On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 "Lee Daniel Crocker" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wrote:
>There is currently no evidence that gravity or time are
There is no proof but there is evidence, we know for sure that we will need
new Physics because when things get very small General Relativity and Quantum
Physics are not compatible.
This is why:
I have a gadget that can send out photons of light at any wavelength. As the
wavelength gets smaller the energy gets larger and so does the mass,
remember E =MC^2 so M= E/c^2. At some point the wavelength is so small and
the mass is so great a mini Black Hole is formed. The mass at which this
happens is the Plank Mass M = [hc/G]^1/2 = 2.18 *10^-5 grams.
h is the Plank constant divided by 2 PI, c is the speed of light and G
is the gravitational constant.
The Plank Energy is the energy of a photon powerful enough to make a
Black Hole and it is E= [hc^5/G]^1/2 = 1.22 *10^28 eV.
It gets worse, according to Heisenberg it is possible to get something for
nothing, even in a vacuum you can borrow energy, but the more you borrow the
shorter you can keep it. In this way a vacuum is full of virtual particles.
The Plank Energy is a LOT of energy so you can't keep it for long.
The Plank Time is t = [Gh/c^5]^1/2 = 5.38 * 10^-44 second , after this the
mini Black hole evaporates by Hawking radiation.
The Plank Length is 10^-33 cm, the distance light can travel in the plank time.
This is a short distance, very short. If the universe was a thousand times as
large as what we now observe it, then this super universe would be to a
proton as a proton is to the Plank Length.
Now that's small, but not infinitely small. At these distances Space-time
becomes a confusing foam, to understand what is going on at even smaller
distances we need quantum gravity and we don't have that yet.
I quote Richard Feynman, on the trouble quantum mechanics has with gravity
and speculating on possible solutions:
"Another way of describing this difficulty is to say that perhaps the idea
that two points can be infinitely close together is wrong- the assumption
that we can use geometry down to the last notch is false."
In other words, two points can not be INFINITELY close together. Contrary to
high school geometry, a line is NOT made of an INFINITE number of points.
Two points can NOT be just anywhere, but only in a finite number of
positions. What Feynman is saying is that when you are dealing with the ultra
small not only are matter, energy, spin, and charge digital, so is space.
>It [ Quantum Mechanics] says only that the precision of our
>outputs is limited by what we choose to observe--no limit at
>all on the unobservable precision
You complain that I'm only talking about observable qualities, but we're
talking about a machine here, an analog computer, and that's the only thing
it can deal with. The quantum wave function may be continuos but that does us
no good because experimentally we can't measure the quantum wave function
F(x) of a particle, we can only measure the intensity of the wave function
[F(x)]^2 because that's a probability and probability we can measure.
Matter is not smeared around, only the probability of finding it. If you look
for an electron at a particular spot you may find one or you may not, you
can't be certain, the best you can do is come up with probabilities. However
one thing you CAN be absolutely certain of is that you will find an electron
OR you will not. There is no middle ground, there is no chance you will find
half an electron or "sort of" an electron. If an electron is detected when it
hits a phosphorous screen it will produce a photon of light. If it is not
detected it will not produce a photon of light. There are no other
possibilities, it will never produce half a photon of light. If an electron
is detected it ALWAYS acts like a particle. The probability of finding the
particle acts like a wave and is not deterministic hence the random element.
John K Clark email@example.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----