137 standing waves and the golden ratio

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard
Please read my previous post about Wolfgang Pauli.
It should tie up some loose ends in our discussion.
thanks
Rick

I read enough of it to realize it wasn't worth reading.

Why do you post such things? It seems pretty clear you could not tell me what the fine structure constant is really all about in terms of legitimate quantum physics. It seems silly to be wasting time reading cranks when you haven't put in the time or effort to learn the authentic physics.

[rdelmonico]

I read enough of it to realize it wasn't worth reading.

Why do you post such things? It seems pretty clear you could not tell me what the fine structure constant is really all about in terms of legitimate quantum physics. It seems silly to be wasting time reading cranks when you haven't put in the time or effort to learn the authentic physics.

I feel like I'm being attacked here!!!

Are you telling me I am supposed to understand this?
The physicist Max Born declared, “... the explanation of this number must be the central problem of natural philosophy.” [2]. As the fine-structure constant determines the electromagnetic strength its theoretical origin was for Pauli “... the most important of the unsolved problems of ... physics.”

If we look at an object or a mystery from 1 or 2 angles, we will not see very much.
I am trying to look at this stuff from every angle.

If you look up Pauli's world clock, you should notice that it is strangely similar to the description of Ezekiels wheel.
We do not share the same interest or the same approach.

If alpha [the fine structure constant] were bigger than it really is, we should not be able to distinguish matter from ether [the vacuum, nothingness], and our task to disentangle the natural laws would be hopelessly difficult. The fact however that alpha has just its value 1/137 is certainly no chance but itself a law of nature. It is clear that the explanation of this number must be the central problem of natural philosophy.

I for one am weary of arguing and will not continue in this endeavor.

best regards
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I feel like I'm being attacked here!!!

Are you telling me I am supposed to understand this?
The physicist Max Born declared, “... the explanation of this number must be the central problem of natural philosophy.” [2]. As the fine-structure constant determines the electromagnetic strength its theoretical origin was for Pauli “... the most important of the unsolved problems of ... physics.”

Hey there Rick,

I'm really sorry you felt "attacked". That was not my intent at all. I was merely pointing out that it is silly to be looking for truth in the out fringe of physics if you don't understand main and plain things because you simply won't have the ability to discern between truth, falsehood, and absurdity.

It's funny that you ask if you are supposed to understand the stuff you are posting. The answer is "yes" - or at least the underlying physics. If you don't understand it at all, how is different than posting something in Chinese?

If we look at an object or a mystery from 1 or 2 angles, we will not see very much.
I am trying to look at this stuff from every angle.

There is not enough time in life to "look at this stuff from every angle." You have to make a choice of what you are going to post. You have chosen to post stuff from the fringe that is not well founded in reality. Stuff that cranks make up without any real understanding. What questions are you trying to answer? I can't tell from what you are posting.

If you look up Pauli's world clock, you should notice that it is strangely similar to the description of Ezekiels wheel.
We do not share the same interest or the same approach.

If that were your point, then you should have quoted a snippet and focused on that. There's no way anyone could have guessed that is what you were thinking of by combing through that long and confused article you posted. It's not helpful at all to copy/paste long articles from other sites. You lose the formatting so they are hard to read, and no one knows what part you think is significant so it doesn't open up any conversation.

If alpha [the fine structure constant] were bigger than it really is, we should not be able to distinguish matter from ether [the vacuum, nothingness], and our task to disentangle the natural laws would be hopelessly difficult. The fact however that alpha has just its value 1/137 is certainly no chance but itself a law of nature. It is clear that the explanation of this number must be the central problem of natural philosophy.

If it were bigger? How much bigger? How do you know if your comment is true? And as it turns out, your comment is obviously false because the number is not actually 1/137. So it most certainly "can" be different than 1/137 because it is! The number 1/137 is just an approximation. Why do you treat it as if it were exact?

Questions about the fundamental laws are fascinating, but the article you posted is pure quackery. Sorry, that's just the way it is, and you would know it if you understood basic physics. This was my point - I was not trying to attack you in any way at all. I was trying to help you avoid wasting your time on quackery.

I for one am weary of arguing and will not continue in this endeavor.

Well that would be unfortunate. Don't you see the value of evaluating the claims people make? I thought you were looking for truth! Now I get the impression you don't really care about truth so much as some sort of mystical woo-woo masquerading as physics, and you get upset if someone exposes it for what it is. Oh well....

All the best,

Richard

[rdelmonico]

I have the capacity to discern critical or fringe information.
My IQ is around 150.

I am an auditory learner, my strengths are not in the visual realm.
I would have to spend more time that you did learning calculus.

It would be wiser for me to simply run something past you, then you could point the way.

Here is what I see:
I am a sojourner, I am compelled to take this journey.

You are guarding a fort along my path.
I call up to you:
Hey, from your vantage point, you must be able to see for a long way, how does the path beyond here look?
You reply: why are you trudging through the brambles?
Why don't you help me guard this fort?

I reply I'm looking for something, I;m not sure exactly what it is, but I know it is not a fort.
You reply, your wasting your time.

But I know I must do this, each man has to settle this question in their own mind.
I am not ready to stake out a piece of ground and defend it, until I have a reason to.

I am quite able to choose my path. I am on this path for good reason.
There must be balance. It is my job to discern what is or isn't a balanced approach.

The articles I post give clues to other articles and so I read the entire thing and can find the name or phrase that will give me something else to look into.
They are like stepping stones. Some are like trip hazards, but I see that.
best regards
Rick

[Nosidedison]

I have the capacity to discern critical or fringe information.
My IQ is around 150.

I am an auditory learner, my strengths are not in the visual realm.
I would have to spend more time that you did learning calculus.

It would be wiser for me to simply run something past you, then you could point the way.

Here is what I see:
I am a sojourner, I am compelled to take this journey.

You are guarding a fort along my path.
I call up to you:
Hey, from your vantage point, you must be able to see for a long way, how does the path beyond here look?
You reply: why are you trudging through the brambles?
Why don't you help me guard this fort?

I reply I'm looking for something, I;m not sure exactly what it is, but I know it is not a fort.
You reply, your wasting your time.

But I know I must do this, each man has to settle this question in their own mind.
I am not ready to stake out a piece of ground and defend it, until I have a reason to.

I am quite able to choose my path. I am on this path for good reason.
There must be balance. It is my job to discern what is or isn't a balanced approach.

The articles I post give clues to other articles and so I read the entire thing and can find the name or phrase that will give me something else to look into.
They are like stepping stones. Some are like trip hazards, but I see that.
best regards
Rick

[Nosidedison]

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. ~ Niels Bohr

...the "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality "ought to be."
Richard Feynman, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol III, p. 18-9 (1965)

Quantum theory was split up into dialects. Different people describe the same experiences in remarkably different languages. This is confusing even to physicists.
David Finkelstein, in Physical Process and Physical Law, in an edition by Timothy E. Eastman, Hank Keeton (2004). Physics and Whitehead: quantum, process, and experience. SUNY Press. p. 181. ISBN 0791459136.

It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct.
Michio Kaku, in Hyperspace (1995), p. 263