|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Is the Planck scale even smaller than we thought? Space-based GRB observations seem to indicate so
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 07/07/2011 7:19 AM, 7 wrote: The pointer to something smaller is given by this galactic experiment in spite of other tools that are tech limited to the resolutions they work at. Actually, I can't figure out how they expected the graininess of space to create a polarizing effect on this light. Specifically, space grains should have no specific alignment themselves. So how do they expect polarization to occur? When the greeks started doing this, their 'tools' led them to 4 elements. Then chemistry came along and made it 100 odd elements. Soon after the elementary particles came along and made it into protons electrons and neutrons. Then atom smashers came along and mode it into particle zoo and eventually that got resolved into quarks. Some new tech has to come along like this intergalactic experiment to point at something smaller which is what its doing. Well, at this point all they're looking for that's new is the Higgs, which isn't considered to be constituent of any other particle -- it's a separate particle class. So it seems to me that they are pretty satisfied that quarks and leptons are about as close to fundamental as you can get. This is exactly the point where I'm sat wondering the merits of something smaller behind the scenes and how it would reveal itself if the tools that are used are too big to resolve it. For example, a while ago there were some companies claiming to be making smaller than light wavelength images - but then came along the electron microscope and ways of coating objects with metal that allowed the electron microscope to resolve objects smaller than wavelengths of light, and instantly these 'fake' light microscopes got exposed for what they were. So when someone says they found the electron to be as smooth as the the height of a pea if it were inflated to the size of the Earth, then I don't doubt the truth behind it, but I do question the resolution limits of the tool. It could have missed for example a surface covered in pea sized objects because what they measure is the average and in order to resolve a pea from Earth sized object, the tools have to damn good and a lot different. Yousuf Khan -- [Apologies if I don't appear to reply, the trolls are spewing so much spam its becoming all too easy to loose a thread.] |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Is the Planck scale even smaller than we thought? Space-basedGRB observations seem to indicate so
On 09/07/2011 12:57 PM, 7 wrote:
This is exactly the point where I'm sat wondering the merits of something smaller behind the scenes and how it would reveal itself if the tools that are used are too big to resolve it. For example, a while ago there were some companies claiming to be making smaller than light wavelength images - but then came along the electron microscope and ways of coating objects with metal that allowed the electron microscope to resolve objects smaller than wavelengths of light, and instantly these 'fake' light microscopes got exposed for what they were. Well, I'm not sure how long ago, the "a while ago" is that you're referring to. Electron microscopes have been around since the 1930's, so perhaps those charlatan companies were around in the 1920's or earlier? Regarding something smaller than the smallest point particles that we know of now, it is assumed that above some unimaginably high temperature all particles derive from a single object. At lower energy levels, they condense into the quarks, gluons, leptons, etc. that we are familiar with. My opinion is that the common ancestor particle will turn out to be space-time itself. So when someone says they found the electron to be as smooth as the the height of a pea if it were inflated to the size of the Earth, then I don't doubt the truth behind it, but I do question the resolution limits of the tool. It could have missed for example a surface covered in pea sized objects because what they measure is the average and in order to resolve a pea from Earth sized object, the tools have to damn good and a lot different. Well, I don't know the exact method they used either, but actually they've gotten the resolution even finer than that. They have said that the electron is as perfectly round to within 1 human hair's width if the electron were inflated to the size of the Solar System! That's a tiny tolerance. Yousuf Khan |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Is the Planck scale even smaller than we thought? Space-based GRB observations seem to indicate so
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 09/07/2011 12:57 PM, 7 wrote: This is exactly the point where I'm sat wondering the merits of something smaller behind the scenes and how it would reveal itself if the tools that are used are too big to resolve it. For example, a while ago there were some companies claiming to be making smaller than light wavelength images - but then came along the electron microscope and ways of coating objects with metal that allowed the electron microscope to resolve objects smaller than wavelengths of light, and instantly these 'fake' light microscopes got exposed for what they were. Well, I'm not sure how long ago, the "a while ago" is that you're referring to. Electron microscopes have been around since the 1930's, so perhaps those charlatan companies were around in the 1920's or earlier? Regarding something smaller than the smallest point particles that we know of now, it is assumed that above some unimaginably high temperature all particles derive from a single object. That is a critical statement to be making about an assumption. Is it 1 or is it 2? If its 1, it cannot work as one object cannot interact with another object of the same type because there is no mechanism for interaction. If it does interact, then its made of two components, one a point mass, and two a field (or its conceivable equivalents). If an object is made from 2 components, then it requires smaller machinery to implement the interactions between the objects. So we are no nearer to solving this paradox. At lower energy levels, they condense into the quarks, gluons, leptons, etc. that we are familiar with. My opinion is that the common ancestor particle will turn out to be space-time itself. So when someone says they found the electron to be as smooth as the the height of a pea if it were inflated to the size of the Earth, then I don't doubt the truth behind it, but I do question the resolution limits of the tool. It could have missed for example a surface covered in pea sized objects because what they measure is the average and in order to resolve a pea from Earth sized object, the tools have to damn good and a lot different. Well, I don't know the exact method they used either, but actually they've gotten the resolution even finer than that. They have said that the electron is as perfectly round to within 1 human hair's width if the electron were inflated to the size of the Solar System! That's a tiny tolerance. Yousuf Khan |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Is the Planck scale even smaller than we thought? Space-basedGRB observations seem to indicate so
On 7/9/2011 6:42 PM, 7 wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: On 09/07/2011 12:57 PM, 7 wrote: This is exactly the point where I'm sat wondering the merits of something smaller behind the scenes and how it would reveal itself if the tools that are used are too big to resolve it. For example, a while ago there were some companies claiming to be making smaller than light wavelength images - but then came along the electron microscope and ways of coating objects with metal that allowed the electron microscope to resolve objects smaller than wavelengths of light, and instantly these 'fake' light microscopes got exposed for what they were. Well, I'm not sure how long ago, the "a while ago" is that you're referring to. Electron microscopes have been around since the 1930's, so perhaps those charlatan companies were around in the 1920's or earlier? Regarding something smaller than the smallest point particles that we know of now, it is assumed that above some unimaginably high temperature all particles derive from a single object. That is a critical statement to be making about an assumption. Is it 1 or is it 2? If its 1, it cannot work as one object cannot interact with another object of the same type because there is no mechanism for interaction. If it does interact, then its made of two components, one a point mass, and two a field (or its conceivable equivalents). No, mass and energy would be two properties to emerge out of this one object. A field would be made of energy. Mass and energy are properties of the object, but they are not the objects themselves. In fact, mass would be a property that emerges out of energy, so it wouldn't be a basic property, only energy would be the basic property. A space-time quantum would interact with neighbouring spacetime quanta. They would transfer energy between each other. Some specific form of energy interaction causes the neighbouring quantas to accumulate and stick together, these then become types of matter. The collective energy of the conjoined quanta then becomes a collective property known as mass. A free quantum of space-time would not have any property called mass because it is not a conjoined bundle of energy. Only conjoined bundles can be said to have mass. Now, the conjoining of the bundles does not happen within the 4 basic dimensions, it happens in higher dimensions. If it happened within the 4 dimensions, then it would take up definite space and we'd be able to detect them by their non-point-like behaviour. But since we keep seeing them as point-like, the conjoining must be happening at higher dimensions, and we see only their properties within the 4 space-time dimensions. This sounds somewhat like String Theory, but it's not, as String Theory thinks of these objects are singular objects called strings. I'm saying that these objects are accumulations of smaller conjoined objects (space-time quanta) in the higher dimensions. The mass of an object simply becomes the sum total of the basic energy of each conjoined space-time quanta. This would also explain their distinctions as bosons (force carriers) versus fermions (matter particles). A fermion has the property that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, this means that they can't occupy the same space as each other, and they must be separated by a certain amount of space. But boson are something that can occupy the same quantum states as each other. Fermions would be something that have occupied all of the space allocated in the higher dimensions in which they exist, and therefore when two fermions come close to each other, they can't simply occupy the same higher dimension as there is no more room left for both of them. You can look upon it like valence shells for electrons, only not happening in the 4 common dimensions but happening in higher dimensions. A boson (a photon being the most commonly known one) is on the other hand something which hasn't occupied all of its valence shells, so two bosons can pass right through each other occupying the same space without a problem. That's because there's still enough room for them both in the higher dimensions which they occupy. Bosons must be bypassing around each other in the higher dimensions, but it looks like they can occupy the same space in our viewpoint. This would also explain the curious nature of Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs). BECs are collections of fermions that can act like a boson. Somehow BECs must be a collection of fermions which join together to create a more complex valence shell arrangement in the higher order dimensions. So it must be analagous to how atoms join together to form molecules. The molecules have a more flexible electronic valence shell arrangement than any individual atom has: a similar thing must be happening within BECs, individual fermions join up to form a pseudo-boson simply due to greater flexibility in their valence shells. I predict BECs will be our new chemistry of the future. We'll be manipulating atoms into BECs rather than into molecules. Yousuf Khan |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Is the Planck scale even smaller than we thought? Space-based GRB observations seem to indicate so
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 7/9/2011 6:42 PM, 7 wrote: Yousuf Khan wrote: On 09/07/2011 12:57 PM, 7 wrote: This is exactly the point where I'm sat wondering the merits of something smaller behind the scenes and how it would reveal itself if the tools that are used are too big to resolve it. For example, a while ago there were some companies claiming to be making smaller than light wavelength images - but then came along the electron microscope and ways of coating objects with metal that allowed the electron microscope to resolve objects smaller than wavelengths of light, and instantly these 'fake' light microscopes got exposed for what they were. Well, I'm not sure how long ago, the "a while ago" is that you're referring to. Electron microscopes have been around since the 1930's, so perhaps those charlatan companies were around in the 1920's or earlier? Regarding something smaller than the smallest point particles that we know of now, it is assumed that above some unimaginably high temperature all particles derive from a single object. That is a critical statement to be making about an assumption. Is it 1 or is it 2? If its 1, it cannot work as one object cannot interact with another object of the same type because there is no mechanism for interaction. If it does interact, then its made of two components, one a point mass, and two a field (or its conceivable equivalents). No, mass and energy would be two properties to emerge out of this one object. A field would be made of energy. Mass and energy are properties of the object, but they are not the objects themselves. In fact, mass would be a property that emerges out of energy, so it wouldn't be a basic property, only energy would be the basic property. But but but!!!! Thats just an inconvenient interpretation of E=mc^2. We are going behind that to see the machinery that implements it. A space-time quantum would interact with neighbouring spacetime quanta. This is going off somewhere where I genuinely can't follow. Please rephrase. They would transfer energy between each other. Some specific form of energy interaction causes the neighbouring quantas to accumulate and stick together, these then become types of matter. The collective energy of the conjoined quanta then becomes a collective property known as mass. A free quantum of space-time would not have any property called mass because it is not a conjoined bundle of energy. Only conjoined bundles can be said to have mass. Now, the conjoining of the bundles does not happen within the 4 basic dimensions, it happens in higher dimensions. If it happened within the 4 dimensions, then it would take up definite space and we'd be able to detect them by their non-point-like behaviour. But since we keep seeing them as point-like, the conjoining must be happening at higher dimensions, and we see only their properties within the 4 space-time dimensions. This sounds somewhat like String Theory, but it's not, as String Theory thinks of these objects are singular objects called strings. I'm saying that these objects are accumulations of smaller conjoined objects (space-time quanta) in the higher dimensions. The mass of an object simply becomes the sum total of the basic energy of each conjoined space-time quanta. This would also explain their distinctions as bosons (force carriers) versus fermions (matter particles). A fermion has the property that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, this means that they can't occupy the same space as each other, and they must be separated by a certain amount of space. But boson are something that can occupy the same quantum states as each other. Fermions would be something that have occupied all of the space allocated in the higher dimensions in which they exist, and therefore when two fermions come close to each other, they can't simply occupy the same higher dimension as there is no more room left for both of them. You can look upon it like valence shells for electrons, only not happening in the 4 common dimensions but happening in higher dimensions. A boson (a photon being the most commonly known one) is on the other hand something which hasn't occupied all of its valence shells, so two bosons can pass right through each other occupying the same space without a problem. That's because there's still enough room for them both in the higher dimensions which they occupy. Bosons must be bypassing around each other in the higher dimensions, but it looks like they can occupy the same space in our viewpoint. This would also explain the curious nature of Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs). BECs are collections of fermions that can act like a boson. Somehow BECs must be a collection of fermions which join together to create a more complex valence shell arrangement in the higher order dimensions. So it must be analagous to how atoms join together to form molecules. The molecules have a more flexible electronic valence shell arrangement than any individual atom has: a similar thing must be happening within BECs, individual fermions join up to form a pseudo-boson simply due to greater flexibility in their valence shells. I predict BECs will be our new chemistry of the future. We'll be manipulating atoms into BECs rather than into molecules. Yousuf Khan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Is the Planck scale even smaller than we thought? Space-basedGRB observations seem to indicate so
On 10/07/2011 2:28 PM, 7 wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: No, mass and energy would be two properties to emerge out of this one object. A field would be made of energy. Mass and energy are properties of the object, but they are not the objects themselves. In fact, mass would be a property that emerges out of energy, so it wouldn't be a basic property, only energy would be the basic property. But but but!!!! Thats just an inconvenient interpretation of E=mc^2. Well, what would you call a "convenient" interpretation? We are going behind that to see the machinery that implements it. And so I'm saying that energy is behind the machinery that implements mass. A space-time quantum would interact with neighbouring spacetime quanta. This is going off somewhere where I genuinely can't follow. Please rephrase. As I've said, all of the particles that we know about may have come from a single basic particle. I'm saying that this basic particle is called a space-time quanta (or particles of aether, or space loops, or whatever you prefer to call it). Let's say different combinations of rolled up aether particles create different types of matter. Let's say 10 particles of aether create a neutrino, or 1000 aethers create an electron, 100000 may create a quark, etc. It's probably more complicated than that, and the arrangement of these particles also makes a difference. Think of chemistry, where atoms aren't just simply orbited by electrons in a random fashion but these electrons fill specific arrangements of shells around the nucleus. We've since found out from quantum chromodynamics that even neutrons and protons aren't just hapharzardly piled together in the nucleus, they also fill specific shell arrangements inside the nucleus. I'm certain similar sorts of arrangements are happening with space-time quanta which make up the various particles. But the shells in this case are likely arranged outside of the 4-dimensional space. Yousuf Khan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Is the Planck scale even smaller than we thought? Space-based GRBobservations seem to indicate so
On 8 heinä, 17:00, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
On 4 heinä, 17:49, Yousuf Khan wrote: "Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the Planck scale : the minuscule 10-35 of a metre, where a millimetre is 10-3 m. However, Integral s observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller." Integral challenges physics beyond Einsteinhttp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html GRBs are chain reactions of explosions of exotic paricles called space- potatoes, which are in detail structure of radiation periphery (these are in structure of space-time). Question is a kind short current reaction in the mirror structure of space-potato. Wrong neutrinos and right neutrinos makes this short current reaction and flash of phorons results. Hannu Word corrections: paricles-particles phorons-photons |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Is the Planck scale even smaller than we thought? Space-based GRB observations seem to indicate so
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 7/9/2011 6:42 PM, 7 wrote: Yousuf Khan wrote: On 09/07/2011 12:57 PM, 7 wrote: This is exactly the point where I'm sat wondering the merits of something smaller behind the scenes and how it would reveal itself if the tools that are used are too big to resolve it. For example, a while ago there were some companies claiming to be making smaller than light wavelength images - but then came along the electron microscope and ways of coating objects with metal that allowed the electron microscope to resolve objects smaller than wavelengths of light, and instantly these 'fake' light microscopes got exposed for what they were. Well, I'm not sure how long ago, the "a while ago" is that you're referring to. Electron microscopes have been around since the 1930's, so perhaps those charlatan companies were around in the 1920's or earlier? Regarding something smaller than the smallest point particles that we know of now, it is assumed that above some unimaginably high temperature all particles derive from a single object. That is a critical statement to be making about an assumption. Is it 1 or is it 2? If its 1, it cannot work as one object cannot interact with another object of the same type because there is no mechanism for interaction. If it does interact, then its made of two components, one a point mass, and two a field (or its conceivable equivalents). No, mass and energy would be two properties to emerge out of this one object. A field would be made of energy. Mass and energy are properties of the object, but they are not the objects themselves. In fact, mass would be a property that emerges out of energy, so it wouldn't be a basic property, only energy would be the basic property. But but but!!!! Thats just an inconvenient interpretation of E=mc^2. We are going behind that to see the machinery that implements it. A space-time quantum would interact with neighbouring spacetime quanta. This is going off somewhere where I genuinely can't follow. Please rephrase. They would transfer energy between each other. Some specific form of energy interaction causes the neighbouring quantas to accumulate and stick together, these then become types of matter. The collective energy of the conjoined quanta then becomes a collective property known as mass. A free quantum of space-time would not have any property called mass because it is not a conjoined bundle of energy. Only conjoined bundles can be said to have mass. Now, the conjoining of the bundles does not happen within the 4 basic dimensions, it happens in higher dimensions. If it happened within the 4 dimensions, then it would take up definite space and we'd be able to detect them by their non-point-like behaviour. But since we keep seeing them as point-like, the conjoining must be happening at higher dimensions, and we see only their properties within the 4 space-time dimensions. This sounds somewhat like String Theory, but it's not, as String Theory thinks of these objects are singular objects called strings. I'm saying that these objects are accumulations of smaller conjoined objects (space-time quanta) in the higher dimensions. The mass of an object simply becomes the sum total of the basic energy of each conjoined space-time quanta. This would also explain their distinctions as bosons (force carriers) versus fermions (matter particles). A fermion has the property that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, this means that they can't occupy the same space as each other, and they must be separated by a certain amount of space. But boson are something that can occupy the same quantum states as each other. Fermions would be something that have occupied all of the space allocated in the higher dimensions in which they exist, and therefore when two fermions come close to each other, they can't simply occupy the same higher dimension as there is no more room left for both of them. You can look upon it like valence shells for electrons, only not happening in the 4 common dimensions but happening in higher dimensions. A boson (a photon being the most commonly known one) is on the other hand something which hasn't occupied all of its valence shells, so two bosons can pass right through each other occupying the same space without a problem. That's because there's still enough room for them both in the higher dimensions which they occupy. Bosons must be bypassing around each other in the higher dimensions, but it looks like they can occupy the same space in our viewpoint. This would also explain the curious nature of Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs). BECs are collections of fermions that can act like a boson. Somehow BECs must be a collection of fermions which join together to create a more complex valence shell arrangement in the higher order dimensions. So it must be analagous to how atoms join together to form molecules. The molecules have a more flexible electronic valence shell arrangement than any individual atom has: a similar thing must be happening within BECs, individual fermions join up to form a pseudo-boson simply due to greater flexibility in their valence shells. I predict BECs will be our new chemistry of the future. We'll be manipulating atoms into BECs rather than into molecules. Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Revised Planck Scale? | [email protected] | Research | 62 | January 19th 07 06:45 PM |
Smaller Scale Moon Missions | Alex Terrell | Policy | 10 | November 7th 05 12:00 AM |
Good News For Pluto - Astronomers Say KBOs May Be Smaller Than Thought | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 5 | December 8th 04 12:39 AM |
Good News For Pluto - Astronomers Say KBOs May Be Smaller Than Thought | Ron | Misc | 6 | November 25th 04 10:39 AM |
Planck Scale Fluctuations | R. Mark Elowitz | Research | 0 | March 10th 04 06:03 PM |