Got interesting thought last night a black hole should have be a perfect circle diameter and perimeter, both can be measured by length in Planck lengths, The limit of length You could use this to determine the finite decimals places of pi.
-
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
- Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
Any one else here obsessed with physics?
- Thread starter Ronald Zeeman
- Start date
What if it's rotating?
I'm no physicist so if I'm I'm wrong you can sue me (though you won't get much!
), but I believe this isn't correct. I think it's a mistaken idea related to the non continuous, or pixel idea of spacetime (the idea that it's the size of the smallest division of spacetime, or something like that).
A planck length is the length of the smallest ruler. that can exist nothing shorter you can measure length with that has any meaning.
"It is a natural unit of measurement that characterizes the Planck scale, where quantum effects of gravity dominate and the predictions of standard physics break down."
As best I could make out, although there are suggestions of non-continuity involving Plank length as it's smallest fundamental measurement, this, I believe, is still conjecture and there's not (yet?) any evidence to show this is the case.
I believe there are some 'proofs' against non-continuity related to the travel of x-rays across the expanding spacetime continuum, I think it was something to do with the measurements of it's progress and how that would effect the various wavelengths over large distances etc. and the results didn't support a non-continuous substrate.
So as far as I understand the jury is very much still out on this one.
The Plank length itself seems to be the development of a natural measurement scale as opposed to an arbitrary one (like kilograms, based on the weight of a rock as I recall), and also represent the limits below which quantum gravity effects are introduced (though don't quote me on that one, I haven't a clue what quantum gravity is).
As best I could make out, although there are suggestions of non-continuity involving Plank length as it's smallest fundamental measurement, this, I believe, is still conjecture and there's not (yet?) any evidence to show this is the case.
I believe there are some 'proofs' against non-continuity related to the travel of x-rays across the expanding spacetime continuum, I think it was something to do with the measurements of it's progress and how that would effect the various wavelengths over large distances etc. and the results didn't support a non-continuous substrate.
So as far as I understand the jury is very much still out on this one.
The Plank length itself seems to be the development of a natural measurement scale as opposed to an arbitrary one (like kilograms, based on the weight of a rock as I recall), and also represent the limits below which quantum gravity effects are introduced (though don't quote me on that one, I haven't a clue what quantum gravity is).
Your second paragragh eludes to loop quantum gravity prediction that was recently found not to be the case.
My gut feeling so far is chasing quantum gravity is where the issue is They are chasing something that does not exist gravity is emergent.
My gut feeling so far is chasing quantum gravity is where the issue is They are chasing something that does not exist gravity is emergent.
The point was less to do with the use (as I said, no personal knowledge) but it was one of the explanations of what the plank length is used for and it's origin as a natural measurement rather than a fundamental element.
I also saw a few separate articles basing the believe that the plank length is the smallest possible division in the universe on the 'pixel' theory of a non-continuous substrate, plus the refutation of it not matching results based on x-ray (or it may have been gamma ray) emissions and their resolution into separate wavelengths which didn't match the non-continuous theory.
I think that article claimed the requirement of a minimum possible measurement being about 500 times smaller than plank length for the results of the radiation emission would work in a 'pixellated' universe. On the basis their math was correct (which I had to assume) it made the theory questionable.
The best I could make of it (in the time I had) was it's far from certain either way. But I couldn't find any definite stuff to show it is the smallest possible distance.
Personally I rather liked the pixellation idea as it resolves some things quite nicely. It removes paradoxes such as infinite divisibility. An seems to fit the whole idea of quantisation too, etc. How it could be disproven is beyond my little brain, since any experimental measurement would surely suffer the same problems at those limits?
I also saw a few separate articles basing the believe that the plank length is the smallest possible division in the universe on the 'pixel' theory of a non-continuous substrate, plus the refutation of it not matching results based on x-ray (or it may have been gamma ray) emissions and their resolution into separate wavelengths which didn't match the non-continuous theory.
I think that article claimed the requirement of a minimum possible measurement being about 500 times smaller than plank length for the results of the radiation emission would work in a 'pixellated' universe. On the basis their math was correct (which I had to assume) it made the theory questionable.
The best I could make of it (in the time I had) was it's far from certain either way. But I couldn't find any definite stuff to show it is the smallest possible distance.
Personally I rather liked the pixellation idea as it resolves some things quite nicely. It removes paradoxes such as infinite divisibility. An seems to fit the whole idea of quantisation too, etc. How it could be disproven is beyond my little brain, since any experimental measurement would surely suffer the same problems at those limits?
Last edited:
Here's a youtube video explaining plank length.
Watching latest video from Curt Jaimugal interviewing Leonard Susskind. To me the only guy along with Neil Turok
who have not spun their wheels in the last few years.
who have not spun their wheels in the last few years.
Last edited:
Noticed all the notable players in physics are now allowing themselves be interviewed about their pet theories.
Are they trying to appeal to the next generation, I hope so stuck for many years need new ideas.
Are they trying to appeal to the next generation, I hope so stuck for many years need new ideas.
Watching all the major players in physics discuss their pet theories keep getting the feeling a paradigm shift is needed Time is emergent going both forward and back ward concurrently separated by a fourth spatial dimension. Gravity is emergent on both side at the surface of both sides of this fourth dimension. much like waves at the surface of a body of water are emergent One side is matter other side is anti matter. So easy for me to see.
So does this suggest time and gravity are not fundamental? But actually emerge ? If so I have have been having deep thoughts that time is not fundamental.
Yes you got it time emerges from movement gravity cannot exist without mass.
could this mean that all time is happening at once and is actually not linear ?
I just go with what I can see in my minds eye, time concurrently goes forward and backwards. depending where you are.
Watching u-tube videos on younger physicist, came across new one Jacob Barandes, being interviewed by Curt Jaimungul.
I saw this this morning fits in with my minds eye, I think Neil is on to something.
Watching Curt Jaimungal interviewing Julian Barbour. interesting stuff. Every thing fits with what I see.
Just saw Peter Woit's latest entry on his blog, as he puts his own theory forward. Starting to wonder if only a very bright person on the spectrum is able to break the log jam in physics. Basically it's all about time. Even Einstein saw his, joked about it calling it an illusion. I Just see it as emergent, going forward and backwards concurrently. Why can nobody else see this am I that different so obvious.
I think Neil Turok can sort of see it makes classic mistake sees other side as a mirror not reality. Unable to make paradigm shift fourth spatial dimension exists. A lot of physicists in the past held back when the obvious was in front of them. Even Suspected Aspies, I have no axe to grind retired, not beholden to any body only concern is becoming a some body over night. No Phd, not the first though.
Either way I could visualize Einstein's special theory of relativity in grade five so obvious. Could not understand why no one else could see it. Still confused.
I think Neil Turok can sort of see it makes classic mistake sees other side as a mirror not reality. Unable to make paradigm shift fourth spatial dimension exists. A lot of physicists in the past held back when the obvious was in front of them. Even Suspected Aspies, I have no axe to grind retired, not beholden to any body only concern is becoming a some body over night. No Phd, not the first though.
Either way I could visualize Einstein's special theory of relativity in grade five so obvious. Could not understand why no one else could see it. Still confused.
Last edited:
Just found a physicist with a new theory that sort of makes sense, great to see Johnathan Oppenheim.
New Threads
-
-
Link between autism and OCPD?
- Started by daniegirl6224
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Watching TV- autism vs cognitive deficit?
- Started by daniegirl6224
- Replies: 16
-
