Is the Planck scale even smaller than we thought? Space-based GRBobservations 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.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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