Dear Covers:

Thanks to the warm welcome that I have received here, since I swam ashore on July 28, 2004 from a stormy sea, and the encouragement given by Craig, I am taking the plunge now with this submission. In my humble opinion, and quite coincidentally, this compliments what you will find in Steve Prevette's August 2004 article. I look forward to your comments. With my charmiest regards.

Charmed :) :topic:

Curiosity - What do you mean by "Is there a Law relating Views and Replies?"

I'm assuming you mean a numerical relationship.

Oops. Let me read your attachments... My bad.... I answered too quickly... :o

Dear Marc:

A law is something that is always true. So, if I am right, and if we continue to make "observations" such as what I have done, we always find the relation, y = hx + c, over and over again. For this to be called a universal law, the same (or very nearly the same) value of h must apply at all times. Changes in the values of the constant c therefore explain why we get more or less replies, for the same number of views.

In this case, we are dealing with a process called transfer of "mental energy" from the poster to the viewer, who then chooses to reply or not to reply. Of course, I have been around for just a couple days. So, observations have been limited. But, it might be fun to see what this might reveal over a longer period of time. More important is the extension of this approach to similar data from other websites, and to the analysis of many other types of transactional data that we gather daily. Anyway, thanks for starting this off. I feel welcome, for sure. With my charmiest regards.

Charmed :)

Now that I've looked at your papers, I'm really mad... (Tee hee hee!)

I browsed your two papers and that you have evaluated the numbers upsets me - That I didn't look at the relationship myself earlier on... So - My Kudos!

I will inject 1 aspect of the equation to consider... Views are measured by a 'page viewed' number which is a raw number. What I mean by this is that a 'view' will be counted every time the page is 'loaded' by a viewer. In addition, let's say I'm the thread author or a reply post author - every time I edit the thread or post another 'view' is chalked up by the software. So - If I 'subscribe' to the thread, for example, every time I come to see what others have entered another 'count' is added. If I started the thread, I may come back and view it multiple times and each time registers as a 'view'.

I'm only pointing this out so it is understood that there are aspects of the software which have to be accounted for. The failure mode is that the stats software is not counting individual viewers, but rather is a cume number.

But please keep on - I am anxious to see any analysis of the numbers. If you are not familiar with web site analysis - specifically with respect to vBulletin and this 'hack' stats program, let me know and I'll try to answer.

Oh - One off the cuff comment: Copyright 2004/ vlaxmanan/ Charmed/ ReplyView1.doc -- Nothing posted in these forums is copyright. This is an Open Source forum. I do not have any rights to posts or their contents nor does the poster.

Dear Marc:

Thanks for the kudos. Makes it worthwhile.

I am not familiar with website analysis. Would love to discuss this further with you. Do send me an email.

Right now, I am just taking the "numbers" at face value. I agree with you about the "phony" nature of the number called "views". Perhaps, "replies" may be more representative. If we can "weed" out some of the uncertainty that you point out with regard to the "views" we can develop a more accurate analysis. I believe "views" can be related to the I. P. adddress of the computer and if the I. P. address is the same, it means the same person is "viewing" more than once. But, then, it might just be that his/her spouse, or children needed attention, and he/she came back - with genuine and bubbling - to finish reading the marvelous article posted on the Forum. With my charmiest regards.

Charmed :) :applause:

:thanx: Now that I've looked at your papers, I'm really mad... (Tee hee hee!)

I browsed your two papers and that you have evaluated the numbers upsets me - That I didn't look at the relationship myself earlier on... So - My Kudos!

I will inject 1 aspect of the equation to consider... Views are measured by a 'page viewed' number which is a raw number. What I mean by this is that a 'view' will be counted every time the page is 'loaded' by a viewer. In addition, let's say I'm the thread author or a reply post author - every time I edit the thread or post another 'view' is chalked up by the software. So - If I 'subscribe' to the thread, for example, every time I come to see what others have entered another 'count' is added. If I started the thread, I may come back and view it multiple times and each time registers as a 'view'.

I'm only pointing this out so it is understood that there are aspects of the software which have to be accounted for. The failure mode is that the stats software is not counting individual viewers, but rather is a cume number.

But please keep on - I am anxious to see any analysis of the numbers. If you are not familiar with web site analysis - specifically with respect to vBulletin and this 'hack' stats program, let me know and I'll try to answer.

Oh - One off the cuff comment: Copyright 2004/ vlaxmanan/ Charmed/ ReplyView1.doc -- Nothing posted in these forums is copyright. This is an Open Source forum. I do not have any rights to posts or their contents nor does the poster.


Yes, Marc. This is all public domain now. I would be very happy if you or anyone else finds this to be useful and cares to use it.

I got your PM. If there is something specific you want to discuss with regard to web site anaylsis I'l be happy to comment, but you mifght want to start a thread in the Forum Help forum.

I'm still in the swollen jaw category from dental work yesterday but the Percet has almost worn off now so I'll try to comment on this aspect of analysis.

First off, some of the numbers here are valid, others are 'reference'. That is, some can give you absolute numbers which should be 'good' (such as 'how many total threads' or 'how many total posts'). A 'reference' number is what I would call 'views'. It does tell you how many times the thread was 'called', but there are a lot of cavats. For example, if it is a long thread a 'view' doesn't mean every page of the thread was loaded and read by someone. The count will increase by 1 even if only 1 page of the thread is loaded. As I think you pointed out, if a person reads a thread and re-reads it later it will count as 2 'views' even though it's 1 person and even if there are no new posts to that thread. These are just a couple of things, but I think you get the idea.

A lot of people have asked the vB people to address a lot of different aspects of the different statistics - And other aspects of the software in general for that matter. Database size issues often come into play. Often what is wanted is not impossible, but is more of an issue of limitations - If, for example, a complex tracking routine was coded where every 'partial thread view' was recorded, and other aspects such as who viewed the thread and how many times, the arguement is that the database could become so large that many people would have trouble. A secondary factor cited is speed. If the software stores all these aspects, how long will it take especially when there are calls for that data? Another aspect is views by unregistered visitors. For example, AOL uses proxies and the way it does so often gives a different IP for each 'call' from a person. So - when you think about tracking unregistered users by IP the model fails. This is also an issue in dialup. If you log in today and read a thread and then you dial in again tonight and read the thread again, you will have a different IP. That said we cannot us the IP as an indicator of whether, or how many times, an unregistered (or registered but not logged in) individual user reads a thread.

I ran into both these issues (database size and board speed) on the servers I had before last December (these forums have been on several different servers over the years). I ended up switching to a dedicated server that is 'oversized' for the amount of traffic here and the database size.

In short, with some of the numbers here one has to understand the aspects which will throw off any serious analysis attempt. My problem in trying to address these issues in a post is difficult because I could write a book - You pretty much have to sit down and discuss these things or you end up with 'snippet' failures in understanding. That is, someone asks a question and gets a partial answer because there are so many aspects that it would take hours to write out and address each one where face to face much, much more information can be related. From a 'snippet' here a lot of assumptions can be made and many of them may not be at all valid.

Just some thoughts.

Dear Marc:

You have thought of and mentioned so many points that are worth bearing in mind. Wow, all of this even after dental surgery!

At this point, I will simply wait for more input. As you can tell, I only have the numbers for views and replies. If anyone knows how to "improve" the numbers being used, I would certainly be very glad to take a look at this whole thing again.

However, something tells me the basic conclusions will not change significantly. The method of analyzing the data remains the same. All that changes is the numerical values of h and c in the law y = hx + c. The law, not the exact numerical values of h and c, is what I was trying to call attention to. We seem to find this simple law in the most unexpected of places.

As we proceed, and assuming this catches on, we could analyze many other types of "information", similar to replies and views here, that is now being captured by other websites to asses their own performance. We could apply it other types of manufacturing and service industry data.

A more scary thought, which I had mentioned in my PM, is the potential application for "intelligence" data. What would we learn from traffic on websites being monitored by intelligence agencies for national security purposes?

May be the idea of a "work function", which is simply another way of looking at the nonzero c in y = hx + c, is telling us more than we realize at this time. Since I had reason to expect a linear law (based on prior experience with many other types of business, social, and economic data analysis), I tried to see what was going on at Elsmar Cove Forums, using the same model.

Again, Marc, please accept my sincere thanks for the thought that you have given this first effort on my part.

Charmed :) :thanx:


P. S. I say "scary" thought because the 9/11 commission has concluded that we (the U. S.) as a nation has lacked "imagination" in the analysis of intelligence data. What is intelligence data? This too can be converted to a bunch of "numbers" that can be analyzed using similar methods, statistical or otherwise. I am thinking of a model similar to that used to develop various "quality" ratings. I have analyzed the J. D. Power Quality data (Vehicle Dependability Study and Initial Quality Study) using the work function described here. That's a different matter altogher.

Have you seen http://Elsmar.com/Forums/statistik.php and http://Elsmar.com/Forums/statistik.php?do=last_x_days ?

Be aware, however, those statistics are from a 'hack' (an 'add on') which a fellow wrote and gives away so it is not technically part of the vB software. That said, I'm not a php coder. I can generally follow through the code and see what they're doing, but there's a lot of code to wade through and I'm not that 'excited' about it to take a few days to do that. I can't say that the calculations the writer made are all valid. But I will say most of the numbers look to be good. Many are definitely 'valid' - they're just calls for existing numbers in the vB database, but there are a few that are reference and a couple that are (to me) questionable.

There have been some discussions in a thread in the moderators forum about visitor stats here. I just split off some relevant posts and they are in the thread linked to above and is now in the 'Forums Help and Information' forum - See: http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9099. The discussion there is about the numbers we get here from the software and revolves around what numbers we could set here as measureables to baseline and use for 'improvement' measurement.

As I related in that thread, I also see this site in a larger sense - That is at the server level. The site is not all forums so I have to look at things from the 50,000 foot level as well. vB keeps its own records vs. the server Apache (httpd) logs. But, for this conversation focusing on forum specific numbers is fine as long as we remember part of the information comes from http calls - the same ones the server gets and logs. I mention this because the information contained in a call is not always complete and correct.

Getting back to the moderator's thread, the idea was discussed but no one ever came up with a number and said 'here's one we could track.

Just some 'all night theater' time thoughts.

EDIT ADD: This post is intended to point you to some other aspects of the stats here and is not an arguement for or against the applicability or validity of your formula.

Dear Marc:

I had a chance to look at the data on the Forum Statistics for the last 20 days in one of the two links you suggested.

I looked at the New Threads, Posts, and Registered Users numbers. Interestingly, once again, a family of parallels, described by the simple law y = hx + c or y = hx - W, can be used to explain what might otherwise just seem like a general "scatter" of points all over the graph.

For New Threads versus Posts, from July 12, 2004 to July 31, 2004, the slope h = 27.4 = 137/5. This slope h was fixed by the thread that generated the highest number of posts. This straight line with the highest slope becomes the "reference", or the "standard" by which we now judge all the other threads. (Remember, my discussion of how water was used as a standard to develop the idea of measuring energy added to a body, to define what we mean by one calorie.)

All the other points can be explained as falling on a set of parallels with the constant c varying from 0 to - 262.2 the data, or what is the same with the work function W varying from 0 to 262.2. The work function is simply the negative of the constant c. If you do prepare the graph and superimpose the parallels, you will see that more than one (x, y) pair fall on or very close to each member of this family of parallels. Example (1, 24) and (5, 173) fall very close to y = 27.4x. The points (10, 96) and (11, 119) fall on or very close to the parallel y = 27.4x - 182.4 and so on. For the moment, I am assuming that these numbers are reliable.

The higher the work function, the more the "work" that must be done to generate a post. Hence, for the same number of new threads (x), the number of posts (y) decreases when W is high. Some new threads, as we can imagine, will not generate posts or responses. This is natural. Others generate a lot of responses. The same goes for Posts versus Registered Vistors. The constants h and c take on different values, but the data again falls on a set of parallels - at least in my mind's eye.

The simple law y = hx - W, which is merely a generalization of Einstein's photoelectric law K = hf - W seems to capture these two situations quite well. With my warmest regards.

Charmed :) :thanx:

P. S. At this point, I have not attached the graphs. Be more than happy to, if there is interest.

Well Done Charmed and welcome to the cove. I am sure you will have many an admirer and I think Steve will finally have someone to play with :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: (sorry, had to do it).

I do not have a great handle on maths & figures especially the stuff you are talking about. I always thought that the number or replies depended on the topic, the amount of regular cove users interested in it and if it appeared on a weekend or was posted out of hemisphere (If I post at Midday in Australia it is roughly midnight in the States and Canada). As these posts are'nt always as well reviewed, usually because people review the newest threads first. So anything appearing at the end of the cycle may not get the time it might otherwise deserve (I hope this makes sense).

Of course I did not understand much of the stuff talked about in 'A Beautiful Mind' also :lmao:

Dear Greg B:

Thanks for the warm welcome. When it is midday in Australia, it may be midnight here in the U. S. and Canada. But when it is cold and freezing here, you folks are basking in the sun! Never been down under but would love to visit sometime and see me standing upside down yet walking as if everything was OK. I did see a nice presenation you had posted on QMS and even used it to create a new slogan for Lisa

Quality - It's Your Job!

With my charmiest regards :thanx:

Very interesting read. However I didn't see any recognition of the time element involved. My observation is that generally views and replies to a thread "heat up" quickly, then fade, until Marc prompts a resurrection :D .

Would there be any way to incorporate that behaviour in your formulae?

B. G. Wiehle

Dear B. G. Wiehle:

You are so right. Actually, I just took a stab at what I had. I have started collecting some more data and decided to follow what happens after a new thread is posted - over a period of time. Let's see what we find about this heat up process. However, I must add, I try to get back to this off and on. It has been fun so far.

Charmed :)

I'm still trying to digest some of the concepts regarding the work function.

you are postulating that h, slope stays the same (it is an web-site 'standard' ) but with different outliers representing different levels of a work function.

I'm not sure about this analogy. Whereas I might have to work 'hard' to comment on QS9000, others have to work hard to comment about ISO9000. Perhaps some have been here long enough that it seems 'hard work' to answer a basic question like "is the CQE for me?", others might have to work hard to reply to someone whom had in-depth knowledge of TPM.

Point is there's an enormous amount of variables that constitute whether we will reply or not reply to an post (which you do point out). I see it as more like distribution of different sloped lines (with a variable c that best approximates how many might be familiar with the subject) rather then a series of exactly similar slope lines.

lets say there are 1,000,000 of us that know what the words TQM is. the curve Could be fairly steep. over time, many of us will visit the thread and if IF IT IS INTERESTING and well written, we will eventually produce a point with lots of views and lots of replies.

However if someone brings up obscure procedure of Taguchi DOE, few of us will view and even less with reply. thus the unfolding of the conversation, ability for us to understand and desire to explain, increase the slope AS Well as decrease the work to reply.

Other factors also could create a very different slope. say for example the post had an interesting title, and caught a lot of people's eye. Until they realized the conversation had been beaten to Death by another thread. After a quick check of that attached threads, you might get Alot of activity for only a little bit of replies.

But I admit to being a little dense in that proof on page 3. I have a college degree but in chemistry not math, and I sense I am in the presence of someone who knows a whole lot of college level math.

Your submission is awesome work though! I love it when people bring in the math to start sorting out what causes what. Thats the genius of einstein and others. He started using the math and his thought experiments and consequently without a telescope or supercollider set the mathematically foundation for the math of Everything.

So..thought experiment, the element of time and the open question of what h, slope might be and whether it varies. What do you think??

Hello Charmed, and welcome to the Cove :bigwave:
Thanks to the warm welcome that I have received here, since I swam ashore on July 28, 2004 from a stormy seaSwam ashore, you say? By the looks of things the shore must have flashed past in the blink of an eye, because you have made a running start if I ever saw one...:agree1:

/Claes

Dear Oliphant and Claes:

Thanks both of you also for the warm welcome to the Cove. If you just bear with me, it goes like this. Either can you look at the world as y = hx + c and think of those straight lines people draw on parking lots to keep us (I mean our cars) in their places. Or, you can look at the world using some some complicated nonlinear mathematical equation (say the Gauss or normal distribution), or the following equations.

y = A(x^n)exp(-ax) + c ......................................... (1)

Or, y = A (x^n) { exp(-ax) /[1 + bexp(-ax)] } + c ............(2)

Now, almost everyone I know has the background and the capacity to understand these two equations. You can go from these two equations back to y = hx + c, which I am sure everyone understands. That is what Einstein did to develop the equation K = hf - W in his 1905 paper which everyone now agrees was the real starting point of the quantum theory revolution, although Planck started it in 1900.

What did Einstein do? He looked at equation 2. This is Planck's equation. He said, "Nah! too complicated. Let me put b = 0. That captures the "essence" of Planck." Then he did a few things with equation 1. He talks about two properties associated with light, or radiation, within a given volume V. One property is called entropy density. The other property is called energy density. What is this? We understand density. So, now we must understand entropy and energy. We all use energy and think we understand it. So, I said there is "mental energy" in the numbers called Views and Replies.

There are many others who talk about entropy. It has to do with chaos. I will not say any more. The world sometimes seems like one big chaos.

Anyway, Einstein takes entropy and energy and says temperature is the ratio of energy to entropy. We all understand temperature. So, I talked about temperature. If we don't understand why temperature is ratio of energy and entropy, doesn't matter. I don't know anything about computers, or Internet, yet I make all these posts!

Then, Einstein looks at the whole thing again. He sees that when equation 1 is simplified, it means that y goes up in steps of hx. Or in his case K goes up in steps of hf. Now I will tell you a secret. The "a" includes h and temperature T and something called k. Actually ax = hf/kT in Einstein's and Planck's problems.

Then Einstein says, if K goes up always in steps of hf, when f = 0, K = 0. This is not what the experiments show us. There is a finite cut-off value of f before we can measure a finite K > 0. So, he says there is a work function W and K = hf - W. He did not say K = N(hf) - W where N is some unknown number. He puts N = 1. This means keep things simple. Look at just one photon and one electron. Not a large group of photons or a large group of electrons. That's the genius of Einstein. When f = 0 K = - W. And when K = 0, there is a finite f = W/h, the cut-off value of the quantity f called frequency of light (or any electromagnetic waves measured in units like kHz, MhZ, GHz, etc. we communicate using such waves now).

This is really simple. Now, my dear Oliphant, you must be able figure out some of the questions you have asked. All of them are very legitimate ones and worth asking and thinking about. May be later I will be more concise in answering them, more directly, than indirectly like this. But, this work function W that Einstein came up with, is a stroke of genius.

I always loved Einstein. One day, I sat there reading his 1905 paper on light. You can get it in the bookstores now for just $20.00 with a nice bound cover. The book is called Einstein's Miraculous Year by J. Stachel.

I shook my hand and said I don't understand anything here. What is energy? Let's call it E, just a letter. What is entropy? Let's call is S, just another letter. So, temperature is T, just another letter. So, T = E/S. Just another ratio. We have zillions of such ratios that we are using everyday. I can live with one more ratio that I don't really understand. Now, there is a big transformation. I start feeling like something is entering my brain.

Then, Einstein says, K = hf - W. Wow! I understand this. Looks just like y = hx + c or shall I say y = hx - W.

Then I came here. I was out there in a vast ocean not knowing where I was sailing. May be like Columbus I have found a new and a friendly world. Really it is simple. Really simple, Oliphant.

Charmed :) :thanx:

P. S. I will give an example of how to use equation 1. It is cool and can explain many things in manufacturing data, accident statistics, etc. Just think of accidents like "defects" in a process. We can use these equations to understand many things without necessarily going through statistics. Now, I may get in trouble here. So, let me say, Planck and Einstein use some statistics-based argument to derive them. But, now we can just use them. Then we can see how this new approach relates to statistics as we now use.

http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/pimp.gif:magic:
Bottom line= Energy exists in discrete levels propotional to the frequency of the light particle (photon).

http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/omg.gif http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/appl.gif http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/blowup.gifhttp://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/2cents.gif

Too personal. Much too personal. I'm closing the thread until I decide what to do with it.

I have moved this thread to a more appropriate forum. I really do not think it is a Registered User Article submission, and I'm not sure but as far as I can tell it's theoretical mathematics. Which is fine.

I'm not a math person. My major was biology with minors in chemistry and anthropology - BA. I understand the equations, and that's all fine and well, but his thread has become personal - an arguement rather than a discussion.

The thread is now re-opened - However - Remember it has been reclassified and if you do not like the tone of the thread, don't read and/or participate.

'Charmed', I do ask you look closely at the forum you are posting in and if you want to delve into mathematical theory and physics interaction topics you post them appropriately - specifically in this forum.

And again to everyone - I will NOT tolerate getting personal in posts here. Period. Getting personal in posts is totally uncalled for.

Dear Marc:

Please accept my thanks for giving me the opportunity to post in this new thread. If there is continued interest in such a discussion, I would certainly be delighted to do so.

Charmed :) :thanx:

Dear Oliphant:

As I promised in my previous reply, now let me try to answer your questions directly. It is going to be easy since you have degrees in chemistry. So, you already know about energy and entropy. Chemistry has a lot to do with Einstein's work function. I have added some points at the end. Now, let me answer the question you have about h and how to determine h. Actually, the points that you mention and B. G. Wiehle mentions are also discussed by Planck in his December 1900 paper.

There are many values of h that we can obviously find if we prepare a graph of x and y. To fix h, we only need two very “good” value of x and y. That, in a sense, is what you are saying in the final paragraph, which I quote below.

***********
So..thought experiment, the element of time and the open question of what h, slope might be and whether it varies. What do you think??

****************
If you study all the figures in the PowerPoint attachment, you will see that I have tried to determine h using more than one approach. I have also used the method of least squares to determine h, see comparison in Figures 2a and 2b. But, it is best to use the highest slope, as I have noted in the caption of Figure 6, because this then means that all the work function values are positive for all the points in our graph. The governing law becomes y = hx + c = hx - W and each point has a different W but all points have the same h. The higher the work function W, the smaller the number of replies y, for the same views, x. After some time, you will come to same conclusion I have. I hope this answers one of your main points. Let's take the other important point. Let me again quote you first for our discussion purposes.

*****************

I'm still trying to digest some of the concepts regarding the work function.
you are postulating that h, slope stays the same (it is an web-site 'standard' ) but with different outliers representing different levels of a work function.

I'm not sure about this analogy. Whereas I might have to work 'hard' to comment on QS9000, others have to work hard to comment about ISO9000. Perhaps some have been here long enough that it seems 'hard work' to answer a basic question like "is the CQE for me?", others might have to work hard to reply to someone whom had in-depth knowledge of TPM.

Point is there's an enormous amount of variables that constitute whether we will reply or not reply to an post (which you do point out). I see it as more like distribution of different sloped lines (with a variable c that best approximates how many might be familiar with the subject) rather then a series of exactly similar slope lines.

lets say there are 1,000,000 of us that know what the words TQM is. the curve Could be fairly steep. over time, many of us will visit the thread and if IF IT IS INTERESTING and well written, we will eventually produce a point with lots of views and lots of replies.

However if someone brings up obscure procedure of Taguchi DOE, few of us will view and even less with reply. thus the unfolding of the conversation, ability for us to understand and desire to explain, increase the slope AS Well as decrease the work to reply.

Other factors also could create a very different slope. say for example the post had an interesting title, and caught a lot of people's eye. Until they realized the conversation had been beaten to Death by another thread. After a quick check of that attached threads, you might get Alot of activity for only a little bit of replies.

***********************

Actually, Oliphant, if you study the graphs again, I have taken into account exactly the difficulty that you point out to fix h. We need x and y values from at least two threads to fix h. Each thread has its own value of views x and replies y. Like you say, it involves different amounts of mental energy to reply to the thread. In Figure 2a, for example, the value of h was fixed by picking two threads which gave two extreme values of x and y. Then, we find, the (x, y) pair for a third thread also falls on the same line. Amazing, isn't it? Then, we draw a parallel line to the first one, see Figure 3, and again many threads fall on the family of parallel lines. But since W is different, different levels of mental energy and so different levels of replies for same views. I think you have understood more than you realize and it is just a matter of reflecting on it some more.

Another poster, B. G. Wiehle, mentioned the time element. This means, to me at least, that we must study one thread at a time and see how it “heats up” as he puts it. Hence, h will change with time. I am trying to study that as well; see also the time-averaging issue I have noted at the end of these comments. But, at the moment, I think, I have addressed the more complex situation of considering many threads simultaneously and looking at what it takes to get a reply from the viewer. I hope this answers your questions directly. If not, please tell me what I have not addressed and I will try again.

Now, let's go to another point you say in your post.

*************

But I admit to being a little dense in that proof on page 3. I have a college degree but in chemistry not math, and I sense I am in the presence of someone who knows a whole lot of college level math.

*******************

The so-called 'proof' you mention on page 3 is also quite simple. Take the number 8. This is can be expressed as 8 = 3 + 5 or what is the same if y = 3x + 5, when x = 1, y = 8. The point (1, 8) on our graph therefore lies on the straight line y = 3x + 5. But, you can also say it lies on the straight y = 8x. The second straight line passes through the origin. This is what we do now. We look at the ratio y/x in many problems. In this example, y/x = 8/1 = 8. The first straight is also a valid way of looking at the same point. But first straight line does not pass through the origin. So, the question, like you ask is what h can I, or should I, use.

Actually, you can use any h. Why? The more important idea is changes in the work function. This is what we must consider to understand problems outside physics. So, we can use h determined by any simple method. The best approach is to use maximum h. I have shown that there is a maximum h based on my preliminary observations for Elsmar Cove Forums. This could change with time. Someday, somebody could make a great post, which will increase the value of the slope h. This is what you are saying.

That's OK. Let's wait for that day. Now, a final point. Planck also recognizes exactly what you talk about in his December 1900 paper. In the very first introductory paragraph of his paper, Planck cautions that we must look at "time-averaged" values of energy and entropy. His theory, he says, deals only with "time-averaged" values. In thermodynamics, there is no "time". All values in thermodynamics are "equilibrium" values. Sufficient time must elapse to determine energy, entropy, etc. Only then do they become what we call "state" properties, which always have the same value whenever the system is in the same "state".

Social, political, economic, and environmental systems are more complex. Universal laws, like laws of thermodynamics are not knowns. But, they can be deduced, if we make good observations. The simple law y = hx + c and the two equations 1 and 2 in the previous post are tools to study such systems. Notions of energy, entropy, and temperature, can be associated with these systems as well. The "numbers" contain these properties. We just have to use math more imaginatively.

So, I sincerely believe that someday we will find more general acceptance of what you have so kindly allowed me to express in these two postswith your questions. Looking at equation 1 or 2 in the previous post, or y = hx + c = hx - W are all equivalent.

There are two ways to get from point A to point B. The shortest path is the straight line, such as the straight line y = mx. Or, we can go from point A to point C and then from point C to point B. In this case you are following the path y = hx + c. Point A to C is like movement along x-axis with y = 0. Then moving from point C to point B is the motion along the line with slope h.

Is any h permitted? Yes. But, one h, the highest h, is the most useful according to Einstein's theory. If it changes with time so be it. It is because we are humans. In GOD's world h is constant at all times. In the systems that humans have created h might be varying with time. But the idea of work function is the important one.

But, wait, wait. If you read the latest theories of physics, you will find out that even the so-called fundamental constants of nature (like Planck constant h, speed of light c, charge on electron q) are no longer considered to be "constant" at all times. There are articles published now in peer-reviewed physics journals (where Einstein could not publish his own papers!) which say that speed of light was very high billions of years ago, just after the BIG BANG. So, the charge q on the electron can vary too. That's another theory. Nobody said, Planck constant h can vary too. But soon they will. There is no choice if q and c are allowed to vary! So, that's the physics of the late 20th and early 21st century (first decade only!)

***************

Your submission is awesome work though! I love it when people bring in the math to start sorting out what causes what. Thats the genius of einstein and others. He started using the math and his thought experiments and consequently without a telescope or supercollider set the mathematically foundation for the math of Everything.

Thank you for these kind words.

Charmed :) :thanx:



P. S. Oliphant, these are some short notes on the thermodynamics, chemistry and work function. Others can ignore this, if they wish.

As you know, there are four laws of thermodynamics. The first and the second laws of thermodynamics are the most commonly discussed ones. They introduce the ideas of energy and entropy. From first law, we get dQ = dU + dW. Here dQ is energy added in the form of heat to a body (say water, which Joule studied, or a solid block of tungsten that physicists were studying in 1900). What happens to his heat dQ? It can be used to do work dW (water becomes steam which can then operate and engine or turbine, and so do work, or it produces electricity, which runs a motor which does work). But, not all heat becomes useful work. Some goes to increase what we call the internal energy, dU. The second law defines the idea of entropy dS and this is related to temperature T by dS = dQ/T. This is what Planck and Einstein used to derive the two equations 1 and 2 in my previous post.

Planck said, let work dW = 0. When energy is added to the heated solid, no work is done in the sense of a work done when a gas is compressed or expanded in a cylinder with a movable piston. Then by combining first and second law, Planck gets dQ = TdS = dU which means temperature T = dU/dS. This is Planck’s definition of the temperature of a heated body, or what he calls a blackbody. This means if there are two properties called energy and entropy (associated with any body) its temperature T is the ratio dU/dS.

We don't have to deal with "energy" as we understand in physics, chemistry, and biology. We can generalize the idea of "energy". We have muscle energy. We have mental energy. When mental energy is misdirected, work is done, but we call it violence or riots. There is terrorism. People are hurt and killed. When mental energy is properly directed, we have peace, quiet, meditation, yoga, bliss, happiness, etc. People are kind to each other and there is overall prosperity. The idea of energy can be associated with "numbers" that we use to understand economic, social, political, systems, and other complex systems like environmental systems, business world, stock market etc. The question then becomes what is entropy? This can be defined in a systematic manner if we study Planck's paper. But that is a different matter.

More important, in my humble opinion, for our purposes, is not the Planck constant h (that we get out of Planck's theory, published in December 1900) but the work function W introduced by Einstein in 1905. Einstein looks out Planck's equation 2 from the last post and simplifies it to equation 1. In Planck’s equation a = hf/kT where k is called Boltzmann constant. Since you are chemist, you can appreciate that k = R/N where R is the universal gas constant and N is the Avogadro number.

Einstein then comes up with the equation for the kinetic energy of the electron which could written as K = B(hf) where B = 1. This is first law of thermodynamics, or conservation of energy. The energy of one photon is hf. The energy of one electron can never be greater than hf. Back in 1900 nobody paid much attention to what Planck did. If it was not Einstein, Planck's paper might have been lost and forgotten. Einstein said, I like the idea of energy of light (that is also what he does in theory of relativity!). If light is a particle, each particle can have a maximum energy hf. This is applying Planck's idea to a new problem. Planck looked at the energy of heated solid block of tungsten and the radiation it produces. Einstein looks at the radiation itself, or the light produced by the heated body.

Somehow, if you study the history of the subject, you find that Einstein and Planck, never quite agreed with each other. I am always puzzled why they could not see the differences in their views may have something to do with what they were both trying to do. One looks at the heated body and calculates energy of the body. The other looks only at the radiation produced by the heated body.

Anyway, then Einstein says, I must allow for work done to get the electron out of the metal. So, K = hf - W. But, remember Einstein is always thinking about the maximum energy of the photon. He is also thinking about the maximum energy of the electron.

That is what I am doing to determine h. There are many values of h that we can obviously find if we prepare a graph of x and y. But, as in Figure 6, it is best that we use the maximum h. If this changes with time, so be it. It only means all the work function values must be readjusted, or “recalibrated”. Please also note the "time-averaging" issue mentioned by Planck himself.

Thank you for such a detailed reply.

a few concepts clicked. Its especially good to recognize this approach as an analogy-- thus an approach to the numbers that contributes to the analogy should be preferred over an approach to the numbers that doesn't.

also:
Threads over equilibrium would have a consistent slope. It seems senseable that a percentage of the number of people who could understand the issue would have something senseable to say. this consistency would only apply to time-average slopes.

It would take time for the thermo system to 'heat up' and equilibrate, similarly it would take time for the thread to equilibrate.

God would have a constant h. Totally agree, if we were perfect we would contribute to each relevant thread WHEN we had something useful to contribute. the slope of such a situation would most likely be a maximum slope.

NOW suggestions:
FIRST and most important; the specific views/replys are easy numbers to find, but have limitations particarly around the x=0. Instead compare Information versus views.
Use information to give weight to profound replies and to allow the chart to show real useful information. you could divise some kind of concept unit (5 = profound, 3=useful attachment, 1and2 = simple concurrance). also use Reviews to point out that the original post has information too. and He sets the stage for work function.

Next, go into greater depth into the ramifications of the study. Your analysis of the information is unique, your analogy to basic theoritical physics is fascinating. Now that you've worked hard to tell the viewer WHAT the analogy is, simply summarize it, tieing it back to the analogy.

I'll attempt to state what I thought the major lessons were from the analogy...

1. Replying to a thread when you have something useful to say, is not the only important duty we have (if we wish to see this forum rise to its full potential). simple slope is not the only attribute of a line. Rather we must perform WORK to see it maximized. Work, important mental energy, that keeps this forum from degrading to a bunch of sarcastic remarks and dull-witted yes/no opinions.

2. starting a thread is important. like the origin of our line, a good thread will set an excellent line, allowing the rest of us to usefully contribute with a minimum of work. If you lesson the work on all the rest of us, you have elevated the line (if you will)...

3. Give all threads 'equilibrium' before you judge them too harshly. There is a a complex interply in many real-world thermodynamic systems. Its only after equilibrium that we are certain of the work expended.

4. Lastly and ultimately, Work funciton IS more important then slope. We can all contribute or reply with little understanding of the needs of the community. Like an unefficient thermodynamic system; it simply prevents those that know to help those that don't. After all, switching from one branch of physics to another-- work (the motion) is the dependant on both force and displacement. therefore a useful reply is both one that makes a strong statement AND one that (at least theoritically) yields useful result.


PS. I have missed marc's comment until the last moment. Oh dear, I feel :o
Have I been too personal??? I thought all information was in the context of a thought experiment? Surely as einstein was theorizing fundemental laws of the universe he grabbled with concepts that may have had rough fits.

Also, The theoritical physics are merely an anology. I fear I may have appeared combative when in fact I was confused. All this background information is old dusty stuff from college courses. So to struggle with recollecting it correctly and applying it as an anology is 'hard work', (pun intended). I've also said that I think best when writing ( I do TRY to think before I talk, tho. :D ), and nothing clears things up (for me) then discussing work with the author.


Mostly, I do not want to give the impression I'm re-writing anybody's work. In all cases, these articles are a long ways superior than I can do. Rather, by continueing the conversation I hope to understand the issues the author was discussing. For the author, there is the benefit that they can recieve impressions that a reader May experience.

I very much appreciate all feedback either in PM or publicly, to any of my posts.

As a final note; recall that this is a thread based on theoritical physics. I would touch my dear physics teachers heart to see such passion based on the theoritical physics of einstein and plank. Indeed for him sleeping students was an occupational hazard!

Dear Oliphant:

Actually, I was waiting to hear from you and read with great interest some of your comments. In these two replies, I tried to address some of your questions, as fully as I can. I think you have more than grasped what I have tried to do here. Now we will simply have to see how much more we can do with such an analysis. I have been compiling some more data to see how "time-averaging" works. I also could analyze a single thread and how it "heats up" and achieves equilibrium.

However, much depends on what all this eventually leads us to. I would like to see something more than merely theoretical ideas come out of this. I would like to see this being put to practical use. I sincerely believe, the work function idea can serve as an advance "warning" to many things that current statistical approaches call "outliers". Such outliers, as we now are generally overlooked. Now, with the notion of a work function, we could try to understand these outliers better. I took me many years before I dared to start calling this the equivalent of Einstein's work function.

Perhaps, others have to take some steps now.

Charmed :) :thanx:

PS. I have missed marc's comment until the last moment. Oh dear, I feel :o
Have I been too personal???
A couple of posts were edited (after my comment) to remove some rather pointed personal comments. As I have stressed and fully enforce - I will not allow personal attacks or the like. I did not point specifically to you or anyone else, however. My comment was general and does seem out of place now that the 'offending' posts have been edited.