A Revised Planck Scale?

wrote:

Plugging the mass of the proton in the Schwarzschild
Metric only gives one value for that radius. If you have a
new value then either you used a different value of mass
for the proton or you didn't use the Schwarzschild Metric,
and in the latter case it isn't really sensible to call your
number a "Schwarzschild Radius". Maybe you should
call it the Oldershaw Radius, but first you should publish
the Oldershaw Metric.


Allow me to do it for you. The Schwarschild radius equation is R =
2Gm/c^2, if I remember correctly. I am *not* putting any mass into
this equation except the mass of the proton. What I am putting in that
is new is G(n-1) = 2.31 x 10^31 cm^3/g sec^2, instead of G which equals
6.67 x 10^-8 cgs. The reason for doing that is as follows: the scaling
equations and self-similar scaling rules of the Discrete Fractal
paradigm require it. The reasons for why G(n-1) is proposed to be the
correct and only gravitational "constant" valid within atomic scale
systems is thoroughly discussed in an easy-to-read format at
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , see Papers #1 and #2 of the "Selected
Papers" section.

I would never name something after myself; thanks for the vote of
confidence though.

Here is a quick capsule summary of what I have proposed in this thread.
The discussion revolves around proper values for the Planck length (L),
the Planck mass (M) and the Schwarschild radius for the proton (R).

L(conventional) = 1.6 x 10^-33 cm
M(conv.) = 2 x 10^-5 g
R(conv.) = 8.3 x 10^-61 cm

L(Discrete Fractal) = 3 x 10^-14 cm, ~ r(proton)
M(DF) = 1.2 x 10^-24 g, ~ m(proton)
R(DF) = 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, ~ r(proton)

When I compare these two competing sets of possible values, the
conventional set looks a bit like numbers that have been randomly drawn
from a mighty big hat. The Discrete Fractal paradigm's set of values
seems to me to be more natural and self-consistent.

Add to that the 6 basic properties (discussed by Sivaram and Sinha in
their Physics Review D paper cited above) which show a truly amazing
degree of self-similarity between hadrons and Kerr-Newman black holes.

Add to that the *potential* for the Discrete Fractal paradigm to unify
everything we have learned about nature over the last 200 years within
one remarkably simple conceptual framework.

And best of all, within a few years this paradigm can be definitively
vindicated, or definitively falsified, through its rigoorous and
non-adjustable prediction that the galactic dark matter is primarily
composed of Kerr-Newman black holes, with a highly specific and
discrete mass spectrum that has been quantitatively determined and
published.

Bottom line: GR does not specify the value of "G". Einstein put in the
Newtonian value of G because it seemed logical to do so and it gave the
right answers for the *stellar scale tests* that were available. He
knew he was making a temporary assumption. We should too. The key idea
running through this thread is that while G applies within stellar
scale systems, it may not apply within atomic scale systems, which
require G(n-1). This may be a shocking idea with major implications for
particle physics, atomic physics and astrophysics. I would urge you to
consider that the conceptual unity and harmony of the new paradigm will
outweigh the turmoil of paradigmatic change in the long run. There is
much work to be done and I need all the help I can get!

Robert L. Oldershaw

wrote in message
...
wrote:

Plugging the mass of the proton in the Schwarzschild
Metric only gives one value for that radius. If you have a
new value then either you used a different value of mass
for the proton or you didn't use the Schwarzschild Metric,
and in the latter case it isn't really sensible to call your
number a "Schwarzschild Radius". Maybe you should
call it the Oldershaw Radius, but first you should publish
the Oldershaw Metric.


Allow me to do it for you. The Schwarschild radius equation is R =
2Gm/c^2, if I remember correctly.

The radius is derived from the metric. Do I assume
from what you say that you are not then proposing
an alternative metric?

I am *not* putting any mass into
this equation except the mass of the proton. What I am putting in that
is new is G(n-1) = 2.31 x 10^31 cm^3/g sec^2, instead of G which equals
6.67 x 10^-8 cgs.

In that case you have increased the acceleration due
to gravity here on the Earth's surface as predicted
by the Schwarzschild Metric by over 38 orders of
magnitude.

And best of all, within a few years this paradigm can be definitively
vindicated, or definitively falsified, ...

IMO getting the Earth's surface gravity wrong by 38
orders of magnitude is enough to falsify it.

Bottom line: GR does not specify the value of "G". Einstein put in the
Newtonian value of G because it seemed logical to do so and it gave the
right answers for the *stellar scale tests* that were available.

Given that it is a _constant_ in the equation, the
same value must apply for all masses. If it doesn't,
you need to change the equations so that they include
a mass-dependent (or perhaps scale-dependent) value
of gravitational 'constant', and Schwarschild's metric
would no longer be a solution.

He
knew he was making a temporary assumption.

Of course. Better measurements will always improve
the accuracy of the value, but we already know it to
better than 1% and your value is _grossly_ different.

We should too. The key idea
running through this thread is that while G applies within stellar
scale systems, it may not apply within atomic scale systems, which
require G(n-1). This may be a shocking idea with major implications for
particle physics, atomic physics and astrophysics.

No, the idea that quantum effects become important at
some small scale has been the driven force behind
attempts at unification for decades, but just picking
a different constant for use in the same equations
won't get you anywhere. The equations need to be
modified so that the macroscopic limit is GR (with the
conventional value of G) while the microscopic limit
tends to conventional QM.

I would urge you to
consider that the conceptual unity and harmony of the new paradigm will
outweigh the turmoil of paradigmatic change in the long run. There is
much work to be done and I need all the help I can get!

I am giving you what pointers I can.

George

George Dishman wrote:

In that case you have increased the acceleration due
to gravity here on the Earth's surface as predicted
by the Schwarzschild Metric by over 38 orders of
magnitude.
IMO getting the Earth's surface gravity wrong by 38
orders of magnitude is enough to falsify it.


I appreciate the fact that it is difficult at first to see things from
the radically different perspective of a paradigm that involves
discrete self-similar space-time ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ).

The Discrete Fractal paradigm states that the appropriate value for the
gravitational "constant" at the surface of the Earth (within a stellar
scale system, but *not* within an atomic scale system) is G = 6.67 x
10^-8 cgs. The DF paradigm does not get "Earth's surface gravity wrong
by 38 orders of magnitude". You need a better understanding of the DF
paradigm in order to know what it predicts, and why it does so.

The "constant" G(n-1) applies to a space-time region that is within an
atomic scale system, but not within a subquantum scale system.

A meaningful discussion of the Discrete Fractal paradigm requires that
both parties understand the paradigm. Before you post again, please
take more time to familiarize yourself with the DF paradigm. If
something is unclear, I welcome questions. Let's talk about one thing
at a time, and do so in a more cooperative scientific spirit. Emotion
interferes with reason, as pointed out with such clarity by Spinoza.

Robert L. Oldershaw

George Dishman wrote:

The radius is derived from the metric. Do I assume
from what you say that you are not then proposing
an alternative metric?

For equivalent interactions (i.e., gravitation) on different
cosmological scales, the metrics are the same. The physical laws on
different cosmological scales are either totally equivalent (except for
scaling factors) or very nearly equivalent. The actual degree of
self-similarity between discrete cosmological scales (exact, or nearly
exact but with subtle differences) can only be determined empirically.
On grounds of natural philosophy I have a strong preference and a much
more positive intuitive response to *exact* cosmological
self-similarity. But sometimes nature is delightfully subtle.


won't get you anywhere. The equations need to be
modified so that the macroscopic limit is GR (with the
conventional value of G) while the microscopic limit
tends to conventional QM.


I think that Albert Einstein was fundamentally right about QM and will
be vindicated: a huge piece of the puzzle has always been missing. The
Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) hopes to
show the way towards a fundamental, radical, but testable,
reinterpretation of QM.

Rob

wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:

In that case you have increased the acceleration due
to gravity here on the Earth's surface as predicted
by the Schwarzschild Metric by over 38 orders of
magnitude.
IMO getting the Earth's surface gravity wrong by 38
orders of magnitude is enough to falsify it.


I appreciate the fact that it is difficult at first to see things from
the radically different perspective of a paradigm that involves
discrete self-similar space-time ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ).

The Discrete Fractal paradigm states that the appropriate value for the
gravitational "constant" at the surface of the Earth (within a stellar
scale system, but *not* within an atomic scale system) is G = 6.67 x
10^-8 cgs. The DF paradigm does not get "Earth's surface gravity wrong
by 38 orders of magnitude". You need a better understanding of the DF
paradigm in order to know what it predicts, and why it does so.

No, I think you need to understand that the mass of the
Earth is mainly in the form of protons and neutrons. The
gravity at the surface is nothing more than the sum of
all those myriad tiny contributions.

The "constant" G(n-1) applies to a space-time region that is within an
atomic scale system, but not within a subquantum scale system.

A meaningful discussion of the Discrete Fractal paradigm requires that
both parties understand the paradigm. Before you post again, please
take more time to familiarize yourself with the DF paradigm. If
something is unclear, I welcome questions. Let's talk about one thing
at a time, and do so in a more cooperative scientific spirit. Emotion
interferes with reason, as pointed out with such clarity by Spinoza.

This isn't about emotion, it is simple arithmetic. If
you increase G for a proton then you increase the effect
it has at all distances. The gravitational acceleration
at 6378 km from a single proton in deep space would be
38 orders of magnitude greater than the conventional
value with your value of G. The effect of a lone neutron
would be similarly increased since they have nearly the
same mass. The sum of the acceleration over all the
protons and neutrons in the Earth must also be increased
by that same factor. That is the result of applying reason
and science to your proposal.

George

wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:

The radius is derived from the metric. Do I assume
from what you say that you are not then proposing
an alternative metric?

For equivalent interactions (i.e., gravitation) on different
cosmological scales, the metrics are the same. ...

The metric applies at all scales. If you are not
offering an alternative to Schwarzschild then your
change of the value of G means the surface gravity
of the Earth increases in line with the change in G.

George

George Dishman wrote:

No, I think you need to understand that the mass of the
Earth is mainly in the form of protons and neutrons. The
gravity at the surface is nothing more than the sum of
all those myriad tiny contributions.


According to the Discrete Fractal paradigm (
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) the world works in a way that is
different from the way you think it does. We would agree on the
strength of the gravitational interaction between the Moon and the
Earth and on how that strength is arrived at. Where we disagree is on
the strength of the gravitational interaction within an atomic scale
system. You would say G still applies, whereas I would say G(n-1)
applies.


Special Relativity taught us that time is not absolute and that space
is not absolute. The laws of physics are equivalent for all inertial
frames.

General Relativity brought in the principle of covariance, which showed
that the laws of physics are equivalent for all frames, inertial or
accelerated.

So space, time, orientation and state of motion are relative. However,
at that point *scale* was still considered absolute. What the Discrete
Fractal paradigm does is to show us how relativity of *scale* is also
one of nature's fundamental symmetries. The subtle thing here, and the
reason that relativity of scale has taken so long to develop, is that
it is not a continuous symmetry, but rather a *discrete* symmetry.
Within a cosmological scale, such as the Stellar Scale or the Galactic
Scale, there is absolute scale. But *between* different cosmological
scales, there is complete relativity of scale. Thus we should refer to
it as discrete relativity of scale, or discrete Scale relativity, to
emphasize the fact that the relativity is *between* cosmological
Scales, not within one cosmological Scale.

This is a very big idea and a very big step for physics and cosmology.
It takes some time to get used to thinking in terms of this new form of
relativity, just as it took time to get used to Special and General
Relativity. The conceptual beauty of the Discrete Fractal paradigm
convinces me that it must be headed in the right direction. For those
who like a bit more empirical motivation, the definitive dark matter
predictions/test will let us know nature's verdict on Discrete Scale
Relativity.

wrote:

[...]
Parenthetically, the revised Schwarschild radius for the proton is
about 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, which is about equal to the charge radius of the
proton and the revised Planck length.

In that case, the model is pretty much dead. High energy experiments
probe the substructure of the proton down to about three orders of
magnitude smaller than that, and there is absolutely no indication of
anything remotely resembling a horizon.

(The 1990 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the first experiments
in this area. For more recent results, look up, for example, experiments
at HERA, which has a resolution on the order of 10^{-16} cm.)

Steve Carlip

wrote:

George Dishman wrote:

No, I think you need to understand that the mass of the
Earth is mainly in the form of protons and neutrons. The
gravity at the surface is nothing more than the sum of
all those myriad tiny contributions.


According to the Discrete Fractal paradigm (
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) the world works in a way that is
different from the way you think it does. We would agree on the
strength of the gravitational interaction between the Moon and the
Earth and on how that strength is arrived at. Where we disagree is on
the strength of the gravitational interaction within an atomic scale
system. You would say G still applies, whereas I would say G(n-1)
applies.

You can choose whatever vaue of G you like but what
_you_ said was that you didn't have an "Oldershaw
Metric", you were still using the Schwarzchild metric.
That metric defines the gravitational effect at all
distances (greater than the Schwarzchild radius)
resulting from a spherically symmetric mass. If you
want the effect to change with scale then G becomes
a function of radius G(r) and you need a different metric,
you are not using Schwarzchild's any more. I suspect
you will find that it is impossible to do what you want
as a valid solution to GR but that's your problem.

... For those
who like a bit more empirical motivation, the definitive dark matter
predictions/test will let us know nature's verdict on Discrete Scale
Relativity.

Publish your replacement for the Schwarzchild metric
and then it can be tested.

George

Richard Saam wrote:






Gentlemen:

Given:

Planck's constant hb 1.054572675E-27 g cm^2 sec^-1
gravitational constant G 6.6725985E-8 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1
speed of light c 2.997924580E10 cm sec^-1

The following is list of some of the Planck scale parameters:

Planck length (hb G/c^3)^(1/2) 1.61605E-35 cm
Planck time (hb G/c^5)^(1/2) 5.39056E-44 sec
Planck mass (hb c/G)^(1/2) 2.17671E-08 g
Planck energy (hb c^5/G)^(1/2) 1.95610E-16 g cm^2 sec^-2
Planck momentum (hb c^3/G)^(1/2) 6.52483E+05 g cm sec^-1
Planck force (c^4/G) 1.21027E+49 g cm sec^-2
Planck density (c^5/(hb G^2) 5.15500E+93 g/cm^3
Planck acceleration (c^6/(hb G)) 1.03145E+97 cm/sec^2
Planck kinematic viscosity (c^7/(hb G))^(1/2) 5.56077E+53 cm^2/sec
Planck absolute viscosity (c^9/(hb G^3))^(1/2) 2.49779E+71 g cm^-1 sec^-1

It is difficult to say which has a 'physical meaning'.

Using dimensional units of mass, length & time
the constants hb, G, c can be arranged in an infinite number of possibilities.

Richard


hb = 1.054572675*10^(-27)
1.054572675`*^-27
G = 6.6725985*10^(-8 )
6.672598500000001`*^-8
c = 2.997924580*10^10
2.99792458`*^10
(hb G/c^3)^(1/2)
1.6160496497524128`*^-33
(hb G/c^5)^(1/2)
5.390561392149541`*^-44
(hb c/G)^(1/2)
0.000021767127031707378`
Two out of three wrong isn't bad?