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

On Jul 4, 10:49*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

Amazing.

Yousuf Khan wrote in -
lp.com:

"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



It ought to be to the surprise of nobody that arguments based on numerology
didn't work too well in the face of observation.

Yousuf Khan wrote:

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.


In many ways there must be smaller 'particles' if at one scale one effect
is seen, and then some experiment suggest a much smaller scales than that.

Structures at larger scale can't implement features of the small scale
and vice versa. The way it happens 'traditionally' is that the smaller
particles coalesce to form a large structure and these larger
structures then interact with each other in different ways to the smaller
particles they are made up of. So molecular behaviour is completely
different from atomic behavior which is completely different to sub atomic
particle behavior. If there is something smaller than all of known physics
put its limit on, then what we are seeing at that larger scale is the
behavior of coalesced particle system.

We are unable to image it now and probably for the foreseeable future. The
lower limit is suggested from an experiment that uses half the width of the
known universe to put a limit on the smallest feature in the universe.
The numbers required to image would equally become astronomical.


Yousuf Khan

On 04/07/2011 9:56 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
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

So this would go even beyond black hole density into a territory that
we've never seen before?

Yousuf Khan

On Jul 5, 9:44*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 04/07/2011 9:56 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:

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

So this would go even beyond black hole density into a territory that
we've never seen before?

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Infinite density/ zero volume has the same status as infinite volume/
zero density as they both describe nothing with nothing in-between.The
might describe the pretense of the no center/no circumference
ideologies of 'big bang'/black hole thingies but apparently nobody
gets the unfunny joke.

The quaint wordplay of a singularity is that it is a sinvulgarity,sort
of words for people who know no better.

On 05/07/2011 10:09 AM, 7 wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
All it means is that the existing particle zoo must have even more
discrete places to pop in and out of.


In many ways there must be smaller 'particles' if at one scale one effect
is seen, and then some experiment suggest a much smaller scales than that.

The smallest particles we see now are basically point particles, meaning
zero-dimensional (ignoring String Theoy, of course). Photons, quarks,
electrons, neutrinos, the various force carriers do not actually have
any physical form, just a radius of probability where they may pop in
and out of. They even measured the shape of an electron's radius of
probability recently and found that it was perfectly spherical, which
means that it goes down to a point particle at its smallest radius.

Unless we start taking the radius down even further and we start seeing
non-circular shapes then we can't assume there's anything more
fundamental out there than what we've already discovered.

Yousuf Khan

Type your message here.

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 05/07/2011 10:09 AM, 7 wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
All it means is that the existing particle zoo must have even more
discrete places to pop in and out of.


In many ways there must be smaller 'particles' if at one scale one effect
is seen, and then some experiment suggest a much smaller scales than
that.

The smallest particles we see now are basically point particles, meaning
zero-dimensional (ignoring String Theoy, of course). Photons, quarks,
electrons, neutrinos, the various force carriers do not actually have
any physical form, just a radius of probability where they may pop in
and out of. They even measured the shape of an electron's radius of
probability recently and found that it was perfectly spherical, which
means that it goes down to a point particle at its smallest radius.

Unless we start taking the radius down even further and we start seeing
non-circular shapes then we can't assume there's anything more
fundamental out there than what we've already discovered.

Yousuf Khan


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.

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.

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.

Yousuf Khan

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