Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Planck length and its implications for astronomy
    #13682513 - 12/25/10 10:15 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

The Planck length is supposed to be the smallest measurement that makes any sense. Anything smaller than it just doesn't make sense.

Does that mean that the Planck length is the smallest possible motion that makes sense?

I envision a long stick (really long) that is tied down at one end. If you move the other end of the stick, the atoms in the tied down end must have moved a very small distance. If you made the stick long enough, the distance those atoms would move must approach, or cross, the Planck length.

Ok, so lets go to the other end of the stick, the one that's tied down. Lets then move the stick, but move it so that the atoms directly beside the pivot point only move 1 Planck length - because that's the smallest measurement that makes sense, it makes sense to move it by that much (how could you move it by less that a Planck length?). The other end of the stick would move by an appreciable amount!

Astronomy, right. So lets say our stick is really a beam of light, one that travels some 10 billion light-years to reach us. Now lets move the camera, to the right by 1 Planck length. What happens to the other end of our "stick"?

I really can't figure it out...does the other end move by x million km? What aren't we seeing?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineeniac
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/16/10
Posts: 323
Loc: In the hushroom
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: Plank length and its implications for astronomy [Re: trendal]
    #13682533 - 12/25/10 10:24 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

"Planck"

Why would the source move because you've moved the receiver?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Plank length and its implications for astronomy [Re: trendal]
    #13682574 - 12/25/10 10:44 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Planck length is simply the length at which we expect quantum gravity to play a role.  It is constructed by using fundamental constants and doesnt really have much of a physical meaning.  Its just the endpoint of established theory.

I dont really understand what you are getting at with your examples though.  Could you elaborate?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Plank length and its implications for astronomy [Re: DieCommie]
    #13682949 - 12/25/10 12:46 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
It is constructed by using fundamental constants and doesnt really have much of a physical meaning.




Yeah.  I don't know of any real established meaning of the Planck length.  It's just a really small length which drops conveniently out of a few fundamental constants.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineeniac
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/16/10
Posts: 323
Loc: In the hushroom
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: Plank length and its implications for astronomy [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #13682959 - 12/25/10 12:49 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

It's the smallest distance something can move. Position is not continuous.

I guess OP is asking whether there's a hidden universe we can't see, separated from us by a distance less than than the Planck length.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Plank length and its implications for astronomy [Re: eniac]
    #13683009 - 12/25/10 01:02 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

eniac said:
It's the smallest distance something can move. Position is not continuous.





There has been development into quantized spacetime, but it is no more than a hypothesis at this point.  Mainstream, accepted quantum theory does not quantize space.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: eniac]
    #13686032 - 12/26/10 09:51 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

eniac said:
Why would the source move because you've moved the receiver?




It wouldn't, but the area you are focusing on would shift accordingly.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineeniac
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/16/10
Posts: 323
Loc: In the hushroom
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: trendal]
    #13686504 - 12/26/10 12:39 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I keep re-reading this, and I can't figure out what you are going on about.

A photon is emitted. Later, the photon is received.
It's received in this position or that one, but not both and not in between.

What does the position of the receiver have to do with the position of the emitter?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: eniac]
    #13686608 - 12/26/10 01:12 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

What does the position of the receiver have to do with the position of the emitter?

Not much, but that wasn't my point anyway. As to what what is, I'll have to try to explain a little better, later. I'm not sure why you guys don't get what I'm saying :shrug:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science


Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: trendal]
    #13701289 - 12/29/10 02:33 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I'm no physicist, but all my experiences up to this point have lead me to believe that reality is fractal, and that our universe is part of something much larger, and much smaller, than we could possibly imagine. The space smaller than Planck space could be an entirely different reality, but on a [relatively] microscopic scale. Likewise, our visible universe could be an infinitesimally small component of something too large for us to comprehend. Does any of that ring true, or do I need my head examined?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: SWEDEN]
    #13703207 - 12/29/10 08:59 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

SWEDEN said:
I'm no physicist, but all my experiences up to this point have lead me to believe that reality is fractal, and that our universe is part of something much larger, and much smaller, than we could possibly imagine. The space smaller than Planck space could be an entirely different reality, but on a [relatively] microscopic scale. Likewise, our visible universe could be an infinitesimally small component of something too large for us to comprehend. Does any of that ring true, or do I need my head examined?





Please explain what these experiences are that lead you to this realization. 

I've heard people mention this kinda thing quite often and usually they simply get mad and start calling people names when you ask what kinda basis they have for their belief- i.e. it seems to be an emotion-driven belief.

It would be cool if you could explain yourself along those lines :thumbup:  Others seem to get highly offended if you ask them why.


Also, props to Sweden.  I wasn't aware we had sovereign states amongst our members

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science


Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: johnm214]
    #13724949 - 01/03/11 01:47 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

SWEDEN said:
I'm no physicist, but all my experiences up to this point have lead me to believe that reality is fractal, and that our universe is part of something much larger, and much smaller, than we could possibly imagine. The space smaller than Planck space could be an entirely different reality, but on a [relatively] microscopic scale. Likewise, our visible universe could be an infinitesimally small component of something too large for us to comprehend. Does any of that ring true, or do I need my head examined?





Please explain what these experiences are that lead you to this realization. 

I've heard people mention this kinda thing quite often and usually they simply get mad and start calling people names when you ask what kinda basis they have for their belief- i.e. it seems to be an emotion-driven belief.

It would be cool if you could explain yourself along those lines :thumbup:  Others seem to get highly offended if you ask them why.


Also, props to Sweden.  I wasn't aware we had sovereign states amongst our members




The name is actually an acronym.  :coffee: 

I've been interested in the theory that we live in a fractal universe since I was a kid. Astronomy was a favorite subject and I knew all the planets and nearby stars, their sizes and compositions, and I had a large collection of space-related toys, books, recordings. The macro universe is so interesting because we can observe it directly, but I was also very curious about what we can't see, at least not without the right tools. I always wanted a nice telescope, but a microscope was more affordable so that's what I ended up getting as a gift instead.

Sooo I started looking at cross sections of everything I could find. I asked my science teacher (it was a daycare center with a twist, they had actual teachers) about the micro universe and we spent hours talking about it. Eventually I came up with an idea that planets orbiting a sun resembled electrons orbiting protons/neutrons, and that a spiral galaxy looked very similar to a hurricane.  He agreed with me, saying he had suspected a fractal universe since around my age, and that if we look closely enough we can find fractal patterns in just about anything.

At various times throughout my life I've noticed the same theory being talked about by random people, sometimes just a stranger in a cafe, sometimes a well-known person. It started appearing to me in media more often. Bill Bailey has suggested it during his stand-up shows. Schroedinger’s work in quantum mathematics suggests it as well. In college I made some cool fractal art; my professor had to convince me to try other forms because that's all I was interested in making.

I first became a "believer" after a series of psychedelic episodes, before which I only suspected. Cyanescens, salvia, DXM, absinthe... I could go on for pages with trip reports from those drugs, but I'll just sum it all up by saying I noticed tons of fractal patterns from all of them.

One time I split a bottle of vermouth with a friend and ended up vomiting, which I never do from such a low volume of alcohol, so it must have been some other chemical created during the fermentation of juniper berries. I spent the next few hours on the couch with my eyes closed, in awe at all the geometric patterns and fractals I was seeing. Now I try to stay away from vermouth :puke: I felt like sharing that experience because it is amazing to me that something like that could happen just from drinking booze.

Anyways, I hope that wasn't too boring and answered some questions. Is it an emotion-driven belief? Possibly, but it feels more instinctual to me, as if I know it could be true but I just haven't seen all the pieces fit together yet.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: SWEDEN]
    #13725744 - 01/03/11 04:46 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Instinctual or emotion-driven, the distinction is irrelevant because neither are sufficient evidence for any scientific theory.  Instinctually there shouldn't be relativity or quantum mechanics, instinctually the earth is flat.  Instinctual reasoning has lead scientists astray countless times.  One of the biggest philosophical lessons I have taken from my studies of science is that instinctual reasoning and things 'making sense' are not incredibly useful and sometimes they are harmful to developing physical theories.

As for a fractal universe, the evidence simply isnt there.  Things at the very small do not behave like things in the very big.  In fact, they behave so differently that we have two entirely different theories used to describe and predict phenomenon at the different scales.  Things dont even look the same at the small vs the big.  For example the notion that electrons circle a nucleus like planets around a sun is wrong, but we forced that model onto the atom because of our emotionally-drive instinctual belief that small things behave as big things.  That is a prejudice we forced onto the phenomenon, a prejudice that proved to be unfounded.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that the scales of distance continue on beyond our universe or beyond the planck length.  A fractal can be zoomed in and out infinitely many times.  The universe, as we have observed it, cannot.  The universe having these fractal properties seems like a hippie pipe dream to me, an intuitive wish with no evidence to support it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science


Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: DieCommie]
    #13729517 - 01/04/11 01:37 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Of course I realize that it's pseudoscience and it could be entirely wrong.
After browsing around for a bit, I found this nifty site:

http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/

Some of the information there strays dangerously close to blasphemy of the blessed canon of modern physics. It's not exactly evidence, but it does point out many interesting phenomenon that mimic the same fractal patterns on hugely different scales.

You might not have the time to read through every point, but check out the section on Atom-sized similarities

Now let's talk about scale and relativity. Imagine being shrunken down to 10 to the -300 power of an Angstrom and standing on the electron of a hydrogen atom. Tell me what you would see from that perspective. You can't, because there's no conceivable way you could ever become that small and still be alive, according to our model of physics. A breathable atmosphere would have to be shrunken down with you among a litany of other things. But maybe there is some minute life form we can't observe yet which lives at that scale. Maybe atoms and their components are made up of countless smaller atoms.  There is no evidence that the scales of distance continue on beyond our universe or beyond the planck length because we don't have the knowledge or the tools to see past those horizons yet.

The laws of physics behave differently at the quantum level than at a stellar level, that much is obvious. But there are so many repeating patterns and similarities if you take the time to look. Just think, every time a scientist uses an electron microscope it could be like someone activated a cosmic death ray and wiped out entire galaxies at the quantum level. That's fun stuff.

Keeping an open mind is important both for the scientist and the layman. Until we put together a working Unified Theory there is still much open for debate. I'm not trying to say that I am right or you are wrong, only that anything is possible. Now I'd better get back to reading, there are still dozens of unread books on my Sci-Fi shelf :tongue:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: SWEDEN]
    #13729587 - 01/04/11 01:49 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

OK, but what is your point?  "Anything" may be possible, but how much of it is probable or even likely?  What good is a fractal model of the universe (if you can even call it a model)?  What predictive power does it have?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science


Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #13729706 - 01/04/11 02:08 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

My point was that keeping an open mind is important. Science is like religion in that it stifles dissent, which can actually cripple legitimate study. Just because a theory doesn't yet fit into the standard model doesn't disprove it. As for the proving part and the rest of your questions, I'll leave that up to the labcoats. Hopefully their love of science never becomes fanaticism that blinds them to new possibilities.:crazy2:

Check out the ideas of Andrei Linde.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: SWEDEN]
    #13730457 - 01/04/11 04:46 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Man, I have to say its a little early to be that defensive.  I think everyone here is keeping an open mind.  We are just wanting more info to fill it with.  Dont make the mistake that so many crackpots make, dont confuse expectations of evidence with stifling of descent.  The onus is on you (or whoever is making the hypothesis) to provide evidence.  Disregarding the idea due to lack of evidence is not stifling dissent.  Science thrives on new ideas and dissent, it cannot survive otherwise.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science


Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: DieCommie]
    #13730798 - 01/04/11 05:36 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I didn't mean to come off as defensive, but if that is how you saw my post then please understand I am still trying to make sense of this theory with my limited understanding of the science behind it. Believe me, I do not feel like you guys are "stifling" me; on the contrary, this thread is quite stimulating. I was merely warning against the reflexive lashing-out that sometimes occurs when cherished ideas about the nature of reality are questioned, such as the big bang theory.

I gave you some info to help fill in the blanks; the rest of it is contained in the pages I linked to. If you want evidence then that is the first place you should look; I'm afraid that if I start copy/pasting whole pages it could get a bit convoluted.
Quote:

Science thrives on new ideas and dissent, it cannot survive otherwise.



I would tend to agree, but ultimately that's an idealist's point of view. In reality new ideas aren't met just with healthy skepticism. Sometimes they are greeted with institutionalized hostility, attacking the messenger instead of the message, even ruining peoples' careers. But that's a whole different arena that I'd rather not climb into right now.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: SWEDEN]
    #13734607 - 01/05/11 10:57 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

SWEDEN said:
In reality new ideas aren't met just with healthy skepticism. Sometimes they are greeted with institutionalized hostility, attacking the messenger instead of the message, even ruining peoples' careers. But that's a whole different arena that I'd rather not climb into right now.




Hmm, in my experience that hasn't been the case.  Do you have any examples?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science


Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Planck length and its implications for astronomy [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #13738271 - 01/05/11 10:09 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

There's a long list (blacklist?) of brilliant minds who have been shut out of the mainstream because of their unorthodox ideas. Sadly I forgot where that list is; it's been years since I looked into the subject. I'll get back to you on this:wink:

After reading trendal's original post I was instantly reminded of the fractal universe theory. If the tied end of the stick is moved less than 1 Planck, that implies there must be something smaller than Planck space (or Planck time for that matter!) It couldn't not move, because then if we move the opposite end of the stick x many times we eventually end up with two separate lengths of stick. An interesting question, props for dreaming it up.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Cryodynamic Physics of the Fractal Imploverse Ryan Onessence 544 0 02/29/12 02:03 AM
by Ryan Onessence
* African fractals, in buildings and braids Arden 534 1 09/06/08 02:11 PM
by Seuss
* Astronomy Bully 762 3 10/03/07 09:32 PM
by ToTheSummit
* Astronomy and UFO's Ego Death 700 2 01/16/07 02:26 AM
by Murex
* Anyone know of a free Fractal generator? zee_werp 1,058 4 09/05/04 11:09 AM
by zee_werp
* fractal software jungjedi 649 4 09/02/06 01:56 PM
by jungjedi
* Maybe someone can help me with a fractal image Disco Cat 597 3 05/18/08 05:52 PM
by deimya
* Let's understand dimensions
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )
Smitington 7,324 209 10/08/09 03:47 PM
by flangenips

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
2,184 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.