• [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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #35

Hello Helmut,

Thanks for your question, it is getting at core issues for physics. In my opinion the issue is the math-physics boundary

You are convinced, that velocity v = Delta_x/Delta_t is valid from v = 0 until v = oo without any exception or gaps.

This is entirely correct from the viewpoint of mathematics. Sure, make Delta_x =1 and Delta_t =0, the result will be infinity. Mathematics has no problem with this, however it is not reasonable physics. Why is it not reasonable physics? I will give you a challenge, find an event you can measure with a Delta_t = 0.

And sure you can find numbers that will make the velocity "smooth". But those numbers are mathematical and not obtained from physical measurements.

If you believe the math is the physics, you are stuck with your position (along with many members of this forum).

This is the problem I went after in "An Elephant in the Room". The equation for mass increase is "perfect" mathematically. Too bad the physical universe does not go along and shows it to be goofy. The remedy is easy once it is realized the equation has limits.

I hope this makes sense.

Let me know.

Thanks,

Don L.

Hi Pentcho,

You are exactly correct about relative velocity. An observer can be in a rocket ship moving away from the particle. This causes the particle to be measured at a faster speed. Your equation for relative velocity is perfect, AND it has limits. That is what this essay is about. And sure you can ignore the limits and insist your math is perfect (which it is), and therefore the velocity can go beyond c.

Everything is correct and you are in the soup.

Now I have to admit, that my explanation about how Vmax comes about does not satisfy me completely. I am waiting for John Baez to provide the added insight. I think he has the horsepower to provide the needed insight.

Thanks for your question.

Don L.

    Don,

    What if you can somehow reduce or eliminate the mass of the medium you are traveling through?

    Jim

      • [deleted]

      • Post #39

      Again read Wilczek http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4361

      "In the strong system of units no square roots

      at all appear in [M], [L], [T ].

      The philosophical significance of a complete set of units, is that it allows us to express any fundamental constant as a pure number. According to the ideal of theoretical physics expressed by Einstein

      I would like to state a theorem which at present can not be based upon anything more than upon a faith in the simplicity, i.e., intelligibility, of nature: there are no arbitrary constants ... that is to say, nature is so constituted that it is possible logically to lay down such strongly determined laws that within these laws only rationally completely determined constants occur (not constants, therefore, whose numerical value could be changed without destroying the theory)."

      Hi James,

      In the model considered here the speed limit of a particle is only a function of the rest mass divided by the Planck mass. The medium will certainly effect how easy or not it is to accelerate the particle.

      The limiting effect is not a gradual one. It is like running out of gas, one instant everything is fine the next instance there is no more power to accelerate. In the case of a particle it is like running out of space, there is no place to go.

      It is interesting that I can show how a limit to speed comes about, but I cannot tell you the meaning of it. So, all ideas are welcome.

      Thanks for your question,

      Don L.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #41

      Don,

      You seem to have dug up the missing math. It looks like something that should make the finals, so you get my ten.

        After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

        Cood luck.

        Sergey Fedosin

          • [deleted]

          • Post #43

          Don,

          Please don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay

          Hi Sergey,

          I am glad I made the cut. Thanks for your support.

          Don L.

          Hi John,

          Glad to be with you in another contest. Thanks for your support.

          Don L.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #46

          John Baez? I think he left the sinking ship a few years ago:

          John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

          Baez is a very cautious Einsteinian - he will tell you nothing that can threaten Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

          John Baez: "You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."

          Pentcho Valev

          Hi Don,

          I remember "making time with pretty girls and hot stoves". With time being a particular interest of mine it had immediate relevance in my mind to my own interests. This essay I have read previously and had to come back to.

          While it makes sense to me that there may well be a limit to velocity that can be achieved before getting to c ,I thought that the issue was one of inertia. IE that the resistance to acceleration would exceed the force that could be applied to give further acceleration, so preventing achievement of the theoretical limit. It makes sense to me in this way - there is environmental resistance to change of universal trajectory and the bigger the change the bigger the resistance to it. Overcoming that would be a question of altering the environment in the vicinity of the object, to decrease resistance. An analogy might be an air hockey puck which is free to move when the friction with the external environment is reduced.

          I admire the very clear way in which you have set out your argument, the large type is a relief, the diagrams and tables very nice. I don't see how this explanation really solves any problems.I see you are suggesting another theoretical limitation and the clear relevance to the essay question, if it is assumed that reaching c is regarded as possible. Perhaps I am just not recognising the relevance of "the elephant" so am not bothered by it- but should be.

          Good luck and kind regards Georgina.

          Hi Georgina,

          Good to see you again in a contest. I am still interested in time and follow your posts. This essay can be extended to explain the arrow of time.... but I wanted to concentrate on the "elephant".

          Yes, the usual reason for not being concerned with getting to infinite mass is that it is going to be more and more difficult to make the object go faster as it gains speed. This is usually thought of in classical terms...a golf ball is going to be difficult to accelerate after it gets to be the mass of a loaded supertanker.

          However, this way of explaining away the problem glosses over a very big problem! This gaining of mass with velocity also applies to all quantum mechanical particles (electrons to Buckyballs). This essay makes a case that all quantum mechanical particles have a very precise mass limit at speed. This limit is the Planck mass (about 22 micrograms) and it occurs a little below the speed of light. Twenty two micrograms is really far away from infinity :)

          This means the quantum world ends at 22 micrograms! All phenomena is classical after that. There is some over lap between quantum world and the classical world, but for the most part they are separate worlds that exist together. Most physicists say we have a choice of two different theories to explain the whole world. Our choice is between QM and Relativity. This is incorrect, Both theories are needed together because the quantum masses and the classical masses coexist together.

          Please let me know if this makes sense to you.

          Thanks, And best of luck!

          Don L.

          Dear Don,

          Sorry that it took so long to respond to you on the questions you posed on my thread.

          We both agree that the Planck length is the minimum length in our causal universe, and in reference to "the reference of refernces" perhaps this length and time are the reference (beyond our consciousness). The length can be expressed in meters, yards of smurfs, it is the same one.

          There is one problem I did not touch however, when a "unit" with a Planck length is moving at c relative to you, whet happens ? Since it is the minimum length it cannot shorten without entering the what I called Total Simultaneity, the other dimension where every possibillity is a probability available for our consciousness. So it leaves our causal reality.

          Now for your photons : You indicate that they have "mass", but as far as I know they do not, thus how is that with your other formula's (ps I am bad with formula's but your text was very clear and even I understood them).

          I should like to finish with the sentence of Descartes :

          "COGTO ERGO SUM"

          this in fact is the reference of my essay, and if the elephant in the room is thinking or has a consciousness he "IS", and then can interfere with our consciousness, the only thing the elephant has to do is grow beyond the Planck scale.

          I hope to see your comments on my thread again.

          best regards

          Wilhelmus

          PS I gave you a high rating, it is a good essay.

            Hello Wilhelmus,

            1. I favor "I am, therefore I think". However, the phrase: "Cogito ergo Spud, I think therefore I Yam" is much more humorous.

            2. I do think the Planck length is a limit, but it is not a quantization on space, it is a limit on wavelength. A wavelength can start on any point of space, but can only have wavelengths greater than a Planck length.

            3. Oops, I did not mean to infer that light is a mass. It has an energy but this energy always propagates at c. Mass also has an energy that moves at c, but it resonates within a Compton wavelength. I did not mean to say that light has mass.

            4. Reference of reference: A great way to refer to the measurement problem.

            5. The observer is always at the bottom of the reference of reference chain and is "you".

            6. The Reference of Reference is You. Is correct.

            7. You make a measurement using light (or energy).

            8. All the energy in the universe is in your frame of reference. It comes and goes with you.

            9. How can that be?

            a. Light is a Planck instant (h times Planck length) that repeats. Two Planck instants make a photon.

            b. During the Planck length the velocity of light is 0. This means the physical manifestation of light is in your frame of reference.

            c. After the Planck instant the speed of light is c (the speed of space-time) which continues until the next Planck instance. The light is not in existence at this time, but the Planck instance will appear again.

            10. All light is in your frame of reference! That is why you always measure it as having a velocity c. Moving objects need not be in your frame of reference. And space-time adjusts to accomodate this.

            11. What about somebody else? They also measure the speed c for light.

            12. We are all locked to a common reference frame provided by light (energy).

            13. This is a back of the envelope proof for "the reference of reference is you",

            14. You are the observer and all measurements are locked to you.

            Can I give my essay idea to you? I get headache thinking about "What is a Thought that a man may know it".

            It has been super being in this contest with you.

            Don L.

            Dear Don ;

            "What is a thought that a man may know it"

            experience = awareness = conscious

            to know can be divided in :

            a. understand and being aware

            b. not understand but being aware

            c. almost understand with all the grades inbetween and being aware

            d. believe

            A thought is:

            1. the result of data received (experiences) in the past on your SSS.

            2. the result of data received by your consciousness direct from TS. (here the thought can be the cause of an event, of a future experience)

            3. a causal process taking place in our causal deterministic universe, but this process can be influenced (see 2) by different non-causal data. (alpha-probabilities).

            If you are not aware of a thought that means that you don't "know" the thought, however it exists as probability of future and also past alpha-probabilities in TS, so it is possible that "all of a sudden" you become aware of a thought you thought you would never be able to think.

            What people call "BELIEF" is the total of unknown awareness (thoughts) that are "available" in TS, but humans in tha causal universe cannot explain them in the reductionist materialistic way, they "emerge".

            This is just the beginning of the thought.

            It is a good way that we answer each other on our threads because I gat a message when there is a new post, I think you too.

            I hope to continue this fruitfull communication.

            Wilhelmus

            Don

            Yes I am 'that' Peter Jackson, but unlike some I don't mind communicating with ordinary people. Tell your young friend to keep our communications, then when he is our age and we are legend he has the stuff for a best seller.

            I think the limit effects on mass are already visible, at the 'optical breakdown limit' and in Cherenkov radiation.

            Yes, ever more herds of them roaming the sparse plains of physics, and their giant invisible cousins hiding in every room.

            Best wishes

            Peter