User talk:DonJStevens

Note: Material older than May, 2006 has been deleted.

Hi Don. I'm afraid I won't have enough time to do a proper job researching this in the near future. -- SCZenz 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The method shown on my User Page to define electron mass from the energy equation, E1/E2=E2/E3, has been rewritten so that relationships are more clearly described. The intent of the change is to resolve (answer) questions relating to units used. I am sure that I will be advised if questions remain. DonJStevens 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Don, on my talk page you wrote:

"As noted under Matter-wave quantum, the Planck constant can be derived from the electron mass, light velocity and the gravitational constant. h = 2mc(3Gm)exp 1/3, times(2pi)exp 5/3"

Could you show me shortly how it can be derived so I could save time otherwise wasted on looking for the derivation. Of course I understand that ${\displaystyle \lambda ={\frac {h}{mc}}}$ but I miss relation between ${\displaystyle G}$ and ${\displaystyle \lambda }$. Jim 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim; Derivation sequence is now on your Talk page--DonJStevens 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Don; Now I see how it was done. I still don't know what those relations could be used for except subsituting some constants for others. It doesn't look like making a life much easier.

Personally, I'd rahter use ${\displaystyle h}$ than ${\displaystyle 4\pi mc(12\pi ^{2}Gm)^{1/3}}$ even if it's exactly the same thing.

Jim 12:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You may use regular expressions like e.g. ${\displaystyle h=2mc(3Gm)^{1/3}\times (2\pi )^{5/3}=4\pi mc(12\pi ^{2}Gm)^{1/3}}$ which are easier to read.

Dear Don, yes, I see a problem with your formula, for example it is even dimensionally incorrect. ;-) It is very clear that no sensible combination of the speed of light, Newton's constant, and Planck's constant (and numbers of order one) can give you the Compton wavelength. Instead, the only quantity that has the dimension of length that you get in this way is the Planck length, about 20 orders of magnitude shorter than the electron Compton wavelength. Sorry to say but most of the section of the black hole electron article is nonsensical. All the best, Lubos --Lumidek (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lubos: Explanation of units is now shown on your Talk page.--DonJStevens (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Don. Thank you for your note on my talk page. It is fun to play with the natural constants. Consider an oscilator with a frequency (ν rotations per second) so big, that the quantum energy (h·ν joule) is so big, that the relativistic mass (h·ν·c⁻² kilogram) is so big that half the Schwarzschild radius (h·ν·G·c⁻⁴ meter) is so big that a photon need one second to travel it. Then h·ν·G·c⁻⁵=1 second and ν=h⁻¹·G⁻¹·c⁵=5.47574·10⁸⁵ rotations per second. You find that one square second equals 5.47574·10⁸⁵ rotations. This is strange. Bo Jacoby (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi again. You wrote that "The values length and time then become either quantized or uncertain so that the (E=hv) expression, at some high energy level does not apply". Well, the equation E=hv represents a fusion of two concepts, that of energy and that of frequency, and it seems unlikely that once fused they would ever separate again. Whether time and space is discrete or continuous is an ancient question, and no answer is final. The socalled atoms are not really atoms as they can be divided. An elementary particle does not define a point in space. An so on. Bo Jacoby (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

See my talk page. Bo Jacoby (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hello,

Thanks a lot for information concerning electron as a trapped photon. I read you page and will gradually look through all the material. One thing which I wonder about is how much does the Kerr Newman solution depend on the presence of mass. Will singularity still be present if instead of mass only electromagnetic energy is considered?

One other question which I have about your page is that you state time below Planck scale is meaningless but is there any solid reason for this?

I think the key to realizing the potential of these ideas is using sufficiently powerful computers to simulate Planck scale interactions between gravity and electromagnetism.

PS. As someone already stated it would be much easier to read the formulas and follow their manipulations if they were provided in math format, heres some random example: ${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}F&={\frac {1}{4\pi \varepsilon _{r}\varepsilon _{0}}}{\frac {q_{1}q_{2}}{r^{2}}}\end{aligned}}}$

Enemyunknown (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enemyunknown: Reply is on your Talk page.DonJStevens (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Hi Enemyunknown: Those theorists who believe the electron has internal structure, will now find there can be little doubt remaining that the electron is a gravitationally confined entity. " See, http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/discussionpost/Electron_as_a_ring_singularity_56595 See, http://donjstevensaolcom.blogspot.com/2010/02/gravitationally-collapsed-electron.html DonJStevens (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on my talk page. It's something I'm definitely intrigued by -- but I'm afraid it's going to have to sit on my "to look into" pile for the foreseeable time being, until I can properly do it justice. Jheald (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]