( edit ) FWIW, My Significant Other has read the previous LPTP thread. "You guys need to get out more ... "
I think your wife has WAAAY too much free time on her hands, I NEVER go back and re-read what we wrote over all that time!! The thread moves forward, as do I.
Now David - no Scooby snacks as Phil so rightly puts it - that was two guesses. As poacher turned gamekeeper I have to be properly hypocritical in this. :-)
Though Newton and Hawking share the same chair, and birthdays very nearly 300 years apart.
[ Speaking of hypocrisy, we are having a state election soon and thus we suffer a tsunami of pretense from all available media. Interestingly an alleged reliable/indifferent/independent pollster has been caught out fudging. The fact they were caught is the interesting bit, not the fudging which is no new news. Normally they are very good at covering their statistical tracks, but a clever high school student spotted the bait and switch ( they'd analysed the replies to one question and then presented that as of another ! ). He'll have a good job very soon after his graduation I hope. I am reminded of an old joke : "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." :-) ]
Now Hint #2 - sometimes what seems to be very little can turn out to be quite a lot.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
In truth it is deeper than that, and this is quite hard to swallow : mass and energy are one and the same thing, traditionally measured by different methods and thus different units, however later found to be different facets of the very same property. It's just that no one has yet come up with, or consensus achieved upon, a single unique word to label that common property. So we are stuck with a language issue :
- call it mass/energy, mass-energy, mass_energy, MassEnergy, massenergy or .
- call it either mass or energy ( implying two separate properties ) but then give an exchange rate for the units ie. c^2 ... now the label depends on circumstance, convenience, audience expectation etc.
- use a system of units where c = 1 ( by assignment or fiat ) then the c^2 is not needed unless you wish to convert in some instance to another system of units where c 1.
A superficial analogy perhaps on how to think about this conundrum : is a zebra black or white ? Depending upon the optics I may choose to view it with I will be able to see, say, the white stripes and yet be totally unaware of any blackness. And vice versa. If have less 'specific' and more 'universal' optics I will see both and aha ! It is actually striped ... :-)
The reason for it being quite hard to grasp is that the true equivalence is not apparent at human scales. It requires all manner of instrumentation to disclose the underlying correspondence. So if we could peer into a nearby supernova then it would be plainly evident, but humans have no direct senses to delineate this realm and also have difficulties with mere survival in that energy regime. Alas we have even invented our own little supernovae to play with and thus have demonstrated that exact point ....
Hence as human physical inquiry over the course of history has developed, we have moved from human scale descriptions with the use of devices, as invented from time to time, that extend our scales of measurement ( to both the big and the small ).
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) An example where c = 1. In relativity there is a very common calculated quantity - it turns up nearly everywhere - which we will call gamma for discussion. It is a unit-less pure number generally written thus :
gamma = SQRT[1 - (v/c)^2]
where v is the magnitude of some velocity vector ie. a speed ( scalar ). Now if c = 1 by choice of units then we have :
gamma = SQRT[1 - v^2]
and so now we understand v to be some fraction of the speed of light ie. ranging from 0.0 through to 1.0 inclusive, although no actual particular particle can go through this entire range. All photons go at v = c = 1.0 in this scheme, whereas the non-zero rest mass ones go at v < 1 .... :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
In truth it is deeper than that, and this is quite hard to swallow : mass and energy are one and the same thing, traditionally measured by different methods and thus different units, however later found to be different facets of the very same property. It's just that no one has yet come up with, or consensus achieved upon, a single unique word to label that common property. So we are stuck with a language issue :
- call it mass/energy, mass-energy, mass_energy, MassEnergy, massenergy or .
- call it either mass or energy ( implying two separate properties ) but then give an exchange rate for the units ie. c^2 ... now the label depends on circumstance, convenience, audience expectation etc.
This one is so easy. You simply call it, It. Stephen King would be so proud.
Now, on to the growing list of Mr. Hewson's scientific transgressions. (Stern look here)
Quote:
- use a system of units where c = 1 ( by assignment or fiat ) then the c^2 is not needed unless you wish to convert in some instance to another system of units where c 1.
c=1? Heresy! People have been burned at the stake for less.
Quote:
A superficial analogy perhaps on how to think about this conundrum : is a zebra black or white ? Depending upon the optics I may choose to view it with I will be able to see, say, the white stripes and yet be totally unaware of any blackness. And vice versa. If have less 'specific' and more 'universal' optics I will see both and aha ! It is actually striped ... :-)
Really? You blew the budget on optics to look at zebras? I will be filing a complaint about this one. Total waste of time and resources. Everybody knows they're pink with green racing stripes. Jeez doc.
Now, on to the growing list of Mr. Hewson's scientific transgressions. (Stern look here)
That is so spooky that you should say that! Word for word what the judge said. I have found some Coroner's comments to be so unfair ... no one has died since last time !
Not Mr Rosen, though he is also a goodie and in fine company. Along with Einstein and Podolski he attempted to blow the Pfoofer Valve on the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics but wound up extending it to .... errr .... uhm .... stuffed if anyone really knows now. Quantum entanglement I think is really professional code for 'our minds are really screwed up thinking about this', rather than a comment on particle behaviours .... :-)
Quote:
People have been burned at the stake for less.
Indeed. Giordano Bruno thought it was a good idea to say that those sparkly things in the night sky might be other Suns, thus might have other Earths near them, with other races on those Earths. Now that is a fine thing to say if you are outside Italy, but then if you wander in to close to a Pope ....
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) Trophy ? What are you Phil ? That kid in Oliver who wanted more gruel ? I'll give you gruel ... stomps off, slams door on way out, [strike]farts[/strike] pfoofs.
[ ... whoops. Did that in the wrong order? Try : slams door, stomps off, hits door in face, pfoofs. No. No. I've got now : pfoofs off, stomps on door, hits face. No. Wait. I've definitely got it now .... stomps pfoof, slams face, hits door.
Hmmmm. Less liquid lunch ? ]
( edit ) Don't worry about c = 1. Just as we've moved on from the average stride of a dead English king to one ten-millionth of the pole to equator span, we now progress to yet another scale. It simplifies all the math writing to miss out on the c^2 all over the place.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: ( edit ) FWIW, My
I think your wife has WAAAY too much free time on her hands, I NEVER go back and re-read what we wrote over all that time!! The thread moves forward, as do I.
Morning team ... :-) Now
Morning team ... :-)
Now David - no Scooby snacks as Phil so rightly puts it - that was two guesses. As poacher turned gamekeeper I have to be properly hypocritical in this. :-)
Though Newton and Hawking share the same chair, and birthdays very nearly 300 years apart.
[ Speaking of hypocrisy, we are having a state election soon and thus we suffer a tsunami of pretense from all available media. Interestingly an alleged reliable/indifferent/independent pollster has been caught out fudging. The fact they were caught is the interesting bit, not the fudging which is no new news. Normally they are very good at covering their statistical tracks, but a clever high school student spotted the bait and switch ( they'd analysed the replies to one question and then presented that as of another ! ). He'll have a good job very soon after his graduation I hope. I am reminded of an old joke : "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." :-) ]
Now Hint #2 - sometimes what seems to be very little can turn out to be quite a lot.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: Morning team ...
Sounds alot like atom busting.
RE: RE: Morning team ...
Aha ! A Scooby snack to Mikey right there ... shall we say a knowledge of E = m*c^2 is an absolute requirement.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: RE: RE: Morning
so " It means it is possible to convert mass into energy and energy into mass."
In truth it is deeper than
In truth it is deeper than that, and this is quite hard to swallow : mass and energy are one and the same thing, traditionally measured by different methods and thus different units, however later found to be different facets of the very same property. It's just that no one has yet come up with, or consensus achieved upon, a single unique word to label that common property. So we are stuck with a language issue :
- call it mass/energy, mass-energy, mass_energy, MassEnergy, massenergy or .
- call it either mass or energy ( implying two separate properties ) but then give an exchange rate for the units ie. c^2 ... now the label depends on circumstance, convenience, audience expectation etc.
- use a system of units where c = 1 ( by assignment or fiat ) then the c^2 is not needed unless you wish to convert in some instance to another system of units where c 1.
A superficial analogy perhaps on how to think about this conundrum : is a zebra black or white ? Depending upon the optics I may choose to view it with I will be able to see, say, the white stripes and yet be totally unaware of any blackness. And vice versa. If have less 'specific' and more 'universal' optics I will see both and aha ! It is actually striped ... :-)
The reason for it being quite hard to grasp is that the true equivalence is not apparent at human scales. It requires all manner of instrumentation to disclose the underlying correspondence. So if we could peer into a nearby supernova then it would be plainly evident, but humans have no direct senses to delineate this realm and also have difficulties with mere survival in that energy regime. Alas we have even invented our own little supernovae to play with and thus have demonstrated that exact point ....
Hence as human physical inquiry over the course of history has developed, we have moved from human scale descriptions with the use of devices, as invented from time to time, that extend our scales of measurement ( to both the big and the small ).
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) An example where c = 1. In relativity there is a very common calculated quantity - it turns up nearly everywhere - which we will call gamma for discussion. It is a unit-less pure number generally written thus :
gamma = SQRT[1 - (v/c)^2]
where v is the magnitude of some velocity vector ie. a speed ( scalar ). Now if c = 1 by choice of units then we have :
gamma = SQRT[1 - v^2]
and so now we understand v to be some fraction of the speed of light ie. ranging from 0.0 through to 1.0 inclusive, although no actual particular particle can go through this entire range. All photons go at v = c = 1.0 in this scheme, whereas the non-zero rest mass ones go at v < 1 .... :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I still wish I knew what the
I still wish I knew what the hell Gravity was ) .....
Off to work here ... I'll have to ponder that later ...
Bill
RE: In truth it is deeper
This one is so easy. You simply call it, It. Stephen King would be so proud.
Now, on to the growing list of Mr. Hewson's scientific transgressions. (Stern look here)
c=1? Heresy! People have been burned at the stake for less.
Really? You blew the budget on optics to look at zebras? I will be filing a complaint about this one. Total waste of time and resources. Everybody knows they're pink with green racing stripes. Jeez doc.
Enough, time to win.
Nathan Rosen.
Can I have some cookies with the trophy?
Phil
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
RE: Now, on to the growing
That is so spooky that you should say that! Word for word what the judge said. I have found some Coroner's comments to be so unfair ... no one has died since last time !
Not Mr Rosen, though he is also a goodie and in fine company. Along with Einstein and Podolski he attempted to blow the Pfoofer Valve on the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics but wound up extending it to .... errr .... uhm .... stuffed if anyone really knows now. Quantum entanglement I think is really professional code for 'our minds are really screwed up thinking about this', rather than a comment on particle behaviours .... :-)
Indeed. Giordano Bruno thought it was a good idea to say that those sparkly things in the night sky might be other Suns, thus might have other Earths near them, with other races on those Earths. Now that is a fine thing to say if you are outside Italy, but then if you wander in to close to a Pope ....
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) Trophy ? What are you Phil ? That kid in Oliver who wanted more gruel ? I'll give you gruel ... stomps off, slams door on way out, [strike]farts[/strike] pfoofs.
[ ... whoops. Did that in the wrong order? Try : slams door, stomps off, hits door in face, pfoofs. No. No. I've got now : pfoofs off, stomps on door, hits face. No. Wait. I've definitely got it now .... stomps pfoof, slams face, hits door.
Hmmmm. Less liquid lunch ? ]
( edit ) Don't worry about c = 1. Just as we've moved on from the average stride of a dead English king to one ten-millionth of the pole to equator span, we now progress to yet another scale. It simplifies all the math writing to miss out on the c^2 all over the place.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I'm attracted to the idea of
I'm attracted to the idea of Edward Norton Lorenz.
Richard