Lester Zick wrote:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:09:02 -0600, Evgenij Barsukov
<evgenij_b_hate_spam@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:

Anyway, more important is here to express my disapointment that I have
not seen the breaktrough I expected. I expected to see elimination
of Plank constant (e.g. expressing it through other fundamental
constants, reduction of the fundamental constants set).

You don't see the reduction of Planck's constant h=m0cc as the
expression of it in terms of more fundamental constants? I wish I
understood what kind of reduction you could have in mind.

It is quite simple - you have to express this fundamental constant
in terms of _already existing_ fundamental constants. Introducing
a new fundamental constant m0 derived from this one does not eliminate
a fundamental constant, but just replaces one with another. "Reduction"
does just what is sounds like - the total list of fundamental constants
get shorter by 1.

Okay. I understand what you mean. However I do explain the origin
of Planck's constant analytically which is all I ever really claimed.
What we have are particle spin properties all of which reduce one way
or another to Planck's constant regardless of particle size. This is
an anomaly for conventional interpretations of angular mechanics where
particles rotating at constant velocity should have different values
of action. So I think we have to recognize a fundamental flaw in
conventional approaches to and interpretations of angular mechanics.

In other words we can't really reconcile all these properties of
particle mechanics such as action, angular momentum, particle mass
and energy without revising our concept of angular mechanics to begin
with. The only issue is whether Planck's constant is really constant
and whether there really is transverse acceleration and transverse
velocity present in rotational motion as indicated by the presence of
centripetal force and the definite infinitessimal integral between 0
and dt of that acceleration. If both these considerations are true and
particle boundaries rotate at any constant speed such as the speed of
light then m0 has to be there and be what rotates. At least I can see
no plausible mechanical alternative.

It's not as if I'm making this up out of whole cloth. It's true that
Planck's constant has always been considered an irreducible, residual
constant in mechanical terms. We just can't reconcile it mechanically
with spin characteristics for particles of various sizes and energies
if we assume a constant speed of rotation. So I consider the case for
m0 compelling whether or not it fits conventional interpretations of
fundamental constants and scientific reductions. Personally I see but
can't prove m0 and c as the only fundamental constants and Planck's
constant as a composite reflecting the definite integral of m0 over
the radius of rotation. At least I know of no convincing alternative.

Sorry to jump in like this after months of absence, but would
string theory help resolve anything here? The fact that, in string
theory, energy has access to dimensions outside of our 4-D space-time
might offer some geometric reason for the above. You mention spin, and
angular momentum and C as factors, I was just wondering if the extra
"play-space" offered by string theory might lend a basis for these laws
of motion with respect to energy. Actually, I'm hoping that, by
stepping outside the box of 4-D space-time might afford a different way
of looking at the problem; you know how strongly I dislike "the
proverbial box". ;-)

Lester Zick wrote:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:09:02 -0600, Evgenij Barsukov
<evgenij_b_hate_spam@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:

Anyway, more important is here to express my disapointment that I have
not seen the breaktrough I expected. I expected to see elimination
of Plank constant (e.g. expressing it through other fundamental
constants, reduction of the fundamental constants set).

You don't see the reduction of Planck's constant h=m0cc as the
expression of it in terms of more fundamental constants? I wish I
understood what kind of reduction you could have in mind.

It is quite simple - you have to express this fundamental constant
in terms of _already existing_ fundamental constants. Introducing
a new fundamental constant m0 derived from this one does not eliminate
a fundamental constant, but just replaces one with another. "Reduction"
does just what is sounds like - the total list of fundamental constants
get shorter by 1.

Okay. I understand what you mean. However I do explain the origin
of Planck's constant analytically which is all I ever really claimed.
What we have are particle spin properties all of which reduce one way
or another to Planck's constant regardless of particle size. This is
an anomaly for conventional interpretations of angular mechanics where
particles rotating at constant velocity should have different values
of action. So I think we have to recognize a fundamental flaw in
conventional approaches to and interpretations of angular mechanics.

In other words we can't really reconcile all these properties of
particle mechanics such as action, angular momentum, particle mass
and energy without revising our concept of angular mechanics to begin
with. The only issue is whether Planck's constant is really constant
and whether there really is transverse acceleration and transverse
velocity present in rotational motion as indicated by the presence of
centripetal force and the definite infinitessimal integral between 0
and dt of that acceleration. If both these considerations are true and
particle boundaries rotate at any constant speed such as the speed of
light then m0 has to be there and be what rotates. At least I can see
no plausible mechanical alternative.

It's not as if I'm making this up out of whole cloth. It's true that
Planck's constant has always been considered an irreducible, residual
constant in mechanical terms. We just can't reconcile it mechanically
with spin characteristics for particles of various sizes and energies
if we assume a constant speed of rotation. So I consider the case for
m0 compelling whether or not it fits conventional interpretations of
fundamental constants and scientific reductions. Personally I see but
can't prove m0 and c as the only fundamental constants and Planck's
constant as a composite reflecting the definite integral of m0 over
the radius of rotation. At least I know of no convincing alternative.

Sorry to jump in like this after months of absence,

but would
string theory help resolve anything here? The fact that, in string
theory, energy has access to dimensions outside of our 4-D space-time
might offer some geometric reason for the above. You mention spin, and
angular momentum and C as factors, I was just wondering if the extra
"play-space" offered by string theory might lend a basis for these laws
of motion with respect to energy. Actually, I'm hoping that, by
stepping outside the box of 4-D space-time might afford a different way
of looking at the problem; you know how strongly I dislike "the
proverbial box". ;-)

this does not happen in your work, and that is the only thing I care
about (altough the introduction of the masselet is curious by itself
and might be a useful conjecture).

But it's more than a conjecture. Without it there is no explanation
for particle spin properties and characteristics. I didn't just wake
up one day and decide to divide h by cc for the hell of it. m0 is what
explains why particle spin remains constant regardless of particle
size and mass and without it there is no way to determine particle
structure. And without particle structure there is no way to determine
Heisenberg's uncertainty relation nor any way to determine photon
structure nor any way to determine why Hubble's constant is what it
is. It doesn't really matter what magnitudes are involved except in
engineering terms. What matters is why all these things are what they
are and why they interact to produce the effects they do.

Does this approach apply also for sub-atomic particles e.g. quarks?
Quantum mechanics is supposed to apply to them too.
Is m0 remains the same for particles that have 1/2, 3/2 etc spins?

Well this is a good question. My own approach to elementary particles
is to consider only those particles elementary which are stable. That
basically means the electron and proton. Personally I consider quarks
explanatory fictions in mechanical terms. However to the extent any
particles have stable spin characteristics their properties would have
to reflect the same mechanics only involving m0 and speed of light.

At the moment in quantum mechanics we have a number of isolated
concepts which we cannot explain in terms of one another through any
kind of mechanical interrelation. That changes with my analysis of
particle spin characteristics because we reduce all these quantum
effectss to just two: the speed of light and m0 if particles spin.

It sounds to me as if what you expect is some kind of consideration
which allows one to calculate the magnitude of h out of whole cloth,
perhaps some unrecognized property of the plenum or other kind of
constant. I think what I do instead is show the origin of such quantum
relations through the mechanical agency of m0 and c if particles spin
and also provide the basis for analyzing all angular properties from
particles to celestial orbits on a common conceptual framework.

In any event just let me add that I appreciate the tenor of your
remarks whether we agree or disagree. Civility and courtesy are in
remarkably short supply on the usenet when these kinds of contentious
issues are discussed.

Indeed. In the early days of usenet, where people were still supposed
to read netiquete first, I read there an interesting attitude guideline:
"imagine that person you are answering to is sitting near to you
in a bar, having a beer with you". I think that gives a correct relaxed
atmosphere I wish we would have in all groups.

Yeah. I find it curious that those who profess the greatest interest
in science are among the foremost would be intimidators. Sounds
like more of a psychological problem than a scientific issue.

~v~~