Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Dimension of fundamental quantities

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2

    Post Dimension of fundamental quantities

    Hi,

    The SI system uses 7 fundamental quantities to express the dimension of all physical quantities. It has long been suspected that this could be eventually reduced to space and time only. Up to now, nobody could prove this to be true ... until now.

    Please read my article about it on http://www.wbabin.net/science/hollo.pdf

    Questions and comments are welcome

    Regards,
    Laurent Hollo

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,720
    Welcome to BAUT Lholho.

    I've approved your post (it was automatically held for moderation due to you being new and the post containing a link) but I also moved it here to the ATM (Against The Mainstream) forum as it seemed more appropriate to your claim.

    If your claims get accepted maybe this'll get moved again...!

    Please do take time to check out our rules and suggestions. http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules...ing-board.html / http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...upporters.html

    Please also note that as BAUT is a discussion forum, posts of the "go read this thing somewhere else" are not really the best - especially: if BAUT members ask questions you'll need to answer them here, not simply give links or pointers to your PDF.

    Cheers,
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,813
    I am pretty sure that you can express any number as

    A=BxCz

    so all that you have in your chart is numerology.

    You can check this in what your calculations say. M has units of velocity to the seventh power? That does not make sense.

    As an aside, You should calculate your LpTp chart by hand, not use a computer or calculator. it should not be that difficult, and would get rid of the off entries

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    39
    Lholho;

    Nice paper.

    "We immediately recognize the speed of light which corresponds to Lp * Tp-1 and is consequently located at position [1, -1], which validates our base formula."
    -------
    I am assuming that you are referring to the speed of light in a vacuum. There will be seriously different values for the speed of light through a medium.

    http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/20...-constant.html

    Light slows down in a medium. Refractive index is quite different for air and water or lead.

    Light changes in the presence of a magnetic field. Zeeman effect

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Lholho View Post
    Hi,

    The SI system uses 7 fundamental quantities to express the dimension of all physical quantities. It has long been suspected that this could be eventually reduced to space and time only. Up to now, nobody could prove this to be true ... until now.

    Please read my article about it on http://www.wbabin.net/science/hollo.pdf

    Questions and comments are welcome

    Regards,
    Laurent Hollo
    It is pretty simple to express time as distance -- see any modern book on relativity. So now using your theory all dimensions can be expressed in terms of space alone. Kids, what is wrong with this picture ?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2

    Post Thanks for commenting

    Hi,

    @everyone,
    Thank you very much for your comments. They are very appreciated.

    @pzkpfw
    Thanks for the welcome. I'll try to explain more than redirect.


    @Korjik
    I agree that you can express any number as A=BxCz as you said, but this does not means that it is meaningless (numerology in your terms). A speed of 10 m/s is a combination of space and time and has a real meaning wich is not related to space neither time. Furthermore, using any other number than the Planck's length and time would not work. The Planck's mass (which is not derived from the Planck's length and time afaik), the Planck's electric charge and all other physical quantities could never appear altogether.
    I did not plug numbers that suited a theory I could have about the structure of matter (I don't). I was basically accepting that [M]=L3T-2 and [G]=1 as Maxwell says, but when I searched, I could not find any demonstration to support it (feel free to provide one without an initial arbitrary assumption). Furthering my researches, I though that by using a matrix whose axis where Plancks length and time, the other Planck values should logically appear on this matrix. Starting by [GMp] which we know for sure to be L3T2 (still dimensionnally valid if I use the Planck's mass), I imediately found it at the right location. This is not numerology, this is elementary mathematics. [GMp] is not there by coincidence, but because I used Planck length and time for the axis and because I used the Planck mass for Mp. It is logical the that GMp must appear on the matrix and it does, see for yourself at:

    http://www.losangeinformatique.com/physics/pic1.jpg
    and
    http://www.losangeinformatique.com/physics/pic2.jpg

    Then, having found GM, I expanded my research and found that [M]=L7T-7. Concerning the fact that it makes sense or not, I can't answer. Again, I have nothing to sell and I did not plug numbers or trick formulas to get these results. I simply multiply space by time (with a multiplicative factor). So everyone can take a calculator and see that Mp=Lp7*Tp-7 * 1e67.
    By consulting the pictures on the provided links, I hope you'll understand why I only used the calculator to verify the first most important results and the overflow values ... Excel is not so bad

    I'm very conscious that I could be wrong. Two main possibilities:
    1) The multiplicative factors are not dimensionless (L4T-5 in the case of mass for example) ...
    2) The Planck values are not the real quantums (doubled or squared or root for example) ...

    I'm sure you can come up with other possibilities of error, but I sincerelly doubt that the basic logic I used is flawed ... although I'd be glad if you explain to me why


    @aguerami
    I'm effectively refering to the speed of light in vacuum (and other quantities like permeability for example).
    Thanks for the very interesting link.


    @DrRocket
    You say "It is pretty simple to express time as distance" ... Could you please be more precise? As for the fact that something is wrong, take a calculator and see for yourself that Mp = Lp7 * Tp-7 * 1e67 ... then if you can point to any flaw, please do



    Regards ,
    Laurent Hollo

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    18
    In your paper you insert a factor of 1e-67 into equation (9) and then claim the value of Mp is numerically 2.1764e-8 m^7 s^-7

    You then assert that since the Planck mass is 2.1764e-8 kg, this shows a correlation allowing the expression of [M] = [L^7 * T^-7], despite the obvious contradiction with standard dimensional analysis.

    This is incorrect.

    Lp^7 * Tp^-7 = 2.17642081e+59 m^7 s^-7

    Mp = 2.1764411e-8 kg

    You have found a coincidence in initial digits, but with a factor error of 1e67 m^7 s^-7 kg^-1. The dimensional analysis fails at this assumption.

    Once this mistake is made, it propagates through the rest of the analysis. The value at [L^-5 T^4] is a consequence of this coincidence and the relationships between Lp, Tp, Mp, and G.

    You are correct that Lp*Tp^-1 = c. This follows naturally from Lp = ((hbar*G)/c^3)^(1/2) and Tp = ((hbar*G)/c^5)^(1/2)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    18
    Addendum: Since Lp*Tp^-1 = c, then Lp^7 * Tp^-7 = c^7 and a more precise value for the figure is achievable, since c is defined in the mks system rather than measured in it. Calculating the value from measured and derived values of Lp and Tp will introduce a small amount of error that will be compounded when raised to the 7th power. Calculating from the defined value of c will produce no such error since c is a defined unit.

    Lp^7 * Tp^-7 = 2.17643108691...e+59 m^7 s^-7

    Mp = 2.17644e-8 kg +/- 0.00011e-8 kg

    So you have found a coincidence. The numerical value of c^7 in mks is very close to 10^67 times larger than the Planck mass in mks.

Similar Threads

  1. Question regarding quantities and units
    By Jeff Root in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-06, 03:32 AM
  2. Questions about types and quantities of stars
    By rsmathers8 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2010-Feb-10, 02:46 AM
  3. Large Quantities of Methane Being Replenished on Mars
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2009-Jan-22, 05:08 PM
  4. Evidence of Vast Quantities of Water Ice on Mars
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-04, 10:48 AM
  5. Discussion: Evidence of Vast Quantities of ...
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2004-Jan-17, 09:51 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: