Is the Planck scale even smaller than we thought? Space-based GRBobservations seem to indicate so

"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 Einstein
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...-einstein.html

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 Einstein
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...-einstein.html


Whoa thats neat physics!

In principle a large foundation of quantum theory is just plain
incorrect because we can already 'detect' quantum effects on space or space
shimmer at about 10-15 meters by reflecting light off multiple
mirrors. If at these astronomical distances, the grain size of space
is less than 10-48 m, then this shimmering of space and all the physics
that relied on plank scale of 10-35 m has big holes in it.

Potentially, the quantum effects visible assuming 10-35 m figure is the work
of even more fundamental 'particles' acting in concert over large inter
particle distances. Think of the differences between atoms and sub atomic
particles and thats what we have here.

Its a shame we won't have at any time in the near future any way of
peering into such small scales to see what goes on.

On Jul 4, 9:04*am, 7
email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets .com wrote:
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 Einstein
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...-einstein.html

Whoa thats neat physics!

In principle a large foundation of quantum theory is just plain
incorrect because we can already 'detect' quantum effects on space or space
shimmer at about 10-15 meters by reflecting light off multiple
mirrors. If at these astronomical distances, the grain size of space
is less than 10-48 m, then this shimmering of space and all the physics
that relied on plank scale of 10-35 m has big holes in it.

Potentially, the quantum effects visible assuming 10-35 m figure is the work
of even more fundamental 'particles' acting in concert over large inter
particle distances. Think of the differences between atoms and sub atomic
particles and thats what we have here.

Its a shame we won't have at any time in the near future any way of
peering into such small scales to see what goes on.

There ain't no smallest because smaller is smaller.


Structures repeat as one goes down the scale.

The idea of a "God-particle" does not
fit well with a fractal universe where every
electron is a galactic arm composed of millions of stars all
teeming with intelligent life.

john
galaxy model for the atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneA.GIF

On 7/4/11 9:49 AM, 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 Einstein
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...-einstein.html


A detailed spectral study of GRB 041219A and its host galaxy
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.2173G

GRB 041219A is one of the longest and brightest gamma-ray bursts (GRBs)
ever observed. It was discovered by the INTEGRAL satellite, and thanks
to a precursor happening about 300 s before the bulk of the burst,
ground-based telescopes were able to catch the rarely observed prompt
emission in the optical and in the near-infrared bands.

Here we present the detailed analysis of its prompt gamma-ray emission,
as observed with IBIS onboard INTEGRAL, and of the available X-ray
afterglow data collected by X-Ray Telescope onboard Swift. We then
present the late-time multiband near-infrared imaging data, collected at
the Telescopio Nazionale Galileo (TNG) and the Canada-France-Hawaii
Telescope (CFHT), that allowed us to identify the host galaxy of the GRB
as an underluminous, irregular galaxy of ~5 × 10^9 Mȯ at best-fitting
redshift of z= 0.31 +0.54 -0.26.

We model the broad-band prompt optical to gamma-ray emission of GRB
041219A within the internal shock model. We were able to reproduce the
spectra and light curve invoking the synchrotron emission of
relativistic electrons accelerated by a series of propagating shock
waves inside a relativistic outflow. On the other hand, it is less easy
to simultaneously reproduce the temporal and spectral properties of the
infrared data.

Also See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.3663
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.3663v1

On Jul 4, 3:49*pm, 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

As understand it, Planck's length is supposed to be constant when
measured locally. But If space is not a substance and instead is only
a separation of objects. Then it seems that denser agregates of
matter should produce finer Planck lengths. For example, if there
were only two particles in a locality the two could not be expected to
provide a rich and fine space in their vicinity. However if there is
an immense number of particles in a small volume then that volume
should produce ultra fine subdivisions.

More energetic bursts were probably more dense and so there could be a
relationship between intensity of burst and graininess.

If the universe is fractal then it would make sense for planck length
to be smaller in the smaller order patterns.

I don't know enough about GR, but shouldn't planck lengths be smaller
in a very dense body as it appears to us, as observers in a less dense
zone?
Ie if plancks length is constant when measured locally, shouldn't it
be different for an external observer than for the local observer?

On Jul 4, 6:15*pm, ben6993 wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:49*pm, 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

As *understand it, Planck's length is supposed to be constant when
measured locally. *But If space is not a substance and instead is only
a separation of objects. *Then it seems that denser agregates of
matter should produce finer Planck lengths. *For example, if there
were only two particles in a locality the two could not be expected to
provide a rich and fine space in their vicinity. *However if there is
an immense number of particles in a small volume then that volume
should produce ultra fine subdivisions.

More energetic bursts were probably more dense and so there could be a
relationship between intensity of burst and graininess.

If the universe is fractal then it would make sense for planck length
to be smaller in the smaller order patterns.

I don't know enough about GR, but shouldn't planck lengths be smaller
in a very dense body as it appears to us, as observers in a less dense
zone?
Ie if plancks length is constant when measured locally, shouldn't it
be different for an external observer than for the local observer?

Ah,I demonstrated how ridiculous the thing was years ago,I think I
worked it out over breakfast based on the idea that to determine a
definite smaller length would run into the non-periodic decimals of
the Pi proportion,it probably matters a whole lot to empiricists but
as for me it was a minor exercise -

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d48f4234f85118

I don't even credit readers with being able to figure out the sequence
of reasoning which prohibits a lower geometric limit,more like over
excited children who can't handle basic geometric script.

On 04/07/2011 10:49 AM, 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 Einstein
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...-einstein.html

There was another similar attempt to measure the graininess of space
made on another GRB about 2 years ago using the Fermi Gamma Ray Space
Telescope, GRB 090510. In that case they weren't using the polarization
of space to measure its graininess, but just distance of space to
measure a difference in arrival times.

Fermi Space Telescope Captures Glimpse of Space-Time | Popular Science
http://www.popsci.com/node/40163/?cmpid=enews110509

In that case, they measured a difference of just 0.9 seconds after
travelling for an entire 7.3 billion light years! So the difference was
determined as inconclusive.

Yousuf Khan

On 04/07/2011 12:15 PM, ben6993 wrote:
As understand it, Planck's length is supposed to be constant when
measured locally. But If space is not a substance and instead is only
a separation of objects. Then it seems that denser agregates of
matter should produce finer Planck lengths. For example, if there
were only two particles in a locality the two could not be expected to
provide a rich and fine space in their vicinity. However if there is
an immense number of particles in a small volume then that volume
should produce ultra fine subdivisions.

More energetic bursts were probably more dense and so there could be a
relationship between intensity of burst and graininess.

No, there is also a Planck Density, which depends on Planck Length and
Planck Mass obviously. It works out to something like 1.4E+32 kg/m^3.
The physical meaning of the Planck Density is that if you exceed this
density, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity break down. Basically
it's supposed to be the density at which you form blackholes.

If the gamma rays were produced in a region of space exceeding the
Planck Density, then it would be coming from inside a blackhole, which
is of course impossible. Even if the GRB produced a blackhole as its
final product, all of the gamma rays would have to be coming from
outside the blackhole event horizon. So those regions of space where the
Planck Density is exceeded would not produce gamma rays (or any other
light) that we could see.

If the universe is fractal then it would make sense for planck length
to be smaller in the smaller order patterns.

If there were smaller Planck lengths in certain parts of the universe,
then those would be inside a blackhole, and therefore they would not
actually be part of our universe.

I don't know enough about GR, but shouldn't planck lengths be smaller
in a very dense body as it appears to us, as observers in a less dense
zone?
Ie if plancks length is constant when measured locally, shouldn't it
be different for an external observer than for the local observer?

My thinking here is that if the Planck units are all much smaller, then
perhaps all of the units are proportionally smaller. Some derived units
like Planck Density, have not been actually tested in the lab, they are
just assumed that their constituent units are right. However, the Planck
units were actually discovered before Quantum Mechanics was invented,
Max Planck came up with them in 1899, and his first seminal work related
to Quantum Mechanics, i.e. the Blackbody Radiation theory came out in
1900. I think it's just been assumed that Quantum Mechanics must follow
the Planck units since these units are so much smaller than even the
Quantum Mechanics realm. Perhaps the Planck units we see now are just a
harmonic of the real units?

Yousuf Khan

On 04/07/2011 11:04 AM, 7 wrote:
Potentially, the quantum effects visible assuming 10-35 m figure is the work
of even more fundamental 'particles' acting in concert over large inter
particle distances. Think of the differences between atoms and sub atomic
particles and thats what we have here.

I don't think that it necessarily means that we'll see even more
fundamental particles at these smaller scales. The current Planck scale
is already several orders of magnitude smaller than the atomic and
subatomic scale. In fact, in the history of Quantum Mechanics, the
Planck Scale actually came before Quantum Mechanics itself. Max Planck
published this scale in 1899, but his first work about QM, and thus the
absolute first work in history about QM, came a year later in 1900, the
theory about Blackbody Radiation.

All it means is that the existing particle zoo must have even more
discrete places to pop in and out of.

Yousuf Khan

On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 19:21:31 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

No, there is also a Planck Density, which depends on Planck Length and
Planck Mass obviously. It works out to something like 1.4E+32 kg/m^3.
The physical meaning of the Planck Density is that if you exceed this
density, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity break down. Basically
it's supposed to be the density at which you form blackholes....

Er, if you want to form a black hole the size of the Solar system then
you're on the high side by about thirty orders of magnitude. -- RLW