• [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.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #29

          For better clarification my approach

          I sending to you Frank Wilczek's article

          http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits388.pdf

          On Absolute Units, I: Choices

          Hi Yuri,

          Thanks for your reference to Frank Wilczek's article. He would like to add a few constances to Planck's G,c, and h. He would like to add the charge of the electron, the mass of the electron and the mass of the proton. With these added constants he can develop interesting relations.

          However for my work in removing the elephant; G, c and h all by themselves can do the job.

          One of the things that is important about Planck's original triad is that they are independent of relative motion, whereas constants like the mass of the electron and the proton are not.

          Thanks for your reference,

          Don L.

          Hello Hoang,

          I think you have the answer as to why the FQXi community is so quarrelsome: "Because, seems God not to teach communication theory" :)

          I believe you got to my blog via Wilhelmus' blog where I agreed with his comment that the "reference of reference is "You". I usually would not agree with such high philosophy, it is out of my league. However I had been sitting on a concept of how light moved, and it hit me that Wilhelmus was correct philosophically as well as logically. My notion (see my website) is that each period of light has two speeds, 0 and c. And I go into how this makes sense in terms of the Planck-Einstein equation. The thought that struck me was that 0 speed means 0 speed with respect to the observer (you or I) and the speed c also means with respect to the observer. This means that each of us is in lockstep with the speed of light.

          Why do we always measure light as moving at c .... yes it is linked to us. There are some fine details as to the linking .... see www.digitalwavetheory.com (the section on the mechanics of digital waves.

          I have looked at your questions, but alas lack the horsepower to answer them.

          But let me share my favorite question: What is a thought that a man may know it?

          This is a wonderful contest,

          Thanks for being part of it.

          Don L.

          Dear Don,

          it is true an elephant is running around in modern physics. But how does this elephant look like? I am sure you know the story of the blind men and an elephant. It has often been used to illustrate a deficit of information and the need to accept different perspectives.

          What is the ultimate truth of the Universe? Are its internal processes moving in a digital fashion or are they moving in an analogous fashion?

          I think, we still tend to solve this riddle by make a decision in favour of one of these two possibilities and against the other one... But perhaps every one-sided view (including in its most subtle and sophisticated version) is a fundamentally limited view, that does not cover REALITY in its totality.

          Though I believe, that your approach is physically fruitful and promising, it does not touch the deepest level of reality. I am convinced, that velocity v = Delta_x/Delta_t is valid from v = 0 until v = oo without any exception or gaps.

          This continuum is indeed the underlying branch to make statements - the term of velocity is only valid as long as Delta_x and Delta_t are not smaller than the deBroglie wavelength and period of the particle being - meaningful at all.

          This continuous or analoguous spectrum of velocities may still be considered as a metaphysical assumption of physics, but it is to my opinion its central core. The real weakness of this assumption is still its implicit character: We think WITH them and not OF them. (Michael Polanyi). Therefore I am looking for a Modern Metaphysics.

          I left a comment on my FQXI-site, too.

          Good Luck for your Essay.

          Kind Regards

          Helmut

            • [deleted]

            • Post #34

            Don,

            You wrote: "The velocity of a particle will be made such that it cannot exceed a maximum velocity Vmax, if that velocity would cause the Compton wavelength to be shorter than a Planck length."

            The velocity of the particle is relative to some observer isn't it? But the observer could also start moving towards the particle and then the relative velocity of the particle and the observer will exceed not only Vmax but also c, irrespectively of what happens to the Compton wavelength. Don't you think so?

            Pentcho Valev