"re" == rloldershaw@amherst edu writes:

re This post concerns identifying ways in which to clearly
re distinguish between the standard paradigm and the Discrete Fractal
re paradigm (...). I believe that I have found another major, and
re promising, distinction between these two paradigms.

re Within the context of the standard model of particle physics,
re there is virtually no question about the Planck Scale, at which
re General Relativity plays an equally important dynamical role with
re QED. The conventional Planck length is about 1.6 x 10^-33 cm and
re the Planck mass is about 2 x 10^-5 g.

It is likely that quantum effects do become important on scales of
order the Planck scale, but, not having a unified theory, I think your
statement of certainty is too strong.

[...]
re Numerically the relationship between G values on neighboring
re scales is: G(n-1) = 3.27 x 10^38 G(n), where G(n) = 6.67 x 10^-8
re cgs. That means G(n-1) for the atomic scale would be equal to
re 2.31 x 10^31 cgs. When you put G(n-1) into the conventional
re equations for the Planck length and the Planck mass, because you
re want all atomic scale "constants" for uniformity, you get:

re Planck length = 3 x 10^-14 cm (= 0.4 times the proton radius)

re Planck mass = 1.2 x 10^-24 g (= 0.8 times the proton mass).

Is this analysis consistent with observations that distant sources are
not fuzzy? e.g., URL:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJ...585L..77L
and similar papers.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html