This wiki page says the finest resolution achievable today is 0.2nm.
The Planck scale is 25 orders of magnitude smaller.
10 million million million million times smaller.
If present spectroscopy's best resolution were the 15 billion light years we can see back in time, Planck scale resolution would be seeing things the size of a tree.
We know that space is expanding. We don't exactly know why -- i.e. the original "explosion" idea makes no sense (horizon problem and space being altogether too uniform), and the fact that it is (relatively recently) seen to be accelerating in its expansion throws off the whole Big Bang theory itself. So we kludge with "dark energy".
I've answered this, in the original paper, when I explained what Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks "dark energy" is.
By the way, my theory's explanation of dark energy also happens to resolve a rather substantial problem with the Standard Model. The SM calculates a background energy of space that is 10^^120 times larger than what we actually measure. My theory says that energy is in fact there. It is not measurable due to the lack of matter in space. When you stick a thermometer in water, you are measuring how many water molecules slam into the glass walls of your thermometer. In space there are no molecules (approximately), so how do you measure the temperature of space?
It is a short step from that to questioning the CMB values themselves, since these are 10^^120 times too small anyway.
I am not sure why the original AC mentioned "spectroscopic data", nor am I sure how it is to be used to test my theory.
Spring-And-Loop Theory has a Planck-scale basis. Hence my repeated point that it will need to be simulated to allow bigger things (like atoms) and much bigger things (like Earth) and still bigger things (like Solar Systems) and the biggest things (like galaxies) to be modeled.
Spring-And-Loop Theory is like LEGO. It is a building system, not a smashing-things-against-other-things system.
I think the future of physics is simulation, not atom-smashing (or low hanging fruit like measuring the most distant star or galaxy or looking for Earth-like planets). We are stuck in the middle of the order-of-magnitude spectrum. We will never get within a factor of a billion of the Planck-scale. We can just "keep trying" to get there, or we can move to Plan B. I've chosen to move.
Note: This doesn't mean I reject all past and present physics. It does mean that, when an existing theory reaches its "divide by zero" moment, I have no choice but to discard that theory...at least locally...and proceed on foot.
It is not that the basic tenants of chemistry are not tested, challenged, strengthened, or weakened.
It is that the periodic changes and refinements are not Earth shattering.
When you get things right with the foundation of your house, you can build a house that will last. You will still have issues along the way, and there will be maintenance. But you won't have to build 10^^500 houses, or anti-houses, or a house that becomes a cloud that becomes a house again.
(1) the most obvious thing you are missing is that my calculation and prediction is something that can be measured. Period. "Vast implications"? Who cares. Is it right or wrong is all that matters?
(2) Books and books have indeed been written about the Big Bang, etc. And I imagine in Ptolemy's time the same was true. It was certainly true with Newton. And of course Einstein. While String Theory probably caused bookstores to open up whole new wings. Is "number of books" your metric?
if your new theory is so fundamental, you're wasting time with the more abstract stuff when you could give concrete examples
How many concrete things did GR have, at the start, that physicists could rush out and test? Eclipse data is all I am aware of, at least for the first x years.
I think your comment mostly reflects how you find my theory "shocking"...to you. It is different, very different. I'll give you that. But does it ring?
By the way, I bet these two sentences are ones you wish you could have back: You briefly discuss implications on the impact on the structure of an atom, then you should be able to discuss calculations on the atomic spectrum. No need then to ramble on about more complex issues or problems associated with measurements in deep space etc., but instead would work with data that at the simplest level can be collected in a high school physics course lab, although has been done in detail to very high precision in better equipped labs.
The first sentence, about how I should be immediately working on "atomic spectrum" stuff, directly contradicts your second sentence. Which assumes I have a well stocked research lab that I should be busy working in...but that would be pointless because others have "done in detail"...my theory?!
Spring-And-Loop Theory came about by my trying to understand how gravity, an "attractive" force, worked across empty space. It is not my fault that it has had other repercussions. I am not deliberately trying to jump all over the place with it. But it is a reimagining of physics, no two ways about it. Again, some will have a harder time with this than others.
(1) You want specific predictions? Hard numbers? Here you go.
(2) As to "new theories are a dime a dozen, I get two new ones a week." Do you ever ask yourself why this is so? Do chemists get two new theories of chemistry a week? No. Because they have a good base model. I maintain that physics lacks a good base model.
(3) Too many people don't realize the vast number of predictions made by current theories that have been tested by measurement
The most obviously broken parts of physics, like the inflationary miracle after the Big Bang, are based on what measurements, exactly? The CMB? The same CMB that BICEP 2 based its nonsense on?
And Black Hole information retention is based on...?
And our completely broken notion of how stars should be orbiting the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy is a confirmation of our theory? Surely you gest.
Wikipedia's list of Unsolved Problems in Physics has, by my count, 148 questions (and another 74 things that need to be discussed). Wiki's corresponding U.P. in Chemistry looks to have 25 or 30.
There are at least a few modern physicists trying to deal with the horrendous state of physics today -- Lee Smolin, Frank Close, Peter Woit, and Amit Goswani come immediately to mind. Others like Anton Z Capri (& Feynman & Einstein) at least kept their sense of humor throughout their career.
Far too many are followers, and the system encourages this, big time. Lee Smolin talked about this, and how he tried to go against his gut at first, before ultimately coming out with Loop Quantum Gravity.
So is it all a bed of roses to you, "Roger"? Or have you a better theory? Or are you just interested in nitpicking?
Regarding my mention of the Standard Model, you are quite right. Please replace that with "classic physics" or "old physics" or "non-relativistic non-quantum-mechanical" physics, or "the physics of Newton". It doesn't change my point, or my theory one iota.
As to my comments about light, in my first COASALT talk, Mr. David Thornley made this very same observation. It is rather like complaining that the numbers I chose for the street address of my building are a little too big, or too small. As I explained to Mr. Thornley, that was part of my preamble. Why don't you try commenting on my theory itself?
And as to my points about what we don't know about the SoL, it is like my points regarding gravity. When we don't know how gravity works...at the lowest level...then we have no guarantee that our theories of gravity (non-relativistic, or relativistic) are the complete answer. Similary, with light I maintain that physicists do not understand what exactly light is. We are aware it slows down in a medium, but we don't understand WHAT exactly it is. A working theory is not the same as a deeper understanding.
The LHC is one approach. The "make it bigger and then it might get better" approach.
Another approach is to conceive of a completely different model. I have come up with a different model from the Standard Model, and Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory.
Spring-And-Loop Theory resolves issues the other three theories are stuck on. It is also simpler. Unifies the four forces. And works from the very small to the very large.
But it is a different approach. Most are not ready for this.
I managed the computers for a Canadian university dept., including the development and operation of a system that collected $4M a year from students for the board portion of their room and board.
Cash pickups were done by Campus Cowboys.
One day, after they had left, I noticed a tennis-ball-can sized container of pepper spray had been left behind. At this time (about 20 years ago) the police and security agencies were not yet in full Gestapo mode, so it was a bit of a surprise. Or at least how big the can was was.
Called up their HQ and asked them "Do you guys use pepper spray?"
A mixture of stammering and silence followed.
After a while I said "Well, you guys left your pepper spray behind at [our location]"
They were unusually prompt in their arrival a few minutes later.
I'm curious which part of parent's post was "trolling". I checked and the Fitbit is exactly 7 years old. Can we start having a mod-free Friday or something?
Ether theorists: Newton, Robert Boyle, Christiaan Huygens, Faraday, Lorentz, James Clerk Maxwell, Poincare...
It is noteworthy that, despite it being impossible to prove a negative, the ether has supposedly been disproven. So why does Wikipedia add a question mark to that section's title?
It was highly honorable of his logical conscience that Newton decided to create absolute space. He could just as well have called the absolute space the "rigid ether". - Albert Einstein
Windows 8 is much faster than Windows 7. I love it for its speed of boot-up, and shutdown -- just what I want for a laptop I frequently have to start and stop.
The 2 mph above = a ticket. Many cars have Mickey Mouse speedos that display in 5 mph increments. Good luck avoiding a ticket. Talk about a money maker...
General speed limits in Germany are set by the federal government. All limits are multiples of 5 km/h. There are two default speed limits: 50 km/h (31 mph) inside built-up areas and 100 km/h (62 mph) outside built-up areas. While parts of the autobahns and many other freeway-style highways have a posted limits up to 130 km/h (81 mph) based on accident experience, congestion and other facts, many rural sections have no general speed limit. The German Highway Code (StraÃYenverkehrs-Ordnung) section on speed begins with the requirement which may be rendered in English:
Any person driving a vehicle may only drive so fast that the car is under control. Speeds must be adapted to the road, traffic, visibility and weather conditions as well as the personal skills and characteristics of the vehicle and load.
This requirement applies to all roads, and is similar to the "reasonable speed" legal obligation levied in other nations.
Speed limits are enforced with a small tolerance. Driving merely 3 km/h (2 mph) or faster above the posted or implied speed limit is considered a punishable infraction in Germany.
But cell phone using drivers don't drive like this. They drive slower, if anything. They don't speed, if anything. They don't weave, if anything. They don't run traffic lights or stop signs, if anything.
What they do is not pay attention. They don't realize the light has changed. They don't realize they are going slow in the fast lane. And they suddenly change lanes -- typically from the extreme left to the extreme right lane -- when their cell phone GPS tells them that they need to turn right now.
Cell phone using drivers are 50% "just" annoying other drivers, and 50% the deadliest thing on the road.
Slashdot Mirror
This wiki page says the finest resolution achievable today is 0.2nm.
The Planck scale is 25 orders of magnitude smaller.
10 million million million million times smaller.
If present spectroscopy's best resolution were the 15 billion light years we can see back in time, Planck scale resolution would be seeing things the size of a tree.
We know that space is expanding. We don't exactly know why -- i.e. the original "explosion" idea makes no sense (horizon problem and space being altogether too uniform), and the fact that it is (relatively recently) seen to be accelerating in its expansion throws off the whole Big Bang theory itself. So we kludge with "dark energy".
I've answered this, in the original paper, when I explained what Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks "dark energy" is.
By the way, my theory's explanation of dark energy also happens to resolve a rather substantial problem with the Standard Model. The SM calculates a background energy of space that is 10^^120 times larger than what we actually measure. My theory says that energy is in fact there. It is not measurable due to the lack of matter in space. When you stick a thermometer in water, you are measuring how many water molecules slam into the glass walls of your thermometer. In space there are no molecules (approximately), so how do you measure the temperature of space?
It is a short step from that to questioning the CMB values themselves, since these are 10^^120 times too small anyway.
Thanks for your comment.
I am not sure why the original AC mentioned "spectroscopic data", nor am I sure how it is to be used to test my theory.
Spring-And-Loop Theory has a Planck-scale basis. Hence my repeated point that it will need to be simulated to allow bigger things (like atoms) and much bigger things (like Earth) and still bigger things (like Solar Systems) and the biggest things (like galaxies) to be modeled.
Spring-And-Loop Theory is like LEGO. It is a building system, not a smashing-things-against-other-things system.
I think the future of physics is simulation, not atom-smashing (or low hanging fruit like measuring the most distant star or galaxy or looking for Earth-like planets). We are stuck in the middle of the order-of-magnitude spectrum. We will never get within a factor of a billion of the Planck-scale. We can just "keep trying" to get there, or we can move to Plan B. I've chosen to move.
Note: This doesn't mean I reject all past and present physics. It does mean that, when an existing theory reaches its "divide by zero" moment, I have no choice but to discard that theory...at least locally...and proceed on foot.
It is not that the basic tenants of chemistry are not tested, challenged, strengthened, or weakened.
It is that the periodic changes and refinements are not Earth shattering.
When you get things right with the foundation of your house, you can build a house that will last. You will still have issues along the way, and there will be maintenance. But you won't have to build 10^^500 houses, or anti-houses, or a house that becomes a cloud that becomes a house again.
(2) Books and books have indeed been written about the Big Bang, etc. And I imagine in Ptolemy's time the same was true. It was certainly true with Newton. And of course Einstein. While String Theory probably caused bookstores to open up whole new wings. Is "number of books" your metric?
How many concrete things did GR have, at the start, that physicists could rush out and test? Eclipse data is all I am aware of, at least for the first x years.
I think your comment mostly reflects how you find my theory "shocking"...to you. It is different, very different. I'll give you that. But does it ring?
By the way, I bet these two sentences are ones you wish you could have back:
You briefly discuss implications on the impact on the structure of an atom, then you should be able to discuss calculations on the atomic spectrum. No need then to ramble on about more complex issues or problems associated with measurements in deep space etc., but instead would work with data that at the simplest level can be collected in a high school physics course lab, although has been done in detail to very high precision in better equipped labs.
The first sentence, about how I should be immediately working on "atomic spectrum" stuff, directly contradicts your second sentence. Which assumes I have a well stocked research lab that I should be busy working in...but that would be pointless because others have "done in detail"...my theory?!
Spring-And-Loop Theory came about by my trying to understand how gravity, an "attractive" force, worked across empty space. It is not my fault that it has had other repercussions. I am not deliberately trying to jump all over the place with it. But it is a reimagining of physics, no two ways about it. Again, some will have a harder time with this than others.
Sorry. Please replace "Roger" with "AC".
(2) As to "new theories are a dime a dozen, I get two new ones a week." Do you ever ask yourself why this is so? Do chemists get two new theories of chemistry a week? No. Because they have a good base model. I maintain that physics lacks a good base model.
The most obviously broken parts of physics, like the inflationary miracle after the Big Bang, are based on what measurements, exactly? The CMB? The same CMB that BICEP 2 based its nonsense on?
And Black Hole information retention is based on...?
And our completely broken notion of how stars should be orbiting the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy is a confirmation of our theory? Surely you gest.
Wikipedia's list of Unsolved Problems in Physics has, by my count, 148 questions (and another 74 things that need to be discussed). Wiki's corresponding U.P. in Chemistry looks to have 25 or 30.
There are at least a few modern physicists trying to deal with the horrendous state of physics today -- Lee Smolin, Frank Close, Peter Woit, and Amit Goswani come immediately to mind. Others like Anton Z Capri (& Feynman & Einstein) at least kept their sense of humor throughout their career.
Far too many are followers, and the system encourages this, big time. Lee Smolin talked about this, and how he tried to go against his gut at first, before ultimately coming out with Loop Quantum Gravity.
So is it all a bed of roses to you, "Roger"? Or have you a better theory? Or are you just interested in nitpicking?
Roger,
Thanks for your reply.
Regarding my mention of the Standard Model, you are quite right. Please replace that with "classic physics" or "old physics" or "non-relativistic non-quantum-mechanical" physics, or "the physics of Newton". It doesn't change my point, or my theory one iota.
As to my comments about light, in my first COASALT talk, Mr. David Thornley made this very same observation. It is rather like complaining that the numbers I chose for the street address of my building are a little too big, or too small. As I explained to Mr. Thornley, that was part of my preamble. Why don't you try commenting on my theory itself?
And as to my points about what we don't know about the SoL, it is like my points regarding gravity. When we don't know how gravity works...at the lowest level...then we have no guarantee that our theories of gravity (non-relativistic, or relativistic) are the complete answer. Similary, with light I maintain that physicists do not understand what exactly light is. We are aware it slows down in a medium, but we don't understand WHAT exactly it is. A working theory is not the same as a deeper understanding.
The LHC is one approach. The "make it bigger and then it might get better" approach.
Another approach is to conceive of a completely different model. I have come up with a different model from the Standard Model, and Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory.
Spring-And-Loop Theory resolves issues the other three theories are stuck on. It is also simpler. Unifies the four forces. And works from the very small to the very large.
But it is a different approach. Most are not ready for this.
I managed the computers for a Canadian university dept., including the development and operation of a system that collected $4M a year from students for the board portion of their room and board.
Cash pickups were done by Campus Cowboys.
One day, after they had left, I noticed a tennis-ball-can sized container of pepper spray had been left behind. At this time (about 20 years ago) the police and security agencies were not yet in full Gestapo mode, so it was a bit of a surprise. Or at least how big the can was was.
Called up their HQ and asked them "Do you guys use pepper spray?"
A mixture of stammering and silence followed.
After a while I said "Well, you guys left your pepper spray behind at [our location]"
They were unusually prompt in their arrival a few minutes later.
May I suggest a more generic name that doesn't have to be changed every five minutes?
Physically Interacting Massive Particles
The name will probably be shortened at some point.
I'm curious which part of parent's post was "trolling". I checked and the Fitbit is exactly 7 years old. Can we start having a mod-free Friday or something?
So true. Our teenagers are now completely uninterested in anything on TV, recorded or otherwise. Their transition to YouTube is complete.
And arrange counselling for your friend. I can't imagine the dilemma he finds himself in when holding an empty laundry detergent bottle.
As early as the 1670s, Newton used the idea of aether to help match observations to strict mechanical rules of his physics.
"The motion of light was a long standing investigation in physics for hundreds of years before the 20th century."
Ether theorists: Newton, Robert Boyle, Christiaan Huygens, Faraday, Lorentz, James Clerk Maxwell, Poincare...
It is noteworthy that, despite it being impossible to prove a negative, the ether has supposedly been disproven. So why does Wikipedia add a question mark to that section's title?
My own theory of the ether, gravity and QM.
Vivacious Vivisectionist?
Balloons make more sense, don't they?
Neo never knew he was in the matrix, whereas the trekkies generally knew.
I'm worried these experiments are going to end with a large hole in the ground and a toadstool-shaped cloud of hot gases.
And they could appear to be clean runners to boot.
Troll much?
Windows 8 is much faster than Windows 7. I love it for its speed of boot-up, and shutdown -- just what I want for a laptop I frequently have to start and stop.
And the implied point is the same: 60 dB away from practical means a factor of million improvement is still needed.
The 2 mph above = a ticket. Many cars have Mickey Mouse speedos that display in 5 mph increments. Good luck avoiding a ticket. Talk about a money maker...
I'll take the American approach any day.
But cell phone using drivers don't drive like this. They drive slower, if anything. They don't speed, if anything. They don't weave, if anything. They don't run traffic lights or stop signs, if anything.
What they do is not pay attention. They don't realize the light has changed. They don't realize they are going slow in the fast lane. And they suddenly change lanes -- typically from the extreme left to the extreme right lane -- when their cell phone GPS tells them that they need to turn right now.
Cell phone using drivers are 50% "just" annoying other drivers, and 50% the deadliest thing on the road.