5 ms·

Planck's constant is almost exactly 10^-33/(phi-0.108843677). Coincidence? I think not.

by walrus 12y ago

typedweb 12y ago
Obviously we haven't read the same books. You'd be suprized at how closely related to phi many of the low level physical constant are.
- Chinjut 12y ago
  It doesn't mean anything to compare a constant to phi unless that constant is itself dimensionless. What low level physical constants (and relations between them and phi) do you have in mind?
  - gus_massa 12y ago
    [This is not to support the idea that phi is related to physics constants. This is only a technical comment about unitless constants.] It's usual to redefine the constants using other constants. The most well known case is the fine structure constant, aka alpha, aka almost 1/137. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Definit... The idea is that in many particle physics calculations you don't use the charge of the electron alone. Every time it appears, it's multiplied by other constants like c or h, so you redefine it as a new constant that is the usual product you have to put in the calculations. The problem with constants with units is that they mix real physics with the arbitrary choose of the measurement units, like the time the Earth do a complete spin divided by 24 by 60 and by 60 and other complete arbitrary chooses. It's difficult to say if "e" the charge of the electron is big or small. But in many calculations you can use alpha that is clearly a small number (~=1/137) and try to use perturbation theory to get a good approximation of the actual result. (You can imagine this as a lot of Taylor approximations.) (There are a lot of technical details hidden in these calculations that can make a mathematician cry but a physicist happy.)
- cozzyd 12y ago
  doing some quick searches comes up with something like http://www.sacred-geometry.es/?q=en/content/phi-atomic-structure http://www.sacred-geometry.es/?q=en/content/phi-atomic-struc... , but I can't tell if this serious or satire... (It's true of any number that x = x/phi + x/phi^2, surely you can do better than that in a satire? ) edit: holy shit, people actually try really hard with this nonsense... http://www.ijsciences.com/pub/pdf/V2-201305-08.pdf http://www.ijsciences.com/pub/pdf/V2-201305-08.pdf
  - typedweb 12y ago
    Yes, it's serious. But I'm sure I'll get more downvotes for saying that too...whatever.
    - pavel_lishin 12y ago
      You're getting downvotes because you're making an assertion (phi is related to many cosmological constants) but are consistently not backing it up, citing any specific sources, etc.
      - pain 12y ago
        For many reasons we can remove phi from discourse, and that might be a point. http://www.quora.com/Language-Seeking-Behavior/What-great-scientific-and-psychological-questions-would-be-ruled-unacceptable-and-edited-out?share=1 http://www.quora.com/Language-Seeking-Behavior/What-great-sc...
  - relaytheurgency 12y ago
    Yes, it's sad. It's as if dimensions/units don't matter. There was a story about this quack on NPR that thought he could prove Einstein wrong. Turned out the guy couldn't differentiate (or wouldn't?) between momentum and energy. All his units were mixed up. He didn't even see the flaw in that.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- cLeEOGPw 12y ago
  When things are real it doesn't matter what books were read, because you can show you are right with concrete real life proofs.

Planck's constant is almost exactly 10^-33/(phi-0.108843677). Coincidence? I think not.

by walrus 12y ago

Planck's constant is almost exactly 10^-33/(phi-0.108843677). Coincidence? I think not.

Obviously we haven't read the same books. You'd be suprized at how closely related to phi many of the low level physical constant are.

Chinjut 12y ago
It doesn't mean anything to compare a constant to phi unless that constant is itself dimensionless. What low level physical constants (and relations between them and phi) do you have in mind?
- gus_massa 12y ago
  [This is not to support the idea that phi is related to physics constants. This is only a technical comment about unitless constants.] It's usual to redefine the constants using other constants. The most well known case is the fine structure constant, aka alpha, aka almost 1/137. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Definit... The idea is that in many particle physics calculations you don't use the charge of the electron alone. Every time it appears, it's multiplied by other constants like c or h, so you redefine it as a new constant that is the usual product you have to put in the calculations. The problem with constants with units is that they mix real physics with the arbitrary choose of the measurement units, like the time the Earth do a complete spin divided by 24 by 60 and by 60 and other complete arbitrary chooses. It's difficult to say if "e" the charge of the electron is big or small. But in many calculations you can use alpha that is clearly a small number (~=1/137) and try to use perturbation theory to get a good approximation of the actual result. (You can imagine this as a lot of Taylor approximations.) (There are a lot of technical details hidden in these calculations that can make a mathematician cry but a physicist happy.)
cozzyd 12y ago
doing some quick searches comes up with something like http://www.sacred-geometry.es/?q=en/content/phi-atomic-structure http://www.sacred-geometry.es/?q=en/content/phi-atomic-struc... , but I can't tell if this serious or satire... (It's true of any number that x = x/phi + x/phi^2, surely you can do better than that in a satire? ) edit: holy shit, people actually try really hard with this nonsense... http://www.ijsciences.com/pub/pdf/V2-201305-08.pdf http://www.ijsciences.com/pub/pdf/V2-201305-08.pdf
- typedweb 12y ago
  Yes, it's serious. But I'm sure I'll get more downvotes for saying that too...whatever.
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    You're getting downvotes because you're making an assertion (phi is related to many cosmological constants) but are consistently not backing it up, citing any specific sources, etc.
    - pain 12y ago
      For many reasons we can remove phi from discourse, and that might be a point. http://www.quora.com/Language-Seeking-Behavior/What-great-scientific-and-psychological-questions-would-be-ruled-unacceptable-and-edited-out?share=1 http://www.quora.com/Language-Seeking-Behavior/What-great-sc...
- relaytheurgency 12y ago
  Yes, it's sad. It's as if dimensions/units don't matter. There was a story about this quack on NPR that thought he could prove Einstein wrong. Turned out the guy couldn't differentiate (or wouldn't?) between momentum and energy. All his units were mixed up. He didn't even see the flaw in that.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
cLeEOGPw 12y ago
When things are real it doesn't matter what books were read, because you can show you are right with concrete real life proofs.