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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #21

      Hi Don,

      I enjoyed your "Elephant in the Room" and haven't seen anything glareingly false in your reasoning. I must admit, however, that I didn't follow up on the details yet, so the rating of 9 is not due to any insuffiencies in your article, but my own slowness in getting time to do the math.

      Just in case you get a Nobel Prize, can I have your autograph now?

      Cheers,

      Bob Gellert

      Hi Bob,

      Thanks for taking the time to comment. I am glad you enjoyed the essay and feel it rates a 9.

      I wish I could have hidden the equations, but it is an important part of the essay. Scientific American articles are just about devoid of equations and Nature is not far behind. They know that equations are like sleeping pills and are guaranteed to lose an audience. Additionally there is not just one technique for solving algebraic equations, if your technique is like mine the equations flow easily, but if your technique is different than mine then you will be wondering "what is he doing? at every step.

      I am hoping you go over the equations and when done post your results back here.

      The theory presented here is spectacular and will cause the rewriting of a lot of textbooks, it may even be worth a prize, but first two things need to happen: 1. an experimental physicist (the people who do the real work) needs to demonstrate it has some validity. and 2. It needs to provide other theorists a base for more discoveries.

      And as the community voting stands right now, I better not give up my day job.

      Wishing you the best.

      Don L.

      6 days later

      Hi Don, I read with great interest your very interesting essay.

      The Planck length and time are also basic assumptions in "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION", but in another way as your perception. The only reamrk I make is that these limits may change in the future, I use them "in principle".

      Thank you for all the usefull data.

      I hope that you will also read/comment/rate/ my essay

      Wilhelmus

        Hi Wilhelmus,

        Thanks for expressing interest in my essay. I am very interested in your use of the Planck length and time. I will be vacationing for a few days and hope to read and comment on your essay by the middle of next week at the latest. I look forward to it.

        Don L.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #25

        Dear Don Limuti,

        I like your enthusiasm on foundation of Science. In this Essay you raises interesting points. I am going to give you an high score.

        Good luck in the Contest!

        Cheers,

        Ch.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #26

          Dear Christian,

          Thank you very much for the vote of confidence, and the boost it gave my morale. I will be looking at your essay again, there is something about it that applies to my work that I need to ferret out.

          Best of Luck

          Don L.

          6 days later

          Don

          Nice essay, in you inimitably straightforward style and exposing some much ignored basics. I also agree with the content, indeed you may remember my reference last year to the syncrotron emissions (from the Pe cloud or not) in the LHC, closing up so much that no oscilloscope could distinguish them as the bunch approached c. This gives an intuitive visible analogy to your thesis.

          So elephants are not of infinite size. But does this mean they'll always be recognised? I fear not. And I think there is a herd of them! I expose a few in my essay. I hope you'll read, comment and score.

          Best of luck

          Peter

          Hi Peter,

          Thank you for your generous comments. And I am looking forward to visiting your essay.

          I am not sure if Cern can get protons going fast enough to see the limit effect on mass? It would be wonderful if they could!

          A young friend of mine was looking at my essay blog and commented ...."Is he THAT Peter Jackson!". So of course I must ask: Are you that Peter Jackson?

          I think we have both participated in all the contests, and they just keep getting better. And there are plenty of "elephants" to support many more contests.

          Best of Luck,

          Don L.