In his classic 1994 Dirac Lecture, Quantum Mechanics in Your Face, Sidney Coleman makes this crucial point:
"The problem is not the interpretation of quantum mechanics. That’s getting things just backwards. The problem is the interpretation of classical mechanics."
"The problem is not the interpretation of quantum mechanics. That’s getting things just backwards. The problem is the interpretation of classical mechanics."
There is really no need to watch the Lecture, which is the usual terrible production quality typical of the early days of VHS video recording made worse by the dimness of the auditorium and the unreadable overhead projector.
But Sidney Coleman was definitely "The Physicist's Physicist" and beloved by all in the Academy of Physics. And if he said something was so, it was so.
You are doubtless keen to know how I am getting on with the Feynman book:
I am certainly enjoying a thorough introduction to High Energy Physics through this bio of one of its greatest teachers.
Those who fear the odd maths equation may find it rather over their head, and I am thinking of TNT here, but the rest of us can revel in proper explanations of such matters as Chirality and Vacuum Polarisation and such.
His boundless enthusiasm for Physics as the only thing worth doing in this world cheered me greatly, and he was severely critical of the teaching of such things as "Home Economics" and "Agricultural Practise" at Cornell distracting Universities from their proper function.
His main reason for switching to CalTech was that he didn't enjoy meeting such dolts in the student canteen, even preferring meeting attractive secretaries in the Cornell staff room. What a guy!
His lasting legacy is, of course, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Never before had a top professor given an undergraduate course, and frankly CalTech needed an uplift, being stuck twenty years behind the times with a mostly classical syllabus devised by Robert Millikan.
Most of you will rush out and get this book, so I need say little more about it.
For those of you who hesitate, I give you FEYNMAN'S FIVE REASONS TO STUDY PHYSICS:
1) It teaches you to do things with your own hands.
2) It is a great pleasure and helps you join in the great adventure of our times.
3) There is good reason to study nature. The knowledge gives you a feeling of stability and reality about the world and drives out fears and superstition.
4) It teaches you how things are found out.
5) You learn to do things by trial and error and to develop the spirit of invention. You ask yourself: "Is there a better way to do things?"
Hope that clears it all up. I can now sleep, and hope I can get that picture of the Galu MicroPhonon© out of my head. Having seen it, I can't unsee it. 🙁
Best regards from Steve in Portsmouth Physics Lab, UK.
But Sidney Coleman was definitely "The Physicist's Physicist" and beloved by all in the Academy of Physics. And if he said something was so, it was so.
You are doubtless keen to know how I am getting on with the Feynman book:
I am certainly enjoying a thorough introduction to High Energy Physics through this bio of one of its greatest teachers.
Those who fear the odd maths equation may find it rather over their head, and I am thinking of TNT here, but the rest of us can revel in proper explanations of such matters as Chirality and Vacuum Polarisation and such.
His boundless enthusiasm for Physics as the only thing worth doing in this world cheered me greatly, and he was severely critical of the teaching of such things as "Home Economics" and "Agricultural Practise" at Cornell distracting Universities from their proper function.
His main reason for switching to CalTech was that he didn't enjoy meeting such dolts in the student canteen, even preferring meeting attractive secretaries in the Cornell staff room. What a guy!
His lasting legacy is, of course, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Never before had a top professor given an undergraduate course, and frankly CalTech needed an uplift, being stuck twenty years behind the times with a mostly classical syllabus devised by Robert Millikan.
Most of you will rush out and get this book, so I need say little more about it.
For those of you who hesitate, I give you FEYNMAN'S FIVE REASONS TO STUDY PHYSICS:
1) It teaches you to do things with your own hands.
2) It is a great pleasure and helps you join in the great adventure of our times.
3) There is good reason to study nature. The knowledge gives you a feeling of stability and reality about the world and drives out fears and superstition.
4) It teaches you how things are found out.
5) You learn to do things by trial and error and to develop the spirit of invention. You ask yourself: "Is there a better way to do things?"
Hope that clears it all up. I can now sleep, and hope I can get that picture of the Galu MicroPhonon© out of my head. Having seen it, I can't unsee it. 🙁
Best regards from Steve in Portsmouth Physics Lab, UK.
... and hope I can get that picture of the Galu MicroPhonon© out of my head.
In phase 2 of my endeavour to render loudspeakers obsolete I've succeeded in miniaturising my MicroPhonon© transducer.
Above, an array of NanoPhonon© transducers is targeting phonons directly at my assistant's auditory system.
Encouraging results have been obtained from Beethoven's Fifth but Holst's Planets was too spaced out.
Ultimately, I envisage that PicoPhonon© transducers built into the ceiling will modulate the sound field in a listening room.
I am sure, that by trial and error, you shall perfect the PicoPhonon© loudspeaker. It's the Law of Averages, isn't it?
I did, in fact, watch your Harvard version of Sidney"s Lecture. It was far less smoky than his Cambridge one.
I was particularly interested in his explanation that a Quantum Coin Toss was different from a Classical one that he delved into at the end in the "Parallel" section.
I know that you get cross when I raise the subject here, but wondered if the mighty tipster, Templegate, in The Sun newspaper uses Quantum Statistics to pick winners:
Alas, his favouriteish picks were a complete bust.
I did no better. For instance, "Moon Flight" at 6/1 looked a dead cert to me in the 19.00, but crashed into last place as certainly as Elon Musk's last space rocket.
To make it worse, Galu, knowing little about The Sport of Kings and The Purity of The Turf, would doubtless have gone home with a profit.
I give up. 🙁
I did, in fact, watch your Harvard version of Sidney"s Lecture. It was far less smoky than his Cambridge one.
I was particularly interested in his explanation that a Quantum Coin Toss was different from a Classical one that he delved into at the end in the "Parallel" section.
I know that you get cross when I raise the subject here, but wondered if the mighty tipster, Templegate, in The Sun newspaper uses Quantum Statistics to pick winners:
Alas, his favouriteish picks were a complete bust.
I did no better. For instance, "Moon Flight" at 6/1 looked a dead cert to me in the 19.00, but crashed into last place as certainly as Elon Musk's last space rocket.
To make it worse, Galu, knowing little about The Sport of Kings and The Purity of The Turf, would doubtless have gone home with a profit.
I give up. 🙁
Last edited:
Quantum Statistics to pick winners
Surely quantum statistics can only apply to quantum horses?
I read that there is a chestnut gelding named Quantum Cat.
On his most recent outing he came in both first and last! 😊
Louis Pasteur first discovered this homochirality in 1848.
Someone who - in his day, if he had worked 'at street level', would probably have taken a bullet or two - at least pretended to possess some wisdom.
Dear @Ro808, you are stepping over a line here. And. IMO, shouting.
Forum Rules:
Not Allowed. 2: Discussions of politics, ethnicity, religion, medical or other divisive issues of any sort.
Sorry to sound like a Dutch Uncle. But this is not "Post a Picture that makes you Laugh."
We guard the purity of our thread jealously, maintain good relations with all, and do what the Forum tells us.
Now back on-topic. In Sydney's Lecture he talked about the spherical S function creating a single radial particle track over the surface of a sphere in the Cloud Chamber with radioactivity, which is of course 4 Pi r^2.
I was struck by how this resembles Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
But whilst I know that Planck's Constant is Energy x Time, and can be considered an integral of Energy over a path in the Principle of Least Action, the Lagrangian, I really have no idea what Planck's Constant of Action actually is.
Does anyone know? 😕
Forum Rules:
Not Allowed. 2: Discussions of politics, ethnicity, religion, medical or other divisive issues of any sort.
Sorry to sound like a Dutch Uncle. But this is not "Post a Picture that makes you Laugh."
We guard the purity of our thread jealously, maintain good relations with all, and do what the Forum tells us.
Now back on-topic. In Sydney's Lecture he talked about the spherical S function creating a single radial particle track over the surface of a sphere in the Cloud Chamber with radioactivity, which is of course 4 Pi r^2.
I was struck by how this resembles Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
But whilst I know that Planck's Constant is Energy x Time, and can be considered an integral of Energy over a path in the Principle of Least Action, the Lagrangian, I really have no idea what Planck's Constant of Action actually is.
Does anyone know? 😕
There's no political, ethnic, religious, medical or any other intention behind my post.
Just a reference to 'science' and 'intelligent design'.
Anyway, I have no objection to the post being removed if it's considered offensive.
Just a reference to 'science' and 'intelligent design'.
Anyway, I have no objection to the post being removed if it's considered offensive.
Last edited:
But whilst I know that Planck's Constant is Energy x Time, and can be considered an integral of Energy over a path in the Principle of Least Action, the Lagrangian, I really have no idea what Planck's Constant of Action actually is.
Does anyone know? 😕
Attachments
No idea what S7 is on about. You simple posted a quote from Pasteur, which is of it's time.There's no political, ethnic, religious, medical or any other intention behind my post.
Just a reference to 'science' and 'intelligent design'.
Anyway, I have no objection to the post being removed if it's considered offensive.
I really have no idea what Planck's Constant of Action actually is.
Planck's constant is also known as the "wirkungsquantum" or "quantum of action".
From Ro808's link:
"Thus we introduce the Planck constant of action, which we symbolize as hA.
The constants h and hA have the same numerical values when h is expressed in J s cycle−1 and hA in J s."
I looked up Planck's constant and its recommended unit: The recommended unit for h is the J s/cycle and cycle/s = Hz.
Last edited:
Someone who [...] at least pretended to possess some wisdom.
As amply illustrated here:
I shuddered at the thought of opening the @Ro808 attachment, lest it be infested with viruses or something.
And anyway, that wasn't what I asked. I asked for YOUR opinion. Not something ChatGPT or Google can produce.
The general internet has absolutely no idea what Planck's Constant is except endless circular arguments.
But I have made some progress in the matter, courtesy of the man who wrote the book on Quantum Mechanics and actually introduced h bar, Paul Dirac
Recall I asked what this Heisenberg Uncertainty thing is about:
And here is h bar, more often seen in issues of units of angular momentum and spin:
The whole thing is now obvious.
Thankyou Mr. Dirac.
And anyway, that wasn't what I asked. I asked for YOUR opinion. Not something ChatGPT or Google can produce.
The general internet has absolutely no idea what Planck's Constant is except endless circular arguments.
But I have made some progress in the matter, courtesy of the man who wrote the book on Quantum Mechanics and actually introduced h bar, Paul Dirac
Recall I asked what this Heisenberg Uncertainty thing is about:
And here is h bar, more often seen in issues of units of angular momentum and spin:
The whole thing is now obvious.
Thankyou Mr. Dirac.
I asked for YOUR opinion.
My opinion was in the first line of my post, i.e., Planck's constant is also known as the "wirkungsquantum" or "quantum of action".
Your question - does anyone know what Planck's constant of action actually is? - was thoroughly and effectively answered by post #5,310.
It would appear that it falls to me to acknowledge @Ro808's most helpful pdf, from which I added a quote in my post.
Last edited:
No need to worry, Steve. It's from a 'genuine' source: a leading publisher of some of the most well-respected science journals in the world.I shuddered at the thought of opening the @Ro808 attachment, lest it be infested with viruses or something.
And anyway, that wasn't what I asked. I asked for YOUR opinion. Not something ChatGPT or Google can produce.
The general internet has absolutely no idea what Planck's Constant is except endless circular arguments.
But I have made some progress in the matter, courtesy of the man who wrote the book on Quantum Mechanics and actually introduced h bar, Paul Dirac
View attachment 1417504
Recall I asked what this Heisenberg Uncertainty thing is about:
View attachment 1417505
And here is h bar, more often seen in issues of units of angular momentum and spin:
View attachment 1417506
The whole thing is now obvious.
View attachment 1417508
Thankyou Mr. Dirac.
Now that the Ship of Physics has been deftly steered away from the Rocks of Moderator Intervention by crewmember @system7, who wins this months Gold Star and a $10 McDonalds voucher, we can soberly address the vexed question of Planck's Constant in an enlightened way...
I was, of course, aware of the paper published by Bunkum and Jetsam durung lockdown when time evidently sat heavy on their hands:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022407319309148
I saw little reason to pay for a paper published by "Chemists", who are very low in the pecking order of science and outranked even by "Astrologers" IMO:
However, thanks to crewmember Ro808, we have a free copy. Frankly I wondered if it was published on April 1st. as an act of the levity that crewwmember Galu so enjoys.
What is this nonsense?
How can you have an equal sign on two different quantities?
The correct value for hbar is, of course, this:
To add to the confusion, doubtless caused by inhaling the fumes of Ether in the laboratory they suggest that we rewrite our beloved Schrodinger's Equation with a new value they call hbar a...
Clearly a case of the blind leading the blind:
I have always used hbar omega for photons, rather than Einstein's addled h nu, being a modern Physicist. I always used hbar when calculating with Schrodinger's Equation.
And so should you.
h is a relic of the the days when washed up semi-classical Physicists sat around and talked about the good old days when God did not play dice.
Hope that clears it up.
I was, of course, aware of the paper published by Bunkum and Jetsam durung lockdown when time evidently sat heavy on their hands:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022407319309148
I saw little reason to pay for a paper published by "Chemists", who are very low in the pecking order of science and outranked even by "Astrologers" IMO:
However, thanks to crewmember Ro808, we have a free copy. Frankly I wondered if it was published on April 1st. as an act of the levity that crewwmember Galu so enjoys.
What is this nonsense?
How can you have an equal sign on two different quantities?
The correct value for hbar is, of course, this:
To add to the confusion, doubtless caused by inhaling the fumes of Ether in the laboratory they suggest that we rewrite our beloved Schrodinger's Equation with a new value they call hbar a...
Clearly a case of the blind leading the blind:
I have always used hbar omega for photons, rather than Einstein's addled h nu, being a modern Physicist. I always used hbar when calculating with Schrodinger's Equation.
And so should you.
h is a relic of the the days when washed up semi-classical Physicists sat around and talked about the good old days when God did not play dice.
Hope that clears it up.
Hope that clears it up.
After skimming through Bunker at al., I regarded the thrust of their argument to be the avoidance of a 2π error in calculations.
The Dirac constant or reduced Planck constant (h-bar) is h/2π. Dividing Planck's constant by 2π makes it easier working in radians rather than hertz.
Beyond that:

Last edited:
Dear Galu, you do realise that your lauded Bunkum and Jetsam (sic.) paper was JUNK SCIENCE?
No wonder you are confused and retreating into cynicism.
I have been further investigating the most interesting Planck Constant, which is clearly important at every level in Physics. But do not want to have my profound thought buried in the last post before we turn the page.
A little teaser though. I am inventing a new physical Planck Constant called h-double bar, which I hope to incorporate into the Einstein Field Equation for a new Theory of Quantum Gravity and even cancel out the awkward Einstein 8 Pi :
It has the value h / 8π.
As John Baez said, when we get the new theory, we will look at it and say: "It's so obvious, why didn't we see it before?"
In the course of my investigations I stumbled across a NEW THEORY of EVERYTHING by Dewey B. Larson!
http://www.lrcphysics.com/rst/
It is more JUNK SCIENCE. The links suggesting John Baez and Peter Woit give it the nod just lead to their general pages.
They deny Gravitational Wave detection by LIGO and say stuff can go at least 3x the speed of light. Numerous Red Flags.
Wiki even has a page about it filed under Pseudoscience:
"The theory is wrong in every detail, and is trivially proven so with simple and obvious experiments. This has, of course, not given its proponents the slightest pause."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Theory
NO. If anybody tries to tell me any more Junk Science, you know what they can do:
I'll be back.
No wonder you are confused and retreating into cynicism.
I have been further investigating the most interesting Planck Constant, which is clearly important at every level in Physics. But do not want to have my profound thought buried in the last post before we turn the page.
A little teaser though. I am inventing a new physical Planck Constant called h-double bar, which I hope to incorporate into the Einstein Field Equation for a new Theory of Quantum Gravity and even cancel out the awkward Einstein 8 Pi :
It has the value h / 8π.
As John Baez said, when we get the new theory, we will look at it and say: "It's so obvious, why didn't we see it before?"
In the course of my investigations I stumbled across a NEW THEORY of EVERYTHING by Dewey B. Larson!
The Reciprocal System of Physical Theory
This sounded extremely promising until I read it:http://www.lrcphysics.com/rst/
It is more JUNK SCIENCE. The links suggesting John Baez and Peter Woit give it the nod just lead to their general pages.
They deny Gravitational Wave detection by LIGO and say stuff can go at least 3x the speed of light. Numerous Red Flags.
Wiki even has a page about it filed under Pseudoscience:
"The theory is wrong in every detail, and is trivially proven so with simple and obvious experiments. This has, of course, not given its proponents the slightest pause."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Theory
NO. If anybody tries to tell me any more Junk Science, you know what they can do:
I'll be back.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- Does this explain what generates gravity?