Education of John Baez and the Planck lenght
Oriel36
through moderation,fortunately sci.physics does not allow you the
ability to circle you defensive wagons and I can reply unhindered
which suits me fine.
ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote in message news:<ao045u$ekf$1...@glue.ucr.edu>...
> In article <273f8e06.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> Oriel36 <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote something like:
>
> >For those who prize logic, this Planck length is the funniest
> >thing; seeing that this thread covers a wide range of groups it is
> >worthwhile posting a simple geometric refutation.
> >
> >Draw a circumference around a Planck length, the circumference being of
> >course 3.141 times greater than the length, if you can determine a
> >circumference you can also determine a radius which is half the
> >original length and from this discrete length you begin again
> >constructing a circumference around this half Planck length.
> >
> >What you get geometrically is a form of the Zeno paradox and you guys
> >take the Planck length seriously!
>
> Actually this sort of argument goes back to the "Mutakallimun",
> Jewish and Islamic philosopher/theologians of the 10th and 11th centuries
> AD. Many of these were very fond of atomism, taking it beyond Democritus
> to argue that *everything* was made of discrete units - even space and
> time. Others brought forth certain paradoxes to disprove this.
>
Paradoxes,and relativity relies heavily on paradoxes,cannot by their
nature prove or disprove anything,that is why they are called
paradoxes.Relativity cannot be disproved for it relies on valid
relative motions but as Newton stated- "but relative motions, in one
and the same body, are innumerable, according to the various relations
it bears to external bodies, and like other relations, are altogether
destitute of any real effect, any otherwise than they may partake of
that one only true motion"
> In particular, some pointed out that if the universe was made of a
> cubic lattice with sides 1 unit long, the diagonal of a square on
> this lattice would be about 1.414 units long, so that in some sense
> the smaller distance .414 must "exist". However, the believers in
> a minimal distance replied that the sense in which this distance
> "existed" was purely hypothetical, i.e., imaginable but not actually
> realized by a physical object.
>
The argument you use above is an insult to intelligence and cannot be
commented on for weak intellectual reasons except that in defining a
circumference from a diameter it is possible to then distinguish a
radius which is half the original lenght (diameter) and thereby
discerning an new circumference.My argument is precise and without
knowing or caring whether it is new or not,the fact that physics
determines a geometric cutoff point such as the Planck lenght only
exposes your lack of wisdom on these matters and I will certainly not
chase a poor intellect around no matter how highly regarded.The point
is that I am correct and you are not with a few here with the good
sense to know it.
> For more details see the chapter on atomism here:
>
> Harry Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam, Harvard University Press,
> 1976.
>
> or this book, which unfortunately I have not been able to obtain:
>
> Alnoor Dhanani, The Physical Theory of Kalam: Atoms, Space, and
> Void in Basrian Mu'tazili Cosmology, E. J. Brill, 1994.
>
For more details on the diameter/circumference relationship on the
Planck lenght use common sense or Newton.
"It may also be objected, that if the ultimate ratios of evanescent
quantities are given, their ultimate magnitudes will be also given:
and so all quantities will consist of indivisibles, which is contrary
to what Euclid has demonstrated concerning incommensurables, in the
10th Book of his Elements. But this objection is founded on a false
supposition. For those ultimate ratios with which quantities vanish
are not truly the ratios of ultimate quantities, but limits towards
which the ratios of quantities decreasing without limit do always
converge; and to which they approach nearer than by any given
difference, but never go beyond, nor in effect attain to, till the
quantities are diminished in infinitum. This thing will appear more
evident in quantities infinitely great. If two quantities, those
difference is given, be augmented in the ultimate ratio of these
quantities will be given, to wit, the ratio of equality; but it does
not from thence follow, that the ultimate or greatest quantities
themselves, whose ratio that is, will be given. Therefore if in what
follows, for the sake of being more easily understood, I should happen
to mention quantities as least, or evanescent, or ultimate, you are
not to suppose that quantities of any determinate magnitude are meant,
but such as are conceived to be always diminished without end."
[Principia]
> So, your argument is not new, nor are the standard objections
> to it. I really don't think that your argument can by itself
> rule out the possibility that space is, say, a cubic lattice with
> sides 1 Planck length long.
I have'nt seen the argument proposed before.
There are no objections for ultimately the Planck lenght is untenable
yet who would know it !.You despise that I use a circle or a sphere to
get my point across and a cube does'nt cut it.As long as there is
lenght you can determine a circumference and then a radius from
that,no mystery there yet you dither around with cubes and weak
arguments to contend with me,the point being that the lack of true
contention here is astounding.
The mere fact that you can imagine
> smaller distances doesn't mean they actually matter for physics.
>
Heard it all before,today nature does'nt care and tommorrow physics
does'nt care,well John I have news for you most people no longer care
what you and your colleagues have to say,they probably would like a
return to a true appreceation of nature and science but they do this
now by relying on historical evidence that circumvents relativity such
as the history of longitude and clocks,otoh you now receive the
accolade you deserve and I never thought I would utter,your theories
are boring.
> Of course I don't believe space *is* a cubic lattice with sides
> 1 Planck length long. More likely is that the usual concepts
> of Euclidean geometry are approximations which break down at
> very short distance scales. If this is the case, your geometrical
> construction would not be relevant at all.
I had a good laugh at that one,a definite Planck lenght derived from a
Euclidean approximation.You are left with a uneviable paradox of
deciding where the relationship between lenght,circumference and Pi
begins ?.It does'nt matter for it appears that there is nobody around
to share the joke of Planck lenght and where Pi begins although people
like Newton knew how barren those things are which you and your
colleagues think profound.
>
> ..................................................................
>
> >From http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2091&letter=A
>
> According to Maimonides, the Motekallamin extended the theory of
> atoms even to space and time. Having seen that Aristotle had proved
> that space, time, and motion could be divided into parts standing
> in such relations to one another that if one be divisible the others
> must be correspondingly divisible, they maintained that space could
> not be continuous, but that it was composed of indivisible elements;
> and that time likewise was reducible to corresponding indivisible
> time-elements.
>
> Maimonides devoted a whole chapter in his "Guide of the Perplexed"
> to combating the theory of atoms as that theory had been elaborated
> by the Motekallamin. If every motion, he says, is to be resolved
> into a series of successive motions of single atoms of substance,
> through one atom of space, and these atoms are supposed to be equal,
> the velocity of all moving bodies must be the same, which is absurd.
>
> (We have seen this argument on sci.physics.research recently, used
> against people who believe the universe is a cellular automaton. - jb)
Franz Heymann
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.02101...@posting.google.com...
> Sci.physics.research has insulated you from the reply I gave yesterday
> through moderation,
Thanks for letting us know it was crap. No need ever to read it then.
[...]
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
>Thanks for letting us know it was crap. No need ever to read it then.
Hey Franz?
clock god died huh?
What fuchen shame.
Just because your clock god died does not mean you should
not read anymore.
poor Franz.
His religion is crashing down on top of him.
and he does not even want a lending hand to escape it.
Franzy wants to go.
down with the ship.
what a sucker.
Good Captains make sure nobody including themselves
go down with the ship at all.
Franz is a floor sweeper.
that is ingoring the warning that the ship is sinking.
<LOL>
Franzy boy,
How much is 1 planck length cut in half?
Guess what.
it is a half of plancks length.
meaning very simply.
your ship IS sinking.
Can't do such basic math huh?
<LOL>
Knocking the speaker off the wall that is telling you about the hole in the
ship,
will not stop the ship from sinking Franz.
I suggest you jump ship now if you have a brain at all.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
hanson
>
[hanson]
This is a very interesting discussion between John Baez & Gerald Kelleher.
It appears to me that both gents agree qualitatively, but disagree
quantitatively as to whether there are limits to size of objects, events,
processes or units.
Gerald says that there are no limits to size and John sits on the fence for
reasons of physically/empirically experienced constraints on the issue.
Besides the metaphysical, math and philosophical reasons, pro and con,
which these gentlemen have discussed, one could add the following:
Mathematical reiteration, fractality, and observed self-similarity in
nature will always beckon the belief to push the envelope farther
toward infinity or zero. OTOH, in the domain of real ponderable
physical M3DT, scaling laws appear to impose physical limits to size.
But, just because current capabilities of observation and metrological
state of the art is limited/cut off at the cosmic event horizon on the
upper side and with Heisenberg/Planck at the lower one, it does not
present nor assure nor guarantee to be a final solution.
It merely reflects the heuristic paradigm, the current state of knowledge.
One item which may pertain to and enter the discussion one day is
N_A, Avogadro's number, which hitherto is widely believed to be only
a measure for the mol(e), defined as N_A = MC12 / m_C12, F = N_A*e
or R(g) = N_A*k . BUT, we still completely overlook the possibility that
this scaling number N_A, a fundamental physical constant of 6..E+23 orders
of magnitude; N_A, may actually turn out be a significant, profound and
much more universal physical constant, than its limited use is today.
The definition of N_A for use in chemistry maybe just one of many
applications. N_A relates the scale of our daily cgs/MKS world experience
with the atomic domain. Dividing the mass of a handful of dirt by N_A
in order to get to the mass of its atoms may be only ONE SINGLE step in a
self-similar fractal reiteration/sequence or hierarchy, for there is no law
which says that you cannot repeat this procedure and divide the atom
again into N_A sub-parts. N_A appear to be the scaling factor to go from
the atomic world one fractal step further down into Planck's world.
With only a little Baezian fiddling (great website by John) one obtains
some fascinating conjectures which appear to be numerically correct,
and may indicate a real existence of such an N_A times smaller sub
world, Planck's domain, which maybe as rich in variety as is the
atomic realm. It's principal possibility can be shown in equations:
tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ... atomic time unit
r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) .. H-Bohr radius
m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) .. electron mass
r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) .. classic e-radius
wherein, *_pl are Planck mass, length or time, a is Finestructure const.
Also, N_A may point up towards celestial and cosmic realms (Dirac's LNH,
critical fusion mass), in the development of a pov which will one day
produce a TOE which will take nature's obvious discreteness and
self-similarity into account.
One could even present a general conjecture that N_A, Avogadro's #,
functions not only a scaling agent for domain to domain, but that N_A
is the scaling factor indicating where the dimensions do curl up and
"disappear" from the view of the adjoining larger or smaller domains.
Remember, before the advent of the STM/Tunneling Microscope is was
postulated and believed to be "impossible to ever see an atom" and
before the existence of the computer it was "impossible" to solve
certain math problems which are considered trivial today.
Therefore, on the issue discussed by Gerald and John I am going
with Gerald: -- Push the envelope by any and all means. --
It's easy to say "no", backed by the establishment and empirical evidence
which says "no". --- But it takes balls to even say "OK, no, BUT...."
That's what separates the men from the boys.
Hanson
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.02101...@posting.google.com...
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in
thread "Walking the Planck"
news:273f8e06.0210...@posting.google.com...
> ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote in message
news:<ao045u$ekf$1...@glue.ucr.edu>...
> > In article <273f8e06.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> > Oriel36 <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote something like:
> >
[hanson]
I edited out much of the discussion, trying to concentrate the essence
of the subject matter. Check the 3 ID#'s above for full coverage.
>
[Gerald]
> Your Planck lenght is in trouble, because the pre-relativistic
> scientists recognised that such cutoff points belong to idiocy.
>
[Gerald]
> > >[On the] Planck length it is worthwhile posting
> > >a simple geometric refutation.
> > >Draw a circumference around a Planck length,
> > >the circumference being of
> > >course 3.141 times greater than the length, if you can determine a
> > >circumference you can also determine a radius which is half the
> > >original length and from this discrete length you begin again
> > >constructing a circumference around this half Planck length.
> > >What you get geometrically is a form of the Zeno paradox
> > >and you guys take the Planck length seriously!
> >
[John Baez]
> > This argument goes back to the "Mutakallimun",
> > [who] were very fond of atomism, taking it beyond
> > Democritus to argue that *everything*
> > was made of discrete units - even space and
> > time. Others brought forth certain paradoxes to disprove this.
> >
[Gerald]
> Paradoxes,and relativity relies heavily on paradoxes,cannot by their
> nature prove or disprove anything,that is why they are called
> paradoxes. Relativity cannot be disproved for it relies on valid
> relative motions but as Newton stated- "but relative motions, in one
> and the same body, are innumerable, according to the various relations
> it bears to external bodies, and like other relations, are altogether
> destitute of any real effect, any otherwise than they may partake of
> that one only true motion"
>
[John]
> > In particular, some pointed out that if the universe was made of a
> > cubic lattice with sides 1 unit long, the diagonal of a square on
> > this lattice would be about 1.414 units long, so that in some sense
> > the smaller distance .414 must "exist". However, the believers in
> > a minimal distance replied that the sense in which this distance
> > "existed" was purely hypothetical, i.e., imaginable but not actually
> > realized by a physical object.
> >
[Gerald]
> in defining a circumference from a diameter it is possible
> to then distinguish a radius which is half the original lenght
> (diameter) and thereby discerning an new circumference.
> For more details on the diameter/circumference relationship on the
> Planck lenght use common sense or Newton:
> "If I should happen to mention quantities as least or ultimate, you are
> not to suppose that quantities of any determinate magnitude are meant,
> but such as are conceived to be always diminished without end."
> [Principia]
>
[John]
> > I really don't think that your argument can by itself
> > rule out the possibility that space is, say, a cubic lattice with
> > sides 1 Planck length long.
>
[Gerald]
> There are no objections for ultimately the Planck lenght is untenable
> yet who would know it !.You despise that I use a circle or a sphere to
> get my point across and a cube does'nt cut it.As long as there is
> lenght you can determine a circumference and then a radius from
> that,no mystery there yet you dither around with cubes and weak
> arguments to contend with me,the point being that the lack of true
> contention here is astounding.
>
[John]
> The mere fact that you can imagine smaller distances
> > doesn't mean they actually matter for physics.
>
[Gerald]
> Heard it all before, today nature does'nt care and tommorrow physics
> does'nt care, ... most people ... would like a return to a true
> appreceation of science but they do this by relying on historical
> evidence that circumvents relativity such as the history of longitude
> and clocks
>
[John]
> > Of course I don't believe space *is* a cubic lattice with sides
> > 1 Planck length long. More likely is that the usual concepts
> > of Euclidean geometry are approximations which break down at
> > very short distance scales. If this is the case, your geometrical
> > construction would not be relevant at all.
>
[Gerald]
> I had a good laugh at that one,a definite Planck lenght derived from a
> Euclidean approximation.You are left with a uneviable paradox of
> deciding where the relationship between lenght,circumference and Pi
> begins ?.It does'nt matter for it appears that there is nobody around
> to share the joke of Planck lenght and where Pi begins although people
> like Newton knew how barren those things are which you and your
> colleagues think profound.
> >
[John]
Spaceman
>Gerald says that there are no limits to size and John sits on the fence for
>reasons of physically/empirically experienced constraints on the issue.
And Gerald will win,
simply because "basic math" already proves there is no "smallest"
show me your smallest.
and don['t tell me I can not cut it in half.
because that is bullshit.
and it is also sickening that this John Baez is pulling this
ignorance.
Are you telling me that
1 Planck length devided by 2 = 1 plank length?
That is sad.
SUPER SIMPLE MATH PROOF AND ALL.
yet ignored.
Very sad.
show me why I must stop using basic math at planks
magical length!
<snipped rest of complete blah blah blah bologna from hanson>
>Therefore, on the issue discussed by Gerald and John I am going
>with Gerald: -- Push the envelope by any and all means. --
>It's easy to say "no", backed by the establishment and empirical evidence
>which says "no". --- But it takes balls to even say "OK, no, BUT...."
>That's what separates the men from the boys.
>Hanson
You have no evidence you freaking scam backing fool.
Planck length /2
Basic math proves it.
as simple as
an apple being halfed.
you are a fool.
and John Baez must be the big scam artist.
"fiddling huh?
DAMN RIGHT.
fiddling instead of "researching for physical sciences"
I hope he changes his ways soon,
He won't be able to keep the scam going much longer.
and He could actually admit there is a math problem with
Plancks length very easily.
He was scammed first (in other words)
but ..
The cat is out of the "box" now
:)
hanson
news:20021012162758...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> Are you telling me that
> 1 Planck length devided by 2 = 1 plank length?
James, you shouldn't be drinking that early in the afternoon,
even on Saturdays, or your classic that " new thoughts come
very seldom" will become a total non-issue for you.
hanson
Oriel36
The argument is precise and still stands and will remain whether you
like it or not.
Provide a cutoff point for lenght and you turn the value for Pi into a
rational number,of course there is not enough brainpower here to
recognise the danger of convergence or recognise that this is exactly
what you accomplish with the Planck lenght and Pi,it is one thing to
break geometry down at this point but my oh my how do you determine
where the relationship between diameter, circumference,radius and Pi
begins.
This is your stupid silly paradox ,not mine, while all will merrily
trudge along not seeing the geometric paradox,others will put up less
than stellar arguments to justify a cutoff point for lenght,Baez's
example being a case in point.So much for reconciling relativity and
qm or quantum gravity !.
Richard
>
> "Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:273f8e06.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > see after/below [hanson] top posting
> >
> [hanson]
> This is a very interesting discussion between John Baez & Gerald Kelleher.
> It appears to me that both gents agree qualitatively, but disagree
> quantitatively as to whether there are limits to size of objects, events,
> processes or units.
> Gerald says that there are no limits to size and John sits on the fence for
> reasons of physically/empirically experienced constraints on the issue.
> Besides the metaphysical, math and philosophical reasons, pro and con,
> which these gentlemen have discussed, one could add the following:
>
> Mathematical reiteration, fractality, and observed self-similarity in
> nature will always beckon the belief to push the envelope farther
> toward infinity or zero. OTOH, in the domain of real ponderable
> physical M3DT, scaling laws appear to impose physical limits to size.
>
> But, just because current capabilities of observation and metrological
> state of the art is limited/cut off at the cosmic event horizon on the
> upper side and with Heisenberg/Planck at the lower one, it does not
> present nor assure nor guarantee to be a final solution.
> It merely reflects the heuristic paradigm, the current state of > knowledge.
Seems to me that the breaking with mathematical laws is a disproof of
the existence of a lower limit, since without those laws in effect we
have no premises left with which to arbitrate the issue anymore. This is
related to some of my recent musings on the same issue, but I have, at
least for now, solved the issue within my own mind by suspending
judgment about the true applicability of set theorectic notions to
natural processes, which is a sentiment that is at shared by least a few
respectable authors, so I don't think it a preposterous stance.
Richard
Richard
>
> "Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:273f8e06.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > see after/below [hanson] top posting
> >
> [hanson]
> This is a very interesting discussion between John Baez & Gerald Kelleher.
> It appears to me that both gents agree qualitatively, but disagree
> quantitatively as to whether there are limits to size of objects, events,
> processes or units.
> Gerald says that there are no limits to size and John sits on the fence for
> reasons of physically/empirically experienced constraints on the issue.
> Besides the metaphysical, math and philosophical reasons, pro and con,
> which these gentlemen have discussed, one could add the following:
>
> Mathematical reiteration, fractality, and observed self-similarity in
> nature will always beckon the belief to push the envelope farther
> toward infinity or zero. OTOH, in the domain of real ponderable
> physical M3DT, scaling laws appear to impose physical limits to size.
>
> But, just because current capabilities of observation and metrological
> state of the art is limited/cut off at the cosmic event horizon on the
> upper side and with Heisenberg/Planck at the lower one, it does not
> present nor assure nor guarantee to be a final solution.
> It merely reflects the heuristic paradigm, the current state of > knowledge.
Seems to me that the breaking with mathematical laws is a disproof of
the existence of a lower limit, since without those laws in effect we
have no premises left with which to arbitrate the issue anymore. This is
related to some of my recent musings on the same issue, but I have, at
least for now, solved the issue within my own mind by suspending
judgment about the true applicability of set theoretic notions to
natural processes, which is a sentiment that is at least shared by a few
Spaceman
I don't drink,
I still would love an answer too.
What is, 1 planck anything /2=?
Isn't it 1/2 planck anything?
It's simple algebra.
You saying it is wrong?