RVHG wrote:

[snip quoted info from http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html ]

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:"

The text clearly states that \alpha is "equal to the ratio" of
two velocities, and is "of dimension 1 (i.e., it is
simply a number) and very nearly equal to 1/137."

There is nothing confusing about it, and as I said, \alpha is not
defined as velocity on that page.

[..]

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

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.

I gave two different numerical values for that velocity, and I
can easily do so for any other velocity. The question is, do you
think that \alpha can also be given two different values by
redefining units? If so, you clearly disagree with the
reference. If not, \alpha cannot be a velocity.

[..]

I am very glad to you for continuing the talking (that I took for
finished).

I'm just not going to spend much time on your other comments and
questions (all of which I have read carefully), until we can
establish what is your fundamental disagreement with the
references already provided.


---Tim Shuba---

shuba wrote in message ...
RVHG wrote:

[snip quoted info from http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html ]

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:"

The text clearly states that \alpha is "equal to the ratio" of
two velocities, and is "of dimension 1 (i.e., it is
simply a number) and very nearly equal to 1/137."

There is nothing confusing about it, and as I said, \alpha is not
defined as velocity on that page.

I put c=1 dimensionless (converting alpha=v1/c in alpha=v1, you can
erase a dimensionless 1 from any formula) and asked for any objection,
and you wrote "no objection". Maybe this was not a convenient answer
from your side. If you are claiming that "a ratio of two velocities is
not a velocity", "alpha is not a velocity", "alpha was never a
velocity", how can now you accept so easily the c=1 dimensionless
assignment that converts alpha directly in v1 (a velocity)?
[..]

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

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.

I gave two different numerical values for that velocity, and I
can easily do so for any other velocity. The question is, do you
think that \alpha can also be given two different values by
redefining units? If so, you clearly disagree with the
reference. If not, \alpha cannot be a velocity.

I agree with you, you can give two different values (indeed, infinite
ones) to ANY velocity, including v1 (or your bicycle one).
I accept that alpha has the unique value ~1/137, independent of all
men made unit systems. Then, I do not disagree with the reference. In
that case you must change your last sentence by "If yes, \alpha can be
a velocity". Using your own phrases "Make up your mind". If you remain
thinking that "\alpha cannot be a velocity", then you are the one that
"clearly disagree with the reference".

[..]

I am very glad to you for continuing the talking (that I took for
finished).

I'm just not going to spend much time on your other comments and
questions (all of which I have read carefully), until we can
establish what is your fundamental disagreement with the
references already provided.

I have not any "fundamental disagreement" with any of the references
we had managed. I only said that they are not sufficient to understand
properly the dimension problem in the context of men made unit
systems. I introduced the "alpha case" only as an example to
illustrate the problem. I claim that all "dimensions" and "units" in
all men made unit system are completely arbitrary and without any real
physical meaning. I stated many historic facts to support this
position. That alpha can be a velocity was only one of them. A
velocity continues being a velocity even if you choose a dimensionless
unit to measure it. ANY physical magnitude (electrical permitivity,
angle or any other) does not lost its intrinsic physical meaning when
measured with a dimensionless unit.
Read the following reference and I am completely sure that you will be
convinced about the today insufficient knowledge about dimensions in
unit systems and their physical meaning.

Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0110/0110060.pdf

Three high level physicists discussing for years in the topic and
still without any agreement!
I took the reference from a neighbor in this thread (Mel Lep) that
answered another one (David A. Smith) that took the "objection"
alternative to my question when I made the c=1 dimensionless
assignment.
I can advance you that from the three physicists, Michael J. Duff is
the one I feel more near to my position, sharing with it the believing
in the non-existence of any dimensionful constants that can be chosen
as fundamentals or basics ones (the zero option). But we are still
very far apart. I do not share with it his conviction in the existence
of dimensionless constants with that basic character (alpha is
included here!). I have not basic or derived entities in my
conception, and all are dimensionless!
I will return to my RV axiom in the case you wanted it. I guess you
will be prepared for understanding it just after the reading of Mel
Lep's excellent reference.

---Tim Shuba---

RVHG

RVHG wrote:

[..]

I agree with you, you can give two different values (indeed, infinite
ones) to ANY velocity, including v1 (or your bicycle one).
I accept that alpha has the unique value ~1/137, independent of all
men made unit systems. Then, I do not disagree with the reference. In
that case you must change your last sentence by "If yes, \alpha can be
a velocity".

This is basic logic.

premise one:
If xyz is a velocity, then xyz can have at least two values.

premise two:
If xyz is /alpha, then xyz has only one value.

conclusion:
Therefore, /alpha is not a velocity.

I have not any "fundamental disagreement" with any of the references
we had managed.

Then you must have a disagreement with basic logic, or you can
tell me where I have incorrectly stated the premises.

[..]

I agree with you that the article to which Mel Lep provided a
link is an interesting one, and I would like to talk about it,
but it goes beyond the issue I want to first clear up.

By the way, for Mel's information or for anyone else who cares,
it is unstandard and somewhat rude to provide a direct link to an
arXiv submission in a particular file format. The proper URL for
an arXiv reference is to the abstract, in this case:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060


---Tim Shuba---

shuba wrote:

[...]
I agree with you that the article to which Mel Lep provided a
link is an interesting one, and I would like to talk about it,
but it goes beyond the issue I want to first clear up.

By the way, for Mel's information or for anyone else who cares,
it is unstandard and somewhat rude to provide a direct link to an
arXiv submission in a particular file format. The proper URL for
an arXiv reference is to the abstract, in this case:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060

OK, thanks. I will try to follow your advice.

M.L.

shuba wrote in message ...
RVHG wrote:

[..]

I agree with you, you can give two different values (indeed, infinite
ones) to ANY velocity, including v1 (or your bicycle one).
I accept that alpha has the unique value ~1/137, independent of all
men made unit systems. Then, I do not disagree with the reference. In
that case you must change your last sentence by "If yes, \alpha can be
a velocity".

This is basic logic.

premise one:
If xyz is a velocity, then xyz can have at least two values.

You had confirmed already in the NIST reference that v1 is the
electron first orbit velocity in the Bohr's model. I do not understand
why you introduced the "xyz". We can put your premeise one in the
following form:
Premise one:
If v1 is a velocity, then v1 can have at least two values.
We are in agreement in this point. Indeed, many different values that
correspond to many different unit systems, including the Relativistic
Unit System where the c=1 dimensionless assignment is done and v1 has
a dimensionless value (among the others dimensionful ones).
premise two:
If xyz is /alpha, then xyz has only one value.
Premise two:
If v1 is \alpha, then v1 has only one value.
In my opinion you introduced an error here. v1 is not simply \alpha,
\alpha is only one of the many values of v1, its dimensionless value
in a unit system where the c=1 dimensionless assignment is done.

conclusion:
Therefore, /alpha is not a velocity.

A wrong conclusion, consequence of your cited wrong identification of
a velocity with only one of its possible values in different unit
systems.
The right conclusion:
Alpha is the dimensionless value for the velocity v1 in one specific
unit system.
I have not any "fundamental disagreement" with any of the references
we had managed.

Then you must have a disagreement with basic logic, or you can
tell me where I have incorrectly stated the premises.

I followed the second alternative.
[..]

I agree with you that the article to which Mel Lep provided a
link is an interesting one, and I would like to talk about it,
but it goes beyond the issue I want to first clear up.

If you consider the issue already cleared, I remain thinking that the
reading of the article will be very convenient for our future talking
(at least the abstracts and the conclusions for the three parts in a
first look).
By the way, for Mel's information or for anyone else who cares,
it is unstandard and somewhat rude to provide a direct link to an
arXiv submission in a particular file format. The proper URL for
an arXiv reference is to the abstract, in this case:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060

I agree with you. Mel put already the appropriate note in this thread.
Thank you for your more useful reference.

---Tim Shuba---

RVHG

RVHG wrote:

shuba wrote in message

This is basic logic.

premise one:
If xyz is a velocity, then xyz can have at least two values.

I do not understand
why you introduced the "xyz".

I'll redo it below without the variable.

premise two:
If xyz is /alpha, then xyz has only one value.

[..]

Notice there is no v1 in this premise. You earlier said: "I
accept that alpha has the unique value ~1/137". In light of
that, how can you disagree with premise two? Don't rewrite it to
make it say something it doesn't. Since you don't understand the
variable xyz, I'll rewrite the logic without it.

premise one:
All velocities can have at least two values.

premise two:
\alpha has a unique value.

conclusion:
\alpha is not a velocity.


---Tim Shuba---

shuba wrote in message ...
RVHG wrote:

shuba wrote in message

This is basic logic.

premise one:
If xyz is a velocity, then xyz can have at least two values.

I do not understand
why you introduced the "xyz".

I'll redo it below without the variable.

premise two:
If xyz is /alpha, then xyz has only one value.

[..]

Notice there is no v1 in this premise. You earlier said: "I
accept that alpha has the unique value ~1/137". In light of
that, how can you disagree with premise two? Don't rewrite it to
make it say something it doesn't. Since you don't understand the
variable xyz, I'll rewrite the logic without it.

premise one:
All velocities can have at least two values.

premise two:
\alpha has a unique value.

conclusion:
\alpha is not a velocity.


---Tim Shuba---

xxein: What is a value?

shuba wrote in message ...
RVHG wrote:

shuba wrote in message

(I do not see in the thread my last post on 26-Oct-2004, but you seem
had received it by the context. I will repeat here some essential part
of it)
[You had confirmed already in the NIST reference that v1 is the
electron first orbit velocity in the Bohr's model. I do not understand
why you introduced the "xyz". We can put your premise one in the
following form:
Premise one:
If v1 is a velocity, then v1 can have at least two values.
We are in agreement in this point. Indeed, many different values that
correspond to many different unit systems, including the Relativistic
Unit System where the c=1 dimensionless assignment is done and v1 has
a dimensionless value (among the others dimensionful ones).
premise two:
If xyz is /alpha, then xyz has only one value.
Premise two:
If v1 is \alpha, then v1 has only one value.
In my opinion you introduced an error here. v1 is not simply \alpha,
\alpha is only one of the many values of v1, its dimensionless value
in a unit system where the c=1 dimensionless assignment is done.

conclusion:
Therefore, /alpha is not a velocity.

A wrong conclusion, consequence of your cited wrong identification of
a velocity with only one of its possible values in different unit
systems.
The right conclusion:
Alpha is the dimensionless value for the velocity v1 in one specific
unit system.]
This is basic logic.

premise one:
If xyz is a velocity, then xyz can have at least two values.

I do not understand
why you introduced the "xyz".

I'll redo it below without the variable.

premise two:
If xyz is /alpha, then xyz has only one value.

Why do you replace v1 with xyz? Maybe because the NIST reference state
explicitly that alpha=v1/c, being v1 the first orbit electron velocity
in the Bohr's model? You cannot avoid the direct derivation alpha=v1
when the c=1 dimensionless assignment is done, no matter how many
Aristotelian logic derivations can you make.
[..]

Notice there is no v1 in this premise. You earlier said: "I
accept that alpha has the unique value ~1/137". In light of
that, how can you disagree with premise two? Don't rewrite it to
make it say something it doesn't. Since you don't understand the
variable xyz, I'll rewrite the logic without it.

When I wrote "I accept that alpha has the unique value ~1/137" I was
not using the rigor that your Aristotelian logic deductions forced me
now to use.
premise one:
All velocities can have at least two values.

premise two:
\alpha has a unique value.

Alpha does not have a value, it is a value (for the velocity v1) in
itself. See a little ahead.
conclusion:
\alpha is not a velocity.

Yes, alpha is not simply a velocity, it is a dimensionless value for a
velocity in some particular unit system. Your conclusion that alpha is
not a velocity can be supported only if you accept that a value for
some quantity of a physical magnitude (using some particular unit
system) is something different from the physical quantity in itself.
This is not common practice among physicists. You find constantly an
equation sign (=) between a physical quantity and some of its value in
some unit system. In rigor, alpha does not has a value (unique or not,
putting down your premise two), it is a value (the dimensionless
~1/137), that corresponds to the v1 velocity measured in c=1
dimensionless units.

v1: first orbit electron velocity in Bohr's model (took from NIST
reference)
equation one (also took from NIST reference):
alpha=v1/c
equation two (accepted by you):
c=1 dimensionless
Substituting two in one:
Alpha=v1
Alpha is the value for v1 in a unit system where velocity is a
dimensionless entity as a consequence of the c=1 dimensionless
assignment.

I hope we will discuss about the =1 dimensionless assignments in some
near moment. This is for me the core of the topic we are addressing.


---Tim Shuba---

RVHG

RVHG wrote:

When I wrote "I accept that alpha has the unique value ~1/137" I was
not using the rigor that your Aristotelian logic deductions forced me
now to use.

Okay, then you disagree with both the Baez and NIST references I
gave. Why did you say that you agree with them?

Alpha does not have a value

Baez: "it's dimensionless, and experiments show that it's about
1/137.03599"
NIST: "is of dimension 1 (i.e., it is simply a number) and very
nearly equal to 1/137."


---Tim Shuba---

shuba wrote in message ...
RVHG wrote:

When I wrote "I accept that alpha has the unique value ~1/137" I was
not using the rigor that your Aristotelian logic deductions forced me
now to use.

Okay, then you disagree with both the Baez and NIST references I
gave. Why did you say that you agree with them?

When I am adjusting now my old phrase to the logic rigor you demand
now, I only substitute "alpha has the unique value ~1/137" by "alpha
is the value ~1/137 for v1 in a unit system where c=1 dimensionless".
The unique attribute for the value ~1/137 is not changed, as you seem
had interpreted in your out of context handling. I remain in agreement
with Baez and NIST. A value for ANY constant quantity of ANY physical
magnitude measured in ANY unit system has only one number associated
with it, being that physical magnitude dimensionless or not in that
unit system.
Alpha does not have a value

Baez: "it's dimensionless, and experiments show that it's about
1/137.03599"
NIST: "is of dimension 1 (i.e., it is simply a number) and very
nearly equal to 1/137."

You take a phrase again out of context. I said that "alpha does not
have a value" only to immediately say that "alpha is a value", a
distinction necessary to show you why your logic deduction were not
valid. V1 has the dimensionless value alpha (in unit systems with the
c=1 dimensionless assignment), that can be measured in physical
experiments.
As I said already many posts ago, you do not understand that a
velocity (or any other physical magnitude) continue being a velocity
(or an angle in another example), no matter if it is measured with a
dimensionless unit or not.
The natural constant c (or any other one) does not lost its physical
meaning, being a velocity in this case, after a "=1 dimensionless
assignment". I am really avid to discuss this in all detail with you.

---Tim Shuba---

RVHG