On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 5:57 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:54 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> On 4/25/2022 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
> >> It doesn't matter what you use, you're going to need an energy
>>> calibration standard because there's just no way to measure the absolute
>>> energy of anything, you can only measure the relative energy.
>> * > Energy is proportional to mass thru the speed of light. *
> Yep, E= Mc^2. and the speed is measured in meters per second and light
> moves at 299,792,458 metres per second. But a meter is defined as the
> distance light travels in the time it takes an atom of caesium-133 to
> vibrate  9,192,631,770 times (which is the definition of a second),

Since the frequency of the hyperfine transition in caesium depends on the
energy difference of two levels in the atom, when energy rescales, the
frequency also rescales, and with it, the definitions of the second and of
the meter. The trouble with this is that this amounts merely to a rescaling
of the units, not a rescaling of time or distance in themselves. So a time
interval of ten old seconds will now be 5 new seconds, and so on. A change
of units does not change the physics; dimensionless constants, on which
everything depends, after all, do not change. So the physics does not scale
with energy as you claim.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to