The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Length contraction at the Planck scale?  (Read 1522 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Length contraction at the Planck scale?
« on: 30/07/2014 20:27:35 »
If length contraction is real and not just theoretical how can we resolve this at the Planck scale?


 

Offline joepierson

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Length contraction at the Planck scale?
« Reply #1 on: 30/07/2014 20:42:04 »
In other words, how can an observer possibly measure the length of contraction below Planck length?  You can't.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Length contraction at the Planck scale?
« Reply #2 on: 30/07/2014 20:51:09 »
In other words, how can an observer possibly measure the length of contraction below Planck length?  You can't.

If the Planck mass collapses into a black hole then all the energy fits into a radius of two Planck lengths. Therefore this must be impossible as it violates the very quatisation described by quantum mechanics. The mass just disappears from the observable universe.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Length contraction at the Planck scale?
« Reply #3 on: 30/07/2014 22:53:20 »
In other words, how can an observer possibly measure the length of contraction below Planck length?  You can't.

If the Planck mass collapses into a black hole then all the energy fits into a radius of two Planck lengths. Therefore this must be impossible as it violates the very quatisation described by quantum mechanics. The mass just disappears from the observable universe.
Interesting point jeff. If this is true, recognizing that many such black holes exist in our present universe, could one surmise that our universe is growing lighter even though it appears to be growing in volume? Just call me Puzzled!
 

Offline joepierson

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Length contraction at the Planck scale?
« Reply #4 on: 30/07/2014 22:58:06 »
I guess I need your definition of real, length contraction is a result of a coordinate transformation in spacetime.
« Last Edit: 30/07/2014 23:00:20 by joepierson »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Length contraction at the Planck scale?
« Reply #5 on: 30/07/2014 23:33:37 »
In other words, how can an observer possibly measure the length of contraction below Planck length?  You can't.

If the Planck mass collapses into a black hole then all the energy fits into a radius of two Planck lengths. Therefore this must be impossible as it violates the very quatisation described by quantum mechanics. The mass just disappears from the observable universe.
Interesting point jeff. If this is true, recognizing that many such black holes exist in our present universe, could one surmise that our universe is growing lighter even though it appears to be growing in volume? Just call me Puzzled!

If you consider the fact that theory shows that the density behind an event horizon reduces as the mass increases then ultimately this is not the case. The matter behind the horizon is still quantized within our universe. The fact that theory suggests that light is trapped makes little difference. The matter in this situation still exists within the universe. If we consider that escape velocity from the earth being 11km does not prevent us from jumping in the air at a lower velocity then movement out of such an event horizon should be possible for particles of lower velocity than c. There will be enough kinetic energy as the surroundings are energetic enough to produce x-rays. Or am I wrong?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Length contraction at the Planck scale?
« Reply #5 on: 30/07/2014 23:33:37 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums