Prev: PSPACE completeness and Public-key cryptography
Next: # Miscellaneous number theory functions
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 8 Apr 2010 14:52


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, I admit the 1st attempt was botched, so maybe this 2nd
> attempt will gain some

I do not know if there is a real english word for botched or whether
it
be called "blotched". But it is good use in this context. In this 2nd
attempt
I iron out the mistakes of the 1st.


> traction. I went into the 1st attempt with too much exuberance. Over
> exuberance can
> often by a disappointment. The exuberance I speak of is that I had two
> ideas to tackle the
> derivation out of pure math, two ideas I never used before to derive
> the speed of light.
> Those two were the idea that math and physics exist in a realm of
> Finiteness and that
> there is thus a boundary between Finite and infinite, and this
> boundary, I beleive is
> 10^500 as the Coulomb Interactions in element 109 as the largest
> possible Planck Unit.
> And the other idea is the log-spiral as representing Hyperbolic
> geometry and the sphere
> surface representing Elliptic geometry in the formula: Euclidean geom
> == Elliptic unioned
> Hyperbolic geometries.
>
> Troubles set in when, still, I could not get rid of the units, and
> that the speed of light as the
> maximum speed may not represent 10^500 but a smaller boundary such as
> 10^30 or in that
> vicinity.
>
> So let me try this attack on deriving the speed of light, 3 x 10^10 cm/
> sec out of pure
> math, with a different approach.
>

My mistake in the 1st attempt is not knowing when to apply the broken-
symmetry.
By symmetry breaking, I mean that either I use Euclidean geometry for
everything
in physics. Or, I use an assemblage of Elliptic unioned with
Hyperbolic. So in the
Double Slit experiment or the Bell Inequality experiment we have to
use Elliptic
with Hyperbolic to explain how the Double Slit has both a wave and a
particle
simultaneously, or in the case of the Bell experiment, how a change in
A instantaneously
causes a change in B separated the length of the entire Cosmos. So in
Physics
to explain Double Slit and Bell Inequality, we have to use broken-
symmetry.

In trying to derive the speed of light out of pure math, I was using
the broken-symmetry
with no luck.



> We know that in Euclidean geometry that pi is a constant and no matter
> what size of circle,
> its diameter multiplied by pi is the circumference. So we have:
>
> C = (pi) d
>
> That looks alot like the speed of light c = distance/time and where c
> is always a constant
> also, just as (pi) in Euclidean is always a constant. So we have two
> formulas that are
> algebraically the same:
>
> C/d = (pi)
>
> and
>
> d/t = c
>

Notice that the theory of Special Relativity is actually nothing more
than the idea
that "pi" is a constant and that we can take "pi" as the speed of
light for the Special
theory of Relativity. That both pi and speed of light are constants,
no matter the
relative distance, time, or circle. This is another way of saying that
in Euclidean
Geometry or unbroken symmetry, that the speed of light is the same as
the
ratio of diameter of a circle relative to its circumference.

But in our world of measuring, we live in broken symmetry, or, we live
in Elliptic
unioned with Hyperbolic geometry.

If this is all confusing to most readers, it should be, because
Quantum Physics is about
duality, in all things; duality in all situations. To understand the
world we live in, there are
no straight line direct answers, but rather, there are complex
dualistic answers.

So how do I derive the speed of light from pure numbers such that the
answer does
not matter whether I do it in centimeters/second or in miles/hour?


> Now I bring into the picture the idea of Symmetry Breaking in that the
> speed of light
> must occurr as a breaking of Euclidean geometry into Elliptic and
> Hyperbolic and
> where the (pi) in either elliptic or hyperbolic are no longer a
> constant but a variable.
>
> So I want that Elliptic geometry be the distance in d/t = c (speed of
> light), and
> I want the time t to be Hyperbolic geometry.
>
> I want to see if the speed of light is related to 10^500 or is related
> to a smaller
> number like that of 10^28.
>

Alright, in Euclidean geometry picture concentric circles starting
from 0 to
1 out to 10^500 all spaced 1 integer distance apart. The speed of
light in
Euclidean geometry is always 3.14..... No matter how small or large
the circle
is. So this is Special Relativity, in that "pi" is a constant to all
observers
in Euclidean geometry. It makes no difference where the observer is in
Euclidean geometry, because "pi" or the speed of light are always one
and the
same number. It makes no difference if the observer is moving or
stationary,
because it does not affect "pi".

But now, let us break the symmetry. Let us go with the Elliptic
geometry unioned
with Hyperbolic, and then we have to actually put a specific number
upon the
speed of light. If you are wondering what happens to "pi" in this
broken symmetry,
well, pi now is a variable as a variable on the sphere surface. Pi is
no longer fixed
as a constant in Elliptic nor Hyperbolic geometry.

More tonight.

P.S. Also, I have been asking for some confirmation that Planck's unit
of 10^500
for the Coulomb Interactions is related to the speed of light. I have
been asking
for some confirmation, and I finally have it. In the Plutonium Atom
Totality, the
number "pi" comes from 22 subshells divided by 7 shells. The number
"e" comes
from only 19 subshells occupied. So that 22 is the maximum number and
the analog
of the largest Planck unit number. So what is 22^22^22, or 22^484

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: PSPACE completeness and Public-key cryptography
Next: # Miscellaneous number theory functions