Re: No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"
- From: Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:19:54 +0000 (UTC)
Roman Werpachowski schrieb:
Another example is Balmer's formula for hydrogen series. Derived without
any physical hypothesis, the formula is 100% correct and was an
important step on the way to quantum mechanics.
But it was not 100% correct. There are relativistic corrections...
Arnold Neumaier
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"
- From: Roman Werpachowski
- Re: No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"
- References:
- No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" ?
- From: Toon Moene
- Re: No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" ?
- From: Thomas Smid
- Re: No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" ?
- From: robert bristow-johnson
- Re: No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" ?
- From: Thomas Smid
- Re: No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" ?
- From: Roman Werpachowski
- No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" ?
- Prev by Date: Re: so, is it really true that observing dark energy hastens the end of the Universe?
- Next by Date: Does motion affect the operation of clocks or not ?
- Previous by thread: Re: No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" ?
- Next by thread: Re: No comments on "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
