Re: Planck domain fun

From: Old Man (nomail_at_nomail.net)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:22:39 -0500

"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:SwLYc.2925$w%6.145@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> was Re: What is the the highest frequency that can be generated?
> "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:1v-dndcUIqxiAq_cRVn-jA@prairiewave.com...
> > "Garry" <gmalloy@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> > > >> So what is the fastest frequency possible known to man?
> > > >
> [Old Man]
> > > > There is no theoretical or observed empirical limit.
> > > > There exists some unsupported guess work that the
> > > > shortest possible length might be what is called
> > > > "Planck length" and "Planck time",
> > > > :: L_p = [sqrt(G*hbar/c^3)] = 1.6 x 10^(-35) meters
> > > > :: T_p = [sqrt(G*hbar/c^5)] = 5.4 x 10^(-44) seconds
> > > > The highest possible frequency would then be the reciprocal
> > > > of Planck time:
> > > > :: F_max = 1 / T_p = [sqrt(c^5/(G*hbar))] = 1.9 x 10(43) Hz
> > > > The highest energy gamma rays (photons) observed in high
> > > > energy accelerator labs come from proton, anti-proton
> > > > annihilation. Proton mass is 932 MeV / c^2 and the associated
> > > > annihilation gamma ray has an electromagnetic wave frequency:
> > > > :: F_proton = m c^2 / h = 2.3 x 10^(23) Hz
> >
> [hanson]
> Your caveat of "guess work" is well placed. Is there actually
> any **experimental** indication that these Planck domain
> expressions are **more** than just merely quaint measuring
> units, and more than just artificial, intellectual constructs?\

Nope. No emperical justification. Not even a hint.

> It is true that one can make all kinds of wonderful mind games
> and phantasms with them in the lands of i-physics.

Yes. The hypothetical decay of black holes utilizes Planck
quantities (via Hawking). There is empirical evidence for
black holes, but none for their decay.

Another utilization is in the beginning of the Bug Bang.

> [Garry]

> > > The Planck constant is the smallest size of anything that there can
> > > be. This is the uncertainty principle, which states that you can't
> > > knowthe exact position and momentum of a particle at a
> > > given moment. You can only make a statistical guess where the
> > > particle might be.
> > > Now, as the wavelength gets smaller and smaller, it will reach a
> > > point where if it does get smaller, it would be below the planck
> > > constant. If this limit is reached, you will rip a hole in the
space/time
> > > continum and cause a chain of events that will lead to the extinction
> > > of the universe.
> >
> [Old Man]
> > Not really. Planck's constant, h = 6.6 x 10^(-34) J s, the
> > empirical backbone of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg
> > uncertainty principle, is really in a separate ballpark from Planck
> > length, L_p, and Planck time, T_p. Planck speed is also the
> > speed of light,
> > :: Planck speed: v_p = L_p / T_p = c = speed of light
> > Planck quantities can be expressed in terms of, the universal
> > gravitational constant, G, the speed of light, c, and Planck's
> > constant, hbar = h / 2 pi. for instance,
> > :: Planck mass: M_p = sqrt( hbar*c / G) = 2.2 x 10^(-8) kg
> > is the mass of the smallest possible black hole, It has a radius
> > of one Planck length, and it decays in one Planck time.
> >
> [hanson]
> Let's illuminate your interesting take from a yet another pov, the HUP,
> to make Gary happy with his uncertainty question: Let
>
> :: hbar =< /_\ E * /_\ t , with /_\ being Delta, or
> :: hbar =< /_\ (m*c^2) */_\ t , and now we set such
> that m becomes the Planck mass, M_p, and since the Planck speed
> is supposed to be c, we substitute /_\ t = /_\ l / c, and write
> :: hbar =< M_p*c*/_\ l , or
> :: /_\ l =< hbar / (M_p*c) , which then becomes
> :: /_\ l =< sqrt (hbar*G/c^3) , or L_p ......
>
> ......ahahaha...it's the fucking Planck length, L_p again, ahahaha....
> the kicker being that according to these phantasms the uncertainty
> range suddenly disappears, and at these very small distances, in
> the Planck domain, everything is fixed and deterministic, or strictly
> Newtonian again, YET with the Planck mass, m_pl or= M_p, being
> very macroscopic, weighing some fat 0.02 milligrams, 2 hundredths
> of a milligram, a size that is routinely handled by analytical balances.
>
> == How come we have never weighed or handled any these heavy
> Planck masses? .........Well, they are so small that , at their radius
> of 1.6 x E-33 cm radius, they would fall thru the atomic structures of
> the weighing contraption, being normally some 1E-8 cm apart. To boot
> they can't because they disappear, like old man said, just after 5E-44
> seconds, long before any weighing contraption could react, measure
> and indicate their presence......ahahahaha.........
>
> Now, there are even wilder and more entertaining mind games
> possible in the domains of Planck, hinting that there are indeed
> simple connections from there to our "stable" macro world, but NOT
> for the stuffy morons who believe and think that the N_A-mole thing
> only describes a specific amount of mass of C12 carbon......,
> because ........ahahaha...........the Planck length, for instance our
>
> ::: *** l_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^3) = 1.62E-33 cm ***
> can be written as in the following fashion
> ::: *** l_pl = r_H * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)^(-1) = 1.62E-33 cm ***
>
> ... suggesting that 1 mole amount (N_A) of Planck length units (l_pl) is
> nothing more than the measurable Bohr radius of the Hydrogen atom.
> So, a bottle of Hydrogen gas obeying the smooth PV= RT law,
> shows granularity one N_A step further down in it's luminous emissions
> (i.e Faraday = N_A*e) and then again another N_A step further down it
> is manifest again in a finer granular event, again N_A times smaller, at
> the Plank unit level... so, here is the expanded set of "Planck-mole
sizes"
> or "Planck domain to gross world conversions via Avogadro's Number N_A":

Neat stuff, hansen. Rather ingenious. Certainly no more
speculative, but maybe even more audacious, than Planck
quantities.

> ::: *** tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
> 1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit
>
> ::: *** r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
> 1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius
>
> ::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
> 1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass
>
> ::: *** r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
> 1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius
>
> ......and then "naturally" the next N_A step further down into
> ::: *** l_a = m_e*G*pi*a*sqrt(3)/c^2 = 2.68E-57 cm ***
> shows l_a length unit that is so small that it takes 1 mole of these
> l_a length units do produce 1 miserly Plancklength of 1.62E-33 cm
> ......and hence the Plancklength may NOT be the smallest possible
> length unit construct by far...
>
> ..........so, is this casual observation, that from our daily scale of
> views we see heavenly objects the size of ~ one mole step UP, up
> from a handful of sand, and that the atoms we measure are ~ 1 mole
> step size DOWN from it, .... and that the Plank domain becomes
> manifest (which will not be accessible with the current state of the art)
> only after 2 such mole steps DOWN from the scale from our daily world
> experience ........just as in the same mysterious way as when we climb
> up 2 such mole steps in our observations/measurements on this Avogadro
> ladder and we do reach the limits of the observable universe (which is
> equally inaccessible with the current state of the art,)........is all
this
> because nature is fundamentally SELF SIMILAR on all scales?...and is it
> perhaps one of the chief reasons why we keep on probing.....no matter
> how far...no matter how long and ......no matter how heavy.......
> BUT, *** enviros!
> ahahahahaha.........ahahahanson
>
> PS: Dirac in his LNT was fiddling with this notion long time ago......

Great Balls of fire, hanson. hansen illuminates Dirac,
maybe even blows him to bits !!!

[Old Man]