The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?

Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
So:

β = v/b
γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)

Let b be greater or less than c.
What does that universe look like?

Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
than light, would that permit non-causality?

--
Rich

Dear RichD:

On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 7:50:27 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
> the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
> it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?

Physically, it has to be. c is essentially "conservation of momentum".
> Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
> So:
>
> β = v/b
> γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
>
> Let b be greater or less than c.
> What does that universe look like?

Not like this one. If spacetime is emergent from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, conservation of momentum, and multiple bodies with mass, then you'd have "no" or "variable" conservation of momentum. And "no" or "variable" 3D space.

dlzc wrote:

>> β = v/b γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
>> Let b be greater or less than c. What does that universe look like?
>
> Not like this one. If spacetime is emergent from the 2nd law of
> thermodynamics, conservation of momentum, and multiple bodies with mass,
> then you'd have "no" or "variable" conservation of momentum. And "no" or
> "variable" 3D space.

tray again. You cant have a b greater than c. The b is fixed, he just
change the name of the shit.

On 9/28/2021 10:50 PM, RichD wrote:
> The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
> the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
> it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
>
> Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
> So:
>
> β = v/b
> γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
>
> Let b be greater or less than c.
> What does that universe look like?
>
> Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
> than light, would that permit non-causality?

Tom answered a similar question. If I recall it would mean the photon
would have mass and light/EM wouldn't quite match the inverse square
law. Maybe he'll comment.

On 9/28/21 9:50 PM, RichD wrote:
> The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
> the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
> it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?

See below for a discussion of this, using your notation.

> Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
> So:
> β = v/b
> γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)

OK. So b denotes the symmetry speed of the Lorentz group. It is
necessarily the maximum speed of any massive object (relative to any
locally inertial frame). It is necessarily the speed of any massless
object (relative to any locally inertial frame).

So necessarily: c <= b.

> Let b be greater or less than c.
> What does that universe look like?

If b < c there is an inconsistency and we have no model for what that
would look like.

If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly follow
the inverse square law.

> Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
> than light, would that permit non-causality?

No. Because causality is governed by b, not c.

It is a historical accident that the two meanings of "c" were
intermixed. But in the world we inhabit they are equal to incredibly
high accuracy.

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:

> If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly follow
> the inverse square law.

Please elaborate.

I can somewhat see the former [v = c √(1 − m²c⁴/E²)], but how is the speed
of light related to the latter?

I only know that the inverse square law comes from the surface of a sphere
as for a point source emitting in all directions the radiation is
distributed over a virtual sphere, so the radiation received by an
infinitesimal surface element is:

P = A σ T⁴
F = P/A = P/(4π d²) ~ 1/d²,

where d is the distance from the source. How is the speed of light related
to that?

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly follow
>> the inverse square law.
>
> Please elaborate.
> I can somewhat see the former [v = c √(1 − m²c⁴/E²)], but how is the
> speed of light related to the latter?

idiot.

On 9/29/21 6:50 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly
>> follow the inverse square law.
>
> Please elaborate.

The amplitude for the exchange of a gauge particle goes as 1/r^2 from
geometry. If it has nonzero mass, it gets an additional factor related
to its mass. If it is unstable it also gets a factor related to its
lifetime. Both factors are of the form exp(-r/k), where k is an
appropriate constant related to mass or lifetime.

Current measurements put an incredibly small upper bound on the photon
mass, which implies that the factor related to mass is incredibly close
to 1 everywhere we have measured it. The photon appears to be stable, so
the factor related to lifetime is also extremely close to 1.

[It should be obvious I am speaking rather loosely. These
amplitudes are much more complex, and they are normally
expressed in momentum space....]

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 7:50:27 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
> the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
> it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
>
> Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
> So:
>
> β = v/b
> γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
>
> Let b be greater or less than c.
> What does that universe look like?
>
> Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
> than light, would that permit non-causality?
>
> --
> Rich

It's defined to only range 0-1, the number its value.

So, where, "written 1 there it means infinite with
respect to 0, the limit, as built in mathematics",
that there is a "larger" respective quantity if
"unobtainable" given the milieu, it is also defined 1,
and the only mathematics what work out put and
keep them together, eg as only under what systems
of limits hold up there.

Also it's a gross approximation what > 1 what it
means the abstract wave, that, has no speed limit,
which of course is outside the theory and only inside
the theory in the general respect above, or as it were.

On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/29/21 6:50 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly
> >> follow the inverse square law.
> >
> > Please elaborate.
> The amplitude for the exchange of a gauge particle goes as 1/r^2 from
> geometry. If it has nonzero mass, it gets an additional factor related
> to its mass. If it is unstable it also gets a factor related to its
> lifetime. Both factors are of the form exp(-r/k), where k is an
> appropriate constant related to mass or lifetime.
>
> Current measurements put an incredibly small upper bound on the photon
> mass, which implies that the factor related to mass is incredibly close
> to 1 everywhere we have measured it. The photon appears to be stable, so
> the factor related to lifetime is also extremely close to 1.
>
> [It should be obvious I am speaking rather loosely. These
> amplitudes are much more complex, and they are normally
> expressed in momentum space....]
>
> Tom Roberts

Momentum not necessarily being conserved is about the greatest,
for it works out stability and the frame, ..., as about that linear operators
define, what then works out lesser or under the semi-stable.

Here for example which is the photon rocket and multipole moment.

Atoms are usually interesting that the higher performance meaning
energy and configuration experiments, that the atom looks smaller
and the universe with greater telescope looks larger, that the
constants, and, "running constants", are basically where the constant
is defined, in the classical, what the non-classical includes the running
out the constants, what result the running constants, that maintain
symmetry in symmetry-breaking conditions in what is symmetry-flex
or super-symmetry. (I.e. that supersymmetry isn't just virtual particles,
it's also virtual space and continuous deformations.)

I.e. the invariants maintain the constants, as what are linear invariants
and usually originalities or "singularities", in what is continuous.

Defining the bar and the constant, are, efforts in measures, with respect
to reference constants, and the origin of reference, with respect to
NIST CODATA which over time as I suggest above shows atoms get
smaller and the universe gets larger (and older) as science advances
the definition of what is constant.

On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 12:47:46 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 7:50:27 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
> > the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
> > it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
> >
> > Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
> > So:
> >
> > β = v/b
> > γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
> >
> > Let b be greater or less than c.

There is no FTL Gamma as that math is a botch.
You cannot bridge finite slow to its infinite.

> > What does that universe look like?
> >
> > Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
> > than light, would that permit non-causality?
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> It's defined to only range 0-1, the number its value.
>
> So, where, "written 1 there it means infinite with
> respect to 0, the limit, as built in mathematics",
> that there is a "larger" respective quantity if
> "unobtainable" given the milieu, it is also defined 1,
> and the only mathematics what work out put and
> keep them together, eg as only under what systems
> of limits hold up there.
>
> Also it's a gross approximation what > 1 what it
> means the abstract wave, that, has no speed limit,
> which of course is outside the theory and only inside
> the theory in the general respect above, or as it were.

Four forces have what constants?
Is gravitational the least...?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 1:04:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 12:47:46 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 7:50:27 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > > The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
> > > the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
> > > it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
> > >
> > > Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
> > > So:
> > >
> > > β = v/b
> > > γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
> > >
> > > Let b be greater or less than c.
> There is no FTL Gamma as that math is a botch.
> You cannot bridge finite slow to its infinite.
> > > What does that universe look like?
> > >
> > > Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
> > > than light, would that permit non-causality?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich
> > It's defined to only range 0-1, the number its value.
> >
> > So, where, "written 1 there it means infinite with
> > respect to 0, the limit, as built in mathematics",
> > that there is a "larger" respective quantity if
> > "unobtainable" given the milieu, it is also defined 1,
> > and the only mathematics what work out put and
> > keep them together, eg as only under what systems
> > of limits hold up there.
> >
> > Also it's a gross approximation what > 1 what it
> > means the abstract wave, that, has no speed limit,
> > which of course is outside the theory and only inside
> > the theory in the general respect above, or as it were.
> Four forces have what constants?
> Is gravitational the least...?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

No, "what are constants".

Sharing constants like units is about an easiest way to
exchange information.

Making for matter being the primary elements, in a theory
with either matter or charge, primary, there's that gravity,
is usually worked out that objects attract each other, then
that the atoms, are points that stick out. Another usual theory
for gravity, has that instead it is all falling together, so it works
out, that the strong nuclear force, which is the force that holds
the nucleus together and is considered strong, is actually and
exactly implemented, as if by gravity, which is considered weak,
though of the longest range the forces.

Gravity, the theoretical aspects, even as usually left out for whatever
place gravity holds in the theories, under constants, makes for that
having that "the only force in our field theory is a natural combined
tendency of what results classically gravity and also acts as the force
carrier for the kinetic throughout", with respect to charge, where of
course the massy bodies and matter are primary and the elements in
the theory, as field occupation numbers in the field theory they are in.

For that charge is static and current of course is in charge, i.e. the electrical,
then has as above the other usual "four or five fundamental forces that
according to these high energy configurations there works out lines that
balance for symmetry all what results high power physics, for classical physics".

Here then atoms are real, wave-functions are real, ....

Physics is a gauge theory, field theory, thermo works out, ....

Statistical mechanics, discrete and quantum mechanics, continuum mechanics.

"The giant lightning bolt from the giant black hole in the center of the universe."

On September 29, tjrob137 wrote:
>> The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
>> the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
>> it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
>> Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
>> So:
>> β = v/b
>> γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
>
> OK. So b denotes the symmetry speed of the Lorentz group. It is
> necessarily the maximum speed of any massive object (relative to any
> locally inertial frame). It is necessarily the speed of any massless
> object (relative to any locally inertial frame).
> So necessarily: c <= b.
>
>> Let b be greater or less than c.
>
> If b < c there is an inconsistency and we have no model for what that
> would look like.
> If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly follow
> the inverse square law.
>
>> For instance, if b > c, then one could travel faster
>> than light, would that permit non-causality?
>
> No. Because causality is governed by b, not c.

How would that affect the tachyon question?

> It is a historical accident that the two meanings of "c" were
> intermixed. But in the world we inhabit they are equal to incredibly
> high accuracy.

Can we expect that a quantum gravity theory, if it's ever constructed,
will explain this coincidence?

--
Rich

On 10/2/2021 3:14 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/29/21 6:50 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly
>>> follow the inverse square law.
>>
>> Please elaborate.
>
> The amplitude for the exchange of a gauge particle goes as 1/r^2 from
> geometry. If it has nonzero mass, it gets an additional factor related
> to its mass. If it is unstable it also gets a factor related to its
> lifetime. Both factors are of the form exp(-r/k), where k is an
> appropriate constant related to mass or lifetime.

Would it be accurate to say that the Higgs boson could be regarded as
the mediator of a new force, one with an extremely short range? It's
fundamental(?), a boson, very massive with a short lifetime, so it would
have an even shorter range than the weak force.

On 10/2/21 11:05 PM, Volney wrote:
> Would it be accurate to say that the Higgs boson could be regarded
> as the mediator of a new force, one with an extremely short range?
> It's fundamental(?), a boson, very massive with a short lifetime, so
> it would have an even shorter range than the weak force.

No. The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding gauge
symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by gauge bosons.

Tom Roberts

On 29-Sep-21 12:50 pm, RichD wrote:
> The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
> the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
> it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
>
> Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
> So:
>
> β = v/b
> γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
>
> Let b be greater or less than c.
> What does that universe look like?
>
> Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
> than light, would that permit non-causality?
>

Then the issue of causality only arises in the context of the transfer
of information at a speed greater than b.

In a universe in which the speed of light is less than b, the speed
would not be a constant, so there would be no c. Such a universe would
need some other way of determining the speed of any particular light
ray, which would in any case be frame dependent.

Sylvia.

On 10/4/2021 12:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/2/21 11:05 PM, Volney wrote:
>> Would it be accurate to say that the Higgs boson could be regarded
>> as the mediator of a new force, one with an extremely short range?
>> It's fundamental(?), a boson, very massive with a short lifetime, so
>> it would have an even shorter range than the weak force.
>
> No. The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding gauge
> symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by gauge bosons.
>
> Tom Roberts

Why isn't the Higgs field a gauge symmetry?

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> [pseudo-scientific word salad]

Get well soon.

PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Volney wrote:

> On 10/4/2021 12:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 10/2/21 11:05 PM, Volney wrote:
>>> Would it be accurate to say that the Higgs boson could be regarded
>>> as the mediator of a new force, one with an extremely short range?
>>> It's fundamental(?), a boson, very massive with a short lifetime, so
>>> it would have an even shorter range than the weak force.
>>
>> No. The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding gauge
>> symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by gauge bosons.
>
> Why isn't the Higgs field a gauge symmetry?

(IMHO, a *field* is *never* a symmetry; it may *exhibit* one, though.)

The BEH mechanism explains the spontaneous electroweak symmetry *breaking*
that explains the measured masses of the W and Z bosons (whose mass
otherwise would be zero, like that of the photon):

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson>

PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> > [pseudo-scientific word salad]
>
> Get well soon.
>
>
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
> A: It doesn't conduct itself.
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)

Thanks, though you snipped the salad or soup, and,
a unified field theory with gravity both "a" and, remarkable,
"the", force in it, with charge though as about potential in
the electromotive the kinetic yet otherwise "all potential",
it makes for at least conceptually a most neat "unified field
theory, what happens to also be a gauge theory in terms of
the continuity of deformations in the field the field theory".

Torque is static, ....

On 10/4/2021 4:49 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 10/4/2021 12:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 10/2/21 11:05 PM, Volney wrote:
>>>> Would it be accurate to say that the Higgs boson could be regarded
>>>> as the mediator of a new force, one with an extremely short range?
>>>> It's fundamental(?), a boson, very massive with a short lifetime, so
>>>> it would have an even shorter range than the weak force.
>>>
>>> No. The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding gauge
>>> symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by gauge bosons.
>>
>> Why isn't the Higgs field a gauge symmetry?
>
> (IMHO, a *field* is *never* a symmetry; it may *exhibit* one, though.)

That's what I intended to write.

Explain how the Higgs field doesn't exhibit gauge symmetry?

As I understand, it means you can add a constant and the interactions
remain the same. (correct any misunderstandings please)

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> > [pseudo-scientific word salad]
>>
>> Get well soon.
>
> Thanks, though you snipped the salad or soup, and,
> a unified field theory with gravity

What you wrote does not qualify as a ([unified] field) theory.
It does not even qualify as sensible English.

> both "a" and, remarkable,
> "the", force in it, with charge though as about potential in
> the electromotive the kinetic yet otherwise "all potential",
> it makes for at least conceptually a most neat "unified field
> theory, what happens to also be a gauge theory in terms of
> the continuity of deformations in the field the field theory".

A mere juxtaposition or strewing-in of scientific terms like above is not
yet a sensible scientific statement. Either you are doing this out of
malice, in an attempt to deceive the naive reader, or you do not even
realize that you write meaningless nonsense because you are mentally ill.

> Torque is static, ....

No, a torque is very much NOT a static phenomenon:

τ = r × F = r × dp/dt = r × d(m v)/dt = r × (m dv/dt) = m (r × dv/dt).

If there is no motion, then v = 0 ⇒ dv/dt = 0. If there is no acceleration,
i.e. v = const. ≠ 0, then still dv/dt = 0. In both cases: τ = 0.

I do not expect you to understand it precisely for the reasons laid out in
it, but the dedicated reader should note:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea_(psychology)>

PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> [incoherent nonsense, aka word salad]

You really should see a psychiatrist and show them your postings. There may
be a psychotherapy to treat the mental illness that causes your logorrhea.

Get well soon. Seriously.

PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 7:52:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> > [incoherent nonsense, aka word salad]
>
> You really should see a psychiatrist and show them your postings. There may
> be a psychotherapy to treat the mental illness that causes your logorrhea.
>
> Get well soon. Seriously.
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
> does it take to change a light bulb?
> A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
> (from: WolframAlpha)

I don't care if you believe it -
all it takes is a thinking machine.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:05:12 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 7:52:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > > [incoherent nonsense, aka word salad]
> >
> > You really should see a psychiatrist and show them your postings. There may
> > be a psychotherapy to treat the mental illness that causes your logorrhea.
> >
> > Get well soon. Seriously.
> > PointedEars
> > --
> > Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
> > does it take to change a light bulb?
> > A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
> > (from: WolframAlpha)
> I don't care if you believe it -
> all it takes is a thinking machine.

Also - if you "fully agreed" with me -
I'd have nothing to do but agree.

Thanks, I'd rather read your terms, in the usual sense about
the moment, that, torque, the static quantity expressed in
rotational inertia besides linear inertia, is thus "static" from
the rotational to the linear as about its moment. (Which is linear.)

Whereas it's also rotational with respect to the rest of the static....

Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

Static about the moment including the axle in terms of
for example the next note of the moment, of course
you might agree that's not "static" any more but "impulse".
(Or along lines.)

Thank you I have a full interpretation of the terms.