По этому поводу я задал вопрос Нобелевскому лаурету Стивену Вайнбергу
Привожу коротенькую переписку
-----Original Message-----
From:
weinberg@physics.utexas.edu [mailto:weinberg@physics.utexas.edu]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:21 PM
To: Yuri Danoyan
Subject: Re: ONLY ONE QUESTION
Yes
Quoting Yuri Danoyan <yuri@danoyan.net>:
> Dear Dr Weinberg
>
> If space is discrete and time is continue,4-dimensional space-time
> lost its sense ?
>
> Sincerely
>
> Yuri Danoyan
-- Чт дек 20, 2012 20:31:52 --У меня есть хобби, конечно не единственное.Люблю задавать вопросы Нобелевским лауреатам по физике
Еще один пример недавней переписки:
From: Hooft, G. t [mailto:G.tHooft@uu.nl]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:48 AM
To: Yuri Danoyan
Subject: Re: Does all Planck units are sacred?
Dear Sir,
1. I don't know what you mean with "sacred". We don't mix religion with science.
2. Strictly speaking, the only statements that make sense in physics are ones where you compare one quantity
with another, using the same units. We can define the meter by the distance traveled by light in one second. In
such units, the speed of light, by construction, is constant. Similarly, we can define units such that also G and hbar
are constant. This is how the "Planck units" are defined. They are constant by definition, because we don't
compare them with anything..
3. But then you can measure the mass of particles such as the proton in the units thus obtained, and it is
legitimate to ask whether the number(s) you then find (dimensionless numbers) are truly constant or not. The best
measurements up to today indicate that such numbers do not vary with time or position. These measurements are
very precise, but of course the precision is limited, and nobody knows whether these numbers are also constant if you
could measure with much higher precision. Personally, I suspect that they are.
Greetings,
G. 't Hooft
On Nov 16, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Yuri Danoyan wrote:
Dear Professor G’Hooft
Could you please answer next question:
Does all Planck units are sacred or only one?
We doesn’t have guarantee G, c, real constants during the evolution of the Univertse.
We doesn’t have guarantee they depend of each other or not. My opinion: they are 2 sides the same coin.
Imagine that G and c synchron vary….
But we believe:
1.Schwarshild radius formula G/c^2
2.Planck unit of length G/c^3
3.Planck unit of time G/c^5
4.Planck unit of mass G/c
What is corresponded of real world? It will be absurd if all..
And all physics community keep silence….
To my opinion only #4 linear link between G and c is real….and sacred
And #1,2,3 are fake that only teasing physics
Just in case:
Max Planck Scheinprobleme der Wissenschaft
http://www.quantum-cognition.de/texts/P ... ROBLEM.pdfUnfortunately, we must recognize that we are in a trap with a respected Max Planck
Even more interesting, he warned about it.
Sincerely.
Yuri Danoyan