You stated the UP was dependent upon the mass of the particle, that if something was moving quickly then the UP didn't apply and you related this to rest mass. That isn't true, the UP applies to electrons moving slowly, electrons moving quickly and to photons too. It was a famous thought experiment discussed by Bohr and Einstein to consider a timing device which emitted a photon in a precise way, as one attempted to convince the other the UP could be evaded (he was wrong). Hmmm... Are we referring to the Einstein-Bohr debates, where Bohr was asked to justify his relationship stating \(\Delta E \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}\)? Hmmm... let us go by this another way then. How does relativity make sense, if you apply a photon to the UP? As far as I understand relativity, photons follow null geodesics, so they cannot even be moving in space. Plus, the fact the speed of a photon never slows down, then how can you measure the uncertainty in position, for the uncertainty can only remain constant, if there is any.
Actually, R is the radius of curvature, so that is no indifferent to saying ''curvature of space-time at a location'' - in this sense, Motz defined himself.
You can still consider the space-time curvature it produces at any given moment. Photons have energy and momentum. These contribute to the energy-momentum tensor. By the Einstein field equations this contributes to space-time warping. The particle doesn't need to stop to induce such things. Similarly you don't need to stop a photon to ask "What is its energy and/or momentum?", they are well defined quantities in relativity. To measure them you don't need to stop the photon, that's what the Bohr/Einstein thought experiment I mentioned talked about. A photon is emitted out of a box whose window/door is controlled by a timer. By weighing the box and looking at the timer Einstein initially claimed you could calculate the energy of the photon and the time it was emitted, contradicting the UP since E and t are conjugate. Bohr pointed out the emission causes a recoil due to momentum conservation which induces an uncertainty in the time due to motion, thus ensuring the UP is still valid. As previously said, you are further showing you don't understand what the UP is and what it's actually about. Heck, you don't even seem to understand how some things in physics can be measured! This is further reenforced by a later post of yours : Firstly, you ask that question about x and p yet you just stated a different UP relation. Even if your question held merit, which it doesn't, it wouldn't negate the fact E and t can form an UP relation. Secondly, the reason your question is flawed is because x doesn't mean "The particle is stopped and you want to know where it is" but "At that moment in time the particle was there.". 'At rest' is a frame dependent concept anyway, so a particle which is at rest in one frame is moving in another yet the UP applies in each. For example, the classic example is to measure the position and momentum of a moving electron. To 'detect' an electron you bound a photon off it and detect the photon using some photographic film or device. The problem is that the accuracy of your determination of the position is only up to 1/2 the wavelength of the photon you used. So by making the wavelength smaller you get a better position reading but in doing that you're hitting the electron with a larger amount of momentum so you're less able to measure the momentum of the electron accurately. A better reading in one makes the reading in the other worse and no matter what you do there's a limit to the uncertainty, relating to \(\hbar\). Similar scattering principles apply to the photon, it's just less convenient to work with. These are standard things covered in QM courses. When the UP is explained in physics books they give examples of how it's tested. The mathematical formalism in terms of operator expectation values for wavefunctions also nullifies your complaints. If you knew the details you'd not be asking what you're asking. You don't know and you know you don't know but for some reason you pretend to know and try to ask questions in an attempt to say "Ah ha! Told you I know!" but it always blows up in your face. Anyway, returning to the previous post.... I have absolutely no reason to think you understood what I said. You were only just putting forth Motz as a justification for your claims and saying I'm wrong and now you've turned around. If you understand this stuff and you read the paper why didn't you spot this yourself? You complained I didn't read the papers you 'assigned' but now it seems either you haven't read them or you haven't understood them. Given c, G and \(\hbar\) you can construct the unique quantity with units of mass, ie the Planck mass. That isn't anything new or something he did first. Furthermore, you repeatedly said \(\sqrt{GM}\) but Motz actually says \(\sqrt{G}M\), which is different. He gets that from taking the square root of the numerator of the Newtonian gravity force. This completely invalidates your initial post, where you repeatedly reformulated the expression \(\sqrt{GM}\), not \(\sqrt{G}M\). Furthermore, the whole \(\sqrt{G}M\) is referring to a different M because he uses that factorisation in the generic Newtonian expression, not a specific case for the Planck mass. He uses M for generic mass and m for Planck mass so if the quantisation were true then M is some integer multiple of m. I'm well aware what R is in this context. I'm more than a little familiar with space-time curvature in quantum field theoretic constructs. However, Motz didn't say that about R. He did say that the space-time interval determines the geometry and thus the curvature but Motz's specific phrase is "R must be the square root of the space-time interval". That is false. R can be the square root of a coefficient in the space-time interval, as is the case in compactifications or many cosmology models but it is not the square root of the space-time interval. Again, you show you don't understand what is being said, by Motz or myself, you try to correct me but all you do is jam your foot in your mouth. This isn't some obscure mathematical result, it's basic meaning of terms, and despite you professing you understand it you don't show it. Knock yourself out, you're the one plugging him.
My math skills were better years ago. Now I am more into conceptual modelling. This type of modelling makes sure the premises used by the math make logical sense, since it is possible to use math as a medium for science art. Math art may be why we can have so many alternative, that make sense ,even though reality may not contain that much variety; art and science looking alike. The most stable particle that can participate in all four forces of nature is the proton. It can participate in gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force, and the EM force all at the same time. This means that the proton could theoretically participate in a unified force since it has it fingers in all pies. The electron is more limited in his force participation. This suggests the proton formed from the unified force, with electrons coming a little later as force became better differentiated. Instead of pairs, this data suggests one after the other. What this brings to the table is, could the formation of protons from the unified force create enough positive charge repulsion to overcome the gravitational attraction, allowing the universe to expand?
I can't find one source. I even went as deep as schwartszchild radius relations, I could not figure out how motz derives his relationship.
Then might I suggest you be a little less fervent in your "Read the papers I've linked to!" and "I'm right, you're wrong, this paper says so!". Not only did the paper not say so, what it does say is a mixture of unjustified, incorrect and undeveloped. If you understood what you claim to then you'd have seen that. Instead you played buzzword bingo and fell on your face. Might as well start a new BS thread there Reiku, this one is done.
I know, and you know, fine well, that if you read the paper for the gravitational charge (the square of GM) then you know and I know you would not have asked me what you did. Secondly, I never boasted being right. You have boasted about people being wrong.
You are right though. The actual expression is \(\sqrt{G}M\). I blame the bad text the paper is written in. I still can't distinguish this form, and the one I first mentioned just by reading the expression on the paper.
You still don't get it. I'm not questioning whether a paper says something or a professor understands this stuff, I'm questioning whether you understand it. For instance, I know precisely what you're referring to when you mention things about mass, oscillations and potentials but I don't believe you do. My questions were an attempt to see if you did. If you really did then you should have had no problem engaging me in discussion on them. Personally I think that whole area is quite interesting and a discussion with someone knowledgeable on the subject would be enjoyable. But instead you made excuses and said for me to go read something, utterly missing the point. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2799070&postcount=55 http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2798154&postcount=45 http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2799070&postcount=56 http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2797984&postcount=36 Need I provide more? Then you either didn't read Motz's paper or your mathematical abilities are so poor you can't understand equations which are taught to 16 year olds in school. On page 3 of his paper he factorises the numerator in the Newtonian gravity expression, \(F = \frac{\sqrt{G}M \, \sqrt{G}M}{r^{2}}\). It couldn't possibly be \(\sqrt{GM}\), it wouldn't give you the Newtonian gravity formula. This is the problem with your way of BS'ing. You have to spin so much nonsense you get caught up easily. You spew too much nonsense, profess to understand too many things and when you inevitably have to make excuses for obvious mistakes you've made you end up contradicting yourself further. Surely you've learnt that by now, you've had it happen to you so many times. Any rational person* would realise to wind their BS in a little, to make the lies less broad and general but you seem to increase the breadth of your lies as the years pass. * a rational person wouldn't be the compulsive liar you are.
You mistake elaboration for frustration. I always have a tendency to type lengthy posts, be it responding to someone like rpenner or someone like you. And your attempt to avoid facing up to your mistakes, your glaring and obvious mistakes, doesn't do you any favours. It's obvious to anyone who understands basic algebra that the paper is saying \(\sqrt{G}\,M\) and not \(\sqrt{GM}\). Equations don't make sense if you use the latter and not the former, yet your excuse is you couldn't tell from the typographic layout. It's a laughable excuse. That isn't me being frustrated or worked up (I've only been awake about 10 minutes, I'm barely functional), it's a simple statement of fact. If you think your excuse is not laughably transparent then you're naive. Are you going to admit your excuse doesn't work? Or are you going to continue with the self denial?
Listen to yourself. I know what \(\sqrt{G}\,M\) - I never said I didn't understand this. I said you were right. I must have bad eyesight though, because the paper this is extracted from does not read any simpler even after it is pointed out. As I said, I blame the bad text it is written in.
