How To Order Your Central Vacuum System - Terms &Amp: Fill & Download for Free

Great question!There is a lot of confusion as to how to interpret Planck units. In fact, it's quite common for aspiring physicists to believe these are a kind of digit unit of the Universe.But it doesn't hold up under relativity. So I'm going to take this answer to first provide questions or reasons for why this is not an accurate interpretation of Planck units. Second, we're going to have a look at how these natural units originate and what might be a better way to understand them.Special Relativity: Length Contraction and Doppler EffectSpecial relativity throws a monkey wrench in the view that the Universe is a grid. Suppose you are traveling at half the speed of light relative to me.Let's work in natural units as they tend to be less calculation intensive.What would I see your Planck length to measure from my frame? And how would you measure my Planck Length from your frame?[math]x=x_0\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/math]In natural units, the speed of light([math]c[/math]) becomes [math]1[/math] and so the [math]c^2[/math] cancels. [math]v=0.5[/math].So if you run the calculation above, you'll find that our Planck lengths differ by a ratio of [math]0.866[/math]. That is hardly conducive to a gridlike Universe. If every time something moves relative to something else, their entire frame's grid gets length contracted, we now have a problem since our realities overlap! Whose grid is correct?The same argument could be made of Doppler shift due to special relativity. Suppose you and I are stationary to each other and you send a blue light beam to me at a wavelength of 470nm (or [math]2.9375×10^{28} \ell_P[/math]). Now suppose you begin to very slowly drift away from me. Due to special relativity, we know that the light would become ever so slightly red-shifted: that is, longer in wavelength. There are speeds at which you could travel in which the wavelength of the light that reaches me would be red-shifted by non-integer values of Planck length.General Relativity - General Relativity yields similar consequences to the above but without requiring any motion. If I increase or decrease an objects mass by very small amounts, I can affect the time dilation and length contraction of everything in the gravitational field by fractions of Planck units.In fact, it takes [math]1.3×10^{19}[/math] Hydrogen atoms to equal one Planck mass. The point being that these units should not be thought of as the smallest or shortest units. Which lends to the question, then what significance do these units carry?Understanding Planck UnitsIn order to understand Planck units, we have to understand the particular constants that go into nondimensionalisation[1][1][1][1].That means we need to understand three constants which can be used to calculate Planck length, Planck time, and Planck mass. Those constants are the Planck constant, the Gravitational constant and the speed of light.Planck Constant - the Planck constant helps us to understand what frequencies of light will be absorbed by a given atom, bumping it's electron into a higher energy state. You see, just because a lightwave hits an atom does not mean it will be absorbed by it. It could pass through or be reflected. Only under special circumstances does a lightwave of a particular frequency get absorbed.Think of it like this. If you take a drum or guitar string of a particular pitch and you produce a sound of that same frequency nearby, the drum skin or guitar string will vibrate. It will absorb and convert that sound as kinetic energy.But if the frequency doesn't match, then they will not vibrate. That is because they do not share the same frequency.Likewise, the Planck constant helps us know at what frequencies atoms can absorb photons. So the constant has to do with properties of matter and how it interacts with light. It does not directly have anything to do with the vacuum.Gravitational ConstantThe gravitational constant tells us how mass acts upon space-time in the proximity of a massive body. As mass increases in a particular region, this changes the mass density of the vacuum resulting in a gradient. A gradient of mass density results in light and matter nearby following a different geodesic, or path, than if that mass were not present.One way to think of this is in terms of classical acoustic physics. If air in a region has a gradient of temperature, sound waves will curve according to Snell's Law of Refraction[2][2][2][2]. Likewise, the gravitational constant tells us how mass interacts with the vacuum which then acts upon light and matter within that gradient.Speed of LightThe speed of light tells us the speed of local causality. When there is an excitation in the vacuum, such as a photon, how long does it take to travel a particular distance? That would be the speed of light. The speed of light also tells us the rate of time evolution of matter. Keep in mind that in quantum mechanics, matter is often treated quite successfully as a centralized wave: a matter-wave[3][3][3][3].A look at the Dirac equation[4][4][4][4] can demonstrate this:[math]i\hbar \gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\psi -mc\psi =0[/math]You can note the presence of [math]\psi[/math] in both components on the lefthand side, which denotes a wave function[5][5][5][5]. You may also note the speed of light is present in both as [math]c[/math] and [math]\gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu [/math][math][/math][math]}[/math]. Thus the local speed of light governs how this matter-wave evolves in time, which, in turn, results in the matter always measuring a constant local speed of light.Planck UnitsIf a meaning is to be ascribed to Planck Units it is this:Planck units tell us how matter and light interact with each other and the vacuum. They do not relate directly to the properties of the vacuum. I hope you have found this answer helpful and thank you for reading!Footnotes[1] Nondimensionalization - Wikipedia[1] Nondimensionalization - Wikipedia[1] Nondimensionalization - Wikipedia[1] Nondimensionalization - Wikipedia[2] Snell's law - Wikipedia[2] Snell's law - Wikipedia[2] Snell's law - Wikipedia[2] Snell's law - Wikipedia[3] Matter wave - Wikipedia[3] Matter wave - Wikipedia[3] Matter wave - Wikipedia[3] Matter wave - Wikipedia[4] Dirac equation - Wikipedia[4] Dirac equation - Wikipedia[4] Dirac equation - Wikipedia[4] Dirac equation - Wikipedia[5] Wave function - Wikipedia[5] Wave function - Wikipedia[5] Wave function - Wikipedia[5] Wave function - Wikipedia

There is that famous saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," but it's also important to remember that "just because something is a pithy saying doesn't make it true."I've tried to study people and power and organizations in an effort to gain insight into human behavior for the purposes of (what else) building effective long-term engineering organizations, especially those which are central to a powerful company, and I think the real truth about power and corruption is more complicated than that.I think the real truth is some people start out more corrupt than others, and organizations with positions that concentrate power attract corrupt personalities. Here's how I think that ends up working:1) Some people start out more corrupt than others. I don't think most peoples' intrinsic "corruption level" changes much throughout their life. I'm not saying they're literally born corrupt, but after whatever formative events of their childhood and early adolescence, people roughly settle into lifelong inclinations which determine how likely they are to abuse power (both large and small) when they have it. For whatever reason, there are certain people who, if you put them into a position of power (however temporary, even), they will immediately abuse it and lord it over others. They didn't become corrupt, they were corrupt before you gave them that power. You're probably familiar with such "little dictators" in your life here and there. Other people, if you hand them power, immediately realize the weight of its burden, and seek to act responsibly. Those people are not as corrupt, and you will also observe that they often don't go around seeking power. The people who are corrupt, on the other hand, once having experienced power or having witnessed someone else exercise power, eventually come to start seeking it, which brings me to:2) Organizations with positions that concentrate power attract corrupt personalities. Power is rarely exercised in a vacuum. Most shrewd wielders of great power eventually learn that if they are to exercise their power effectively (whether for good or evil), they must build organizations around them and delegate that power. This creates positions vested with power, and corrupt personalities look for such positions and try to attain them. Obvious targets in modern society include executive and managerial positions, so it is almost certain that once those positions in an organization become known for being vested with influence or power that corrupt personalities will begin to gravitate towards them. This is often the shortest and surest way to power; another method to attain power and influence is as a side effect of having built an influential edifice (such as a company or an institution). The builders of such power centers are often less corrupt because they are willing to endure long periods of relatively little influence in order to achieve other goals, i.e. the building of their edifice. However, once built, the edifice becomes a great source of power and in order to wield it, the original builder must create an organization and vest positions within it with delegated power.Thus, in real terms, this means that what we have to fear is not primarily founders of powerful companies or even conquerors who create great nations, but the subsequent executives, middle-managers, advisors, vice-presidents and ministers, and myriad other types who seek to join once the edifice has been established. Once an organization is built, its actions are no longer totally under the control of its creators - it will potentially be manned by those who are more corrupt, those who sought a place in the edifice primarily for the power it affords them, and that is why large organizations eventually become characterized by a "casual brutality" less seen in the interactions of ordinary daily life between one human to another. That is to say, the soul of the giant remains benign, but his ever-growing body is afflicted by a constant hunger for warfare and satiation.Additionally, power appears to corrupt, but what is much more likely the case is that corrupt personalities, learning that open displays of excess are considered uncouth, simply restrain themselves before they achieve positions of power. Giving them positions of power in which they feel secure is likely to cause them to "unfold" and reveal themselves, thus making it appear that they became corrupt, but they were corrupt in the first place. It is relatively easy to spot such people - because they must place themselves under such great restraint during their professional or political lives, they may allow themselves excesses in their personal life when given small amounts of power or influence. If you are attuned to looking for this, it is usually quite easy to spot. Look for people who, when they attain a momentary unfair advantage in daily life over others, do not hesitate to exploit it.One upshot of all of this (if you believe it) is that therefore, the most important thing to get right in an organization's design is how to choose which people are placed into positions of power. This means - in companies: methods of hiring, evaluation, and promotion - and in political systems: systems for elections and appointments. No matter the rules or existing conventions, they will be bent according to the will of those in power, so the overriding concern should be in ensuring that the systems which determine who attains positions of power chooses the right people.

It's easy to find examples of humanity screwing up: war, political polarization, corruption, environmental destruction.The primary reason why humanity screws up is simply that organizing a vast number of people to do the right thing is inherently hard, and so humanity screwing up is just the natural state of things — however that isn't a very satisfying theory. What we really want is a theory of why humanity sometimes doesn't screw up, and what we might be able to do so that humanity screws up less.My angle on this question is that of a product manager in the tech industry who has spent a few years trying to build products that help humanity screw up less. I've found that the theory that works best for me is to think of large scale society as being a massive collection of games within games.In this framing, everyone is always playing multiple games, winning at one game gives you the power to influence the mechanism for other games, and the mechanism for one game is often defined with the intention of helping win a larger game. This is a difficult concept to talk about in the abstract, so I'm going to step back and start with some examples of what this looks like when it works well:Tennis:Game between players: Players compete to win an individual match.Game between sports: Sports compete for audience attention by defining their game mechanics to be maximally entertaining.Game between officials: Officials compete for personal status, and the winners have the power to influence the rules of their sport.Game between humanity and chaos: Ideally the mechanics of the game between sports are such that sports help bring society together.Business:Game between employees: Employees compete for salaries and promotions.Game between companies: Companies compete for profit by defining the mechanics of the game between their employees such that employees best serve the company.Game of individual morality: Individuals compete for moral status in their communities. This hopefully also causes the companies they work for to behave in moral ways.Game between humanity and choas: Ideally the mechanics of the game between companies and the game of individual morality are such that companies are motivated to do things that help humanity.Government:Game between politicians: Politicians compete for votes.Game between media companies: Media companies compete for ad-driven page views. The content they write influences the game between politicians.Game between news aggregators: Companies like Facebook and Twitter create news feeds that help them win the game between news aggregators. The ranking of this feed influences the game between media companies and thus also the game between politicians.Game between political systems: Political systems such as Democracy and Fascism define mechanics for the game between politicians and the game between news aggregators. They do so with the aim of winning the game against other systems.Game between humanity and chaos: Ideally the mechanics of the game between political systems are such that governments are motivated to do things that help humanity.When these structures work well, it's amazing what they accomplish. A well designed network of games allows us to coordinate a vast number of people to play a big messy game like the game between humanity and chaos, without requiring the impractical existence of a central all-knowing authority to tell everyone what to do and make sure they are doing it.There are many ways that things can go wrong, but failures seem to often fall into one of several categories:Too much focus on narrow games - Students focus on scoring high on a test rather than understanding the material. Employees focus too much on getting promoted rather than doing good work. Companies focus too much on short-term metrics rather than long-term value. Politicians focus too much on winning rather than serving society.Game mechanics are changed to favor particular players rather than the larger game - Politicians gerrymander electoral districts. Companies capture regulators and change regulations to favor their own interests. Revolutionaries tear down existing institutions in ways that give themselves more power, but weaken the country.Game mechanics are motivated by ideological principles, without appreciating outcomes - Social policies that aim to help the poor but end up creating more poverty. Foreign policy that removes corrupt dictators but creates power vacuums. Taking money out of politics and thus giving more power to ideologues. Atheists pushing against false religious ideas without appreciating that false beliefs can still have positive effects on game mechanics. Tech companies prioritizing the algorithmic neutrality of their products without appreciating the social consequences.Changing game mechanics to solve a narrow problem without appreciating broader impact - Introducing rent control to help the elderly stay in their houses, without appreciating the effect it has on social cohesion. Changing patent policy to help one industry function better, but making other industries function worse.So what should you do if you are a concerned individual who wants to make the world a better place? I'm not sure, but here are some thoughts:Understand the mechanics of the relevant games - Things typically don't work the way the media tells you they do. A good clue is that if your explanation involves 'bad people' then it's probably wrong. If you haven't talked deeply with people on “the other side” then you probably don't really understand why they do what they do.Understand how to influence the mechanics of those games - Both the ways that rules are formally defined (e.g. regulations) and the common-knowledge conceptual framings that shape how society enforces norms (e.g. popular opinion).Understand what games you need to win in order to shift mechanics the right way - Mechanics are set by the winners of existing games. Understand which games matter, how to win them, and how well you need to do at one game in order to switch focus to a higher level game.Start from the game between humanity and chaos and work down - It's easy to find yourself over-fitting for a narrower game - such as the game between ideologies.This answer is largely based on game theory. I’m not a game theory expert so I'm sure there are important results I'm not aware of or better terms I should be using. This is just the way I've come to think about things as a result of my own work and the books I’ve read. Please comment and tell me why I'm wrong.