Are all Planck units sacred?

[Yuri Danoyan]

Persy Bridgman,American physicist,winner 1946 Nobel Prize in Physics in his book "Dimensional Analysis". was very sceptic and critical about Planck units.

I have additional arguments to protect Bridgman's point of view

Does all Planck units are sacred or only one?

We doesn’t have guarantee G, c, are real constants or not, during the evolution of the Univertse.

We doesn’t have guarantee they depend of each other or not,or 2 sides the same coin.

Imagine that G and c simultaneously vary….because permitivity of vacuum vary following the evolution.

But we believe:

1.Schwarshild black hole R radius G/c^2

2.Planck unit L of length G/c^3

3.Planck unit T of time G/c^5

4.Planck unit M of mass c/G

What is correspond to real world?

If all,it would be absurd.

 

To my opinion only #4 linear link between G and c is real….and eternal.

And #1,2,3 are fake that only teasing physicists

Just in case:

Max Planck, Scheinprobleme der Wissenschaft (Illusory problems of Science)

http://www.quantum-cognition.de/texts/Planck_SCHEINPROBLEM.pdf

Even more interesting, he warned about similar situations.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Yuri,

 

Note that the reduced Compton wavelength is used in relation to Planck length and is proportional to the Planck mass while the Compton wavelength is proportional to the inverse of the mass.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

The Planck mass is special because the reduced Compton wavelength for this mass is equal to half of the Schwarzschild radius. This special distance is called the Planck length (). This is a simple case of dimensional analysis: the Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass, whereas the Compton wavelength is proportional to the inverse of the mass.

[Yuri Danoyan]

Frank Wilczek’s 3 articles On Absolute Units,

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

 

Pay attention 388 pdf

 

An appealing feature of atomic and

strong units, in contrast to Planck

units, is that the characteristic

length, time, and mass can be constructed

without taking square roots.

It is disconcerting to imagine that we

must extract roots in order to express

the basic units in terms of fundamental

parameters. (Sophisticates will

recognize that extracting roots is a

nonanalytic procedure, in the technical

sense.) The fact that G, \, c can be

expressed in terms of mp, \, c without

extracting roots, but not vice versa, on

the face of it suggests that the strong

units are more fundamental than

Planck units. (I find it remarkable

that a similar conclusion is suggested

by string theory, where the closed string

gravitational coupling naturally

appears as the square of the

open-string gauge field coupling.)

[Yuri Danoyan]

Hi Yuri,

 

Note that the reduced Compton wavelength is used in relation to Planck length and is proportional to the Planck mass while the Compton wavelength is proportional to the inverse of the mass.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

 

Planck mass is reasonable,but my doubts concerning G and c , their internal link and variations during the evolution of the Universe.

[Yuri Danoyan]

Development of the story the Planck units.

http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0064

http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0080

[imatfaal]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34790-hands-on-planck-units-tutorial/

 

Martin's tutorial on the planck units

[Yuri Danoyan]

Does Persy Bridgman clever than Martin tutorial?

[Yuri Danoyan]

Merry Christmas

What is Vary in the Universe, What Isn’t ?

<link removed by moderator>

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

yuri danoyan

 

I have removed your link per rule 7 of the forum

 

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links in posts should be relevant to the discussion. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned.

 

Please feel free to discuss your idea on the forum itself - and you can link to your essay in your signature or to provide further information.

 

[Yuri Danoyan]

O.K.

As you see i am I criticized the 2 from 3 Planck unitsб but also suggest a way out of this situation by varying some constants

For example if the Universe have finite life time

Vary:
Start; Today; Finish.
Gravitational …..
G (10^12; 10^-8; 10^-28); G vary span of Dirac large number 10^40
Speed of light in a vacuum…..
C (10^30; 10^10; 10^-10)] c vary span of Dirac large number10^40

then

Constants:
h, Mpl, Mpr, Time of the Cycle of the Universe.

h=10^-27 gsm^2/sec;

Mpr=10-24g;

Mpl=10^-5g ;

 

because Mpl=sqrt(hc/G)

 

c and G can vary synchronously

[Yuri Danoyan]

Two events occur simultaneously at the same point in space.

Is it possible to distinguish one event from another?

dG/dt and dc/dt occur simultaneously at the same point in space.

Is it possible to distinguish one event from another?

[Yuri Danoyan]

Experimental confirmation?

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/030324/full/news030324-13.html

[Yuri Danoyan]

Why "tandem" G and c can vary simultaneously?

All cosmological models: Big Bang and Steady state, Big Freeze, Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Bounce, Multiverse

suggest variation of density of energy or matter, that mean variation of environment;.

Variations of environment lead to variation of G and c.

If speed of variation the same for G and c they vary simultaneously.

In December 2012, a research team in China announced that it had
produced findings which seem to prove that the speed of gravity is equal
to the speed of light. The team's findings were due to be released in a
journal in 2013.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

[Yuri Danoyan]

Sorry....

More right word than "environment" is "medium"

Laws of variation G and c in the Universe can be different,but medium the same.

[Yuri Danoyan]

The nature of reality at the Planck scale is the subject of much debate in the world of physics, as it relates to a surprisingly broad range of topics. It may, in fact,
be a fundamental aspect of the universe. In terms of size, the Planck scale is extremely small (many orders of magnitude smaller than a
proton). In terms of energy, it is extremely 'hot' and energetic. The wavelength of a photon (and therefore its size) decreases as its frequency or energy increases. The fundamental limit for a photon's energy is the Planck energy, for the reasons cited above. This makes the Planck scale a fascinating realm for speculation by theoretical physicists from various schools of thought. .

[Kramer]

I share your opinion that Plank constants are very important issue for study. The people that thought Plank constant : mass, length frequency have nothing to do with modern physic, i think are at all wrong. But i think too that to bring above constant Plank for use in today study needs to correct them accordingly with real value of electric charge which differ from Plank,s by sqrt. of alpha (constant of fine structure). And together of it to bring importance of sqrt. of constant of gravity.
It is amazing that an hypotetic Plank particle is a copy cut of common elementary particles.It is interesant that Plank mass as a black hole may be identify as a brick of elementary particles. Fantasy.

Kramer

[swansont]

The nature of reality at the Planck scale is the subject of much debate in the world of physics, as it relates to a surprisingly broad range of topics. It may, in fact,

be a fundamental aspect of the universe. In terms of size, the Planck scale is extremely small (many orders of magnitude smaller than a

proton). In terms of energy, it is extremely 'hot' and energetic. The wavelength of a photon (and therefore its size) decreases as its frequency or energy increases. The fundamental limit for a photon's energy is the Planck energy, for the reasons cited above. This makes the Planck scale a fascinating realm for speculation by theoretical physicists from various schools of thought. .

 

!

Moderator Note

 

When you quote someone else's work, you really need to provide a citation and acknowledge that the passage is not your own

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale

 

[Yuri Danoyan]

Please read again my arguments

http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0191

[Yuri Danoyan]

My opinion about Planck units of length and time

I hope to explain my suspicions. …. and share my doubts about the Planck length &time

 

Persy Bridgman,American physicist, winner 1946 Nobel
Prize in Physics in his book "Dimensional Analysis". very sceptic and critical about Planck units.

I have different arguments to support Bridgman's point of view.

Does all Planck units have sense ?

 

1.We doesn’t have guarantee G, c, stay constants or not,
during the evolution of the Universe. The Universe is still young(13.7) 2.We doesn’t have guarantee G, c
depend of each other or not.

 

Version 1. G and c not depend from each other and not
vary. Silent agreement all modern physicists.

Version 2. G and c depend from each other and vary.

Version 3. G and c not depend from each other, but
depended from third value, expanded
medium of the Universe(density of vacuum). Likely that G and c simultaneously
vary…and have some term. They depended only from time. Nothing lasts forever
exept of time. Every exstrapolation (inflation hypothesis, etc) is false.

 

But we naïve used formulas:

 

1.Schwarshild black hole R radius G/c^2 If G=f©^2
??? or c=f(G) ???

 

2.Planck unit L of length G/c^3

If G=f©^3 ??? or c=f(G) ???

 

 

3.Cosmological constant

 

If G=f©^4 ???? or
c=f(G) ???

 

 

4.Planck unit T of time G/c^5

If G=f©^5 ??? or
c=f(G) ???

 

5.Planck unit M of mass c/G

 

What is correspond to real world?

If all, it would be absurd

 

Possible case when Planck unit of mass stay constant (contrary to Planck length unit and Planck time unit) when G and c simultaneously
vary.

To my opinion only
version #5 linear link between G and c
is real….

And #1,2,3,4 are fake that only teasing physics.

 

.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Post moved from "Planck time, why cant we have a smaller unit of time?" because personal views are not the subject of that thread. It's more appropriate in this, previously existing, thread. Also, remember Rule 10