Discussion:
A Revised Planck Scale?
(too old to reply)
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-04 09:31:55 UTC
Permalink
The standard paradigm for the cosmos is composed of 3 main parts: (1)
the standard model of particle physics, (2) the standard Big Bang
model, and (3) the Inflationary Scenario. To be sure there are other
components, but these three main components are interwoven and together
they constitute our general paradigm for understanding nature.

This post concerns identifying ways in which to clearly distinguish
between the standard paradigm and the Discrete Fractal paradigm (see
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw for details). I believe that I have found
another major, and promising, distinction between these two paradigms.

Within the context of the standard model of particle physics, there is
virtually no question about the Planck Scale, at which General
Relativity plays an equally important dynamical role with QED. The
conventional Planck length is about 1.6 x 10^-33 cm and the Planck mass
is about 2 x 10^-5 g.

According to the Discrete Fractal paradigm, nature has a discrete
spacetime structure and each of the fundamental scales in nature's
unbounded discrete hierarchy has its own unique value for the
gravitational "constant".

Numerically the relationship between G values on neighboring scales is:
G(n-1) = 3.27 x 10^38 G(n), where G(n) = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs.
That means G(n-1) for the atomic scale would be equal to 2.31 x 10^31
cgs.
When you put G(n-1) into the conventional equations for the Planck
length and the Planck mass, because you want all atomic scale
"constants" for uniformity, you get:

Planck length = 3 x 10^-14 cm (= 0.4 times the proton radius)

Planck mass = 1.2 x 10^-24 g (= 0.8 times the proton mass).

Parenthetically, the revised Schwarschild radius for the proton is
about 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, which is about equal to the charge radius of the
proton and the revised Planck length.

So we have identified another example of a fundamental, very large,
difference between the two paradigms. Unlike the definitive Dark Matter
Test, the reality of the two differing Planck Scales is not so easily
tested empirically. However, if the radically different revised Planck
Scale of the DF paradigm should lead to promising new ideas in quantum
field theory, that could lead to a re-examination of the standard
particle physics model's Planck Scale, and, in turn, to a
re-examination of the foundations of the standard cosmological
paradigm.

Robert L. Oldershaw
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-07 00:17:54 UTC
Permalink
***@amherst.edu wrote:

Perceptive readers who see the connection between this thread and the
one entitled "Critical Test Of The Discrete Fractal And Big Bang
Paradigms" will likely think: 'what motivates us to seriously consider
discrete self-similarity between elementary particles and astrophysical
objects like stellar-mass Kerr-Newman black holes?'.

Both elementary particles and stellar-mass Kerr-Newman black holes
share the following properties:

1. Nearly complete characterization in terms of mass, charge and
angular momentum.

2. Gyromagnetic ratios = 2.

3. Magnetic moments, but no electric dipole moments.

4. Similar mass formulae.

5. Cross-sections that increase in collisions.

The detailed physics of these arguments for meaningful discrete
self-similarity can be found in Sivaram, C. and Sinha, K.P., Physics
Reports 51, 111-187, 1979. It is an old paper, but well worth the
effort to find and read.

With the advent of the Discrete Fractal paradigm, it is now clear why
'strong gravity' is confined to very small spacetime scales, although a
considerable amount of work needs to be done in terms of elaborating on
this largely conceptual/empirical result.

Robert L. Oldershaw
Oh No
2006-11-07 12:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Parenthetically, the revised Schwarschild radius for the proton is
about 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, which is about equal to the charge radius of the
proton and the revised Planck length.
I should just like to add that the Schwarzschild radius of the proton
is not something which appears in standard physical models, the reason
being that a classical massive point particle is not a consistent idea
in general relativity. In fact a proton must be treated quantum
mechanically, and we do not have an accepted theory on that, but if the
Schwarzschild radius of the proton were considered then it would have a
magnitude given by

2Gm/c^3 =3D 8.28 x 10 e^-63 m

Planck length also has a formal definition

l_p =3D sqrt(hbar*G/c^3) =3D 1.61605e-35 =B1 1.0e-39 m

Neither of these figures is open to revision beyond that allowed by
experimental margins of error. If you are defining other quantities, you
should give them other names.







Regards

--=20
Richard Saam
2006-11-07 23:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Parenthetically, the revised Schwarschild radius for the proton is
about 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, which is about equal to the charge radius of the
proton and the revised Planck length.
I should just like to add that the Schwarzschild radius of the proton
is not something which appears in standard physical models, the reason
being that a classical massive point particle is not a consistent idea
in general relativity. In fact a proton must be treated quantum
mechanically, and we do not have an accepted theory on that, but if the
Schwarzschild radius of the proton were considered then it would have a
magnitude given by
2Gm/c^3 =3D 8.28 x 10 e^-63 m
Planck length also has a formal definition
l_p =3D sqrt(hbar*G/c^3) =3D 1.61605e-35 =B1 1.0e-39 m
Neither of these figures is open to revision beyond that allowed by
experimental margins of error. If you are defining other quantities, you
should give them other names.
Gentlemen:

Given:

Planck's constant hb 1.054572675E-27 g cm^2 sec^-1
gravitational constant G 6.6725985E-8 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1
speed of light c 2.997924580E10 cm sec^-1

The following is list of some of the Planck scale parameters:

Planck length (hb G/c^3)^(1/2) 1.61605E-35 cm
Planck time (hb G/c^5)^(1/2) 5.39056E-44 sec
Planck mass (hb c/G)^(1/2) 2.17671E-08 g
Planck energy (hb c^5/G)^(1/2) 1.95610E-16 g cm^2 sec^-2
Planck momentum (hb c^3/G)^(1/2) 6.52483E+05 g cm sec^-1
Planck force (c^4/G) 1.21027E+49 g cm sec^-2
Planck density (c^5/(hb G^2) 5.15500E+93 g/cm^3
Planck acceleration (c^6/(hb G)) 1.03145E+97 cm/sec^2
Planck kinematic viscosity (c^7/(hb G))^(1/2) 5.56077E+53 cm^2/sec
Planck absolute viscosity (c^9/(hb G^3))^(1/2) 2.49779E+71 g cm^-1 sec^-1

It is difficult to say which has a 'physical meaning'.

Using dimensional units of mass, length & time
the constants hb, G, c can be arranged in an infinite number of possibilities.

Richard
Roger Bagula
2006-11-13 16:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Saam
Planck's constant hb 1.054572675E-27 g cm^2 sec^-1
gravitational constant G 6.6725985E-8 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1
speed of light c 2.997924580E10 cm sec^-1
Planck length (hb G/c^3)^(1/2) 1.61605E-35 cm
Planck time (hb G/c^5)^(1/2) 5.39056E-44 sec
Planck mass (hb c/G)^(1/2) 2.17671E-08 g
Planck energy (hb c^5/G)^(1/2) 1.95610E-16 g cm^2 sec^-2
Planck momentum (hb c^3/G)^(1/2) 6.52483E+05 g cm sec^-1
Planck force (c^4/G) 1.21027E+49 g cm sec^-2
Planck density (c^5/(hb G^2) 5.15500E+93 g/cm^3
Planck acceleration (c^6/(hb G)) 1.03145E+97 cm/sec^2
Planck kinematic viscosity (c^7/(hb G))^(1/2) 5.56077E+53 cm^2/sec
Planck absolute viscosity (c^9/(hb G^3))^(1/2) 2.49779E+71 g cm^-1 sec^-1
It is difficult to say which has a 'physical meaning'.
Using dimensional units of mass, length & time
the constants hb, G, c can be arranged in an infinite number of possibilities.
Richard
hb = 1.054572675*10^(-27)
1.054572675`*^-27
G = 6.6725985*10^(-8 )
6.672598500000001`*^-8
c = 2.997924580*10^10
2.99792458`*^10
(hb G/c^3)^(1/2)
1.6160496497524128`*^-33
(hb G/c^5)^(1/2)
5.390561392149541`*^-44
(hb c/G)^(1/2)
0.000021767127031707378`
Two out of three wrong isn't bad?
Richard Saam
2006-11-13 18:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Bagula
Post by Richard Saam
Planck's constant hb 1.054572675E-27 g cm^2 sec^-1
gravitational constant G 6.6725985E-8 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1
speed of light c 2.997924580E10 cm sec^-1
Planck length (hb G/c^3)^(1/2) 1.61605E-35 cm
Planck time (hb G/c^5)^(1/2) 5.39056E-44 sec
Planck mass (hb c/G)^(1/2) 2.17671E-08 g
Planck energy (hb c^5/G)^(1/2) 1.95610E-16 g cm^2 sec^-2
Planck momentum (hb c^3/G)^(1/2) 6.52483E+05 g cm sec^-1
Planck force (c^4/G) 1.21027E+49 g cm sec^-2
Planck density (c^5/(hb G^2) 5.15500E+93 g/cm^3
Planck acceleration (c^6/(hb G)) 1.03145E+97 cm/sec^2
Planck kinematic viscosity (c^7/(hb G))^(1/2) 5.56077E+53 cm^2/sec
Planck absolute viscosity (c^9/(hb G^3))^(1/2) 2.49779E+71 g cm^-1 sec^-1
It is difficult to say which has a 'physical meaning'.
Using dimensional units of mass, length & time
the constants hb, G, c can be arranged in an infinite number of possibilities.
Richard
hb = 1.054572675*10^(-27)
1.054572675`*^-27
G = 6.6725985*10^(-8 )
6.672598500000001`*^-8
c = 2.997924580*10^10
2.99792458`*^10
(hb G/c^3)^(1/2)
1.6160496497524128`*^-33
(hb G/c^5)^(1/2)
5.390561392149541`*^-44
(hb c/G)^(1/2)
0.000021767127031707378`
Two out of three wrong isn't bad?
Roger:
Thank you for the obvious corrections
Updated list as follows:

The following is list of some of the Planck scale parameters:

Planck length (hb G/c3)^(1/2) 1.61624E-33 cm
Planck time (hb G/c5)^(1/2) 5.39121E-44 sec
Planck mass (hb c/G)^(1/2) 2.17645E-05 g
Planck energy (hb c5/G)^(1/2) 1.95610E+16 g cm2 sec^-2
Planck momentum (hb c3/G)^(1/2) 6.52483E+05 g cm sec^-1
Planck force (c4/G) 1.21027E+49 g cm sec^-2
Planck density (c5/(hb G2) 5.15500E+93 g/cm3
Planck acceleration (c6/(hb G)) 1.03145E+97 cm/sec2
Planck kinematic viscosity (c7/(hb G))^(1/2) 5.56077E+53 cm2/sec
Planck absolute viscosity (c9/(hb G3))^(1/2) 2.49779E+71 g cm^-1 sec^-1


Richard
Joseph Lazio
2006-11-07 23:13:47 UTC
Permalink
re> This post concerns identifying ways in which to clearly
re> distinguish between the standard paradigm and the Discrete Fractal
re> paradigm (...). I believe that I have found another major, and
re> promising, distinction between these two paradigms.

re> Within the context of the standard model of particle physics,
re> there is virtually no question about the Planck Scale, at which
re> General Relativity plays an equally important dynamical role with
re> QED. The conventional Planck length is about 1.6 x 10^-33 cm and
re> the Planck mass is about 2 x 10^-5 g.

It is likely that quantum effects do become important on scales of
order the Planck scale, but, not having a unified theory, I think your
statement of certainty is too strong.

[...]
re> Numerically the relationship between G values on neighboring
re> scales is: G(n-1) = 3.27 x 10^38 G(n), where G(n) = 6.67 x 10^-8
re> cgs. That means G(n-1) for the atomic scale would be equal to
re> 2.31 x 10^31 cgs. When you put G(n-1) into the conventional
re> equations for the Planck length and the Planck mass, because you
re> want all atomic scale "constants" for uniformity, you get:

re> Planck length = 3 x 10^-14 cm (= 0.4 times the proton radius)

re> Planck mass = 1.2 x 10^-24 g (= 0.8 times the proton mass).

Is this analysis consistent with observations that distant sources are
not fuzzy? e.g., <URL:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003ApJ...585L..77L >
and similar papers.
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: ***@patriot.net
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-07 23:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
Schwarzschild radius of the proton were considered then it would have a
magnitude given by
2Gm/c^3 =3D 8.28 x 10 e^-63 m
Planck length also has a formal definition
l_p =3D sqrt(hbar*G/c^3) =3D 1.61605e-35 =B1 1.0e-39 m
Neither of these figures is open to revision beyond that allowed by
experimental margins of error. If you are defining other quantities, you
should give them other names.
Perhaps, I did not make myself clear, so I will try again.

The way you have calculated the Schwarschild radius for the proton and
the Planck length *assumes* that it is correct to use the conventional
Newtonian value for G in your calculations. That might not be valid.
In fact the Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw )
says that for atomic scale systems you must use G(n-1), which is 10^38
times larger. Note that Sivaram and Sinha also derive a 'strong
gravity' G(f) that is about 10^38 times G.

A much more compact discussion (4 pages vs 76 pages) of the remarkable
self-similarity between elementary particles and Kerr-Newman black
holes by Sivaram and Sinha can be found at Physical Review D, vol.16,
no. 6, pp. 1975-1978, 1977.

In science, virtually anything is open to revsion. Scientists do not
deal in absolute knowledge, which is the province of religion.

Robert L. Oldershaw
Oh No
2006-11-08 12:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by Oh No
Schwarzschild radius of the proton were considered then it would have a
magnitude given by
2Gm/c^3 =3D 8.28 x 10 e^-63 m
Planck length also has a formal definition
l_p =3D sqrt(hbar*G/c^3) =3D 1.61605e-35 =B1 1.0e-39 m
Neither of these figures is open to revision beyond that allowed by
experimental margins of error. If you are defining other quantities, you
should give them other names.
Perhaps, I did not make myself clear, so I will try again.
The way you have calculated the Schwarschild radius for the proton and
the Planck length *assumes* that it is correct to use the conventional
Newtonian value for G in your calculations. That might not be valid.
In fact the Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw )
says that for atomic scale systems you must use G(n-1), which is 10^38
times larger. Note that Sivaram and Sinha also derive a 'strong
gravity' G(f) that is about 10^38 times G.
A much more compact discussion (4 pages vs 76 pages) of the remarkable
self-similarity between elementary particles and Kerr-Newman black
holes by Sivaram and Sinha can be found at Physical Review D, vol.16,
no. 6, pp. 1975-1978, 1977.
In science, virtually anything is open to revsion. Scientists do not
deal in absolute knowledge, which is the province of religion.
I think in fact that I did not make myself clear. This is not how
Schwarzschild radius and Planck length are *calculated*, it is how they
are *defined*. A definition is a truism and cannot be incorrect unless
it is inconsistent..

This is a matter of semantics, not one of the physical properties of the
universe. One uses, in so far as is possible, accepted definitions for
the simple reason that if one does not do so, one is talking a different
language from other people, and because that tends to make communication
difficult. It will appear to others that one is talking gibberish, even
if one is not. "A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet". But a
horticulturalist would think one an idiot for calling a rose an apple.

Certainly definitions can be changed. It may be that a defined quantity
turns out not to be useful, and that definition falls into disuse. Then
one is free to redefine the quantity. But if a quantity is in general
use, it is unwise to redefine it since no one will understand what you
are talking about.

Sivaram and Sinha, for example, have taken note. They wish to use
another value for the gravitational constant. But they have not called
it G. They have defined a new quantity, clearly related to G, but they
have also given it a new name, G(f).



Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
Oh No
2006-11-08 12:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Parenthetically, the revised Schwarschild radius for the proton is
about 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, which is about equal to the charge radius of the
proton and the revised Planck length.
I should just like to add that the Schwarzschild radius of the proton
is not something which appears in standard physical models, the reason
being that a classical massive point particle is not a consistent idea
in general relativity. In fact a proton must be treated quantum
mechanically, and we do not have an accepted theory on that, but if the
Schwarzschild radius of the proton were considered then it would have a
magnitude given by
2Gm/c^3 =3D 8.28 x 10 e^-63 m
Planck length also has a formal definition
l_p =3D sqrt(hbar*G/c^3) =3D 1.61605e-35 =B1 1.0e-39 m
Neither of these figures is open to revision beyond that allowed by
experimental margins of error. If you are defining other quantities, you
should give them other names.
With apologies, I copy pasted those figures from another source. The
equations looked all right when I posted, but obviously they did not
contain pure ASCII and they appear to have been corrupted by one of the
gateways used by s.a.r. = has come out as =3D and +- has come out as
=B1. They should read

Schwarzschild radius of the proton

2Gm/c^3 = 8.28 x 10 e^-63 m

Planck length

l_p = sqrt(hbar*G/c^3) = 1.61605e-35 +- 1.0e-39 m



Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-08 23:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
Post by r***@amherst.edu
In science, virtually anything is open to revsion. Scientists do not
deal in absolute knowledge, which is the province of religion.
I think in fact that I did not make myself clear. This is not how
Schwarzschild radius and Planck length are *calculated*, it is how they
are *defined*. A definition is a truism and cannot be incorrect unless
it is inconsistent..
This is a matter of semantics, not one of the physical properties of the
universe. One uses, in so far as is possible, accepted definitions for
the simple reason that if one does not do so, one is talking a different
language from other people, and because that tends to make communication
difficult. It will appear to others that one is talking gibberish, even
if one is not. "A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet". But a
horticulturalist would think one an idiot for calling a rose an apple.
Certainly definitions can be changed. It may be that a defined quantity
turns out not to be useful, and that definition falls into disuse. Then
one is free to redefine the quantity. But if a quantity is in general
use, it is unwise to redefine it since no one will understand what you
are talking about.
This is all very nice academic arm-waving, but the fact of the matter
is that nature is, and can only be, ONE way. The Schwarschild radius
for the proton is a real physical quantity, as is the length scale at
which GR is of equal importance with QED in describing real physical
systems. We can play with definitions all we like, but there is only
one set of actual physical answers that apply to nature, i.e., the real
physical world. Conventional physics gives one set of answers and the
Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) gives
another, very different, set of answers. This is not semantics. What
we have here is two very different explanations for how the world
works.
Post by Oh No
Sivaram and Sinha, for example, have taken note. They wish to use
another value for the gravitational constant. But they have not called
it G. They have defined a new quantity, clearly related to G, but they
have also given it a new name, G(f).
And of course, being an observant and careful scientist, you also noted
my use of the expression G(n-1) to differentiate my coupling constant
from G. You did see that, right?

Robert L. Oldershaw
g***@briar.demon.co.uk
2006-11-09 12:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
This is all very nice academic arm-waving, but the fact of the matter
is that nature is, and can only be, ONE way. The Schwarschild radius
for the proton is a real physical quantity, ...
Plugging the mass of the proton in the Schwarzschild
Metric only gives one value for that radius. If you have a
new value then either you used a different value of mass
for the proton or you didn't use the Schwarzschild Metric,
and in the latter case it isn't really sensible to call your
number a "Schwarzschild Radius". Maybe you should
call it the Oldershaw Radius, but first you should publish
the Oldershaw Metric.

George
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-11 08:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@briar.demon.co.uk
Plugging the mass of the proton in the Schwarzschild
Metric only gives one value for that radius. If you have a
new value then either you used a different value of mass
for the proton or you didn't use the Schwarzschild Metric,
and in the latter case it isn't really sensible to call your
number a "Schwarzschild Radius". Maybe you should
call it the Oldershaw Radius, but first you should publish
the Oldershaw Metric.
Allow me to do it for you. The Schwarschild radius equation is R =
2Gm/c^2, if I remember correctly. I am *not* putting any mass into
this equation except the mass of the proton. What I am putting in that
is new is G(n-1) = 2.31 x 10^31 cm^3/g sec^2, instead of G which equals
6.67 x 10^-8 cgs. The reason for doing that is as follows: the scaling
equations and self-similar scaling rules of the Discrete Fractal
paradigm require it. The reasons for why G(n-1) is proposed to be the
correct and only gravitational "constant" valid within atomic scale
systems is thoroughly discussed in an easy-to-read format at
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , see Papers #1 and #2 of the "Selected
Papers" section.

I would never name something after myself; thanks for the vote of
confidence though.

Here is a quick capsule summary of what I have proposed in this thread.
The discussion revolves around proper values for the Planck length (L),
the Planck mass (M) and the Schwarschild radius for the proton (R).

L(conventional) = 1.6 x 10^-33 cm
M(conv.) = 2 x 10^-5 g
R(conv.) = 8.3 x 10^-61 cm

L(Discrete Fractal) = 3 x 10^-14 cm, ~ r(proton)
M(DF) = 1.2 x 10^-24 g, ~ m(proton)
R(DF) = 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, ~ r(proton)

When I compare these two competing sets of possible values, the
conventional set looks a bit like numbers that have been randomly drawn
from a mighty big hat. The Discrete Fractal paradigm's set of values
seems to me to be more natural and self-consistent.

Add to that the 6 basic properties (discussed by Sivaram and Sinha in
their Physics Review D paper cited above) which show a truly amazing
degree of self-similarity between hadrons and Kerr-Newman black holes.

Add to that the *potential* for the Discrete Fractal paradigm to unify
everything we have learned about nature over the last 200 years within
one remarkably simple conceptual framework.

And best of all, within a few years this paradigm can be definitively
vindicated, or definitively falsified, through its rigoorous and
non-adjustable prediction that the galactic dark matter is primarily
composed of Kerr-Newman black holes, with a highly specific and
discrete mass spectrum that has been quantitatively determined and
published.

Bottom line: GR does not specify the value of "G". Einstein put in the
Newtonian value of G because it seemed logical to do so and it gave the
right answers for the *stellar scale tests* that were available. He
knew he was making a temporary assumption. We should too. The key idea
running through this thread is that while G applies within stellar
scale systems, it may not apply within atomic scale systems, which
require G(n-1). This may be a shocking idea with major implications for
particle physics, atomic physics and astrophysics. I would urge you to
consider that the conceptual unity and harmony of the new paradigm will
outweigh the turmoil of paradigmatic change in the long run. There is
much work to be done and I need all the help I can get!

Robert L. Oldershaw
George Dishman
2006-11-11 11:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by g***@briar.demon.co.uk
Plugging the mass of the proton in the Schwarzschild
Metric only gives one value for that radius. If you have a
new value then either you used a different value of mass
for the proton or you didn't use the Schwarzschild Metric,
and in the latter case it isn't really sensible to call your
number a "Schwarzschild Radius". Maybe you should
call it the Oldershaw Radius, but first you should publish
the Oldershaw Metric.
Allow me to do it for you. The Schwarschild radius equation is R =
2Gm/c^2, if I remember correctly.
The radius is derived from the metric. Do I assume
from what you say that you are not then proposing
an alternative metric?
Post by r***@amherst.edu
I am *not* putting any mass into
this equation except the mass of the proton. What I am putting in that
is new is G(n-1) = 2.31 x 10^31 cm^3/g sec^2, instead of G which equals
6.67 x 10^-8 cgs.
In that case you have increased the acceleration due
to gravity here on the Earth's surface as predicted
by the Schwarzschild Metric by over 38 orders of
magnitude.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
And best of all, within a few years this paradigm can be definitively
vindicated, or definitively falsified, ...
IMO getting the Earth's surface gravity wrong by 38
orders of magnitude is enough to falsify it.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Bottom line: GR does not specify the value of "G". Einstein put in the
Newtonian value of G because it seemed logical to do so and it gave the
right answers for the *stellar scale tests* that were available.
Given that it is a _constant_ in the equation, the
same value must apply for all masses. If it doesn't,
you need to change the equations so that they include
a mass-dependent (or perhaps scale-dependent) value
of gravitational 'constant', and Schwarschild's metric
would no longer be a solution.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
He
knew he was making a temporary assumption.
Of course. Better measurements will always improve
the accuracy of the value, but we already know it to
better than 1% and your value is _grossly_ different.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
We should too. The key idea
running through this thread is that while G applies within stellar
scale systems, it may not apply within atomic scale systems, which
require G(n-1). This may be a shocking idea with major implications for
particle physics, atomic physics and astrophysics.
No, the idea that quantum effects become important at
some small scale has been the driven force behind
attempts at unification for decades, but just picking
a different constant for use in the same equations
won't get you anywhere. The equations need to be
modified so that the macroscopic limit is GR (with the
conventional value of G) while the microscopic limit
tends to conventional QM.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
I would urge you to
consider that the conceptual unity and harmony of the new paradigm will
outweigh the turmoil of paradigmatic change in the long run. There is
much work to be done and I need all the help I can get!
I am giving you what pointers I can.

George
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-11 21:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Dishman
In that case you have increased the acceleration due
to gravity here on the Earth's surface as predicted
by the Schwarzschild Metric by over 38 orders of
magnitude.
IMO getting the Earth's surface gravity wrong by 38
orders of magnitude is enough to falsify it.
I appreciate the fact that it is difficult at first to see things from
the radically different perspective of a paradigm that involves
discrete self-similar space-time ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ).

The Discrete Fractal paradigm states that the appropriate value for the
gravitational "constant" at the surface of the Earth (within a stellar
scale system, but *not* within an atomic scale system) is G = 6.67 x
10^-8 cgs. The DF paradigm does not get "Earth's surface gravity wrong
by 38 orders of magnitude". You need a better understanding of the DF
paradigm in order to know what it predicts, and why it does so.

The "constant" G(n-1) applies to a space-time region that is within an
atomic scale system, but not within a subquantum scale system.

A meaningful discussion of the Discrete Fractal paradigm requires that
both parties understand the paradigm. Before you post again, please
take more time to familiarize yourself with the DF paradigm. If
something is unclear, I welcome questions. Let's talk about one thing
at a time, and do so in a more cooperative scientific spirit. Emotion
interferes with reason, as pointed out with such clarity by Spinoza.

Robert L. Oldershaw
George Dishman
2006-11-12 12:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by George Dishman
In that case you have increased the acceleration due
to gravity here on the Earth's surface as predicted
by the Schwarzschild Metric by over 38 orders of
magnitude.
IMO getting the Earth's surface gravity wrong by 38
orders of magnitude is enough to falsify it.
I appreciate the fact that it is difficult at first to see things from
the radically different perspective of a paradigm that involves
discrete self-similar space-time ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ).
The Discrete Fractal paradigm states that the appropriate value for the
gravitational "constant" at the surface of the Earth (within a stellar
scale system, but *not* within an atomic scale system) is G = 6.67 x
10^-8 cgs. The DF paradigm does not get "Earth's surface gravity wrong
by 38 orders of magnitude". You need a better understanding of the DF
paradigm in order to know what it predicts, and why it does so.
No, I think you need to understand that the mass of the
Earth is mainly in the form of protons and neutrons. The
gravity at the surface is nothing more than the sum of
all those myriad tiny contributions.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
The "constant" G(n-1) applies to a space-time region that is within an
atomic scale system, but not within a subquantum scale system.
A meaningful discussion of the Discrete Fractal paradigm requires that
both parties understand the paradigm. Before you post again, please
take more time to familiarize yourself with the DF paradigm. If
something is unclear, I welcome questions. Let's talk about one thing
at a time, and do so in a more cooperative scientific spirit. Emotion
interferes with reason, as pointed out with such clarity by Spinoza.
This isn't about emotion, it is simple arithmetic. If
you increase G for a proton then you increase the effect
it has at all distances. The gravitational acceleration
at 6378 km from a single proton in deep space would be
38 orders of magnitude greater than the conventional
value with your value of G. The effect of a lone neutron
would be similarly increased since they have nearly the
same mass. The sum of the acceleration over all the
protons and neutrons in the Earth must also be increased
by that same factor. That is the result of applying reason
and science to your proposal.

George
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-12 12:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Dishman
The radius is derived from the metric. Do I assume
from what you say that you are not then proposing
an alternative metric?
For equivalent interactions (i.e., gravitation) on different
cosmological scales, the metrics are the same. The physical laws on
different cosmological scales are either totally equivalent (except for
scaling factors) or very nearly equivalent. The actual degree of
self-similarity between discrete cosmological scales (exact, or nearly
exact but with subtle differences) can only be determined empirically.
On grounds of natural philosophy I have a strong preference and a much
more positive intuitive response to *exact* cosmological
self-similarity. But sometimes nature is delightfully subtle.
Post by George Dishman
won't get you anywhere. The equations need to be
modified so that the macroscopic limit is GR (with the
conventional value of G) while the microscopic limit
tends to conventional QM.
I think that Albert Einstein was fundamentally right about QM and will
be vindicated: a huge piece of the puzzle has always been missing. The
Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) hopes to
show the way towards a fundamental, radical, but testable,
reinterpretation of QM.

Rob
George Dishman
2006-11-12 23:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by George Dishman
The radius is derived from the metric. Do I assume
from what you say that you are not then proposing
an alternative metric?
For equivalent interactions (i.e., gravitation) on different
cosmological scales, the metrics are the same. ...
The metric applies at all scales. If you are not
offering an alternative to Schwarzschild then your
change of the value of G means the surface gravity
of the Earth increases in line with the change in G.

George
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-12 23:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Dishman
No, I think you need to understand that the mass of the
Earth is mainly in the form of protons and neutrons. The
gravity at the surface is nothing more than the sum of
all those myriad tiny contributions.
According to the Discrete Fractal paradigm (
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) the world works in a way that is
different from the way you think it does. We would agree on the
strength of the gravitational interaction between the Moon and the
Earth and on how that strength is arrived at. Where we disagree is on
the strength of the gravitational interaction within an atomic scale
system. You would say G still applies, whereas I would say G(n-1)
applies.


Special Relativity taught us that time is not absolute and that space
is not absolute. The laws of physics are equivalent for all inertial
frames.

General Relativity brought in the principle of covariance, which showed
that the laws of physics are equivalent for all frames, inertial or
accelerated.

So space, time, orientation and state of motion are relative. However,
at that point *scale* was still considered absolute. What the Discrete
Fractal paradigm does is to show us how relativity of *scale* is also
one of nature's fundamental symmetries. The subtle thing here, and the
reason that relativity of scale has taken so long to develop, is that
it is not a continuous symmetry, but rather a *discrete* symmetry.
Within a cosmological scale, such as the Stellar Scale or the Galactic
Scale, there is absolute scale. But *between* different cosmological
scales, there is complete relativity of scale. Thus we should refer to
it as discrete relativity of scale, or discrete Scale relativity, to
emphasize the fact that the relativity is *between* cosmological
Scales, not within one cosmological Scale.

This is a very big idea and a very big step for physics and cosmology.
It takes some time to get used to thinking in terms of this new form of
relativity, just as it took time to get used to Special and General
Relativity. The conceptual beauty of the Discrete Fractal paradigm
convinces me that it must be headed in the right direction. For those
who like a bit more empirical motivation, the definitive dark matter
predictions/test will let us know nature's verdict on Discrete Scale
Relativity.
c***@physics.ucdavis.edu
2006-11-13 10:13:05 UTC
Permalink
***@amherst.edu <***@amherst.edu> wrote:

[...]
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Parenthetically, the revised Schwarschild radius for the proton is
about 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, which is about equal to the charge radius of the
proton and the revised Planck length.
In that case, the model is pretty much dead. High energy experiments
probe the substructure of the proton down to about three orders of
magnitude smaller than that, and there is absolutely no indication of
anything remotely resembling a horizon.

(The 1990 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the first experiments
in this area. For more recent results, look up, for example, experiments
at HERA, which has a resolution on the order of 10^{-16} cm.)

Steve Carlip
g***@briar.demon.co.uk
2006-11-13 10:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by George Dishman
No, I think you need to understand that the mass of the
Earth is mainly in the form of protons and neutrons. The
gravity at the surface is nothing more than the sum of
all those myriad tiny contributions.
According to the Discrete Fractal paradigm (
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) the world works in a way that is
different from the way you think it does. We would agree on the
strength of the gravitational interaction between the Moon and the
Earth and on how that strength is arrived at. Where we disagree is on
the strength of the gravitational interaction within an atomic scale
system. You would say G still applies, whereas I would say G(n-1)
applies.
You can choose whatever vaue of G you like but what
_you_ said was that you didn't have an "Oldershaw
Metric", you were still using the Schwarzchild metric.
That metric defines the gravitational effect at all
distances (greater than the Schwarzchild radius)
resulting from a spherically symmetric mass. If you
want the effect to change with scale then G becomes
a function of radius G(r) and you need a different metric,
you are not using Schwarzchild's any more. I suspect
you will find that it is impossible to do what you want
as a valid solution to GR but that's your problem.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
... For those
who like a bit more empirical motivation, the definitive dark matter
predictions/test will let us know nature's verdict on Discrete Scale
Relativity.
Publish your replacement for the Schwarzchild metric
and then it can be tested.

George
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-13 17:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@physics.ucdavis.edu
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Parenthetically, the revised Schwarschild radius for the proton is
about 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, which is about equal to the charge radius of the
proton and the revised Planck length.
In that case, the model is pretty much dead. High energy experiments
probe the substructure of the proton down to about three orders of
magnitude smaller than that, and there is absolutely no indication of
anything remotely resembling a horizon.
(The 1990 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the first experiments
in this area. For more recent results, look up, for example, experiments
at HERA, which has a resolution on the order of 10^{-16} cm.)
A Schwarzschild black hole is a very crude approximation to the
fundamental particles that dominate each cosmological scale.
Kerr-Newman black holes are a much better approximation, but I would
not be surprised if major refinements to the K-N models are also
required. People like Paul Wesson have spent decades advocating even
more exotic candidates, such as 5-dimensional soliton-like ultracompact
objects that lack a conventional horizon.

The Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) predicts
the approximate size, charge, angular momentum and radii of these
objects. It predicts their mass spectrum quantitatively and uniquely.
I leave it to you astrophysicists to figure out the subtle physics of
these objects, except to emphatically predict that when you come up
with a really good model for these fundamental particles, it will
rigorously and equally apply to the stellar-mass dark matter objects
and protons.

Robert L. Oldershaw
c***@physics.ucdavis.edu
2006-11-14 08:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by c***@physics.ucdavis.edu
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Parenthetically, the revised Schwarschild radius for the proton is
about 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, which is about equal to the charge radius of the
proton and the revised Planck length.
In that case, the model is pretty much dead. High energy experiments
probe the substructure of the proton down to about three orders of
magnitude smaller than that, and there is absolutely no indication of
anything remotely resembling a horizon.
(The 1990 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the first experiments
in this area. For more recent results, look up, for example, experiments
at HERA, which has a resolution on the order of 10^{-16} cm.)
A Schwarzschild black hole is a very crude approximation to the
fundamental particles that dominate each cosmological scale.
Kerr-Newman black holes are a much better approximation,
Nope. The ratio of angular momentum to mass of a proton is not
compatible with a Kerr-Newman solution.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
but I would
not be surprised if major refinements to the K-N models are also
required. People like Paul Wesson have spent decades advocating even
more exotic candidates, such as 5-dimensional soliton-like ultracompact
objects that lack a conventional horizon.
Candidates for *protons*? I doubt it very much -- Wesson knows that
protons are made of quarks.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
The Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) predicts
the approximate size, charge, angular momentum and radii of these
objects. It predicts their mass spectrum quantitatively and uniquely.
OK. What is your prediction for the mass of the Higgs? How about the
lowest mass neutrino? Both of these are not yet known experimentally,
but should be in the next few years.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
I leave it to you astrophysicists to figure out the subtle physics of
these objects,
The internal structure of the proton is quite thoroughly observed. In
particular, we know that it is mostly empty, with much smaller constituents,
and that the interactions among these constituents become weak at high
energies and short distances. If your model cannot reproduce this behavior,
with at least as much quantitative agreement with observation as QCD, then
it's dead.

Steve Carlip
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-13 18:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@briar.demon.co.uk
Publish your replacement for the Schwarzchild metric
and then it can be tested.
Let's have some fun and learn something while we are doing it.

I propose the following gedanken experiment as a way to make the
concept of Discrete Scale Relativity more clearcut and readily
understandable.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that nature is a discrete fractal
hierarchy, and further that the number of cosmological scales is
infinite, and the cosmological scales are exactly self-similar to each
other. Lengths and times on neighboring scales differ by a factor of
5.2 x 10^17 and masses differ by a factor of 1.7 x 10^56. We ask
imaginary observers from the atomic and stellar scales to compare their
"universes".

The two observers are amazed to find that the other's description of
the fundamental properties of their observable universes are virtually
identical to their own, in spite of their separate studies which
appeared to indicate that the other's observable universe *should* look
radically different. They both find their scales dominated by the same
types of objects and the equations that describe these objects are,
except for arbitrary differences in notation and conventions, are also
virtually identical. They both measure their G values as = 6.67 x 10^-8
cgs.

Then the stellar scale observer asks the atomic scale observer to show
him his centimeter. The atomic scale observer holds up his centimeter,
and the stellar scale observer says, "That is NOT a centimeter; that is
1cm/5.2 x 10^17. When the atomic scale observer angrily asks to see
the stellar scale observer's cm, he laughs and says, "You are way off;
that thing is 5.2 x 10^17 cm long.

After much back and forth, the light dawns and they say in unison, "So
there are an infinite number of "centimeters" in nature, one for each
cosmological scale". Each has an equal claim to being "the centimeter".
The same is true for seconds and grams. That is Discrete Scale
Relativity in a nutshell.

Robert L. Oldershaw

"The next great awakening of human intellect may well produce a method
of understanding the qualitative content of equations." Richard Feynman
George Dishman
2006-11-14 08:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by g***@briar.demon.co.uk
Publish your replacement for the Schwarzchild metric
and then it can be tested.
Let's have some fun and learn something while we are doing it.
I propose the following gedanken experiment as a way to make the
concept of Discrete Scale Relativity more clearcut and readily
understandable.
It is perfectly understandable already Rob, the Schwarzschild
metric applies out to infinite distance. If you keep it as
you said, your proposal for the Schwarzschild radius of a
proton requires an increase of gravitational effects of 38
orders of magnitude at _all_ scales. Your theory is disproven
by the fact that I can stand up.

George
g***@briar.demon.co.uk
2006-11-14 09:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Then the stellar scale observer asks the atomic scale observer to show
him his centimeter. The atomic scale observer holds up his centimeter,
and the stellar scale observer says, "That is NOT a centimeter; that is
1cm/5.2 x 10^17. When the atomic scale observer angrily asks to see
the stellar scale observer's cm, he laughs and says, "You are way off;
that thing is 5.2 x 10^17 cm long.
After much back and forth, the light dawns and they say in unison, "So
there are an infinite number of "centimeters" in nature, one for each
cosmological scale". Each has an equal claim to being "the centimeter".
The same is true for seconds and grams. That is Discrete Scale
Relativity in a nutshell.
.... Your theory is disproven
by the fact that I can stand up.
Let me clarify that point, it doesn't matter what units your observers
use, if you say the physical Schwarzschild radius of a proton, then
the surface gravity of the Earth will increase too and it doesn't
matter
whether that is expressed in m/s^2 or furlongs/fortnight^2, a factor of

10^38 increase will reduce me to a monatomic layer.

George
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-14 18:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Dishman
It is perfectly understandable already Rob, the Schwarzschild
metric applies out to infinite distance. If you keep it as
you said, your proposal for the Schwarzschild radius of a
proton requires an increase of gravitational effects of 38
orders of magnitude at _all_ scales. Your theory is disproven
by the fact that I can stand up.
Do you live within an atomic scale system? Do you have a lifespan of
approximately 4 x 10^-9 sec? Probably not. So you are a denizen of the
Stellar Scale. I applaud your ability to stand up, but I still think
your understanding of the Discrete Fractal paradigm (
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) is in need of considerable work. It is
not really that complex, but it does require that one entertain the
possibility that nature might work in a way that in some areas is
radically different from current assumptions.

As you have kindly noted before, the places where the DF paradigm
radically differs from the standard paradigms of cosmology and high
energy physics are precisely those areas where we were forced to
extrapolate well beyond previous observation capabilities. The DF is
not in conflict with most well-tested phenomena.

Robert L. Oldershaw
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-14 19:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@briar.demon.co.uk
.... Your theory is disproven
by the fact that I can stand up.
Let me clarify that point, it doesn't matter what units your observers
use, if you say the physical Schwarzschild radius of a proton, then
the surface gravity of the Earth will increase too and it doesn't
matter
whether that is expressed in m/s^2 or furlongs/fortnight^2, a factor of
10^38 increase will reduce me to a monatomic layer.
Sigh. Consider one hydrogen that is separated as far as possible from
any object or interaction. Inside that atomic scale system G(n-1)
applies. Outside of that system G applies, so long as you remain within
a stellar scale system. That is what the Discrete Fractal paradigm
says. Are you in or out?

Rob
g***@briar.demon.co.uk
2006-11-15 10:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by George Dishman
It is perfectly understandable already Rob, the Schwarzschild
metric applies out to infinite distance. If you keep it as
you said, your proposal for the Schwarzschild radius of a
proton requires an increase of gravitational effects of 38
orders of magnitude at _all_ scales. Your theory is disproven
by the fact that I can stand up.
Do you live within an atomic scale system? Do you have a lifespan of
approximately 4 x 10^-9 sec? Probably not. So you are a denizen of the
Stellar Scale. I applaud your ability to stand up, but I still think
your understanding of the Discrete Fractal paradigm (
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) is in need of considerable work.
I think your grasp of the difference between physical
differences and values expressed in different units
needs some work.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
It is
not really that complex, but it does require that one entertain the
possibility that nature might work in a way that in some areas is
radically different from current assumptions.
So far all you have said is that a denizen of an atomic
scale system would be likely to use different base units
for measurements but that the formula would still be
valid. The consequence your proposed change of the
Schwarzschild radius of a proton would be a 10^38
increase in Earth's surface gravity regardless of what
units you express it in. Sure, an atomic scale denizen
might still call it 9.81 m/s if he was defining different
physical quantities as the metre and the second but
it would still flatten me.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
As you have kindly noted before, the places where the DF paradigm
radically differs from the standard paradigms of cosmology and high
energy physics are precisely those areas where we were forced to
extrapolate well beyond previous observation capabilities. The DF is
not in conflict with most well-tested phenomena.
No, it is in conflict with the fact that I can stand up if
what you say of the proton is true.

George
g***@briar.demon.co.uk
2006-11-15 10:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by g***@briar.demon.co.uk
.... Your theory is disproven
by the fact that I can stand up.
Let me clarify that point, it doesn't matter what units your observers
use, if you say the physical Schwarzschild radius of a proton, then
the surface gravity of the Earth will increase too and it doesn't
matter
whether that is expressed in m/s^2 or furlongs/fortnight^2, a factor of
10^38 increase will reduce me to a monatomic layer.
Sigh. Consider one hydrogen that is separated as far as possible from
any object or interaction. Inside that atomic scale system G(n-1)
applies. Outside of that system G applies, so long as you remain within
a stellar scale system.
Then contrary to what you said, you are discarding
the Schwarzschild metric which determines how the
effects change with scale.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
That is what the Discrete Fractal paradigm
says. Are you in or out?
Since Steve Carlip has pointed out that we can already
measure the proton at scales three orders of magnitude
smalller than your values for its event horizon, your
suggestion is already proven wrong. Count me out of
your ideas.

George
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-16 11:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@briar.demon.co.uk
it would still flatten me.
No, it is in conflict with the fact that I can stand up if
what you say of the proton is true.
Your comments on whether or not you can stand up bring to mind
something relevant.

Long ago, Galileo proposed that the Earth spins on its axis once per
day. Many of the scholars at that time ridiculed this idea and claimed
it was simple to disprove. If the Earth had such a motion, they showed
that any point on the Earth's surface would be moving at something on
the order of 1,000 miles per hour, *and in a circle*. The scholars,
tut-tutting appropriately, argued that no one would be able to stand up
and objects might even be thrown off the Earth. Aristotle and physics
had *completely proved* that Galileo's idea had to be wrong, and was,
in fact, absurdly wrong.

Well, now we know that Galleo was right and the learned scholars were
the ones who were in error. What do we learn from this? Two things: (1)
physics is *always* incomplete, and (2) even common sense applications
of physics can lead to gross errors of judgement. Lord Kelvin, for
example, once claimed that Darwinian Evolution was falsified because
the laws of physics demanded that the Sun had shone for less than one
million years! So it goes. Same as it ever was.

Discrete self-similar spacetimes behave differently than continuous
spacetimes.

Robert L. Oldershaw
Richard Saam
2006-11-27 14:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by g***@briar.demon.co.uk
it would still flatten me.
No, it is in conflict with the fact that I can stand up if
what you say of the proton is true.
Your comments on whether or not you can stand up bring to mind
something relevant.
Long ago, Galileo proposed that the Earth spins on its axis once per
day. Many of the scholars at that time ridiculed this idea and claimed
it was simple to disprove. If the Earth had such a motion, they showed
that any point on the Earth's surface would be moving at something on
the order of 1,000 miles per hour, *and in a circle*. The scholars,
tut-tutting appropriately, argued that no one would be able to stand up
and objects might even be thrown off the Earth. Aristotle and physics
had *completely proved* that Galileo's idea had to be wrong, and was,
in fact, absurdly wrong.
Well, now we know that Galleo was right and the learned scholars were
the ones who were in error. What do we learn from this? Two things: (1)
physics is *always* incomplete, and (2) even common sense applications
of physics can lead to gross errors of judgement. Lord Kelvin, for
example, once claimed that Darwinian Evolution was falsified because
the laws of physics demanded that the Sun had shone for less than one
million years! So it goes. Same as it ever was.
Discrete self-similar spacetimes behave differently than continuous
spacetimes.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Nothing has to be revised

The universal constants remain universal

Do the calculation:

Planck's constant (h) * Hubble Constant (H)=
(3/2) Newton Gravity Constant (G)* mass (m)^2 / proton radius (Rp)

or

h * H = (3/2) * G * m^2 / Rp

energy = energy

where mass (m) is 110 * (the electron mass)
or .06 * (the proton mass).


Richard
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-27 09:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Discrete self-similar spacetimes behave differently than continuous
spacetimes.
For the sake of argument, consider that G(n-1) which equals roughly
10^38 times G(n) does apply to atomic scale systems, as proposed by the
Discrete Fractal paradigm.

Then it would appear that gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic effects
would be roughly 10^38 times stronger for atomic scale systems than was
previously supposed.

This raises an interesting question: How far could one go in explaining
the electromagnetic interactions of atomic scale systems using only
General Relativity when it includes the discrete dilation invariance
proposed by the DF paradigm?

Shocking!

Robert L. Oldershaw
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
2006-11-29 08:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Discrete self-similar spacetimes behave differently than continuous
spacetimes.
For the sake of argument, consider that G(n-1) which equals roughly
10^38 times G(n) does apply to atomic scale systems, as proposed by the
Discrete Fractal paradigm.
Then it would appear that gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic effects
would be roughly 10^38 times stronger for atomic scale systems than was
previously supposed.
This raises an interesting question: How far could one go in explaining
the electromagnetic interactions of atomic scale systems using only
General Relativity when it includes the discrete dilation invariance
proposed by the DF paradigm?
Shocking!
Indeed. You are essentially assuming that that which you wish to prove
is true.
c***@physics.ucdavis.edu
2006-11-29 08:18:13 UTC
Permalink
***@amherst.edu <***@amherst.edu> wrote:

[...]
Post by r***@amherst.edu
For the sake of argument, consider that G(n-1) which equals roughly
10^38 times G(n) does apply to atomic scale systems, as proposed by the
Discrete Fractal paradigm.
Then it would appear that gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic effects
would be roughly 10^38 times stronger for atomic scale systems than was
previously supposed.
This raises an interesting question: How far could one go in explaining
the electromagnetic interactions of atomic scale systems using only
General Relativity when it includes the discrete dilation invariance
proposed by the DF paradigm?
One could not go anywhere, I'm afraid. For example:

1. Gravity in general relativity is purely attractive. Electromagnetic
interactions are observably both attractive and repulsive.
2. Gravity in general relativity is a spin 2 interaction. This leads
to very specific properties in, for example, the angular dependence
of scattering. Electromagnetic interactions at the atomic scale
are observably spin 1 interactions.
3. Gravity in general relativity couples to mass quadrupole moments and
higher, and has no dipole coupling. Electromagnetic interactions at
the atomic scale observably couple to dipole moments.
4. Gravity in general relativity produces gravitational waves, which,
among other things, have distinct polarizations that differ by 45
degree (not 90 degree) rotations; couple to all forms of energy,
including electrically neutral matter; and are radiated in a distinctive
quadrupole pattern. Electromagnetic interactions at the atomic scale
produce photons, which observably have none of these characteristics.
5. Gravity in general relativity couples to binding energy. Electromagnetic
interactions at the atomic scale observably couple only to electric charge
and current.

Gravitational and electromagnetic interactions are *extremely* different;
electromagnetism is very, very different from "strong gravity."

Steve Carlip
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-29 17:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Discrete self-similar spacetimes behave differently than continuous
spacetimes.
For the sake of argument, consider that G(n-1) which equals roughly
10^38 times G(n) does apply to atomic scale systems, as proposed by the
Discrete Fractal paradigm.
Then it would appear that gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic effects
would be roughly 10^38 times stronger for atomic scale systems than was
previously supposed.
This raises an interesting question: How far could one go in explaining
the electromagnetic interactions of atomic scale systems using only
General Relativity when it includes the discrete dilation invariance
proposed by the DF paradigm?
Shocking!
Indeed. You are essentially assuming that that which you wish to prove
is true.
Let's be clear, objective and scientific. I am *not* trying to "prove"
anything. I just pointed out that if what has been called "strong
gravity" applies in the atomic scale context, then one would expect
prodigious gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic phenomena in that
context. It is just an if/then observation, which should delight and
stimulate a scientific mind. There is no danger in considering this
hypothesis and you can try it at home.

Robert L. Oldershaw
r***@amherst.edu
2006-11-30 10:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@physics.ucdavis.edu
1. Gravity in general relativity is purely attractive. Electromagnetic
interactions are observably both attractive and repulsive.
2. Gravity in general relativity is a spin 2 interaction. This leads
to very specific properties in, for example, the angular dependence
of scattering. Electromagnetic interactions at the atomic scale
are observably spin 1 interactions.
3. Gravity in general relativity couples to mass quadrupole moments and
higher, and has no dipole coupling. Electromagnetic interactions at
the atomic scale observably couple to dipole moments.
4. Gravity in general relativity produces gravitational waves, which,
among other things, have distinct polarizations that differ by 45
degree (not 90 degree) rotations; couple to all forms of energy,
including electrically neutral matter; and are radiated in a distinctive
quadrupole pattern. Electromagnetic interactions at the atomic scale
produce photons, which observably have none of these characteristics.
5. Gravity in general relativity couples to binding energy. Electromagnetic
interactions at the atomic scale observably couple only to electric charge
and current.
Gravitational and electromagnetic interactions are *extremely* different;
electromagnetism is very, very different from "strong gravity."
What a refreshing pleasure to read a succinct, well-reasoned,
informative scientific argument.

I admit having vacillated between periods when I was impressed with
similarities between GR and EM, and periods when I have been impressed
with what appear to be very fundamental differences between GR and EM.

Your list of differences makes a very good case for inherent
differences. Still, I maintain an openness toward a deep, and as yet
undiscovered, connection between GR and EM for the following reasons
(my list).

1. In the 1920s Kaluza and Klein showed how you could take GR, recast
it in a 5-d form, and pull *both* rabbits (GR and EM) out of the same
hat. Although their efforts were not entirely successful, what was
achieved was impressive enough to make Einstein return 4 separate times
to serious attempts at a 5-d unified theory. Is it possible that the
differences between GR and EM are more "superficial" than we realize,
and that some unified field theory might one day reveal an intimate
relationship between them? Or is the situation like Pauli's quip: 'What
God has cast apart, let no man try to put together'? I can accept
either answer - as long as it is reasonably definitive and comes
directly from *nature*.

2. Both EM and GR are 1/r^2 interactions. GR has gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic phenomena that are remarkably analogous to EM
phenomena. There are also the previously discussed intriguing analogies
between hadrons and black holes.

3. When I first learned that G(n-1)/G(n) ~ 10^38, I found it
fascinating that this is also approximately the ratio of the strengths
of the EM/GR interactions (~ 10^38). If that is a coincidence, then
nature has been both subtle *and* malicious.

4. I confess to scientifically unsupported, intuitive doubts about the
spin-2 issue, but I am willing to be persuaded by *empirical* evidence.

Bottom line: I agree with you that GR and EM give many indications of
being fundamentally different interactions, and that accurate models of
nature currently require both. However, I maintain that GR and EM are
of equal strength and play equally important roles within atoms.

Robert L. Oldershaw
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
2006-12-02 22:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
2. Both EM and GR are 1/r^2 interactions.
Isn't this just geometry together with massless exchange particles?
Post by r***@amherst.edu
GR has gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic phenomena that are remarkably analogous to EM
phenomena.
Isn't this just a consequence of special relativity?
r***@amherst.edu
2006-12-03 10:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Post by r***@amherst.edu
2. Both EM and GR are 1/r^2 interactions.
Isn't this just geometry together with massless exchange particles?
Post by r***@amherst.edu
GR has gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic phenomena that are remarkably analogous to EM
phenomena.
Isn't this just a consequence of special relativity?
Regardless of their origins, these known characteristics of GR and EM
are similar. Whether these particular similarities are important clues
to a possible unification or just secondary curiosities remains to be
seen.

But here is something potentially exciting that I have come across that
is directly related to the G(n-1), or "strong gravity"/revised Planck
scale topic.

A team led by Martin Tajmar has reported detecting HUGE gravitomagnetic
effects produced by rotating superconducting rings. The strength of
these effects is measured to be 10^17 times what would be expected
using G. They have repeated their experiments on the order of 250 times
and conducted a battery of control experiments. Other groups are in the
process of repeating their results.

You can find documentation of their work at www.arxiv.org by searching
on "Tajmar". There about 4 papers from the past year. Also see Physica
C, 432, p. 167, 2006.

Maybe this is "cold fusion" all over again, but what I have seen makes
me think that they have detected something that is real and that is not
explained by anything conventional.

One might say: "Well 10^17 is still not 10^38", but I would reply that
10^17 is a LOT different than 1, and the unique physical system they
are studying (superconductors) may involve equally unique phenomena of
the largely unexplored G/G(n-1) interface.
Oh No
2006-12-03 10:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Thus spake Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <***@astro.multiC
LOTHESvax.de>
Post by Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Post by r***@amherst.edu
2. Both EM and GR are 1/r^2 interactions.
Isn't this just geometry together with massless exchange particles?
I should have said the latter is geometry and the former massless
exchange particles. There is no model of the graviton, though lots of
people seem to think there should be. Actually this always strikes me as
odd. Why should space be flat in the first instance, why should we want
to describe gravity using an exchange particle on a flat background? It
strikes me as more reasonable to recognise that no measurement of space
exists except as a comparison between matter and matter, and then think
very carefully about what is involved in measurement, before one starts
talking about geometry.
Post by Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Post by r***@amherst.edu
GR has gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic phenomena that are remarkably analogous to EM
phenomena.
Isn't this just a consequence of special relativity?
Indeed.


Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
Oh No
2006-12-03 22:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Post by r***@amherst.edu
2. Both EM and GR are 1/r^2 interactions.
Isn't this just geometry together with massless exchange particles?
Post by r***@amherst.edu
GR has gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic phenomena that are remarkably analogous to EM
phenomena.
Isn't this just a consequence of special relativity?
Regardless of their origins, these known characteristics of GR and EM
are similar. Whether these particular similarities are important clues
to a possible unification or just secondary curiosities remains to be
seen.
No, you completely miss the point. We already know the cause of this
particular similarity, and it is not important in giving us any clues to
a unification.



Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
r***@amherst.edu
2006-12-05 13:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
No, you completely miss the point. We already know the cause of this
particular similarity, and it is not important in giving us any clues to
a unification.
Point taken.

What do you make of the Tajmar experiments? Cold fusion redux? A
breakthrough discovery? Something in between? If other teams verify
their results, it's back to the drawing boards in cosmology and
particle physics, methinks.

Rob
Oh No
2006-12-05 13:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by Oh No
No, you completely miss the point. We already know the cause of this
particular similarity, and it is not important in giving us any clues to
a unification.
Point taken.
What do you make of the Tajmar experiments? Cold fusion redux? A
breakthrough discovery? Something in between? If other teams verify
their results, it's back to the drawing boards in cosmology and
particle physics, methinks.
Really difficult to say. If it is not experimental mistake and the
results are verified, then the one has to recognise that superconduction
is a quantum mechanical effect and is not fully understood. The
implication then is that it is something which will be very difficult to
analyse in a theory of quantum gravity which we do not yet have.



Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
Kent Paul Dolan
2006-12-13 09:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
Really difficult to say. If it is not experimental
mistake and the results are verified, then the one
has to recognise that superconduction is a quantum
mechanical effect and is not fully understood. The
implication then is that it is something which
will be very difficult to analyse in a theory of
quantum gravity which we do not yet have.
It's important to realize that this experiment
didn't spring out of the woodwork unprovoked. They
did some fairly obvious (in hindsight, of course)
twiddling with Maxwell's equations, found something
predicted that wasn't known, set up the needed
experiment, and found exactly what their math said
they should see.

No "changed plank scale" or any other voodoo.

What I found fun in reviewing their work, is that to
do some of the most precise measurements imaginable,
required lots of big bags full of sand draped all
over everything. I'll admit also to being way
disappointed at the available sensitivity of their
accelerometers; there were possible effects they
wanted to measure that still drowned in the
experimental noise.

What I wish I could understand, but don't, is the
direction of the force they measured. Their diagrams
had arrows for everything but that, and the wording
was splendidly ambiguous. I'd _like_ it to be a
frame dragging force that was axial to the spinning,
a new "exhaustless Dean drive", but I'm almost
convinced that's not what it was.

FWIW

xanthian.
Richard Saam
2006-12-13 17:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by Oh No
Really difficult to say. If it is not experimental
mistake and the results are verified, then the one
has to recognise that superconduction is a quantum
mechanical effect and is not fully understood. The
implication then is that it is something which
will be very difficult to analyse in a theory of
quantum gravity which we do not yet have.
It's important to realize that this experiment
didn't spring out of the woodwork unprovoked. They
did some fairly obvious (in hindsight, of course)
twiddling with Maxwell's equations, found something
predicted that wasn't known, set up the needed
experiment, and found exactly what their math said
they should see.
No "changed plank scale" or any other voodoo.
What I found fun in reviewing their work, is that to
do some of the most precise measurements imaginable,
required lots of big bags full of sand draped all
over everything. I'll admit also to being way
disappointed at the available sensitivity of their
accelerometers; there were possible effects they
wanted to measure that still drowned in the
experimental noise.
What I wish I could understand, but don't, is the
direction of the force they measured. Their diagrams
had arrows for everything but that, and the wording
was splendidly ambiguous. I'd _like_ it to be a
frame dragging force that was axial to the spinning,
a new "exhaustless Dean drive", but I'm almost
convinced that's not what it was.
FWIW
xanthian.
Tajmar's group likes to distance itself
from the original Podkletnov experiments,
but furthering your 'simplicity is best' comments
I thing the effect may be similar
and due to engineering an apparatus
to create a significant fraction of the material
as superconducting supercurrent.

This significant fraction moves at orbital velocity of earth
sqrt(g*R) which results in observed gravity effects.

Values of 'significant fraction' as measured as
superconducting supercurrents are large (~100 amps/cm^2),
but theoretically, these supercurrents
can be on the order of 1E9 amp/cm^2.

Perhaps, Podkletnov and Tajmar have been able to do this
by some means, perhaps not even known to them.

Richard
r***@amherst.edu
2006-12-31 18:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
No "changed plank scale" or any other voodoo.
J. E. McClintock, et al, in vol. 652 of the Astrophysical Journal,
pages 518-539, 2006, dervive the following relationship for a
Kerr-Newman black hole.

J = aGM^2/c

where J is the angular momentum, a is dimensionless spin, G is the
Newtonian gravitational "constant", M is the mass and c is c.

So here is a little consistency check on the Revised Planck Scale
hypothesis, which is the theme of this thread. Take the proton as a
test case, with J = h(bar), a = 1/2, and, most importantly, with G(n-1)
= 2.18 x 10^31 cgs instead of G. Solve for m(proton) to see if G(n-1)
gives a reasonable result.

When you do the math, you get m(proton) = 1.70 x 10^-24 g.

Unless I have made one of my classic math errors, that agrees with the
empirically measured value of m(proton) at the 98.3% level.

Not bad for "voodoo".

Robert L. Oldershaw
c***@physics.ucdavis.edu
2007-01-10 08:48:55 UTC
Permalink
***@amherst.edu <***@amherst.edu> wrote:

[...]
Post by r***@amherst.edu
J. E. McClintock, et al, in vol. 652 of the Astrophysical Journal,
pages 518-539, 2006, dervive the following relationship for a
Kerr-Newman black hole.
J = aGM^2/c
where J is the angular momentum, a is dimensionless spin, G is the
Newtonian gravitational "constant", M is the mass and c is c.
No, they don't "derive" this. They *define* a quantity a_* (not a,
incidentally, which is something else) by the equation you cite, and
call it the "dimensionless spin parameter" -- by which they merely
mean "a dimensionless parameter proportional to angular momentum."

Note that a_* is very clearly not the same as the "spin" in quantum
mechanics. In particular, the angular momentum of a particle is
(observably!) equal to a universal constant, hbar, times its spin,
while the angular momentum of a Kerr-Newman black hole is a highly
*nonuniversal* number (depending on the mass) times a_*.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
So here is a little consistency check on the Revised Planck Scale
hypothesis, which is the theme of this thread. Take the proton as a
test case, with J = h(bar), a = 1/2, and, most importantly, with G(n-1)
= 2.18 x 10^31 cgs instead of G. Solve for m(proton) to see if G(n-1)
gives a reasonable result.
When you do the math, you get m(proton) = 1.70 x 10^-24 g.
To start with, this is an "argument from linguistics" -- you are arguing
that since the same word is used in two different contexts, there should
be a physical relationship. There is no reason for this to be the case.

More important, a Kerr-Newman black hole has a well-understood set of
properties, of which angular momentum (or "dimensionless spin parameter")
is only one. In particular, the *defining* characteristic of a black hole
is an event horizon. Protons, observably, do *not* have event horizons:
we can probe their internal structure, and their response is nothing even
remotely like that of a black hole. (The 1990 Nobel Prize in physics was
awarded for the first such experiments.)

So if you want to argue that a proton is a black hole, but with a higher
value of Newton's constant, this is observationally testable, and very
clearly fails the tests. If you are instead merely making a rough analogy,
I see no reason that you should use an equation for angular momentum that
was defined very specifically for black holes: if a proton isn't really a
black hole, why should that relation, and not any of the other properties
of a black hole, continue to hold?

Steve Carlip
Kent Paul Dolan
2007-01-01 11:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Unless I have made one of my classic math errors, that agrees with the
empirically measured value of m(proton) at the 98.3% level.
Not bad for "voodoo".
Funny thing about numerical constants, as anyone who's studied
Genetic Programming would know: you can mix and match them
to produce pretty much any result you want, to any level of
accuracy you care to achieve.

Considering that the numerical prediction capability of the existing
science of particles is accurate to well over a dozen decimal places,
your one and a fraction digit of precision calculation by blind
stirring
of numerical constants impresses only you; to me it looks like
monkey factor numerology and nothing else.

xanthian.
r***@amherst.edu
2007-01-01 20:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
monkey factor numerology and nothing else.
Wow! First I am accused of "voodoo" and now it is "monkey factor
numerology"!

Here is a simple way to decide whether what I am doing is "numerology"
or bears a direct relationship to the underlying patterns and
principles upon which nature is based.

Go to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and check out two things:

1. In the "Main Ideas" section see the basic self-similar scaling
equations that are fundamental to the Discrete Fractal Paradigm.
[Details of their derivation are found in Paper #2 of the "Selected
Papers" section (most papers have been published)].

2. Once you know what the discrete self-similar scaling equations are
(always better to proceed from a position of knowledge and
understanding), see the section: "Successful
Predictions/Retrodictions". There you will find a list of about 33
fundamental properties of nature that have been predicted or
retrodicted by these simple scaling equations.

3. Once you complete steps 1 and 2, ask yourself how such a simple set
of scaling rules can possibly relate so many different and fundamental
things. Note that the overwhelming majority of the results were found
*after* the scaling equations were published. Note also that the
scaling equations have *never been changed* to achieve "concordance".

4. If you still have doubts, try devising an alternative set of scaling
rules that is anything but, in Maxwell's words, "an unnatural and
self-contradictory mass of rubbish".

Oh, and I almost forgot the most important thing. If you approach any
new and slightly radical idea with a closed mind, it will look wrong,
regardless of its true value.

Robert L. Oldershaw
r***@amherst.edu
2007-01-15 08:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@physics.ucdavis.edu
So if you want to argue that a proton is a black hole, but with a higher
value of Newton's constant, this is observationally testable, and very
clearly fails the tests. If you are instead merely making a rough analogy,
I see no reason that you should use an equation for angular momentum that
was defined very specifically for black holes: if a proton isn't really a
black hole, why should that relation, and not any of the other properties
of a black hole, continue to hold?
Your arguments are convincing if the assumptions upon which they are
based are unquestionably correct. These assumptions are:

(1) the *theoretical* interpretation of particle scattering experiments
is virtually infallible,
(2) the Nobel prize committee does not make mistakes,
(3) that we have a complete and error-free knowledge of K-N black
holes,
etc.

But consider the following.

A. Standard particle physics gets the vacuum energy density *wrong* by
120 orders of magnitude!!

B. I believe that when the Planck length (and the Planck Scale, in
general) is recalculated without theoretical bias, but rather on an
*empirical* basis, it will be found that the standard particle physics
estimate is off by 20 orders of magnitude! See astro-ph/0701006 and
physics/0701132 at www.arxiv.org for discussions related to this issue.

Given these theoretical shortcomings, why should we have so much
confidence in the contention that standard particle physics can
accurately describe the proton on scales of less than 2 x 10^-13 cm?

Also, when will you comment on the 5 fundamental physical analogies
between hadrons and Kerr-Newman black holes that were emphasized in
post #2 of this thread (11/6/06)? In your opinion, do these analogies
have no scientific value? Are they just 5 coincidences?

Would we be better off ignoring them, or treating them as "anecdotal"?

RLO
Oh No
2007-01-15 11:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by c***@physics.ucdavis.edu
So if you want to argue that a proton is a black hole, but with a higher
value of Newton's constant, this is observationally testable, and very
clearly fails the tests. If you are instead merely making a rough analogy,
I see no reason that you should use an equation for angular momentum that
was defined very specifically for black holes: if a proton isn't really a
black hole, why should that relation, and not any of the other properties
of a black hole, continue to hold?
Your arguments are convincing if the assumptions upon which they are
(1) the *theoretical* interpretation of particle scattering experiments
is virtually infallible,
Well it is pretty damned good. Theories which do away with quarks, for
example, are a definite non-starter.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
(2) the Nobel prize committee does not make mistakes,
It is not down to just the Nobel prize committee to examine the
evidence. This has been done by literally thousands of physicists. You
cannot ignore the evidence for quarks unless you have no concern as to
whether your theory is empirically valid. In that case it is not physics
at all.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
(3) that we have a complete and error-free knowledge of K-N black
holes,
Kerr-Newmann black holes are a theoretical idea, not an empirical fact.
As such we know exactly and precisely what they are. They are that which
is described in the mathematical theory of general relativity. We also
know that we have not quantum description of such a thing. That would
be needed to discuss a proton. Asserting that protons are K-N black
holes is like asserting that "green ideas sleep furiously" (Chomsky).
The words simply do not go together.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
But consider the following.
A. Standard particle physics gets the vacuum energy density *wrong* by
120 orders of magnitude!!
This is sometimes said, but it isn't actually true. One might claim that
it gets the vacuum energy density infinite, so that it is wrong by an
infinite order of magnitude. As I understand, the idea that it is at
least 120 orders of magnitude comes from making an error correction to
this infinity. But this entire argument does not hold up if the vacuum
energy density is analysed a bit more thoroughly. The ultraviolet
divergence has its root in the misuse of Wick's theorem, as shown in
Scharf, Finite Quantum Electrodynamics. It is a problem in the maths,
not in the physics. The only way to treat the vacuum energy density is
to exclude it altogether. What the argument really shows is that vacuum
energy density is not responsible for the cosmological constant. The
cosmological constant remains unexplained, but that is a different issue
altogether.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
B. I believe that when the Planck length (and the Planck Scale, in
general) is recalculated without theoretical bias, but rather on an
*empirical* basis, it will be found that the standard particle physics
estimate is off by 20 orders of magnitude! See astro-ph/0701006 and
physics/0701132 at www.arxiv.org for discussions related to this issue.
Given these theoretical shortcomings,
The only shortcoming appears to be a speculative disagreement prefaced
by personal belief. Where is the science?
Post by r***@amherst.edu
why should we have so much
confidence in the contention that standard particle physics can
accurately describe the proton on scales of less than 2 x 10^-13 cm?
Because empirically it does.


Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
r***@amherst.edu
2007-01-15 19:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
Well it is pretty damned good. Theories which do away with quarks, for
example, are a definite non-starter.
Kerr-Newmann black holes are a theoretical idea, not an empirical fact.
As such we know exactly and precisely what they are. They are that which
is described in the mathematical theory of general relativity. We also
know that we have not quantum description of such a thing. That would
be needed to discuss a proton. Asserting that protons are K-N black
holes is like asserting that "green ideas sleep furiously" (Chomsky).
The words simply do not go together.
I have three quick comments, for now.

1. Not that long ago, the majority of theoretical physicists believed
that Newtonian gravitation was "proven" and that any other theory of
gravitation that deviated from the Newtonian paradigm and Euclidean
geometry would be a "non-starter". Planck told Einstein, when he heard
of AE's basic plan for a new theory of gravitation, 'you are almost
certainly wrong and even if you are right, nobody will believe you'.
Note that Planck said that AE was *almost* certainly wrong. Today's
seers feel that they can forget the "almost" and speak as if they are
in possession of absolute knowledge.

2. My research suggests that we still only have a rudimentary
understanding of matter in ultracompact states. At this neophyte stage,
we might want to be more careful about what we claim to know and not
know about black holes, naked singularities, QFT, 5-d black solitons,
etc.

3. I note that you, also, fail to mention anything about the 5
analogies that I keep referring to (see post #2 in this thread,
11/06/06). Do these empirical, as in well-observed, phenomena have any
educational value? Do you ignore them because they are incorrect? Or do
you ignore them because they support my argument?

RLO
Oh No
2007-01-16 09:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by Oh No
Well it is pretty damned good. Theories which do away with quarks, for
example, are a definite non-starter.
Kerr-Newmann black holes are a theoretical idea, not an empirical fact.
As such we know exactly and precisely what they are. They are that which
is described in the mathematical theory of general relativity. We also
know that we have not quantum description of such a thing. That would
be needed to discuss a proton. Asserting that protons are K-N black
holes is like asserting that "green ideas sleep furiously" (Chomsky).
The words simply do not go together.
I have three quick comments, for now.
1. Not that long ago, the majority of theoretical physicists believed
that Newtonian gravitation was "proven" and that any other theory of
gravitation that deviated from the Newtonian paradigm and Euclidean
geometry would be a "non-starter". Planck told Einstein, when he heard
of AE's basic plan for a new theory of gravitation, 'you are almost
certainly wrong and even if you are right, nobody will believe you'.
Note that Planck said that AE was *almost* certainly wrong. Today's
seers feel that they can forget the "almost" and speak as if they are
in possession of absolute knowledge.
Yes, but note that Einstein's theory of general relativity does not
disprove Newtonian gravity. It does enable us to describe the domain of
applicability of Newtonian gravity, which could not be done before.
Within that domain of applicability, General relativity can actually be
used to prove Newtonian gravity, which works just as well within its
domain of applicability as it ever did before.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
2. My research suggests that we still only have a rudimentary
understanding of matter in ultracompact states.
I am not personally convinced that qcd is the correct model of quark
confinement. But one has to accept the empirical evidence for the
existence of quarks as constituents of the proton. One cannot simply
overlook more than forty years of experimental results and mathematical
analysis and say "we don't know about that". Someone may as well say he
doesn't believe in the existence of the electron, simply because he
doesn't understand the theory of the electron and can't see an electron.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
At this neophyte stage,
we might want to be more careful about what we claim to know and not
know about black holes, naked singularities, QFT, 5-d black solitons,
etc.
I think you missed the point of what I was saying with regard to black
holes, and Kerr-Newmann black holes in particular. This is a
mathematical solution of an equation. It is not a physical thing. We
know that we cannot apply the equation to a proton. It is inconsistent,
and therefore wrong. Physics cannot be self contradictory. Whatever the
proton is, it is not a Kerr-Newman black hole. You may as well use your
argument to say that, just because we have never had 1=2 in the past, it
does not imply we won't have 1=2 in the future. If Einstein had told
Plank that general relativity was going to say 1=2, Planck would not
have said "almost certainly wrong", and nor would Planck have been an
idiot for not keeping open the possibility that it might be right.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
3. I note that you, also, fail to mention anything about the 5
analogies that I keep referring to (see post #2 in this thread,
11/06/06). Do these empirical, as in well-observed, phenomena have any
educational value? Do you ignore them because they are incorrect? Or do
you ignore them because they support my argument?
To be honest, I ignore them because they are in a long forgotten post
which I am not going to go to the trouble of finding.



Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
r***@amherst.edu
2007-01-17 17:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
Yes, but note that Einstein's theory of general relativity does not
disprove Newtonian gravity. It does enable us to describe the domain of
applicability of Newtonian gravity, which could not be done before.
Within that domain of applicability, General relativity can actually be
used to prove Newtonian gravity, which works just as well within its
domain of applicability as it ever did before.
I would like to respond to each of the major themes of your most recent
post, but I would like to take one thing at a time. First and foremost
is your comment above on the status of Newtonian gravitation.

In my view, Einstein's General Relativity relegated the instantaneous,
action-at-a-distance, "force" model characterizing Newtonian
gravitation to the dustbin of scientific history.

Sure, you can still use Newtonian gravitation to simplify calculations
in non-relativistic regimes. But Newtonian gravitation is an
*incorrect* theory of the gravitational interaction. I am at a loss for
how to understand your comments. We don't say the Ptolemaic model of
the Solar System is still valid within its "domain of applicability",
do we?

I am hoping you will clarify your above remarks because understanding
the proper relationship between GR and NG is fundamental.

RLO
r***@amherst.edu
2007-01-17 18:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
I am not personally convinced that qcd is the correct model of quark
confinement. But one has to accept the empirical evidence for the
existence of quarks as constituents of the proton. One cannot simply
overlook more than forty years of experimental results and mathematical
analysis and say "we don't know about that".
Just for the sake of clarity, would you please tell us the specific
observational evidence that convinces you, personally, that the 3-quark
hypothesis is an accurate model of the proton interior?

Pickering's book Constructing Quarks offers an interesting and
alternative view on whether the quark hypothesis corresponds to actual
physical objects in nature, or whether the quark hypothesis is
essentially an artificial, Platonic model that fits some very ambiguous
data, but bears little relation to how nature actually works, sort of
like Newtonian gravitation.

Let us remember the wisdom of Anatole France : 40 million people can
believe in a false thing, but that does not convert it into a true
thing.
Post by Oh No
I think you missed the point of what I was saying with regard to black
holes, and Kerr-Newmann black holes in particular. This is a
mathematical solution of an equation. It is not a physical thing. We
know that we cannot apply the equation to a proton. It is inconsistent,
and therefore wrong. Physics cannot be self contradictory. Whatever the
Hmmm. It seems to me here that you are contradicting the arguments you
applied above to Newtonian models. Now you say approximations should
not be considered as valid stepping stones toward a better
understanding.

My fundamental interest is in actual physical systems, and how nature
actually works. I think that we can even understand how the atom
actually works, if we are good enough scientists.

RLO
Oh No
2007-01-18 08:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by Oh No
Yes, but note that Einstein's theory of general relativity does not
disprove Newtonian gravity. It does enable us to describe the domain of
applicability of Newtonian gravity, which could not be done before.
Within that domain of applicability, General relativity can actually be
used to prove Newtonian gravity, which works just as well within its
domain of applicability as it ever did before.
I would like to respond to each of the major themes of your most recent
post, but I would like to take one thing at a time. First and foremost
is your comment above on the status of Newtonian gravitation.
In my view, Einstein's General Relativity relegated the instantaneous,
action-at-a-distance, "force" model characterizing Newtonian
gravitation to the dustbin of scientific history.
Sure, you can still use Newtonian gravitation to simplify calculations
in non-relativistic regimes. But Newtonian gravitation is an
*incorrect* theory of the gravitational interaction. I am at a loss for
how to understand your comments.
I am hoping you will clarify your above remarks because understanding
the proper relationship between GR and NG is fundamental.
I think you have to separate the science from the non-science in
Newtonian dynamics. A theory is only scientific in so far as it is
empirically true. To call Newtonian Dynamics, or indeed any empirical
theory, scientific you have to add a rider, "to the limits of current
experimental accuracy". That was as true when Newton proposed it as it
is today, and indeed Newton did include just such a discussion in the
scholium of the principia. The important parts of the theory, the
scientific parts, were the three laws, the law of gravitation, and the
*mathematical* concepts of absolute space and time. All of those things
are to the limits of experimental accuracy available at that time, and
they are still true within the now more accurately definable domain of
applicability of Newtonian dynamics.

You are picking on less important things, metaphysical aspects which
were not testable. Strictly these things were never a part of the
scientific theory. Newton himself criticised instantaneous action at a
distance as preposterous. To start saying Newtonian dynamics is wrong
because some people have had misconceptions both about Newtonian
dynamics and about the nature of science is quite unjust. The inverse
square law still works and it is still used when appropriate. Newton
claimed no more. He did not present it as a fundamental property of
nature.

What Einstein did in general relativity was to provide a deeper and more
accurate understanding of some of the metaphysical ideas on which
Newtonian dynamics depends. Absolute space is no longer absolute.
Nonetheless, its mathematical properties (the only scientific part of
it) are still found in approximation in local regions of the manifold
used in general relativity. True in approximation is a very different
thing from wrong.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
We don't say the Ptolemaic model of
the Solar System is still valid within its "domain of applicability",
do we?
Funnily enough, it is perfectly possible to construct an ellipse from an
infinite sequence of wheels within wheels. This is a generalisation of
the theory of Fourier transforms, so if we so desire, and wish to be
amusing, we are quite entitled to say exactly that.


Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
Oh No
2007-01-18 08:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by Oh No
I am not personally convinced that qcd is the correct model of quark
confinement. But one has to accept the empirical evidence for the
existence of quarks as constituents of the proton. One cannot simply
overlook more than forty years of experimental results and mathematical
analysis and say "we don't know about that".
Just for the sake of clarity, would you please tell us the specific
observational evidence that convinces you, personally, that the 3-quark
hypothesis is an accurate model of the proton interior?
Cross sections from scattering experiments demonstrate conclusively a
substructure, but it is not just the proton, but the entire range of
particles found, and in many cases predicted with accurate masses before
they were found, in accelerator experiments. Not only that but accurate
rates of decay, and transitions between particles can be predicted.
While we cannot necessarily model the forces binding quarks accurately
in a strict mathematical theory, we can go a long way. The quark
structure itself is extremely well understood and empirically well
established.

A good book at a popular level which has just been released in a new
expanded edition, is the cosmic onion, by Frank Close. I might also
recommend Coughlan and Dodd, the ideas of particle physics. This has
been a standard undergraduate level text book for something like forty
years.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Pickering's book Constructing Quarks offers an interesting and
alternative view on whether the quark hypothesis corresponds to actual
physical objects in nature, or whether the quark hypothesis is
essentially an artificial, Platonic model that fits some very ambiguous
data, but bears little relation to how nature actually works, sort of
like Newtonian gravitation.
If you have been reading books which tell you such things, then you
should assume that the source of ambiguity is the author's confusion,
not the scientists. Pickering is a sociologist, and his book is called a
sociological history. Treat it for what it is, and I believe it is a
good book. But don't accept scientific and philosophical judgements from
someone who is not qualified to make them.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Let us remember the wisdom of Anatole France : 40 million people can
believe in a false thing, but that does not convert it into a true
thing.
I don't feel I need to be reminded of elementary truisms which already
govern my scientific research, thank you.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by Oh No
I think you missed the point of what I was saying with regard to black
holes, and Kerr-Newmann black holes in particular. This is a
mathematical solution of an equation. It is not a physical thing. We
know that we cannot apply the equation to a proton. It is inconsistent,
and therefore wrong. Physics cannot be self contradictory. Whatever the
Hmmm. It seems to me here that you are contradicting the arguments you
applied above to Newtonian models. Now you say approximations should
not be considered as valid stepping stones toward a better
understanding.
Not at all. If you were saying that quarks should be considered as black
holes, or preferably taking something easier, and saying electrons
should be considered as black holes, then I would say something
different. I would point out that there is a very real conflict between
the idea of a black hole and the idea of an interacting point-like
elementary particle. If time stops on the event horizon, how can the
particle interact? Nonetheless this conflict must exist within our
current physical theories at least in so far as we can mathematically
discuss eigenstates of position. In fact I do expect certain properties
of black holes for elementary particles, but I also expect that our
basic ideas will have to change quite considerably before we can have a
meaningful discussion. I believe that thinking about such things and
discussing them is the best way to have the insights which we need to
make progress. We have to sort out what can be regarded as valid
approximation, and what makes no sense at all. But you were not
discussing approximations, and trying to sift what in among it may be
true and what may be false. You were making a blanket wholesale
statement and expecting us to take it as a possible truth, even though
we know that it is not.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
My fundamental interest is in actual physical systems, and how nature
actually works. I think that we can even understand how the atom
actually works, if we are good enough scientists.
We can model a hydrogen atom precisely. Beyond that we are limited to
computer solutions, but we do have a very good understanding of atoms.
We have a very good understanding at a subatomic scale also, of
electrons especially, and not bad of protons and neutrons. Beyond
quarks, I think everything is less clear cut. Gluons are accepted, but
in my view, before we start building qcd, we really ought to sort out
the remaining problems in qed, and the interpretational issues which
have plagued quantum theory since its inception.



Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
r***@amherst.edu
2007-01-18 09:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
Post by r***@amherst.edu
3. I note that you, also, fail to mention anything about the 5
analogies that I keep referring to (see post #2 in this thread,
11/06/06). Do these empirical, as in well-observed, phenomena have any
educational value? Do you ignore them because they are incorrect? Or do
you ignore them because they support my argument?
To be honest, I ignore them because they are in a long forgotten post
which I am not going to go to the trouble of finding.
The material I was referring to (5 very interesting analogies between
hadrons and K-N black holes) can be accessed in about 10 seconds and
read in about 30 seconds. Of course one would want to think about these
empirical facts for a bit longer, but as scientists, we like to think
about things like this.

Since this material would seem to have a definite bearing on the issue
of whether or not a general analogy between hadrons and Kerr-Newman
black holes might be useful (even if only an approximation), I am
surprised that both you and Steve Carlip ignore these potential
empirical clues.

RLO
r***@amherst.edu
2007-01-19 09:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
not the scientists. Pickering is a sociologist, and his book is called a
sociological history. Treat it for what it is, and I believe it is a
good book. But don't accept scientific and philosophical judgements from
someone who is not qualified to make them.
Pickering's book is a very well-informed, well researched and
scientific analysis of the development of high-energy physics from 1945
to the "GUT" era of the 1980s. Just because he interprets subjective
ideas in a way that is different from your preferred way, does not make
him wrong. Sometimes the most accurate reviews of a field, and the best
new ideas, come from those who stand slightly outside the field, and
avoid the academic group-think.
Post by Oh No
We can model a hydrogen atom precisely. Beyond that we are limited to
computer solutions, but we do have a very good understanding of atoms.
We have a very good understanding at a subatomic scale also, of
electrons especially, and not bad of protons and neutrons. Beyond
quarks, I think everything is less clear cut. Gluons are accepted, but
in my view, before we start building qcd, we really ought to sort out
the remaining problems in qed, and the interpretational issues which
have plagued quantum theory since its inception.
Since you feel more comfortable when bona fide professors of physics
are expressing their views, here is a little something from Prof. Lee
Smolin.

"Although I respect my colleagues who disagree, I find their thinking
basically incomprehensible. As much as I try to see what they are
talking about, I find the assertion that nature is actually a vector in
a complex space made up of infinite dimensions as silly as Aristotle's
universe of concentric spheres surrounded by heaven with Earth at the
center".

My research suggests to me in the most clear terms that the Born
interpretation of Psi-squared as a "probability density" was one of the
great wrong turns of modern science. But I suspect it will be quite a
while before the theoretical community is willing to consider that they
might be lost in some alien and artificial landscape.

RLO

[Mod. note: again, this thread should return to astrophysics or should
go elsewhere -- mjh]
r***@amherst.edu
2007-01-19 09:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
Post by r***@amherst.edu
We don't say the Ptolemaic model of
the Solar System is still valid within its "domain of applicability",
do we?
Funnily enough, it is perfectly possible to construct an ellipse from an
infinite sequence of wheels within wheels. This is a generalisation of
the theory of Fourier transforms, so if we so desire, and wish to be
amusing, we are quite entitled to say exactly that.
Brilliant!

I think you have gone quite a ways in proving my contention that, as
with statistics, with mathematics one can "prove" whatever one wants to
prove, or "disprove" whatever one wants to disprove. The thing that
keeps science honest is that nature exists, that we can observe its
properties, that we can predict the results of future observations and
learn whether we are right or wrong. Our understanding of nature can
improve, so long as we are willing to accept nature's verdicts and
learn from them.

RLO

[Mod. note: unless it returns to astrophysics, this branch of the
thread is now closed -- mjh]
Oh No
2007-01-19 10:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by Oh No
not the scientists. Pickering is a sociologist, and his book is called a
sociological history. Treat it for what it is, and I believe it is a
good book. But don't accept scientific and philosophical judgements from
someone who is not qualified to make them.
Pickering's book is a very well-informed, well researched and
scientific analysis of the development of high-energy physics from 1945
to the "GUT" era of the 1980s. Just because he interprets subjective
ideas in a way that is different from your preferred way, does not make
him wrong.
It does not make him right, either.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Sometimes the most accurate reviews of a field, and the best
new ideas, come from those who stand slightly outside the field, and
avoid the academic group-think.
Where do you think I stand?
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by Oh No
We can model a hydrogen atom precisely. Beyond that we are limited to
computer solutions, but we do have a very good understanding of atoms.
We have a very good understanding at a subatomic scale also, of
electrons especially, and not bad of protons and neutrons. Beyond
quarks, I think everything is less clear cut. Gluons are accepted, but
in my view, before we start building qcd, we really ought to sort out
the remaining problems in qed, and the interpretational issues which
have plagued quantum theory since its inception.
Since you feel more comfortable when bona fide professors of physics
are expressing their views,
I do not. I feel more comfortable when I am forming my own views based
on an understanding of theory and experiment. I think I have reason to
claim a better understanding of both than would be expected of a
sociologist.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
here is a little something from Prof. Lee
Smolin.
"Although I respect my colleagues who disagree, I find their thinking
basically incomprehensible. As much as I try to see what they are
talking about, I find the assertion that nature is actually a vector in
a complex space made up of infinite dimensions as silly as Aristotle's
universe of concentric spheres surrounded by heaven with Earth at the
center".
I share Smolin's view, but came to it independently.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
My research suggests to me in the most clear terms that the Born
interpretation of Psi-squared as a "probability density" was one of the
great wrong turns of modern science.
There you are wrong. The fact that the squared magnitude of the wave
function is a probability density is just about the most empirically
solid fact of our era. Indeed, in strict treatments of quantum theory
such as those due to Von Neumann and Dirac, only the probability is
treated as observed scientific fact; the wave function is regarded as
metaphysical. It is found in the mathematical structure of quantum
theory, but it is not possible to say that it corresponds to anything in
physical reality.

It is through studying this approach to quantum theory that I came to
the realisation that the same thing applies when the wave function
belongs to a photon from a distant star. I believe that we should not be
treating this as a classical e.m. wave as is normal in general
relativity, but rather as a quantum wave function. Its correct treatment
then requires that we first develop a consistent model for quantum
theory which applies on a FRW cosmology.

The teleconnection is an intrinsic, and I believe essential, part of
that model. Ultimately my own reason for certainty that the
teleconnection is right is not based on the empirical results of the
theory, but on the empirical validity of the postulates, and whatever
level of confidence I have that I have not made deductive mistakes.

As it turns out, it does lead to different predictions from the standard
model in interpreting the red shift of light from stellar objects. As I
have been posting here, I have found that these predictions are
consistent with observation in so far as I have been able to calculate
predictions, and that in certain cases I have consistent predictions
where the standard model does not.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
[Mod. note: again, this thread should return to astrophysics or should
go elsewhere -- mjh]
Phew, at a pinch I think I just made it. But certainly, the only forum
for the main part of this discussion is the one we are seeking to
create, sci.physics.foundations. I thank the moderator for being as
tolerant as he has been in the absence of such a forum. I think we can
continue after the creation of that forum.


Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
Oh No
2007-01-19 10:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@amherst.edu
Post by Oh No
Post by r***@amherst.edu
We don't say the Ptolemaic model of
the Solar System is still valid within its "domain of applicability",
do we?
Funnily enough, it is perfectly possible to construct an ellipse from an
infinite sequence of wheels within wheels. This is a generalisation of
the theory of Fourier transforms, so if we so desire, and wish to be
amusing, we are quite entitled to say exactly that.
Brilliant!
I think you have gone quite a ways in proving my contention that, as
with statistics, with mathematics one can "prove" whatever one wants to
prove, or "disprove" whatever one wants to disprove.
This is not true. One can prove that an ellipse can be approximated by a
Ptolomeic system. This does not prove that a Ptolomeic system is
valuable in understanding the motions of the planets.

Not dissimilar mathematics is extremely valuable in other circumstances.
For example, a knowledge of spherical harmonics is essential for
analysing cosmic background radiation.
Post by r***@amherst.edu
The thing that
keeps science honest is that nature exists, that we can observe its
properties, that we can predict the results of future observations and
learn whether we are right or wrong. Our understanding of nature can
improve, so long as we are willing to accept nature's verdicts and
learn from them.
By dispensing with mathematics and statistics in the way in which you
have, you also dispense with the methodology by which we do learn
whether we are right or wrong, and actually make it appear as though you
present these fine sentiments as a charade to try and make yourself look
good, while not actually being in the least bit concerned to accept
natures verdicts or learn yourself.



Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
r***@amherst.edu
2007-01-19 18:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oh No
By dispensing with mathematics and statistics in the way in which you
have, you also dispense with the methodology by which we do learn
whether we are right or wrong, and actually make it appear as though you
present these fine sentiments as a charade to try and make yourself look
good, while not actually being in the least bit concerned to accept
natures verdicts or learn yourself.
I most certainly do not 'dispense with mathematics', since I regard
mathematics as crucially important when it comes to formal descriptions
of ideas about how nature works. I just question the misuse of
mathematics, especially when it is used to rule out things that are
beyond the axiomatic framework of the mathematics in question.

I most certainly do not 'dispense with statistics' which are important
in science, so long as they are used with care and are not used to
mislead.

I most certainly do not 'dispense with the predictions/testing
methodology of science' which I find myself having to defend on an
all-too-regular basis in the field of cosmology.

I do put up with a lot of insults for my efforts.

RLO

[Mod. note: again, this thread is now closed -- mjh]

Loading...