length and –2 respect to time. In all modern unit systems mass is a
"basic" physical magnitude (giving rise frequently to the idea that
mass is "intrinsically basic", the same for length or time). In the
CGS system (3 basic entities) electrical permitivity is dimensionless,
but has physical dimensions in the SI one where the angle is
dimensionless and exist 7 basic units. I need to continue? All is
arbitrary in unit systems, the basic entities and its number, the
units chosen, the entities considered dimensionless, etc. Do you think
that velocity is length/time? Only in systems where it is a "derived"
entity and length and time are "basic" ones (of course, with high
probability that kind of systems are the only one you –and the great
majority of us- are costumed to use). In the Planck's unit system
velocity is a basic one and length and time are derived ones.
You have the right to criticize what I did, but not to
change what I did. I am not the first one doing that kind of
assignment to c. For many years it is normal practice among
relativists to do that, working with a Relativistic Unit System where
time and length share the same physical dimension. In that unit system
mass, energy and momentum have the same unit, the electron-volt, that
by sure you know very well. Velocity is in it dimensionless (as
electrical permitivity in the CGS system or angle in the SI one).

Speed or velocity is not dimensionless. It involves a relationship between
light in vacuum, length and time. Your argument is baseless.

I showed you using historic arguments that the "dimension" concept in
the context of a unit system is a totally arbitrary one. To discuss if
velocity (or any other physical magnitude) is "dimensionless" or not
has no sense at all, because the answer is unit system dependent.
Electrical permitivity has dimension in SI, but not in CGS. Velocity
has dimension in SI, but not in the Relativistic Unit System. These
are historic facts that you cannot reject.
But it is my most strong believe that all physical magnitudes are
related among them in a non-arbitrary way (Nature made, not men made).
Search for the RV axiom in my previous posts if you are interested in
this view.
David A. Smith

RVHG

Dear Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato:

"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:R9Zcd.4972$SW3.3115@fed1read01...
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:qWvbd.908$SW3.260@fed1read01...
...
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.

I am the one who wrote "Putting c=1 dimensionless", I didn't write
"Putting c=1". Even if normally when you write a "1" it is supposed to
be dimensionless (a pure number), I added the word "dimensionless"
precisely to make completely clear this point that is in the center of
the debate.

Your intention is clear. The reality is that c is defined as a speed,
and
is therefore dimensional. One can assign a length unit, or a time unit,
to
give c a value of 1 unit length per 1 unit time. It is an *established*
constant, so it could have this single unit value. It is *still* a
speed.

No, I think you are far to understand my intention. You seem without
reading my previous posts in the topic. Take a look at the history of
unit systems. To build one of them some units for some physical
magnitudes are chosen arbitrarily as "basic" and the others considered
"derived". In the Astronomic Unit System (where the gravitational
constant G=1 dimensionless) the basic physical magnitudes were length
and time, being mass a derived one, with physical dimension 3 respect
to length and -2 respect to time. In all modern unit systems mass is a
"basic" physical magnitude (giving rise frequently to the idea that
mass is "intrinsically basic", the same for length or time). In the
CGS system (3 basic entities) electrical permitivity is dimensionless,
but has physical dimensions in the SI one where the angle is
dimensionless and exist 7 basic units. I need to continue? All is
arbitrary in unit systems, the basic entities and its number, the
units chosen, the entities considered dimensionless, etc. Do you think
that velocity is length/time? Only in systems where it is a "derived"
entity and length and time are "basic" ones (of course, with high
probability that kind of systems are the only one you -and the great
majority of us- are costumed to use). In the Planck's unit system
velocity is a basic one and length and time are derived ones.

I've not heard of this "Planck's unit system", however, c is still
"dimensional" even there. It may even have a value of 1. But it is *not*
dimensionless, unless you simply choose to ignore the *arbitrary choice* of
dimensions. This would not be a useful choice...

You have the right to criticize what I did, but not to
change what I did. I am not the first one doing that kind of
assignment to c. For many years it is normal practice among
relativists to do that, working with a Relativistic Unit System where
time and length share the same physical dimension. In that unit system
mass, energy and momentum have the same unit, the electron-volt, that
by sure you know very well. Velocity is in it dimensionless (as
electrical permitivity in the CGS system or angle in the SI one).

Speed or velocity is not dimensionless. It involves a relationship
between
light in vacuum, length and time. Your argument is baseless.

I showed you using historic arguments that the "dimension" concept in
the context of a unit system is a totally arbitrary one. To discuss if
velocity (or any other physical magnitude) is "dimensionless" or not
has no sense at all, because the answer is unit system dependent.

No, it is not a function of the units system, but it is simply the result
of applying a units system. You invoke dimension, when you wish to compare
it to some seemingly related "thing".

Electrical permitivity has dimension in SI, but not in CGS.

Yes, it does.

Velocity
has dimension in SI, but not in the Relativistic Unit System.

Presumably you have a registered trademark on the RUS?

These
are historic facts that you cannot reject.

Without citation, I certainly can. I do so reject it. There is nothing in
any of my texts on this mythical, and arbitrary, "dimensionless"
dimensional system.

But it is my most strong believe that all physical magnitudes are
related among them in a non-arbitrary way (Nature made, not men made).
Search for the RV axiom in my previous posts if you are interested in
this view.

Let's see where you go with the RUS...

David A. Smith

shuba wrote in message ...
RVHG wrote:

My previous reference to alpha as a velocity in the Bohr's model is
confirmed in the NIST reference that you sent me.

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

Repetition does not make a false statement truer. Nowhere on
this page is \alpha defined as a velocity.

Well, I have not other alternative that putting here the relevant part
of the NIST reference (I supposed that you read it completely).

[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. Currently, the value of having
the smallest uncertainty comes from the comparison of the theoretical
expression ae(theor) and experimental value ae(expt) of the anomalous
magnetic moment of the electron ae. Starting in the 1980's, a new and
wholly different measurement approach using the quantum Hall effect
(QHE) has caused excitement because the value of obtained from it
independently corroborates the value of from the electron magnetic
moment anomaly. The QHE value of does not have as small an
uncertainty as the electron magnetic moment value, but it does provide
a significant independent confirmation of that value. The quantity
alpha was introduced into physics by A. Sommerfeld in 1916 and in the
past has often been referred to as the Sommerfeld fine-structure
constant. In order to explain the observed splitting or fine structure
of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, Sommerfeld extended the
Bohr theory to include elliptical orbits and the relativistic
dependence of mass on 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 and c is the
speed of light in vacuum, appeared naturally in Sommerfeld's analysis
and determined the size of the splitting or fine-structure of the
hydrogenic spectral lines. Sommerfeld's theory had some early success
in explaining experimental observations but could not accommodate the
discovery of electron spin. Although the Dirac relativistic theory of
the electron introduced in 1928 solves the main aspects of the problem
of the hydrogen fine-structure, still determines its size as in the
Sommerfeld theory. Consequently, the name "fine-structure" constant
for the group of constants below has remained:
alpha=e^2/4pi*epsilon0*cross h * c = mu0*c*e^2/2*h, where e is the
elementary charge, cross h = h/2pi where h is the Planck constant,
epsilon0 = 1/µ0c2 is the electric constant (permitivity of vacuum)
and µ0 is the magnetic constant (permeability of vacuum). In the
International System of Units (SI), c, epsilon0 , and µ0 are exactly
known constants.]

The information is not in historic order, and perhaps that confused
you a little if you are not costumed to make wide historic views.
Please, read the following sentence (that is about the middle of the
test):
"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 and c is the
speed of light in vacuum".
And a little ahead:
"Consequently, the name "fine-structure" constant for the group of
constants below has remained:"

And then is written the official definition expression for alpha in
the SI unit system that you showed me in a previous post (and that I
proved you that it is derived from Bohr's model).
Read the history about how the alpha concept developed, reaching today
Feynman coupling factor QED concept. The present never erase
completely the past, as the future can never erase completely the
present. Even if not always easy to understand, I am convinced that
analyzing the past-present relationship is always the best option for
understanding Nature and the development of better models that will
form the future. Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, only steps in the
infinite process of men knowing Nature. The true is an historic
entity. Note how something of each of them will remain forever as
human knowledge.
If you have no
objection then you accepted that \alpha=v1 as a direct consequence of
making c=1 dimensionless (v1 is then a dimensionless velocity, as the
velocity of your bicycle that you computed). But immediately you wrote
again "\alpha is not a velocity" as a direct consequence of making
c=3*10^8 m/s (and you wrote above "\alpha was NEVER a velocity").

Look, you either agree that \alpha is a constant indepedent of
unit systems or you don't. Make up your mind.


---Tim Shuba---

I stated already my position about it. Not only alpha, but ALL in
Nature is independent of men made unit systems, including your bicycle
velocity, that you can express using infinite different men made unit
systems. But I have a preference for the dimensionless number that you
computed, for reasons that only will be clear for you after you
realize that something need to be cleared about this sometimes
confusing topic about unit systems and physical dimensions (as I said
before more than one time, realizing that a problem exist must
precedes the understanding of any proposed solution for it).
As an advanced hint, think about how the c=1 dimensionless assignment
do not destroy the inherent velocity attribute for c. It remains being
a velocity, even if represented by a dimensionless 1! In Nature angles
continue being angles even when you use the dimensionless radian to
measure them!
I am very glad to you for continuing the talking (that I took for
finished).

RVHG

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote:

[...]

I've not heard of this "Planck's unit system", ...

Are you sure? Anyhow, here's good reading:

Lev Okun, Michael Duff, Gabrielle Veneziano,
Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0110/0110060.pdf

Frank Wilczek, Scaling Mount Planck I: A View
from the Bottom:
http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-6/p12.html

M.L.

Dear Mel Lep:

"Mel Lep" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote:

[...]

I've not heard of this "Planck's unit system", ...

Are you sure?

Planck length, and so on... yes. But they still equate to mass, length and
time.

Anyhow, here's good reading:

Lev Okun, Michael Duff, Gabrielle Veneziano,
Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0110/0110060.pdf

Frank Wilczek, Scaling Mount Planck I: A View
from the Bottom:
http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-6/p12.html

First one is really interesting. Second one will need to wait. Good job!

David A. Smith