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
self-similar 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), and for this post 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.

Could the conventional Planck Scale values be way out of the ball park?

Robert

Robert wrote:
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
self-similar 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), and for this post 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.

Could the conventional Planck Scale values be way out of the ball park?

Robert

Geez, did I do that?

"Robert" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

There are plenty of questions about the "Planck Scale". For one, there
is absolutely no experimental evidence that it even means anything. We
are currently at about 10^-20 meter resolution experimentally with about
15 orders of magnitude to go.

According to the Discrete Fractal paradigm, nature has a discrete
self-similar 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), and for this post 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.

Could the conventional Planck Scale values be way out of the ball
park?

Yes, they could be. But I don't expect it would be like you are stating
above. I would expect something more dynamical.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

FrediFizzx wrote:
Could the conventional Planck Scale values be way out of the ball
park?

Yes, they could be. But I don't expect it would be like you are stating
above. I would expect something more dynamical.


Well, the Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw )
views hadrons as Kerr-Newman black holes and uses a G value of ~2.2 x
10^31 cgs. So GR plays as important a role as EM *within* Atomic Scale
systems. These ideas seem to have quite a bit of dynamical content.

Rob

"Robert" wrote in message
ups.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
Could the conventional Planck Scale values be way out of the ball
park?

Yes, they could be. But I don't expect it would be like you are
stating
above. I would expect something more dynamical.


Well, the Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw )
views hadrons as Kerr-Newman black holes and uses a G value of ~2.2 x
10^31 cgs. So GR plays as important a role as EM *within* Atomic Scale
systems. These ideas seem to have quite a bit of dynamical content.


Hi Rob,

I do think that hadrons as black holes of any kind has been rule out
already. No? However, the confinement mechanism may be similar to a
black hole's event horizon concept. I don't know what your G ~= 2.2E31
cgs means? Cgs is centimeter, gram, second? I suppose this is some
kind of relative strength of gravity? Relative to what? I will try to
take a look at your website in more detail when I get more time. But I
would expect that G disappears (goes to zero) into a unification at
small scales with the other forces. We have a hexagonal fractal lattice
structure for the quantum "vacuum" that you can check out at the links
below.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

FrediFizzx wrote:

Hi Rob,

I do think that hadrons as black holes of any kind has been rule out
already. No? However, the confinement mechanism may be similar to a
black hole's event horizon concept. I don't know what your G ~= 2.2E31
cgs means? Cgs is centimeter, gram, second? I suppose this is some
kind of relative strength of gravity? Relative to what? I will try to
take a look at your website in more detail when I get more time. But I
would expect that G disappears (goes to zero) into a unification at
small scales with the other forces. We have a hexagonal fractal lattice
structure for the quantum "vacuum" that you can check out at the links
below.



Hi Fred,

Kerr-Newman (i.e., charged) black holes share the following properties
with hadrons like the proton:

1. Almost completely characterized in terms of mass, charge and spin

2. Gyromagnetic ratios = 2

3. Magnetic moments, but no electric dipole moments

4. Similar mass/spin relationships

5. Cross-sections that increase in collisions

Regarding the conventional Newtonian gravitational constant G (= 6.67 x
10^-8 cgs) and the Discrete Fractal paradigm's (
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) predicted G(n-1) of about 2.2 x 10^31
cgs, consider the following.

General Relativity says Rvab -1/2 gvab R = k Tvab, or in words the
distribution of mass/energy determines the curvature of spacetime and
the curvature of spacetime determines how the mass/energy (i.e.,
matter) moves.

Einstein found that k = 8 pi/c^4 G worked for the macrocosm tests that
were available.
The Discrete Fractal paradigm proposes that this works for the Stellar
Scale of nature's infinite hierarchy, but that the gravitational
coupling constant is different for each Scale.
Bottom line k' = 8 pi/c^4 [A^1-D]^n G , where A = 5.2 x 10^17, D =
3.174 and n = {...-2,-1,0,1,2,...} .

So Rvab - 1/2 gvab R = 8 pi/c^4 [A^1-D]^n G Tvab ,

and gravitational interactions would be roughly equal to
electromagnetic interactions in terms of strength and importance within
Atomic Scale systems.

That's the basic argument, and details (both non-technical and
technical) can be found at the website.

Thanks for your interest and comments,
Rob