0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nevertheless, some scientists, including myself, follows in the footsteps of Dirac, searching for a meaning of dimensionless numbers
OK, I am glad that there are so many replies, so thank you again for all those comments.I here try to answer some of them, but one at a time.
The fact that it fails on dimensional analysis is beside the point unless he can explain why something constant is the same as something that's changing.
Could you explain how the Hubble constant can have a frequency and what that frequency is? Thanks.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/03/2022 19:01:16The fact that it fails on dimensional analysis is beside the point unless he can explain why something constant is the same as something that's changing.The fact is that the possible variation of physical constant is a complex and unresolved issue:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-variation_of_fundamental_constantsIf some of them are varying over time, it should be very slowly, because there is no obvious observation supporting this hypothesis. I do not pretend to solve this enigma in my preview, so I am just wondering if some of them could vary.
The fact is that the dimension of a rate is the same as that of a frequency (T-1).
In the case of the Hubble constant, it is expressed as a speed divided by a length so we get [H] = (L T-1) / L = T-1.
It is not a frequency as such, but it is assumed to be the smallest possible value of a physical quantity of dimension T-1.
I am as well, although I've never suggested to anybody that I'm a scientist.
I have a degree in computer sciences from Université Laval and a specialization in computer security from Université de Sherbrooke. This may not be impressive but enough to confirm my scientific background.
It would be much more useful to address the questions about your ideas rather than discussing our educational backgrounds.
That is not correct, the dimensions of the rate in this case is L/t.
What do you mean by, "it is assumed to be the smallest possible value of a physical quantity of dimension T-1"?
My choosing different particles was meant to illustrate the meaninglessness of comparing the one force with another, since they're not functions of the same thing. So there's an insanely large difference between the gravitational and EM attraction between a positron and an electron, yet the gravitational force between a pair of billiard balls is probably more than the EM force between them. So does that mean that gravity is stronger than EM? No, it just means the ratio between them is in different units and is thus a meaningless comparison.
There seems to be something special about the electron-proton couple, as if they were two sides of the same coin. The same thing applies to the positron-antiproton couple. In the chapter 2 of his 1974 paper "Cosmological Models and the Large Numbers Hypothesis", Paul Dirac uses this same ratio:"The electric force between the electron and the proton in a hydrogen atom is e2/r2. The gravitational force between them is Gmp me/r2. Their ratio is the dimensionless number e2/Gmpme. Its value is about 2 x 1039."
This is an assumption of the preview. If there is a minimum value for the physical quantities action, charge and temperature, then maybe some other physical quantities may be minimally limited too.
However, the SI unit of H0 is simply s−1, and the SI unit for the reciprocal of H0 is simply the second.
That's nice, but the bottom line here is treating the Hubble constant like a frequency and multiplying it by Planck's constant is meaningless.
If H is the minimum value for any physical quantity of dimension T-1
That is a mighty big if. This all still just looks numerology with no basis in anything real.
Do you agree with those rules?
Not really, the important point is to show that the equations actually correspond with a physical phenomena.
Quote from: Origin on 22/03/2022 19:47:26Not really, the important point is to show that the equations actually correspond with a physical phenomena.And where does that rule come from?