An investigation into Planck Particles

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Aethelwulf, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. Aethelwulf Banned Banned

    Messages:
    13
    The Nature of Gravity and Mass through Investigation of Planck-like Particles

    One begins with the quantization condition

    \(\hbar c = GM^2\) 1]

    which is a famous relationship. Divide through by \(Mc^2\) gives

    \(\frac{\hbar}{Mc} = \frac{GM^2}{Mc^2} = (\frac{GM}{c^2} = r_s)\) 2]

    One might want to put a factor of 2 in the numerator where the Scwarzschild radius is it's compton wavelength

    \(\frac{\hbar}{Mc} = \frac{2GM^2}{Mc^2}\)

    The left is recognized as the Compton wavelength and the right is recognized as the Schwarzschild radius. I derive a new kind of equation from a differentt equation provided by Motz (1)

    \(8\pi \rho (\frac{G}{c^2}) = \frac{2GM^2}{Mc^2}\) 3]

    A Planck Particle is of course, a particle whose Schwartzschild radius is equal to it's Compton Wavelength. Keeping this is mind, we will follow a new derivation.

    We begin with the equation from quantum theory

    \(\hbar = RMc\) 4]

    The quantization condition from 1] then can be rearranged and the angular momentum component can be re-written as

    \(\frac{GM^2}{c} = RMc\) 5]

    Multiply by c on both sides, divide by M on both sides then divide off G on both sides gives

    \(\frac{Rc^2}{G} = M\) 6]

    M is usually taken to be the Planck Mass from the quantization condition. Because of this, we can set this relationship above directly to the Planck Mass

    \(\frac{Rc^2}{G} = \sqrt{\frac{\pi \hbar c}{G}}\) 7]

    Actually, this is not quite the Planck Mass as it has a value of \(\sqrt{\pi}\) larger. However, this may be the true value of the Planck Mass since the Planck Mass is not exactly an equation, it is usually a proportionality.

    Square everything in equation 7 and remove the square root and rearrange to get

    \(\pi G\hbar = R^2c^3\)

    Solve for R gives

    \(R = \sqrt{\frac{\pi G \hbar}{c^3}}\)

    which makes the radius the Compton wavelength. In a sense, one can think of the Compton wavelength then as the ''size of a particle,'' but only loosely speaking.


    (1) http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

    A Planck Particle is considered not only a particle in it's own right, but also a miniature black hole of types. It's mass is equal to the Planck Mass and it's length is about the Planck Length. To date, we cannot probe such lengths accurately enough to know what is happening at this extremely small level. However, there is a minimal uncertainty which can be extracted from the Planck Length. It is doubtful they exist for any long periods of time - they are likely to give up their energy in the form of Unruh-Hawking Radiation.

    It is generally considered important that these particle do not exist below the threshold of the Planck Lengths - their energy would of course become exceedingly large under the Planck Scales, not only this, but they may also stable under Extremal Black Hole theories, which is not very well-accepted.

    The hotter a Planck Particle is, the quicker it will give up its energy in the form of radiation. This is predicted by it's temperature:

    \(T \propto \frac{hc^3}{4\pi kGM}\)

    The time in which it would give this energy up would be proportional to the Planck Time

    \(t \propto \frac{\hbar G}{c^5}\)

    So experimentally-speaking, these objects exist for the shortest time which is possible - that's a tremendous discharge of energy in such a small period of time since it's mass is very large (Planck Mass). There is of course, an uncertainty principle between energy and time given by

    \(\Delta E \Delta t \propto \hbar\)

    As Motz has shown, the uncertainty principle leads to the quantization condition

    \(RMc \leq \hbar\)

    The smallest uncertainty in the length is given by

    \(\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}M^2c^2 \leq \hbar^2\)

    which of course leads to

    \(GM^2 = \hbar c\)

    Our quantization condition.

    Whilst a Planck Particle has never been observed, it could be a source of the radiation present in the vacuum when the universe was very young. These would be a kind of primordial black hole bath of particles.

    Now, In concern of the equations, I could be quite a few factors out.

    \(8\pi \rho (\frac{G}{c^2}) = \frac{2GM^2}{Mc^2}\)

    The reason why is because Motz calculated this for the Gaussian Curvature which would have a value of \(6(\frac{\hbar}{mc})^{-2}\). This means I need to treat the right hand side of my equation in the same manner since

    \(\frac{\hbar}{mc} = \frac{GM}{c^2}\)

    So that perhaps the correct form of the equation is

    \(8\pi \rho (\frac{G}{c^2}) = 6(\frac{2GM^2}{Mc^2})^{-2} = (\frac{12GM}{c^2})^{-2}\)

    The Gaussian curvature of a 2D surface is the product of two principle curvatures. Each principle curvature is equal to \(1/R\), the Gaussian curvature has dimensions \(1/(\ell^2)\) and the three dimensional case of a hypersphere is \(K/6 = R^{-2}\) which is how these extra factors come up where \(R\) is the radius of curvature.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aethelwulf Banned Banned

    Messages:
    13
    One can also come to realize why \(\sqrt{G}M\) should be the intrinsic gravitational charge of a system by looking at the Gaussian charge relationship, that being

    \(e = \sqrt{\alpha \hbar c}\)

    Naturally, one might recognize the right handside's \(\sqrt{\hbar c}\), this is normally set equal to \(\sqrt{G}M\) for the quantization condition. In a separate work, I evaluated that

    \(GM^2 = E_gr_s\)

    was the squared gravitational charge, by equating it with the gravitational energy times the Schwarzschild radius of a system. The gravitational energy is the contribution of mass due to energy, or it's gravitational energy is it's rest mass. This is an interesting thing to consider for a particle, because if the Schwarzschild radius is made to go to zero, then the inertial gravitational energy is zero also

    \(\sqrt{G}M = \lim_{r_s \rightarrow 0} \sqrt{E_gr_s} = 0\)

    This is not meant to imply however that the entire energy of our system is zero, only that the presence of inertial energy is absent.

    Taking this relationship into consideration, one may even see a charge relationship of the form

    \(e = \sqrt{\alpha E_g r_s}\) (*)

    Why this might be interesting is because there is no such thing as a charged massless system. The Yang Mills Equations once predicted massless charge bosons but the approach has been generally considered today as a false one. Is this failure important? Is there an intrinsic relationship between the elementary charge \(e\) and what we might call the inertial mass \(M_i\)?

    The above equation, given by the asterisk *, is to be taken to mean that the elementary charge is something associated to the gravitational energy - if we are dealing with classical sphere's, the idea is that the gravitational energy would take on this value inside the sphere of radius \(\frac{e^2}{Mc^2}\). Of course, the charge itself is also distributed over such a radius.

    Indeed, if the Scwartzschild radius goes to zero again, then so does the gravitational energy and thus the elementary charge must also vanish \(e = 0\). There are such cases in nature where this might be an important phase transition. Gamma-gamma interactions can either give up mass in the form of special types of decay processes or, vice versa, the energy can come from antiparticle interactions. Such a phase transition is given as

    \(\gamma \gamma \Leftrightarrow e^{-}e^{+}\)

    If we take the notion seriously that charge is a property of systems with mass, and that massless charged bosons don't exist in nature then we can assume that in this specific phase transition charge appears and disappears. If one does not know the process of how matter can be somehow a type of trapped form of light energy, then one would almost assume that it would be by magic. There must be a dynamical and fundamental explanation to how this can happen, indeed, Glaswegian authors J. Williamson and M. Van der Mark have already questioned whether the electron is really a photon caught up in a type of toroidal path http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf.

    (By the way, clearly one of the authors are foreign to Glasgow, but a Glaswegian is a ''resident'' of Glasgow)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aethelwulf Banned Banned

    Messages:
    13
    Here is a nice excerpt about the charge quantization method adopted by Motz

    http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Dirac-Zwanziger-Schwinger quantization condition

    What we have is

    \(e\mu = \frac{1}{2}n\hbar c\)

    It seems to say that \(\mu\) plays the role of a magnetic charge - this basically squares the charge on the left handside, by a quick analysis of the dimensions previously analysed.

    Here, referenced by Motz, you can see the magnetic charge is given as [math]g[/math], the electric charge of course, still given by [math]e[/math].

    http://wdxy.hubu.edu.cn/ddlx/UpLoadFiles/File/2011070110535154942.pdf

    what we have essentially is

    \(\frac{e\mu - e\mu}{4\pi} = n\hbar c\)

    where your constants in the paper have been set to natural units. In light of this, one may also see this must be derived from the Heaviside relationship

    \(e = \sqrt{4\pi \alpha \hbar c}\)

    I say this, because it picked up a \(4 \pi\) term.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Good discourse! . . . . I'll look at the math later . . . . I'd also appreciate your comments on a related topic: Sub-planck energies
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Reiku?
     
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    My thought exactly - if not Reiku possibly his doppleganger?
     
  10. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    The first paragraph of section 4. of http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.../1971/motz.pdf really caught my eye, but it makes me wonder do you think the uniton is really a particle? What can the uniton tell us about such types of interactions? Or does anything from this type of work say what effect unitons would have on what you would see from two protons smashing together? It is funny I had just recently mentioned to someone on another thread on this web site that electrons can be formed via photons in accordance to E=mc^2, similair to what is stated at the top of section 4 of this paper. It sounds more like an interaction to me and is not rigoursely defined as a true particle.
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    That is pretty cool but using your mathematical technique we could also say

    \(4\pi GM^2 = \frac{2\alpha \hbar}{\mu_0 c^2}\)

    rearranging

    \(\pi = \frac{\alpha \hbar}{\mu_0 2 c^2 G M^2}\)

    substituding;

    \( Area of a Circle = \frac{\alpha \hbar}{\mu_0 2 c^2 G M^2} r^2\)

    This shows that the area of a circle is related to the permeability of free space.
     
  12. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I like how you think you're talking about Planck scale physics yet all you're doing is rearranging relationships between coefficients, which is mathematics on the level of school kids. What's the matter, a differential equation or two too much to ask.

    You have absolutely no justification for your 'results'. Picking and choosing what you like the look of from various models and them just fiddling with them isn't valid, especially when you're combining quantum and relativistic results and considering Planck scale physics. For example, the combination of GR and QFT to produce Hawking radiation is extremely complicated, certainly much much more than anything you've presented here. What you would know about such a result, if you'd ever actually worked through the derivation and understood it, is that it relies on a number of assumptions and simplifications, mostly involving non-perturbative gravitational effects. Hawking radiation is a semi-classical result, it doesn't account properly for quantum gravity. Therefore assuming its validity down to the Planck scale, where quantum gravity cannot be ignored, called into question the result. How do you know there aren't quantum gravity corrections, just as there are quantum field theory corrections to quantum mechanics?

    To obtain relationships between coefficients in the way you are you shouldn't be working with just coefficients, you work with the equations of motion they relate to. Once you're rearranged those equations you'll have the coefficients' rearrangements because they'll be combined in new ways. But then you and everyone else here know that you can't do that. You like to talk about the Dirac equation or Stokes' equation but you cannot do anything with them, only this most remedial of manipulation. Given you struggle with the concept of units and multiplying out brackets you shouldn't be trusted to do even this trivial and vapid stuff.

    Tell me, if you're confident this is some nice result which isn't just copied from a book why are you posting it here? Why aren't you sending it to a journal? You obviously want attention, given you've posted it on multiple fora. But we both know it's because you want a very particular kind of attention, the attention of laypersons who cannot tell how vapid all your stuff is.

    Please Reiku, find something else to do with your existence rather than this seemingly endless cycle of BS and crankdom. By now you really could have done a physics degree, if you had the mental capacity (which I doubt). You're in Scotland, university education is free. Or do you deep down know you couldn't hack it so this is the best chance of playing scientist you have?
     
  13. Gregg Schaffter Registered Member

    Messages:
    85
    Who the heck is Reiku?

    That being besides the point, this looks pretty interesting. Hope something becomes of this.
     
  14. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    I totally agree! Subplankian "particles" probably do not exist as particles (maybe strings?). I've discussed elsewhere the energetics of subplanckian 'stuff'.

    "Planck" deals with the 'stuff' at 10^35 m, where the energies are quantized (i.e., quanta). Subplanckian probably deals with a continuous (non-quantized; ergo, no 'h' component in the E-frequency-h-c relationship). c also is likely 'super-c'. . . .IMO . . .

    Therefore, I'll refrain from further subplanckian posts to your thread . . . . readers, look elsewhere on Sciforums.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2012
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Reiku is a guy that was banned because he was nothing more than a mental midget who would copy down pieces of derivations from different physics paper he didn't understand and then present them with some garbled scientific sounding jargon to make himself seem intelligent. Needless to say he just looked like a fool. He would then perform some simple algebraic substitutions between 2 completely unrelated equations and pretend he had done some physics - again looking like nothing more than a clown.

    This is not interesting this is gibberish. The it is all smoke and mirrors with no substance what so ever, Nothing can possible come of this except more gibberish.
    .
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    All of the qualified physicists here say this is worthless. They have read it. They understand it, believe me - it's just simple algebraic manipulation of randomly-selected results.

    This thread will be gone as soon as I confirm that Aethelwulf is Reiku, remember, so I advise posters not to spend too much effort here.
     
  17. Gregg Schaffter Registered Member

    Messages:
    85
    Thanks for the information. Me being new here I don't know much about the history of it.

    Nevermind, it doesn't fit. Now that I have checked up on it there is no connection between the equations. This happens when you are in a rush.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Gregg Schaffter Registered Member

    Messages:
    85
    Now that I look at the math again, I find understanding in some of what you are trying to accomplish. However, I will continue to see if it is truly relevant.

    EDIT: I still don't get how you went from step to step and found those equations relevant to anything. Elaborate if it is relevant.
     
  19. Gregg Schaffter Registered Member

    Messages:
    85
    Sorry about that, I guess I should have elaborated.

    Well here are these two steps I didn't see how you got them:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Could you provide the steps to how you got from one to the other? It may be a dumb question, but I guess it would help me understand what you were going at.

    EDIT: Nevermind, my brain finally figured it out.
     
  20. Gregg Schaffter Registered Member

    Messages:
    85
    Though, to make it simplified, it would actually be:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It may be a mathematical mistake on my part.
     
  21. Gregg Schaffter Registered Member

    Messages:
    85
    But doesn't the fraction within a square root have to be "removed"?

    What I did was multiply square root of c^3 by the numerator and the denominator, which then allows only the numerator to have the square root.

    When this happens, you get c on the outside of the square root in the numerator, but you have to cancel out the c from the top and bottom, which leaves c^2 in the denominator.
     
  22. Gregg Schaffter Registered Member

    Messages:
    85
    Well then my math was wrong, my bad. Well from that stand point, mathematically, it has some leverage. Hope to see more information coming in.
     
  23. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Rearranging coefficients, having thrown away the systems of differential equations for which they are the coefficients, lacks justification. Otherwise you risk issues like having taken the coefficient of a linearisation/perturbative approximation and then combining with a non-perturbative result. For example, the Bohr radius has a nice expression and you can take the expression for it and start plowing it into gravitational equations for micro-black holes but you'd be ignoring the fact the radius is just an approximation from a model which ignores a great many things. Only by working on the level of the equations can you be even vaguely confident you aren't ignoring something important. Messing with coefficients is fine if you want to get a rough guestimate but not if you're trying to say something specific. For example, you mention how one of your expressions differs from something by the root of pi, which you sweep aside by commenting all of this is just proportionality stuff. You've thus conceded the non-precise nature of what you're doing.

    The remedial level of what you post does not necessarily reflect the complexity of the sources you're pulling various expressions from. I don't doubt there's some very clever and nice results people have come up with, I just doubt you grasp any of it.

    So post your complicated equations. The attempt you did in another pseudo thread of yours was obviously the same style of crap you did last time you were here Reiku. It was torn apart then and now you're just coming back with more of the same. We all know you don't grasp stuff like quantum mechanics, your comments in the thread in the physics forum illustrate that, as well as all the 'discussions' on the Dirac equation you and I have had before.

    Please don't put 'unrelated' in quotation marks, implying I said that, when I didn't. It's very dishonest. As for 'unjustified' the fact you haven't justified them is clear. You aren't working with the equations themselves, you're just messing with coefficients.

    Other people might have provided sufficient justification for their stuff, by doing more detailed analysis, but what you're doing at present is just messing around with scalar expressions. This seems to be the limits of your capabilities. All this talk of "I learnt Stoke's theorem" doesn't seem to have changed that.

    Yes, some physicists will do stuff with coefficients but it'll only be a small part of their work. No one who knows enough quantum field theory and relativity to be working with Planck level physics will do as much coefficient messing around as you do. They would bring more powerful and justified tools to bear on the problem. The fact you stick to the scalar expressions, never once going further than that, illustrates you aren't familiar with the necessary physics to be doing this stuff in serious way. Copying equations others have done and then doing very basic reshuffling simply doesn't cut it. No one familiar with Planck scale physics and the necessary pre-requisites would do as much coefficient reshuffling as you're doing.

    If you really had more complicated approaches you'd be providing them. You obviously have no problem with posting more complicated stuff, though it always ends up showing how you don't understand what you post, so the fact you aren't doing it now speaks volumes.

    Even if it hadn't been closed we wouldn't need to change threads, this one is fine. If you can't justify your position here why should you be able to do it elsewhere? Unless you're trying to move away from this thread because it's already stacked too much against you?

    Reiku, I hardly think you're in a position to be questioning other people's qualifications. In the not too distant past you couldn't multiply out (a+b)(c+d), despite you claiming you were doing relativity in your college.

    Obviously you've been doing some Googling. The fact of the matter is that doesn't support your case that you're doing something worthwhile. What you present is unjustified. Yes, other people might be doing similar stuff in published papers but the paper will include justification. Simply stating a result, even a correct one, doesn't cut it. Furthermore getting what later turns out to be a correct result via an unjustified method doesn't cut it.

    For example, consider Newtonian physics. Gravitational potential is \(-\frac{GMm}{r}\) and kinetic energy is \(\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}\). Suppose we wanted to consider the height at which these match for a particle of light. So we put in v=c, \(\frac{1}{2}mv^{2} = \frac{GMm}{r}\). Rearranging gives \(r = \frac{2GM}{c^{2}}\). It's the radius of a black hole! Wow, so Newtonian physics can correctly model black holes! Except it doesn't. We know light doesn't slow down so a photon fired upwards always moves at c, even if it loses energy. Plus you cannot fire anything from a point mass, as the \(\frac{1}{r}\) behaviour is singular there. So while all the messing around with coefficients might lead to a nice result the fact is the derivation is unjustified. It ignores even important things from within Newtonian mechanics and it fails to deal with the proper behaviour of light around black holes (Newtonian gravity gets things like light deflection wrong). This is why it's important to deal with the base equations, not just coefficients. And even then the result doesn't necessarily have validity, ie Newtonian mechanics simply cannot deal with how light moves.

    This is an illustration of why all your coefficient reshuffling is unjustified, even if you end up with a result someone else might have derived by a more elaborate means. Sure, it might have worked for a particular system but you cannot trust for other systems. Given how even the more detailed models break down when it comes to Planck level physics there's even less reason to think you're going about things in a justified manner.

    If you were really familiar with the necessary physics you'd grasp this, as you'd have seen during your learning such examples of how you can easily go down the wrong path by doing something on too superficial a level. Yet another illustration of how you're misrepresenting your level of physics knowledge/competency.
     

Share This Page