Essay Abstract

There is an elephant in the room. Something obviously is wrong in physics and no one pays any attention to it anymore. We have been taught to believe that the mass of an electron (or any particle or even a golf ball) can approach infinite mass if its velocity approaches the speed of light. This mistaken truth (the Elephant) has been with us for about 100 years as part of Einstein's special theory of relativity. It is in a lot of textbooks even though it can never be proven because it is impossible to prove by experiment that anything approaches infinity. Nowhere do we see massive quantum mechanical particles larger than 22 micrograms whatever their velocity, yet physicists as a group believe in them. This strikes me as just plain goofy. A case will be made that any particle can only get to a maximum mass of 22 micrograms (a Planck mass). This is about the mass of a mosquito and is a lot less than infinity. Since ordinary classical masses (i.e. golf balls) are composed of particles they too will not approach infinite mass as they approach the speed of light. It may seem that getting rid of the elephant would be a major alteration to the theory of relativity. However, the theory remains intact (but without the elephant). At the end of this essay a way of looking at why there is a limit on particle mass will be suggested.

Author Bio

Don Limuti (just another kid who graduated from CCNY) is an enthusiastic student of foundational issues in both philosophy and physics. This is his fourth FQXi.org contest. The other entries were: 1. Making Time with Pretty Girls and Hot Stoves 2. Gravity from the Ground Up and 3. Making Waves. He has a paper on gravity titled "Mercury's Precession Reconsidered" published by The PreSpaceTime Journal. His heroes include Albert Einstein in physics, Helen Keller in philosophy, and Barak Obama in politics. He would like to see free higher education for all who desire it.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

Dear Don Limuti,

Despite my not fully understanding the mathematics of your essay because of my abject lack of a formal education, I still found your brilliant essay truly absorbing. I honestly believe that only one real equation could ever exist, but your clarification of some of the most important abstract equations that dominate the science of physics was masterfully compelling. I will never believe that abstract total energy will always be the equal of total abstract mass times the constant abstract speed of total light multiplied by itself. I will only ever believe that one real Universe can only be occurring eternally once, therefore, 1=U and e=U.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #3

    Dear Don,

    It seems you have reached to the most fundamental points of our Universe's conception. Have you ever considered whether our Universe is a Black Hole (BH)? The same with our galaxy (Milky Way). It is as if we are "living" on their horizons but no one dares to say it. Even atoms might be created as tiny BHs and then evolved to their present form. The key idea is that c is analog to Universe's radius and so its value was much smaller, when atoms were created, and hence mass requirement to form BH were considerably less.

    good luck,

      • [deleted]

      • Post #4

      Hi,

      "Since ordinary classical masses (i.e. golf balls) are composed of particles they too will not approach infinite mass as they approach the speed of light."

      What is the problem about this?

      Clearly nothing can reach an infinite mass. But not because of your essay's considerations, but because the very concept of infinity is absurd. How would you accelerate a golf ball to the speed of light? There's no physical mechanism that allows this, even if you don't need infinite energy to accelerate it to the top of lightspeed. Charging to much energy onto the golf ball, you destroy it and it cannot reach lightspeed. Charging the appropriate portions of energy onto it, you need an infinite amount of time to do this! (and i guess also an infinite amount of enery).

      So, Einsteins "if-then"-Gedankenexperiment only shows the breakdown of his own theory for things that are beyond our spacetime. Because consequences of physical laws that cannot be executed in spacetime, have no meaning for the same reality the laws were designed for. (surely they HAVE a certain meaning - but only regarding their own limitation!).

        Hi Joe,

        I am glad you found things to like about my essay. I found something that needed a remedy and I gave it my best.

        I read you essay Sequence Consequence and you made a good point about the nature of the universe.

        Best of luck.

        Hi Ioannis,

        Thanks for the praise. I hope I have make a contribution to this essay contest as you have done.

        Your question about the universe being a black hole is a good one. I think a rough estimate can be made. Give it a try. My website has estimates of the mass and radius of the universe, plug these into the Schwarzschild radius equation and see how it goes. You can make the calculation with and without dark energy.

        See: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/21_Self-Gravity.html

        And: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/39_The_Schwarzschild_Radius.html

        I you run into any snags let me know on this thread and I will give it a try.

        Best of Luck

        Michael,

        Yes, I too felt that a mass value approaching infinity was absurd so I called it an elephant in the room.

        Don L.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #8

        Hi Don,

        maybe the results in your essay could be usefull to some future developments towards Quantum Gravity or some other new physical paradigma.

        Best wishes,

        Michael

        Don,

        Nice essay. Good ideas and well-expressed.

        As a matter of interest, why should the Planck length exist? What happens if we question that premise too?

        I wonder about the assumption that a classical body (e.g. a golfball) is 'made up of quantum mechanical particles ... that can interfere with themselves'. I would instead have interpreted the situation as QM interference only applying in coherent cases, and macroscopic bodies are not generally coherent. Would this change your conclusions do you think?

        Thank you

        Dirk

        • [deleted]

        • Post #10

        Just for the history:

        from your data: Universe's Schwarzschild radius rs=26.7*10^26 m compared to Universe's radius .95*10^26 m. (Am I right?)

        Hi Dirk,

        You have a very good essay with a premise that is spot on. I hope everyone looks at "Bundles of Nothingness". And there are at least 3 of us in this contest that have issues with "uncertainty". As to your questions:

        1. Nope you can not question my premise about the Planck length, because it is not a premise it is an axiom and is not questionable. I am giving myself the "mathematic" license. :)

        Of course you can question it, but I like it a lot. Take a look at http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/01/planck-length-as-minimal-length.html

        2. I mean a golf ball is made up of atoms and molecules. Atoms and molecules have been checked out experimentally to have the wavelike property of interference at least up to the mass of a Buckyball C60. In orthodox physics circles the golf ball itself is also thought of as a particle that has wavelike properties (even though they have wavelengths shorter than the Planck length).

        Let me know if this makes sense to you.

        Best of luck in this contest.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #12

        Don,

        My attitude to Planck units you can read my essay

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

        Hi Yuri,

        Thanks for taking the time to direct me to your essay.

        I did visit your essay and copied the following:

        "For practical use Planck's length, time and energy are obviously irrelevant. But I am sure that Planck's mass eternal relevant."

        I agree that the Planck mass is extremely interesting (that is what my essay is about). But do not throw out the Planck length too soon. If I may point out, the Planck mass when compressed to have a wavelength of a Planck length is a black hole. And this may fit in with points in your essay.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #14

          Don

          Please read all my posts to my essay and you can understand all my trick with fundamental constants an Planck units.

          Yuri

          7 days later

          Dear Don Limuti

          In the framework of the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my Essay), there was found the meaning of the Planck length. It is close to radius of particles (praons) which relate to nucleon in the same way as nucleons relate to neutron star. It is suppose that in neutron as much praons as neutrons in the neutron star.

          Sergey Fedosin Essay

            Hi Ioannis,

            Sorry I did not notice your reply. I will get right on my confirmation of the calculation. Your result is just about spot on for such a rough estimate. The universe as a black hole! I do not know what to make of that, except to say: This is very interesting.

            I will post here the result of my arithmetic, probably by tomorrow.

            Your insight is very interesting.

            Don L.

            Hi Sergey,

            Thanks for your insight on the Planck length.

            A long time ago I remember watching a children's movie "Cosmic Zoom". It starts out with a boy on a row boat in the middle of a lake. There is a mosquito on the boy's arm. The camera focuses on the mosquito and then zooms out in progressive steps to the kaleidoscope of galaxies that make up the universe. Then the sequence reverses and we are back at the mosquito but it does not stop there it keeps on going into the microcosm via a drop of blood the mosquito is taking from the boy. It keeps on going to a phantasmagoria of quantum stuff. The movie ends at the solitude of a boy in a row boat on a lake. I thought the movie was fantastic.

            This movie reminds me of your essay, and I hope you do well in the contest.

            My own work is pointing to the Planck mass as being just a "foundational" as the Planck length. My notion is that it marks the dividing line between quantum and classical phenomena and it is intimately involved with gravity. Most interestingly the Planck mass is about the mass of a mosquito.

            Can you tell me from your viewpoint (Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter) what is the Planck mass?

            Thanks,

            Don L.

            Hi Ioannis,

            I verified your calculation!

            1. For an estimated mass of 1.8x10^54 kg the Schwarzschild radius calculates as 26.7x10^26 meters.

            2. The estimated radius of the universe is 0.95x10^26 meters.

            3. Hmm,I think this is too close to be a coincidence.

            4. I chose mass and radius from a calculation I was making for estimating dark energy in the universe.

            I did not cherry pick to make my numbers come out correct (at least not consciously :)

            5. But if I cherry pick the mass of the universe from the estimates provided in the table I can get really close to the universe being a black hole. See Below.

            I also tried another reasonable estimate for mass that was given in the table (1x10^53 kg). I stayed with the estimated radius of the universe as 10 billion light years (0.95x10^26 meters) because there was more agreement that this was correct. This gave a Schwarzschild radius of 1.48x10^26 meters. The actual estimated radius of the universe is still the 0.95x10^26 meters.

            Yes this calculation is based upon best guess estimates. But my feeling is that your intuition (or did you know something) is correct, the universe taken as a whole is a black hole.

            As far as I am concerned I am happy to contribute to your result. I am not sure how to do it but I think this result should be broadcast to the physics community, because I do not believe it has been suspected.

            Give it a try!

            Don L

            Dear Don Limuti,

            From the point of view of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter and Similarity of matter levels , at every main level of matter there are their own gravitational constant and Planck constant. For the level of star such constants are described in Stellar constants . At the level of particles is supposed strong gravitation .

            Now I want say that Planck units must be corrected. If for the particles level of matter we will use not common gravitational constant, but instead of it take Strong gravitational constant , we find good coinciding with the parameters of nucleons. To use correctly Planck units at the level of stars we must to use stellar Planck constant.

            Now about Planck mass. From the theory it follows that Planck mass is equal to product of proton mass and similarity coefficient in size between star and atomic levels of matter. So the Planck mass is not a mass of real particle, since there is should be similarity coefficient in mass, not similarity coefficient in size.

            Sergey Fedosin Essay

            Dear Sergey,

            Thanks for the information.

            Don Limuti