# Thread: There could be energy or/and mass (matter) within the Planck lengh/volum?....

1. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
Are you saying that physics have different behaviour (laws) at different scales?...is it possible?....
The underlying laws are the same, the approximations we use to make solving the problems change with a numebr of things, from physical scale to number of entities involved.

What you seem to be missing is this: The underlying laws of QED/QCD/GR and so on are the (currently understood) fundamental laws. They apply at ALL scales we can model. However when dealing with a box full of atoms it is simply too hard to work out a full quantum mechanical treatment. So we have models like gas laws, thermodynamics and so on that work for these systems.

OK....I agree with you....laws should be the same everywhere, every time...and B]Hawking radiation[/B] is a clear example...then why it is not possible to have a volum of 10^-50 meters diameter with energy inside?....why for dimensions smaller than 10^-35 meters....the energy desapears?...what happen with the conservation of the energy law?
Go read the book. The full explanation as to how talking about sizes smaller than a Planck length takes a chapter or so. Too much to try to post up here. It may not be the right model, but it explains one way that might mean your question makes no sense.

2. Originally Posted by Shaula
Because the particle model is wrong at all scales. It is just a reasonable approximation to the current correct model at largest scales where you can ignore the effects of QM and treat things classically.

I really do suggest that you read Elegant universe. There is a section in that which gives you a mechanism for making 'sub-Planck physics' meaningless.
Are yuo saying that the particle model is only a model to explain in an approximity way current correct model at largest scales ?...then I agree with you !!!....I new it!!!

As I also think that our model for the QM is only a model to explain in an approximity way current correct model at smallest scales... and that both models are differents..although we could bild a Whole Model (M-Theory) that join both....but this (M-Theory) will be only another model (wider) to explain in an approximity way current correct model at widest scales.

3. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
Are yuo saying that the particle model is only a model to explain in an approximity way current correct model at largest scales ?...then I agree with you !!!....I new it!!!
No. I am not. I am saying that the particle model is an approximation. At all scales, from smallest to largest. It works for some things, not for others.

I have given you many, many reasons that is would be a good idea to do some background reading before going on yet again about scales and different physics at different scales. I am simply not interested in approaching this topic from yet another angle. You are not upholding your side of the deal: I try to reply helpfully to your questions and in return you listen and try to do more research and background reading. Instead this looks like another attempt to get your ideas validated

4. Originally Posted by Shaula
The underlying laws are the same, the approximations we use to make solving the problems change with a numebr of things, from physical scale to number of entities involved.

What you seem to be missing is this: The underlying laws of QED/QCD/GR and so on are the (currently understood) fundamental laws. They apply at ALL scales we can model. However when dealing with a box full of atoms it is simply too hard to work out a full quantum mechanical treatment. So we have models like gas laws, thermodynamics and so on that work for these systems.
OK...OK...OK...I agree with you !!!!!!

Then I had an languadge misunderstanding !!!!...it is clear that The underlying laws of the nature and the whole universe are the same !!!

But we (humans..and scientifics) had to develope different models for explaying its functioning at different scales....that is what I was trying to say all the time !!!!...but I cofuse the meaning of LAWS with MODELS !!!!!

So, I had to say that: "Maths and physics models are different for different scales...although the physics underlaying laws are the same for all the scales of the Whole Universe!!!"
Last edited by dapifo; 2012-Aug-25 at 12:13 PM.

5. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
The fact that we use different sets of approximations for different scales (physical, levels of complexity) and different environments is just a basic fact of every science. When we are doing population studies in biology we do not model every genetic interaction in the herd. When designing a wing for a plane we do not model every atom of air and metal.

6. Originally Posted by Shaula
The fact that we use different sets of approximations for different scales (physical, levels of complexity) and different environments is just a basic fact of every science. When we are doing population studies in biology we do not model every genetic interaction in the herd. When designing a wing for a plane we do not model every atom of air and metal.
This is clear....I always said that we develope a model to explain Our Universe... that has been going growing up with the years and widen the scale range.

And matter is just a model to explain our near spectrum we live... but that matter as we know really doesnīt exist...but explain very well Our Near Universe.

If we could make ourselves as small as an electron, the model that we would build there about these small scale universe (10^-20 meters) would be totally different from current Near Spectrum (scale) we live now (10^0 meters), but I also believe it would also be different from that we have developed for these scales as small (QM).

QM is a "good" theory to explain small scales physics behaviour,, from the point of view of Our Scale....but this model could be absolutlly different if we could puzzle out it if we could make ourselves as small as an electron....

Sure that there (at these scales) we would be able to develope another model...more understable were I donīt have clear that some current mainstream theories would be valid there (pe. uncertainty principle?)....and possibly also it will be more undestable what is happening in smaller scales (less than 10^-35 meters)....although it will be very confusing to try to understand what is happening to Our Current Scale (current human scale=10*0 meters)... and possibly imposible to understand what is happening to larger scales (larger than 10^+20 meters).

Do you understand what I mean now?...do you understand my sign now?[/

7. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
You seem to be making a huge deal out of the fact that there are models suitable for a range of different approximations (large spatial distances, low energies, few interacting components and many others). Yes - we know. We have models that work at a huge range of scales. We understand their limits and their usefulness.

8. Originally Posted by Shaula
You seem to be making a huge deal out of the fact that there are models suitable for a range of different approximations (large spatial distances, low energies, few interacting components and many others). Yes - we know. We have models that work at a huge range of scales. We understand their limits and their usefulness.
OK...I can now breathe easy ...I was really worried that something so obvious and evident was an ATM (!) .... and that it would cost so much to understand (!!)

But sometimes experts are so happy and satisfied with the existing models that they become too dogmatic and categorical with its contents and statements....and sometimes they forget that they are only models suitable for a range of different approximations and they forget their limits and their usefulness.

I never said that this was a new idea...and I never make huge deal out with it....but yes I tryed to state these limits and their usefulness.

9. Originally Posted by dapifo
I have a Volum of Diameter 10^ī35 meters with X energy

If I divide this volumen in 10^10 pieces, I would have 10^10 pieces of X/1010 energy....

Pperhaps you can think of it this way (ignoring whether it is possible or not): energy is quantised, therefore you cannot have half a photon or half an electron. All you do by changing the volume, is change the probability that the photon (or whatever) is in that volume at any time.

10. Originally Posted by Strange

Pperhaps you can think of it this way (ignoring whether it is possible or not): energy is quantised, therefore you cannot have half a photon or half an electron. All you do by changing the volume, is change the probability that the photon (or whatever) is in that volume at any time.

Ok...now it is more clear....as much smaller be the volume...less probabilities there are that a photon or an electron will be there.

The photons could be so small as the EM waves that transport to them....Could photons be smaller than 10^-35 meters?

Escuss the exclamation marks....but I though they make the discussion more real and lively...Without marks, bolds, colors...it is so boring and sad (!!)

11. What does mainstream says about the time at these small dimensions?...Does there exist the time as we know here?

12. Member
Join Date
May 2012
Posts
40
Originally Posted by dapifo
[snip]
Escuss the exclamation marks....but I though they make the discussion more real and lively...Without marks, bolds, colors...it is so boring and sad (!!)
As an aside, shouting doesn't make your argument any more eloquent. Multiple exclamation marks makes text come out as a "wail", in my opinion. Excessive use of punctuation marks deadens the effect. They should be used sparingly. Excessive punctuations marks, bolds, italics, etc. also distract from a text and prevent real communication. If you find the content boring, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are here?

13. Originally Posted by natattack
As an aside, shouting doesn't make your argument any more eloquent. Multiple exclamation marks makes text come out as a "wail", in my opinion. Excessive use of punctuation marks deadens the effect. They should be used sparingly. Excessive punctuations marks, bolds, italics, etc. also distract from a text and prevent real communication. If you find the content boring, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are here?
I see that you are an expert in forums and chad languadge...I am not !!....I like to talk, if it is possible, directly...and with a blak/whiteboard with colors chalk/markers....and jocking if possible.

The boring is to be writen at an pc....

14. Originally Posted by dapifo
What does mainstream says about the time at these small dimensions?...Does there exist the time as we know here?
Side note, if you think that all of the other posters with their non-bolded or underlined, uncolored, correctly spelled text are boring, it would be polite to keep it to yourself.

15. Originally Posted by dapifo
OK...I can now breathe easy ...I was really worried that something so obvious and evident was an ATM (!) .... and that it would cost so much to understand (!!)

But sometimes experts are so happy and satisfied with the existing models that they become too dogmatic and categorical with its contents and statements....and sometimes they forget that they are only models suitable for a range of different approximations and they forget their limits and their usefulness.I never said that this was a new idea...and I never make huge deal out with it....but yes I tryed to state these limits and their usefulness.
My bold. Can you give us some specific examples?

16. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,448
Originally Posted by dapifo
OK...I can now breathe easy ...I was really worried that something so obvious and evident was an ATM (!) .... and that it would cost so much to understand (!!)
I know I said that atleast twice already. Good to know you are finally understanding
But sometimes experts are so happy and satisfied with the existing models that they become too dogmatic and categorical with its contents and statements....and sometimes they forget that they are only models suitable for a range of different approximations and they forget their limits and their usefulness.
Incorrect and insulting. Good job.
I never said that this was a new idea...and I never make huge deal out with it....but yes I tryed to state these limits and their usefulness.
You have been making a big deal out of it in at least three threads. You were told repeatedly that it was nothing, yet, because actual scientists are 'too dogmatic and categorical' you would not accept the answer. Perhaps the problem is not with the scientists.

17. Originally Posted by antoniseb
Side note, if you think that all of the other posters with their non-bolded or underlined, uncolored, correctly spelled text are boring, it would be polite to keep it to yourself.
Sure I will do....

No, I donīt thik so.... but I like it !!!.... It is my sign...!!!But if this is forbidden .... I stop! ....You are free to do the best you think !!
Last edited by dapifo; 2012-Aug-25 at 09:10 PM.

18. Originally Posted by Hornblower
My bold. Can you give us some specific examples?
e.g. To say very dogmatic and categorical that the light speed is the max. speed that could be.

We have to think (but not necessary to say always...but...have into account !!!)...that it is true ...till we know nowadays...in Our universe...according mainstream...etc.

19. Originally Posted by korjik
I know I said that atleast twice already. Good to know you are finally understanding

Incorrect and insulting. Good job.

You have been making a big deal out of it in at least three threads. You were told repeatedly that it was nothing, yet, because actual scientists are 'too dogmatic and categorical' you would not accept the answer. Perhaps the problem is not with the scientists.
OK..it is my fault....but I didnīt insult any body.

20. Member
Join Date
Aug 2012
Posts
53
Originally Posted by dapifo
But sometimes experts are so happy and satisfied with the existing models that they become too dogmatic and categorical with its contents and statements....and sometimes they forget that they are only models suitable for a range of different approximations and they forget their limits and their usefulness.
This claim doesn't really make sense, because the more recent models themselves indicate that they break down in certain contexts. Older models, typically, did not.

For example, Newtonian mechanics is simply wrong, from a purist's point of view. It doesn't contain any indications that it will break down near the speed of light, yet we know this to be the case. The only reason we still use it is that it is a delightfully simple model that makes delightfully good predictions as long as you don't go near the speed of light. And in the less pure modern understanding of how models relate to reality, that pretty much makes it true despite what the purist may think.

Quantum mechanics (and, by extension, anything that derives from it), on the other hand, tells you right off the bat that it's not going to be able to make any sort of usable predictions under certain conditions, at certain scales, for certain classes of phenomena, and so on. So, no matter how "dogmatic and categorical" an expert may be, they aren't going to make any claims to the contrary. If they do, then they are by definition not experts.

21. Originally Posted by onomatomanic
This claim doesn't really make sense, because the more recent models themselves indicate that they break down in certain contexts. Older models, typically, did not.

For example, Newtonian mechanics is simply wrong, from a purist's point of view. It doesn't contain any indications that it will break down near the speed of light, yet we know this to be the case. The only reason we still use it is that it is a delightfully simple model that makes delightfully good predictions as long as you don't go near the speed of light. And in the less pure modern understanding of how models relate to reality, that pretty much makes it true despite what the purist may think.

Quantum mechanics (and, by extension, anything that derives from it), on the other hand, tells you right off the bat that it's not going to be able to make any sort of usable predictions under certain conditions, at certain scales, for certain classes of phenomena, and so on. So, no matter how "dogmatic and categorical" an expert may be, they aren't going to make any claims to the contrary. If they do, then they are by definition not experts.
That is why I said ... sometimes.

22. Originally Posted by dapifo
e.g. To say very dogmatic and categorical that the light speed is the max. speed that could be.
Dogma suggests something is a matter of belief. The idea that the speed of light is a limit is a result of a well-tested theory. It isn't dogma to state this, it is just a statement of our current best theory. It may be that a future theory will change this. Or maybe not. Until it is demonstrated to be false all the evidence is that nothing can go faster than light.

Did you notice the key words there: theory, evidence? Not dogma.

23. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
e.g. To say very dogmatic and categorical that the light speed is the max. speed that could be.
Do you understand why people say this with such certainty?

24. Originally Posted by Shaula
Do you understand why people say this with such certainty?
Why?

25. Originally Posted by dapifo
... Are you saying that physics have different behaviour (laws) at different scales?...is it possible?....I think that Shaula and Strange donīt agree with it !!!
OK, Now you are clearly trolling. Goodbye.

26. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
Originally Posted by dapifo
Why?
Suggest you do some background reading about GR and SR. Your stance is pretty weak - you are essentially saying "These guys believe this fact dogmatically. No I have no idea why, or what the background is. I just know they believe it. Dogmatically." In fact one could say that you have a dogmatic believe in the dogmatism of scientists.

27. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2012
Posts
447
Originally Posted by dapifo
Planck length (ℓ P) is the scale or distance of length below which is expected that space stop to have a classical geometry. A measure lower predictably can not be treated adequately in current physics models due to the emergence of quantum gravity effects.

But...There could be energy or/and mass (matter) within the Planck lengh (volum)?.... What is expected by maistream to be within Plank lengh (volum)?
We might expect a class of exotic particles, called Planck Particles. I have been doing investigations on this subject myself. This particle is roughly the size of a Planck Length.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•