A Revised Planck Scale?

Thus spake "
wrote:

So if you want to argue that a proton is a black hole, but with a higher
value of Newton's constant, this is observationally testable, and very
clearly fails the tests. If you are instead merely making a rough analogy,
I see no reason that you should use an equation for angular momentum that
was defined very specifically for black holes: if a proton isn't really a
black hole, why should that relation, and not any of the other properties
of a black hole, continue to hold?


Your arguments are convincing if the assumptions upon which they are
based are unquestionably correct. These assumptions a

(1) the *theoretical* interpretation of particle scattering experiments
is virtually infallible,

Well it is pretty damned good. Theories which do away with quarks, for
example, are a definite non-starter.

(2) the Nobel prize committee does not make mistakes,

It is not down to just the Nobel prize committee to examine the
evidence. This has been done by literally thousands of physicists. You
cannot ignore the evidence for quarks unless you have no concern as to
whether your theory is empirically valid. In that case it is not physics
at all.

(3) that we have a complete and error-free knowledge of K-N black
holes,

Kerr-Newmann black holes are a theoretical idea, not an empirical fact.
As such we know exactly and precisely what they are. They are that which
is described in the mathematical theory of general relativity. We also
know that we have not quantum description of such a thing. That would
be needed to discuss a proton. Asserting that protons are K-N black
holes is like asserting that "green ideas sleep furiously" (Chomsky).
The words simply do not go together.


But consider the following.

A. Standard particle physics gets the vacuum energy density *wrong* by
120 orders of magnitude!!

This is sometimes said, but it isn't actually true. One might claim that
it gets the vacuum energy density infinite, so that it is wrong by an
infinite order of magnitude. As I understand, the idea that it is at
least 120 orders of magnitude comes from making an error correction to
this infinity. But this entire argument does not hold up if the vacuum
energy density is analysed a bit more thoroughly. The ultraviolet
divergence has its root in the misuse of Wick's theorem, as shown in
Scharf, Finite Quantum Electrodynamics. It is a problem in the maths,
not in the physics. The only way to treat the vacuum energy density is
to exclude it altogether. What the argument really shows is that vacuum
energy density is not responsible for the cosmological constant. The
cosmological constant remains unexplained, but that is a different issue
altogether.

B. I believe that when the Planck length (and the Planck Scale, in
general) is recalculated without theoretical bias, but rather on an
*empirical* basis, it will be found that the standard particle physics
estimate is off by 20 orders of magnitude! See astro-ph/0701006 and
physics/0701132 at www.arxiv.org for discussions related to this issue.

Given these theoretical shortcomings,

The only shortcoming appears to be a speculative disagreement prefaced
by personal belief. Where is the science?

why should we have so much
confidence in the contention that standard particle physics can
accurately describe the proton on scales of less than 2 x 10^-13 cm?

Because empirically it does.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:

Well it is pretty damned good. Theories which do away with quarks, for
example, are a definite non-starter.

Kerr-Newmann black holes are a theoretical idea, not an empirical fact.
As such we know exactly and precisely what they are. They are that which
is described in the mathematical theory of general relativity. We also
know that we have not quantum description of such a thing. That would
be needed to discuss a proton. Asserting that protons are K-N black
holes is like asserting that "green ideas sleep furiously" (Chomsky).
The words simply do not go together.


I have three quick comments, for now.

1. Not that long ago, the majority of theoretical physicists believed
that Newtonian gravitation was "proven" and that any other theory of
gravitation that deviated from the Newtonian paradigm and Euclidean
geometry would be a "non-starter". Planck told Einstein, when he heard
of AE's basic plan for a new theory of gravitation, 'you are almost
certainly wrong and even if you are right, nobody will believe you'.
Note that Planck said that AE was *almost* certainly wrong. Today's
seers feel that they can forget the "almost" and speak as if they are
in possession of absolute knowledge.

2. My research suggests that we still only have a rudimentary
understanding of matter in ultracompact states. At this neophyte stage,
we might want to be more careful about what we claim to know and not
know about black holes, naked singularities, QFT, 5-d black solitons,
etc.

3. I note that you, also, fail to mention anything about the 5
analogies that I keep referring to (see post #2 in this thread,
11/06/06). Do these empirical, as in well-observed, phenomena have any
educational value? Do you ignore them because they are incorrect? Or do
you ignore them because they support my argument?

RLO

Thus spake "
Oh No wrote:

Well it is pretty damned good. Theories which do away with quarks, for
example, are a definite non-starter.

Kerr-Newmann black holes are a theoretical idea, not an empirical fact.
As such we know exactly and precisely what they are. They are that which
is described in the mathematical theory of general relativity. We also
know that we have not quantum description of such a thing. That would
be needed to discuss a proton. Asserting that protons are K-N black
holes is like asserting that "green ideas sleep furiously" (Chomsky).
The words simply do not go together.


I have three quick comments, for now.

1. Not that long ago, the majority of theoretical physicists believed
that Newtonian gravitation was "proven" and that any other theory of
gravitation that deviated from the Newtonian paradigm and Euclidean
geometry would be a "non-starter". Planck told Einstein, when he heard
of AE's basic plan for a new theory of gravitation, 'you are almost
certainly wrong and even if you are right, nobody will believe you'.
Note that Planck said that AE was *almost* certainly wrong. Today's
seers feel that they can forget the "almost" and speak as if they are
in possession of absolute knowledge.

Yes, but note that Einstein's theory of general relativity does not
disprove Newtonian gravity. It does enable us to describe the domain of
applicability of Newtonian gravity, which could not be done before.
Within that domain of applicability, General relativity can actually be
used to prove Newtonian gravity, which works just as well within its
domain of applicability as it ever did before.

2. My research suggests that we still only have a rudimentary
understanding of matter in ultracompact states.

I am not personally convinced that qcd is the correct model of quark
confinement. But one has to accept the empirical evidence for the
existence of quarks as constituents of the proton. One cannot simply
overlook more than forty years of experimental results and mathematical
analysis and say "we don't know about that". Someone may as well say he
doesn't believe in the existence of the electron, simply because he
doesn't understand the theory of the electron and can't see an electron.

At this neophyte stage,
we might want to be more careful about what we claim to know and not
know about black holes, naked singularities, QFT, 5-d black solitons,
etc.

I think you missed the point of what I was saying with regard to black
holes, and Kerr-Newmann black holes in particular. This is a
mathematical solution of an equation. It is not a physical thing. We
know that we cannot apply the equation to a proton. It is inconsistent,
and therefore wrong. Physics cannot be self contradictory. Whatever the
proton is, it is not a Kerr-Newman black hole. You may as well use your
argument to say that, just because we have never had 1=2 in the past, it
does not imply we won't have 1=2 in the future. If Einstein had told
Plank that general relativity was going to say 1=2, Planck would not
have said "almost certainly wrong", and nor would Planck have been an
idiot for not keeping open the possibility that it might be right.

3. I note that you, also, fail to mention anything about the 5
analogies that I keep referring to (see post #2 in this thread,
11/06/06). Do these empirical, as in well-observed, phenomena have any
educational value? Do you ignore them because they are incorrect? Or do
you ignore them because they support my argument?

To be honest, I ignore them because they are in a long forgotten post
which I am not going to go to the trouble of finding.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:

Yes, but note that Einstein's theory of general relativity does not
disprove Newtonian gravity. It does enable us to describe the domain of
applicability of Newtonian gravity, which could not be done before.
Within that domain of applicability, General relativity can actually be
used to prove Newtonian gravity, which works just as well within its
domain of applicability as it ever did before.


I would like to respond to each of the major themes of your most recent
post, but I would like to take one thing at a time. First and foremost
is your comment above on the status of Newtonian gravitation.

In my view, Einstein's General Relativity relegated the instantaneous,
action-at-a-distance, "force" model characterizing Newtonian
gravitation to the dustbin of scientific history.

Sure, you can still use Newtonian gravitation to simplify calculations
in non-relativistic regimes. But Newtonian gravitation is an
*incorrect* theory of the gravitational interaction. I am at a loss for
how to understand your comments. We don't say the Ptolemaic model of
the Solar System is still valid within its "domain of applicability",
do we?

I am hoping you will clarify your above remarks because understanding
the proper relationship between GR and NG is fundamental.

RLO

Oh No wrote:

I am not personally convinced that qcd is the correct model of quark
confinement. But one has to accept the empirical evidence for the
existence of quarks as constituents of the proton. One cannot simply
overlook more than forty years of experimental results and mathematical
analysis and say "we don't know about that".

Just for the sake of clarity, would you please tell us the specific
observational evidence that convinces you, personally, that the 3-quark
hypothesis is an accurate model of the proton interior?

Pickering's book Constructing Quarks offers an interesting and
alternative view on whether the quark hypothesis corresponds to actual
physical objects in nature, or whether the quark hypothesis is
essentially an artificial, Platonic model that fits some very ambiguous
data, but bears little relation to how nature actually works, sort of
like Newtonian gravitation.

Let us remember the wisdom of Anatole France : 40 million people can
believe in a false thing, but that does not convert it into a true
thing.


I think you missed the point of what I was saying with regard to black
holes, and Kerr-Newmann black holes in particular. This is a
mathematical solution of an equation. It is not a physical thing. We
know that we cannot apply the equation to a proton. It is inconsistent,
and therefore wrong. Physics cannot be self contradictory. Whatever the

Hmmm. It seems to me here that you are contradicting the arguments you
applied above to Newtonian models. Now you say approximations should
not be considered as valid stepping stones toward a better
understanding.

My fundamental interest is in actual physical systems, and how nature
actually works. I think that we can even understand how the atom
actually works, if we are good enough scientists.

RLO

Thus spake "
Oh No wrote:

Yes, but note that Einstein's theory of general relativity does not
disprove Newtonian gravity. It does enable us to describe the domain of
applicability of Newtonian gravity, which could not be done before.
Within that domain of applicability, General relativity can actually be
used to prove Newtonian gravity, which works just as well within its
domain of applicability as it ever did before.


I would like to respond to each of the major themes of your most recent
post, but I would like to take one thing at a time. First and foremost
is your comment above on the status of Newtonian gravitation.

In my view, Einstein's General Relativity relegated the instantaneous,
action-at-a-distance, "force" model characterizing Newtonian
gravitation to the dustbin of scientific history.

Sure, you can still use Newtonian gravitation to simplify calculations
in non-relativistic regimes. But Newtonian gravitation is an
*incorrect* theory of the gravitational interaction. I am at a loss for
how to understand your comments.

I am hoping you will clarify your above remarks because understanding
the proper relationship between GR and NG is fundamental.


I think you have to separate the science from the non-science in
Newtonian dynamics. A theory is only scientific in so far as it is
empirically true. To call Newtonian Dynamics, or indeed any empirical
theory, scientific you have to add a rider, "to the limits of current
experimental accuracy". That was as true when Newton proposed it as it
is today, and indeed Newton did include just such a discussion in the
scholium of the principia. The important parts of the theory, the
scientific parts, were the three laws, the law of gravitation, and the
*mathematical* concepts of absolute space and time. All of those things
are to the limits of experimental accuracy available at that time, and
they are still true within the now more accurately definable domain of
applicability of Newtonian dynamics.

You are picking on less important things, metaphysical aspects which
were not testable. Strictly these things were never a part of the
scientific theory. Newton himself criticised instantaneous action at a
distance as preposterous. To start saying Newtonian dynamics is wrong
because some people have had misconceptions both about Newtonian
dynamics and about the nature of science is quite unjust. The inverse
square law still works and it is still used when appropriate. Newton
claimed no more. He did not present it as a fundamental property of
nature.

What Einstein did in general relativity was to provide a deeper and more
accurate understanding of some of the metaphysical ideas on which
Newtonian dynamics depends. Absolute space is no longer absolute.
Nonetheless, its mathematical properties (the only scientific part of
it) are still found in approximation in local regions of the manifold
used in general relativity. True in approximation is a very different
thing from wrong.

We don't say the Ptolemaic model of
the Solar System is still valid within its "domain of applicability",
do we?

Funnily enough, it is perfectly possible to construct an ellipse from an
infinite sequence of wheels within wheels. This is a generalisation of
the theory of Fourier transforms, so if we so desire, and wish to be
amusing, we are quite entitled to say exactly that.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Thus spake "
Oh No wrote:

I am not personally convinced that qcd is the correct model of quark
confinement. But one has to accept the empirical evidence for the
existence of quarks as constituents of the proton. One cannot simply
overlook more than forty years of experimental results and mathematical
analysis and say "we don't know about that".

Just for the sake of clarity, would you please tell us the specific
observational evidence that convinces you, personally, that the 3-quark
hypothesis is an accurate model of the proton interior?

Cross sections from scattering experiments demonstrate conclusively a
substructure, but it is not just the proton, but the entire range of
particles found, and in many cases predicted with accurate masses before
they were found, in accelerator experiments. Not only that but accurate
rates of decay, and transitions between particles can be predicted.
While we cannot necessarily model the forces binding quarks accurately
in a strict mathematical theory, we can go a long way. The quark
structure itself is extremely well understood and empirically well
established.

A good book at a popular level which has just been released in a new
expanded edition, is the cosmic onion, by Frank Close. I might also
recommend Coughlan and Dodd, the ideas of particle physics. This has
been a standard undergraduate level text book for something like forty
years.


Pickering's book Constructing Quarks offers an interesting and
alternative view on whether the quark hypothesis corresponds to actual
physical objects in nature, or whether the quark hypothesis is
essentially an artificial, Platonic model that fits some very ambiguous
data, but bears little relation to how nature actually works, sort of
like Newtonian gravitation.

If you have been reading books which tell you such things, then you
should assume that the source of ambiguity is the author's confusion,
not the scientists. Pickering is a sociologist, and his book is called a
sociological history. Treat it for what it is, and I believe it is a
good book. But don't accept scientific and philosophical judgements from
someone who is not qualified to make them.

Let us remember the wisdom of Anatole France : 40 million people can
believe in a false thing, but that does not convert it into a true
thing.

I don't feel I need to be reminded of elementary truisms which already
govern my scientific research, thank you.


I think you missed the point of what I was saying with regard to black
holes, and Kerr-Newmann black holes in particular. This is a
mathematical solution of an equation. It is not a physical thing. We
know that we cannot apply the equation to a proton. It is inconsistent,
and therefore wrong. Physics cannot be self contradictory. Whatever the

Hmmm. It seems to me here that you are contradicting the arguments you
applied above to Newtonian models. Now you say approximations should
not be considered as valid stepping stones toward a better
understanding.

Not at all. If you were saying that quarks should be considered as black
holes, or preferably taking something easier, and saying electrons
should be considered as black holes, then I would say something
different. I would point out that there is a very real conflict between
the idea of a black hole and the idea of an interacting point-like
elementary particle. If time stops on the event horizon, how can the
particle interact? Nonetheless this conflict must exist within our
current physical theories at least in so far as we can mathematically
discuss eigenstates of position. In fact I do expect certain properties
of black holes for elementary particles, but I also expect that our
basic ideas will have to change quite considerably before we can have a
meaningful discussion. I believe that thinking about such things and
discussing them is the best way to have the insights which we need to
make progress. We have to sort out what can be regarded as valid
approximation, and what makes no sense at all. But you were not
discussing approximations, and trying to sift what in among it may be
true and what may be false. You were making a blanket wholesale
statement and expecting us to take it as a possible truth, even though
we know that it is not.

My fundamental interest is in actual physical systems, and how nature
actually works. I think that we can even understand how the atom
actually works, if we are good enough scientists.

We can model a hydrogen atom precisely. Beyond that we are limited to
computer solutions, but we do have a very good understanding of atoms.
We have a very good understanding at a subatomic scale also, of
electrons especially, and not bad of protons and neutrons. Beyond
quarks, I think everything is less clear cut. Gluons are accepted, but
in my view, before we start building qcd, we really ought to sort out
the remaining problems in qed, and the interpretational issues which
have plagued quantum theory since its inception.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:


3. I note that you, also, fail to mention anything about the 5
analogies that I keep referring to (see post #2 in this thread,
11/06/06). Do these empirical, as in well-observed, phenomena have any
educational value? Do you ignore them because they are incorrect? Or do
you ignore them because they support my argument?

To be honest, I ignore them because they are in a long forgotten post
which I am not going to go to the trouble of finding.


The material I was referring to (5 very interesting analogies between
hadrons and K-N black holes) can be accessed in about 10 seconds and
read in about 30 seconds. Of course one would want to think about these
empirical facts for a bit longer, but as scientists, we like to think
about things like this.

Since this material would seem to have a definite bearing on the issue
of whether or not a general analogy between hadrons and Kerr-Newman
black holes might be useful (even if only an approximation), I am
surprised that both you and Steve Carlip ignore these potential
empirical clues.

RLO

Oh No wrote:

We don't say the Ptolemaic model of
the Solar System is still valid within its "domain of applicability",
do we?

Funnily enough, it is perfectly possible to construct an ellipse from an
infinite sequence of wheels within wheels. This is a generalisation of
the theory of Fourier transforms, so if we so desire, and wish to be
amusing, we are quite entitled to say exactly that.


Brilliant!

I think you have gone quite a ways in proving my contention that, as
with statistics, with mathematics one can "prove" whatever one wants to
prove, or "disprove" whatever one wants to disprove. The thing that
keeps science honest is that nature exists, that we can observe its
properties, that we can predict the results of future observations and
learn whether we are right or wrong. Our understanding of nature can
improve, so long as we are willing to accept nature's verdicts and
learn from them.

RLO

[Mod. note: unless it returns to astrophysics, this branch of the
thread is now closed -- mjh]

Oh No wrote:
not the scientists. Pickering is a sociologist, and his book is called a
sociological history. Treat it for what it is, and I believe it is a
good book. But don't accept scientific and philosophical judgements from
someone who is not qualified to make them.


Pickering's book is a very well-informed, well researched and
scientific analysis of the development of high-energy physics from 1945
to the "GUT" era of the 1980s. Just because he interprets subjective
ideas in a way that is different from your preferred way, does not make
him wrong. Sometimes the most accurate reviews of a field, and the best
new ideas, come from those who stand slightly outside the field, and
avoid the academic group-think.


We can model a hydrogen atom precisely. Beyond that we are limited to
computer solutions, but we do have a very good understanding of atoms.
We have a very good understanding at a subatomic scale also, of
electrons especially, and not bad of protons and neutrons. Beyond
quarks, I think everything is less clear cut. Gluons are accepted, but
in my view, before we start building qcd, we really ought to sort out
the remaining problems in qed, and the interpretational issues which
have plagued quantum theory since its inception.


Since you feel more comfortable when bona fide professors of physics
are expressing their views, here is a little something from Prof. Lee
Smolin.

"Although I respect my colleagues who disagree, I find their thinking
basically incomprehensible. As much as I try to see what they are
talking about, I find the assertion that nature is actually a vector in
a complex space made up of infinite dimensions as silly as Aristotle's
universe of concentric spheres surrounded by heaven with Earth at the
center".

My research suggests to me in the most clear terms that the Born
interpretation of Psi-squared as a "probability density" was one of the
great wrong turns of modern science. But I suspect it will be quite a
while before the theoretical community is willing to consider that they
might be lost in some alien and artificial landscape.

RLO

[Mod. note: again, this thread should return to astrophysics or should
go elsewhere -- mjh]