A Revised Planck Scale?

wrote:

it would still flatten me.

No, it is in conflict with the fact that I can stand up if
what you say of the proton is true.


Your comments on whether or not you can stand up bring to mind
something relevant.

Long ago, Galileo proposed that the Earth spins on its axis once per
day. Many of the scholars at that time ridiculed this idea and claimed
it was simple to disprove. If the Earth had such a motion, they showed
that any point on the Earth's surface would be moving at something on
the order of 1,000 miles per hour, *and in a circle*. The scholars,
tut-tutting appropriately, argued that no one would be able to stand up
and objects might even be thrown off the Earth. Aristotle and physics
had *completely proved* that Galileo's idea had to be wrong, and was,
in fact, absurdly wrong.

Well, now we know that Galleo was right and the learned scholars were
the ones who were in error. What do we learn from this? Two things: (1)
physics is *always* incomplete, and (2) even common sense applications
of physics can lead to gross errors of judgement. Lord Kelvin, for
example, once claimed that Darwinian Evolution was falsified because
the laws of physics demanded that the Sun had shone for less than one
million years! So it goes. Same as it ever was.

Discrete self-similar spacetimes behave differently than continuous
spacetimes.

Robert L. Oldershaw

wrote:

Discrete self-similar spacetimes behave differently than continuous
spacetimes.


For the sake of argument, consider that G(n-1) which equals roughly
10^38 times G(n) does apply to atomic scale systems, as proposed by the
Discrete Fractal paradigm.

Then it would appear that gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic effects
would be roughly 10^38 times stronger for atomic scale systems than was
previously supposed.

This raises an interesting question: How far could one go in explaining
the electromagnetic interactions of atomic scale systems using only
General Relativity when it includes the discrete dilation invariance
proposed by the DF paradigm?

Shocking!

Robert L. Oldershaw

wrote:
wrote:


it would still flatten me.


No, it is in conflict with the fact that I can stand up if
what you say of the proton is true.



Your comments on whether or not you can stand up bring to mind
something relevant.

Long ago, Galileo proposed that the Earth spins on its axis once per
day. Many of the scholars at that time ridiculed this idea and claimed
it was simple to disprove. If the Earth had such a motion, they showed
that any point on the Earth's surface would be moving at something on
the order of 1,000 miles per hour, *and in a circle*. The scholars,
tut-tutting appropriately, argued that no one would be able to stand up
and objects might even be thrown off the Earth. Aristotle and physics
had *completely proved* that Galileo's idea had to be wrong, and was,
in fact, absurdly wrong.

Well, now we know that Galleo was right and the learned scholars were
the ones who were in error. What do we learn from this? Two things: (1)
physics is *always* incomplete, and (2) even common sense applications
of physics can lead to gross errors of judgement. Lord Kelvin, for
example, once claimed that Darwinian Evolution was falsified because
the laws of physics demanded that the Sun had shone for less than one
million years! So it goes. Same as it ever was.

Discrete self-similar spacetimes behave differently than continuous
spacetimes.

Robert L. Oldershaw


Nothing has to be revised

The universal constants remain universal

Do the calculation:

Planck's constant (h) * Hubble Constant (H)=
(3/2) Newton Gravity Constant (G)* mass (m)^2 / proton radius (Rp)

or

h * H = (3/2) * G * m^2 / Rp

energy = energy

where mass (m) is 110 * (the electron mass)
or .06 * (the proton mass).


Richard

In article ,
" writes:

wrote:

Discrete self-similar spacetimes behave differently than continuous
spacetimes.


For the sake of argument, consider that G(n-1) which equals roughly
10^38 times G(n) does apply to atomic scale systems, as proposed by the
Discrete Fractal paradigm.

Then it would appear that gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic effects
would be roughly 10^38 times stronger for atomic scale systems than was
previously supposed.

This raises an interesting question: How far could one go in explaining
the electromagnetic interactions of atomic scale systems using only
General Relativity when it includes the discrete dilation invariance
proposed by the DF paradigm?

Shocking!

Indeed. You are essentially assuming that that which you wish to prove
is true.

wrote:

[...]
For the sake of argument, consider that G(n-1) which equals roughly
10^38 times G(n) does apply to atomic scale systems, as proposed by the
Discrete Fractal paradigm.

Then it would appear that gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic effects
would be roughly 10^38 times stronger for atomic scale systems than was
previously supposed.

This raises an interesting question: How far could one go in explaining
the electromagnetic interactions of atomic scale systems using only
General Relativity when it includes the discrete dilation invariance
proposed by the DF paradigm?

One could not go anywhere, I'm afraid. For example:

1. Gravity in general relativity is purely attractive. Electromagnetic
interactions are observably both attractive and repulsive.
2. Gravity in general relativity is a spin 2 interaction. This leads
to very specific properties in, for example, the angular dependence
of scattering. Electromagnetic interactions at the atomic scale
are observably spin 1 interactions.
3. Gravity in general relativity couples to mass quadrupole moments and
higher, and has no dipole coupling. Electromagnetic interactions at
the atomic scale observably couple to dipole moments.
4. Gravity in general relativity produces gravitational waves, which,
among other things, have distinct polarizations that differ by 45
degree (not 90 degree) rotations; couple to all forms of energy,
including electrically neutral matter; and are radiated in a distinctive
quadrupole pattern. Electromagnetic interactions at the atomic scale
produce photons, which observably have none of these characteristics.
5. Gravity in general relativity couples to binding energy. Electromagnetic
interactions at the atomic scale observably couple only to electric charge
and current.

Gravitational and electromagnetic interactions are *extremely* different;
electromagnetism is very, very different from "strong gravity."

Steve Carlip

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
In article ,
" writes:

wrote:

Discrete self-similar spacetimes behave differently than continuous
spacetimes.


For the sake of argument, consider that G(n-1) which equals roughly
10^38 times G(n) does apply to atomic scale systems, as proposed by the
Discrete Fractal paradigm.

Then it would appear that gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic effects
would be roughly 10^38 times stronger for atomic scale systems than was
previously supposed.

This raises an interesting question: How far could one go in explaining
the electromagnetic interactions of atomic scale systems using only
General Relativity when it includes the discrete dilation invariance
proposed by the DF paradigm?

Shocking!

Indeed. You are essentially assuming that that which you wish to prove
is true.


Let's be clear, objective and scientific. I am *not* trying to "prove"
anything. I just pointed out that if what has been called "strong
gravity" applies in the atomic scale context, then one would expect
prodigious gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic phenomena in that
context. It is just an if/then observation, which should delight and
stimulate a scientific mind. There is no danger in considering this
hypothesis and you can try it at home.

Robert L. Oldershaw

wrote:

One could not go anywhere, I'm afraid. For example:

1. Gravity in general relativity is purely attractive. Electromagnetic
interactions are observably both attractive and repulsive.
2. Gravity in general relativity is a spin 2 interaction. This leads
to very specific properties in, for example, the angular dependence
of scattering. Electromagnetic interactions at the atomic scale
are observably spin 1 interactions.
3. Gravity in general relativity couples to mass quadrupole moments and
higher, and has no dipole coupling. Electromagnetic interactions at
the atomic scale observably couple to dipole moments.
4. Gravity in general relativity produces gravitational waves, which,
among other things, have distinct polarizations that differ by 45
degree (not 90 degree) rotations; couple to all forms of energy,
including electrically neutral matter; and are radiated in a distinctive
quadrupole pattern. Electromagnetic interactions at the atomic scale
produce photons, which observably have none of these characteristics.
5. Gravity in general relativity couples to binding energy. Electromagnetic
interactions at the atomic scale observably couple only to electric charge
and current.

Gravitational and electromagnetic interactions are *extremely* different;
electromagnetism is very, very different from "strong gravity."


What a refreshing pleasure to read a succinct, well-reasoned,
informative scientific argument.

I admit having vacillated between periods when I was impressed with
similarities between GR and EM, and periods when I have been impressed
with what appear to be very fundamental differences between GR and EM.

Your list of differences makes a very good case for inherent
differences. Still, I maintain an openness toward a deep, and as yet
undiscovered, connection between GR and EM for the following reasons
(my list).

1. In the 1920s Kaluza and Klein showed how you could take GR, recast
it in a 5-d form, and pull *both* rabbits (GR and EM) out of the same
hat. Although their efforts were not entirely successful, what was
achieved was impressive enough to make Einstein return 4 separate times
to serious attempts at a 5-d unified theory. Is it possible that the
differences between GR and EM are more "superficial" than we realize,
and that some unified field theory might one day reveal an intimate
relationship between them? Or is the situation like Pauli's quip: 'What
God has cast apart, let no man try to put together'? I can accept
either answer - as long as it is reasonably definitive and comes
directly from *nature*.

2. Both EM and GR are 1/r^2 interactions. GR has gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic phenomena that are remarkably analogous to EM
phenomena. There are also the previously discussed intriguing analogies
between hadrons and black holes.

3. When I first learned that G(n-1)/G(n) ~ 10^38, I found it
fascinating that this is also approximately the ratio of the strengths
of the EM/GR interactions (~ 10^38). If that is a coincidence, then
nature has been both subtle *and* malicious.

4. I confess to scientifically unsupported, intuitive doubts about the
spin-2 issue, but I am willing to be persuaded by *empirical* evidence.

Bottom line: I agree with you that GR and EM give many indications of
being fundamentally different interactions, and that accurate models of
nature currently require both. However, I maintain that GR and EM are
of equal strength and play equally important roles within atoms.

Robert L. Oldershaw

In article ,
" writes:

2. Both EM and GR are 1/r^2 interactions.

Isn't this just geometry together with massless exchange particles?

GR has gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic phenomena that are remarkably analogous to EM
phenomena.

Isn't this just a consequence of special relativity?

Thus spake Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
LOTHESvax.de
In article ,
" writes:

2. Both EM and GR are 1/r^2 interactions.

Isn't this just geometry together with massless exchange particles?

I should have said the latter is geometry and the former massless
exchange particles. There is no model of the graviton, though lots of
people seem to think there should be. Actually this always strikes me as
odd. Why should space be flat in the first instance, why should we want
to describe gravity using an exchange particle on a flat background? It
strikes me as more reasonable to recognise that no measurement of space
exists except as a comparison between matter and matter, and then think
very carefully about what is involved in measurement, before one starts
talking about geometry.

GR has gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic phenomena that are remarkably analogous to EM
phenomena.

Isn't this just a consequence of special relativity?

Indeed.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:

2. Both EM and GR are 1/r^2 interactions.

Isn't this just geometry together with massless exchange particles?

GR has gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic phenomena that are remarkably analogous to EM
phenomena.

Isn't this just a consequence of special relativity?

Regardless of their origins, these known characteristics of GR and EM
are similar. Whether these particular similarities are important clues
to a possible unification or just secondary curiosities remains to be
seen.

But here is something potentially exciting that I have come across that
is directly related to the G(n-1), or "strong gravity"/revised Planck
scale topic.

A team led by Martin Tajmar has reported detecting HUGE gravitomagnetic
effects produced by rotating superconducting rings. The strength of
these effects is measured to be 10^17 times what would be expected
using G. They have repeated their experiments on the order of 250 times
and conducted a battery of control experiments. Other groups are in the
process of repeating their results.

You can find documentation of their work at www.arxiv.org by searching
on "Tajmar". There about 4 papers from the past year. Also see Physica
C, 432, p. 167, 2006.

Maybe this is "cold fusion" all over again, but what I have seen makes
me think that they have detected something that is real and that is not
explained by anything conventional.

One might say: "Well 10^17 is still not 10^38", but I would reply that
10^17 is a LOT different than 1, and the unique physical system they
are studying (superconductors) may involve equally unique phenomena of
the largely unexplored G/G(n-1) interface.