Testing the gravitational inverse-square law

Physics World ^ | April 2005 | Eric Adelberger, Blayne Heckel and C D Hoyle

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Ahhh. Got it. I'll sit down and just watch from here on out.

[longshadow]

Three dimensions are based on 90 degree angles. The choice of 90 degrees, rather than 60 degree or any other increment of angularity is strictly arbitrary.

It's not clear what you are trying to say here.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The choice of 90 degrees, rather than 60 degree or any other increment of angularity is strictly arbitrary.

No. Right angles are the only orthogonal system. For example, in two (remember that number) dimensions, the usual 90 degree coordinate system gives two numbers that completely describe a position. A 60 degree system with three lines gives three numbers, but only two are necessary (the third can always be determined from the other two).

A similar result holds for more dimensions. A coordinate system at right angles gives the same number of coordinates as the dimensionality.

Of course, the actual number, 90 is irrelevant; one could have used (with some justification) a number such as 91&5/16 "degrees" for a right angle.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Kelvin, not Boltzmann. Rutherford's work on the subject.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Thanks for the correction.

It just shows you can't trust your memory.

[Cold Heart]

BTTT

[cliff630]

Yes, Spooky is correct. I think what they did
was smash some particle which split in two.
Then when they excited one the other one responded
simultaneously.

Like identical twins on opposite sides of the earth
simultaneously dropping their eyeglasses.

I'm curious how they respond to SPOOKY.

[SunkenCiv]

Note: This topic is from 2005!

[brivette]

btt