Discuss Planck Units: QG & LQG Hybrid Model

[marcus]

we could have a thread for talking about Planck units
and getting accustomed to them

Planck units are basic and everpresent in QG
so it helps to develop a feel for them
even tho LQG is itself based on a continuum
the underlying spacetime is a continuum and it is only
the geometric excitations---quantum states of the gravitational field---
which have a discrete character

no one says it has to be that way (at least I think they dont!)
you could have an all-discrete model or an all-continuous model
and right now no model has a monopoly on the future.
but Loop is a hybrid, for better or worse, in this sense.

the underlying spacetime is continuous but the area and volume
operators turn out to have a discrete spectrum of possible values
which are some miscellaneous multiples of Planck area and Planck volume

So one tends to approach Planck units with an attitude of courteous respect, because whenever you get an answer it always turns out to be some number like $$\inline{3\pi}$$ times some Planck quantity.

So what about these units? Anyway to facilitate getting a handle on them?

 

[sol2]

Planck's constant

Planck's constant has units of energy x time. The preferred unit of energy in physics is the the electron volt (or eV for short) is the amount of work necessary to move one electron across a potential of one volt. This is a very handy unit for particle physicists because particle experiments use electric potentials to accelerate electrons and other particles with that same charge, and bang them into each other. In units with c=1, the mass of the electron is 0.5 MeV. Written in terms of eV, Planck's constant takes the value

http://superstringtheory.com/equations/PlancksConstant.gif

Notice that in these new units, increasing energy means decreasing length. Distances scales that are much smaller than the size of an atom have mass scales associated with them that are much larger than 2000 eV.
That is typical behavior for quantum mechanics. The de Broglie relation for wave-particle duality

http://superstringtheory.com/equations/deBroglie.gif

also shows that in quantum physics, it is necessary to use a large energy or momentum scale to probe a small distance scale. That's why particle accelerators are like microscopes. When the particle accelerator energy gets bigger, the distance scale being probed gets smaller.

http://superstringtheory.com/unitsa.html

 

[marcus]

that's a good start sol,
I thought I remembered seeing stuff about Planck units also at
your Quantum Gravity webpage that has the Egyptian picture with the scales.

(I wonder if the personage in the pavillion is Maat, the godess of the scales.
her name in hieroglyph writing is a feather)

 

[sol2]

that's a good start sol,
I thought I remembered seeing stuff about Planck units also at
your Quantum Gravity webpage that has the Egyptian picture with the scales.

(I wonder if the personage in the pavillion is Maat, the godess of the scales.
her name in hieroglyph writing is a feather)

Use the http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?126@87.uWONcZfwCDg.0@.1dde3fdf Type in Quantum gravity as well.

Arivero has response here

 

[Olias]

we could have a thread for talking about Planck units
and getting accustomed to them

Planck units are basic and everpresent in QG
so it helps to develop a feel for them
even tho LQG is itself based on a continuum
the underlying spacetime is a continuum and it is only
the geometric excitations---quantum states of the gravitational field---
which have a discrete character

no one says it has to be that way (at least I think they dont!)
you could have an all-discrete model or an all-continuous model
and right now no model has a monopoly on the future.
but Loop is a hybrid, for better or worse, in this sense.

the underlying spacetime is continuous but the area and volume
operators turn out to have a discrete spectrum of possible values
which are some miscellaneous multiples of Planck area and Planck volume

So one tends to approach Planck units with an attitude of courteous respect, because whenever you get an answer it always turns out to be some number like $$\inline{3\pi}$$ times some Planck quantity.

So what about these units? Anyway to facilitate getting a handle on them?

Marcus, I have been reading about Space-Time and Space length, with corresponding Space geometry (scale), and Time Geometry (distance).

Space Triangles,

Eddington stated that if:"You measure with a Scale from A to B and from B to C, the sum of your readings will be greater than the reading with a scale from A to C"

Time-triangles,
And now for a Time-Triangle the measurments must be made with an instrument which can measure Time, and the proposition then expresses that:" If you measure with a clock from A to B and from B to C the sum of your readings will be less than the reading obtained by measuring with a clock from A to C ".

When scale is prescribed upon space as from A to B you can turn your scale around and measure from B to A , obtaining the same result. You cannot turn a clock around, ie make it go backwards in time.

All Time-Triangles are considerably different from Space-Triangles.

A well known law of space-trianglation is that any TWO sides are together greater than the third side. There is an analogous, but significantly different law for the time-triangle, viz two of the sides (not any two sides) are together less than the third.

Loop Quantum GEOMETRY, must have a dual separate and distinct representation, not of Planck scales, and thus a Planck volume and Area will not share the same Geometrics as Planck Space and Planck Time?

The Dynamics of Planck Space goes on a different tangent to that of Planck Time!..or you can loop in space, but you cannot loop in Time.

 

[marcus]

making a few of the units really concrete

I'm thinking that for may folks the Planck units are too abstract
so although theory about them is interesting the priority should
be direct acquaintance

I find that Planck temperature is an easy one to remember (in kelvin)

Does anybody else find it so? does anybody happen to know what it is, without having to look it up?

 

[sol2]

1.417 x 1032 kelvin.

Sorry Marcus I had to look

Every temperature T has associated with it a characteristic amount of energy kT which is present in surroundings with that temperature at the quantum and molecular levels. At any given temperature the characteristic kT energy serves as a kind of keynote in the mix of energies in thermal radiation and gives a handle on the distribution of molecular kinetic energies. Temperature can be seen as an alternative scale for measuring that characteristic energy.

http://www.planck.com/plancktemperature.htm

 

[marcus]

1.41679 x 10³² kelvin.

Sorry Marcus I had to look

I corrected it to be up to date,
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/

to be sure of the latest and best data, I hope anybody reading this
will make it a habit to use NIST site (which gives the so-called
CODATA recommended values)
OK, the plug for NIST is over.

CODATA is an international committee of experts on the most accurate scientific measurement of the constants. Its like the roman senate. Picture them in togas and have some respect.

 

[sol2]

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plktmp

okay?

 

[marcus]

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plktmp

okay?

very much okay!

 

[Chronos]

hmm, dejavu

 

[sol2]

hmm, dejavu

Please enlighten

As we have moved to predefine measures, I thought it important for myself to look at historical information that might help me see this evolution as it came about that quantum gravity, would recogize Planck values as a limit from which such geometry might emerge.

A history of the Planck values provides interesting material for reflections on timely and premature discoveries in the history of science. Today, the Planck values are more a part of physics itself than of its history. They are mentioned in connection with the cosmology of the early universe as well as in connection with particle physics. In considering certain problems associated with a unified theory (including the question of the stability of the proton), theorists discovered a characteristic mass ~ 1016mp (mpis the proton mass). To ground such a great value, one first refers to the still greater mass 1019mp. In the words of Steven Weinberg:

This is known as the Planck mass, after Max Planck, who noted in 1900 that some such mass would appear naturally in any attempt to combine his quantum theory with the theory of gravitation. The Planck mass is roughly the energy at which the gravitational force between particles becomes stronger than the electroweak or the strong forces. In order to avoid an inconsistency between quantum mechanics and general relativity, some new features must enter physics at some energy at or below 1019 proton masses. (Weinberg 1981, p. 71).

The fact that Weinberg takes such liberties with history in this quotation is evidence of the need to describe the real historical circumstances in which the Planck mass arose. As we saw, when Planck introduced the mass (ch/G)1/2 (~ 1019mp) in 1899, he did not intend to combine the theory of gravitation with quantum theory; he did not even suppose that his new constant would result in a new physical theory. The first "attempt to combine the quantum theory with the theory of gravitation," which demonstrated that "in order to avoid an inconsistency between quantum mechanics and general relativity, some new features must enter physics," was made by Bronstein in 1935. That the Planck mass may be regarded as a quantum-gravitational scale was pointed out explicitly by Klein and Wheeler twenty years later. At the same time, Landau also noted that the Planck energy (mass) corresponds to an equality of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions.

Theoretical physicists are now confident that the role of the Planck values in quantum gravity, cosmology, and elementary particle theory will emerge from a unified theory of all fundamental interactions and that the Planck scales characterize the region in which the intensities of all fundamental interactions become comparable. If these expectations come true, the present report might become useful as the historical introduction for the book that it is currently impossible to write, The Small-Scale Structure of Space-Time.

http://people.bu.edu/gorelik/cGh_FirstSteps92_MPB_36/cGh_FirstSteps92_text.htm

and so it stands as of 25August.

I want to say that for me the thread raises issues (about talent, literary impulses, humaneness, intellectual integrity, open fora) which one does tend to want to think long and hard about. And I have arrived at no answers---the questions are hard ones. We are what we are, we have to treat each other with kindness and respect, what shall we do with us? Contrary to what one might expect, we represent certain talents and abilities (not always the conventional or expected ones but nevertheless to be considered). And besides this it's funny.

You know what I find strange, that to medallionize even the experts, I have found limitations in their views? This is not said out of disrespect, but to point out, some are not very familiarized with one sector, specializing in another?

It is funny to the degree that such specialization could have walked around pround as peacocks displaying all their regalia, and not understand what they are talking about in other areas. So this going for the gold, might have been retrogressively placed badges of honor where they have mistakenly and proundly done so, from good intentions, albeit damaging to a proud tradition of specialization

It is a long dream of humanity to find a SIMPLE explanation for the variety of our perceived world. For a while, it looked like string physics could do that. And maybe they will eventually get back to a simple explanation. But right now their attempts to model what the accelerators see is looking uncomfortably like Ptolemy's epicycles

Although this historical context might have found some of us entrenched in this past, this does not mean pre-concieve summations should limit it to being so. So I have a challenge I guess, amidst such summations. :sad:

The struggle to free ourselves from background structures began long before Einstein developed general relativity, and is still not complete. The conflict between Ptolemaic and Copernican cosmologies, the dispute between Newton and Leibniz concerning absolute and relative motion, and the modern arguments concerning the `problem of time' in quantum gravity -- all are but chapters in the story of this struggle. I do not have room to sketch this story here, nor even to make more precise the all-important notion of `geometrical structure'. I can only point the reader towards the literature, starting perhaps with the books by Barbour [9] and Earman [15], various papers by Rovelli [25,26,27], and the many references therein.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html

Of course John Baez goes on to say...

String theory has not gone far in this direction. This theory is usually formulated with the help of a metric on spacetime, which is treated as a background structure rather than a local degree of freedom like the rest. Most string theorists recognize that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and by now many are struggling towards a background-free formulation of the theory. However, in the words of two experts [18], ``it seems that a still more radical departure from conventional ideas about space and time may be required in order to arrive at a truly background independent formulation.''

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html

So indeed the process has become "easily solved, or the beauty of simplicity" for some to sit back in the rocking chair and take a wonderous view of what we had been given to think about. So what "wisdom of the grand fathers" is to be implored here, to say that all the models of consideration might have worked to a safe and solvent ground of deduction?

As these grandfathers sit on the porch and gaze to the past, what memories retained help then to put forth a systemic approach that the younger generation, might be endowed with procedures to follow? So we have this comlex organzation structures that must preceed from some basis and given the units of constant in Planck length what do we find?

That the visions of the grandfathers have taken us back to the very origins of our universe? What vision had we been imparted then of this grandiose view of the cosmos?

Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2.html

Have we gone so far off the deep end then that we shall find Sokal pointing out the defiencies of what dogmas are long held too, and those not? Who is really safe, to think that as a free thinkers, they shall be open for the challenge? Maybe as flexible to undertand that the points of deprture will have told us something about the limits of perception, that today, given our theoretical models, we have a new direction from summation, that helps to point Smolin/Baez in the direction they choose to go. Or those like Lubos, Urs ,Arvin in the direction they choose to go?

So here we sit, and amongst the toddlers that patiently wait for direction from the grandfathers, we find the stories intriguing, but none the less, the visions imparted and story told, quickly brings reality back to what sits on the horizon for the new generation. Will they warm to the romance a generation brought and find the "new, strangely comforting? It is easily disgarded for some and others, more intriguely captured souls.

 

[marcus]

hi sol,

I liked your post just now because both essays were chosen
very selectively
the Gorelik provides good history
the Baez "planck-node2" essay is exceptionally clearsighted about
where Planck units come from
(and what is expected of a quantum theory of gravity)

[edit: darnit sol, your post I was responding to just had two links
and now you have edited and added more links so it is not so focussed.
your first version just quoted gorelik
http://people.bu.edu/gorelik/cGh_FirstSteps92_MPB_36/cGh_FirstSteps92_text.htm
and baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html
now I'm swamped]


the two links you provided give a solid historical, theoretical-physics, and philosophical introduction in a short space, I read them with pleasure
despite still being groggy from choral singing last night.

I am wondering about something

suppose the 3 or 4 of us reading this thread (Chronos, sol, olias, myself) were some high school teachers planning curriculum and we met to think of a strategy to introduce Planck units to science students. what ideas would we come up with?

Here is another way to ask the question:

planck units are a system of units in which the unit speed is the speed of light-----that is, one unit length per unit time works out to be c.
And more or less everybody knows the speed of light. They know it is 300,000 kilometers a second or 186,000 miles a second or they can picture it and are familiar. So "everybody in the world" (the world of high school teachers) knows at least one Planck unit.

But almost nobody knows more than one. Most people's familiarity with Planck units stops with the speed of light.

If you were going to try to add to a high school student's consciousness just one more Planck unit, so that he or she would know two units instead of only one, which would you choose?

Or take yourself as a student. You know c is 3E8 m/s
what other Planck unit do you know by heart?
or if you don't know any other besides c, what one would you like to know
without having to look up?

Any ideas?

 

[sol2]

The quote in this link was chosen for a specific reason and was in response to your post. Reductionistic processes have to be scaled as well. There is a result from doing this?

The view must include a look at the early universe and a understanding of the Planck Epoch.

Such a point was raise at a different time in response to what I am going to "tell my eight year old grandson?"

The expansion of the post, reveals the thinking behind the post as well as what we have to be aware of as Grandfathers?

 

[sol2]

GrandFather Archibald Wheeler Greatest Blunder?

Reductionistc processes and the uncertainty

[My background is more in mathematics than in physics, and my perspective on space has been guided more by topology than by the concerns of HEP, and perhaps this bias affects how I view the discussions here concerning string theory and LQG. But here goes

https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-26637

Geons, Blackholes & Quantum Foam, by John Archibald Wheeler, with Kenneth Ford, page 236, para 2.


"This hypothetical entity, a gravitating body made up entirely of electromagnetic fields. I call geon(g for the gravity, e for electromagnetism," and on as the word root for"particle"). There is no evidence for geons in nature and later was able to show that they are unstable-they would quickly self-destruct if they were ever to form. Nevertheless it is tempting to think that nature has a way of exercising all the possibilties open to it. Perhaps geons had a transitory exitance early in history of the universe. Perhaps(as some students and I speculate much more recently), they provide an intermediate stage in the creation of the black holes."

Even in our long held dogmas there is always room to grow. This is a important lesson and no body has enshrined this principal more then Self Adjoint. I have watched the years in his development along with my own.

We have to be careful about our summations.

 

[marcus]

The view must include a look at the early universe and a understanding of the Planck Epoch.

Such a point was raise at a different time in response to what I am going to "tell my eight year old grandson?"

The expansion of the post, reveals the thinking behind the post as well as what we have to be aware of as Grandfathers?

stop right there, don't add anything to this post by further editing
you have a good idea to think about
the grandson problem. let's focus

 

[marcus]

you have put the problem more clearly than I did (with my curriculum committee of science teachers)
it is the 8-year-old grandson problem

our culture knows the speed of light in the sense
that 8-year-olds know 186,000 miles-----or 300,000 kilometers---a second
and sometimes talk about it with the Baba
this is a sign that it has seeped into our culture

what other Planck quantity (if any) can the Baba
and the grandchild discuss? and how could it be introduced
in a natural way (as if not in school)?

 

[sol2]

It is indeed a perplexing problem

what other Planck quantity (if any) can the Baba
and the grandchild discuss? and how could it be introduced
in a natural way (as if not in school)?

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@87.uWONcZfwCDg.0@.1de0d666

So indeed a amplitude of the string virbationally helped us to envision sound as a value in how the vacuum might be disturbed? How simple this view when we are amazed at the valuation of sound might garner geometrical proclivites to arrange things this way, or that.

Here son, watch what happens to a string when I weight the gourd full of water. Can we not alter the sound? Watch son, as the particles arrange themselves on the drum. Let's take this aluminum bar and see why it rings, from beyond the scope of our vision?


Imagine son, that if we could shrink this bubble that we have created from this vast ocean of the Planck epoch, how we could shrink it's shape using sound. So in this place of sound, nodal points like the patterns on the drum tells us something about the nature of the universe?

I do not want to defer from the problem posed.

 

[marcus]

It is indeed a perplexing problem

...
Here son, watch what happens to a string when I weight the gourd full of water. Can we not alter the sound? Watch son, as the particles arrange themselves on the drum. Let's take this aluminum bar and see why it rings, from beyond the scope of our vision?

indeed we are focusing on Planck units (rather than on stringtheory as in your earlier post)
but the idea of music still applies----and can be culture doorway.

all the Planck units are so closely interrelated that they are, in a certain sense the same unit

the Planck frequency is the one which has Planck length as its wavelength
and also a photon with that frequency has one Planck unit of energy

and so in this case the "feather" or unit is several things at once: both a temperature and a speed, a length and an energy, a brief duration of time and a frequency too high to be heard...

"For the ancient Egyptians, exactitude was symbolized by a feather that served as a weight on scales used for the weighing of souls. this light feather was called Maat, goddess of the scales. The hieroglyph for Maat also stood for the unit of length---the 33 centimeters of the standard brick---and for the fundamental note of the flute."

 

[sol2]

indeed we are focusing on Planck units (rather than on stringtheory as in your earlier post)
but the idea of music still applies----and can be culture doorway.

all the Planck units are so closely interrelated that they are, in a certain sense the same unit

the Planck frequency is the one which has Planck length as its wavelength
and also a photon with that frequency has one Planck unit of energy

and so in this case the "feather" or unit is several things at once: both a temperature and a speed, a length and an energy, a brief duration of time and a frequency too high to be heard...

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/introduction/em_same.gif

Consider the amplitude of the string then in relation.

"For the ancient Egyptians, exactitude was symbolized by a feather that served as a weight on scales used for the weighing of souls. this light feather was called Maat, goddess of the scales. The hieroglyph for Maat also stood for the unit of length---the 33 centimeters of the standard brick---and for the fundamental note of the flute."

There are all kinds of measures in that picture? Look at the chair But the deepest and most troubling, is that we associate heat with extreme energies and how capable would this be of relevance in any mind?

So we change our glasses. Now all we see is vibration. Some notes, very high and some very low? I have a model for such reductionistic processes. It's called a pyramid. At the tip, is the finest matter dstinction we have. At the base, our earth. Now consider the "amplitude of the string" in relation to the matters.

Some of the paths energy(uncertainty asks which path will emerge) can take, are as diverse as the choices given to us in Pascal's triangle, but all pathways are conclusive, as sound is, in its consolidation(earth)

But indeed imagine 3(triangle) into 4(square)

 

[marcus]

There are all kinds of measures i...l note of the flute"---ie. frequency of light

 

[sol2]

so we have a scale up on the kid's wall with 32 steps these are the 32 powers of ten between 1.4 kelvin and the top hots, which as you sol said was 1.4E32 kelvin

I went to look back over posts where I might have said "tops" and did not find that, although I did say if you scale amplitude to temperature, the comparison stands.

Science tells us nothing about what happened from the time of the Big Bang until 10-43 seconds, a concept known as Planck time. After this, the time is grouped into epochs.

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/t/ti/timeline_of_the_big_bang.html

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plktmp

Planck Epoch

The Planck Epoch covers the time from 10-43 to 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang. The temperature during this epoch is estimated to decrease from 10 32 K to 10 27 K.

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/t/ti/timeline_of_the_big_bang.html

The average temperature ranges from 5,800 degrees Kelvin (surface), 15.5 million degrees Kelvin (core) of the sun.


http://www.phys.uvic.ca/research/theory/universe_small.jpg

Combining recent measurements of the CMB and supernovae, has revealed that a large part of the universe has not yet been understood. The largest part of the total energy in the universe exists in forms which we cannot directly detect. Some yet unknown particles should constitute the Dark Matter, while the largest portion of the total energy density has to be in the form of Dark Energy. This may well be in the form of Einstein famous cosmological constant.

http://www.phys.uvic.ca/research/theory/general.htm

you are forcing me to see how to visualize temperature in terms of "the fundamental note of the flute"---ie. frequency of light

that "phase transitions" occur and that Lqg can only go so far. Often using water through its stages(from steam to ice analogy), serves to help us understand this transition.

From Planck Epoch to Grand Unification

What about the Beginning?

Our physics can not yet ask questions about times earlier than the start of the Planck Epoch (t=10-43 sec).

Some would say we have problems back before the Electroweak Epoch (t=10-12 sec).

This will be the astrophysics theory of the 21st Century (or maybe the 22nd ...)

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~depoy/courses/lecture.notes/begin.html

I appreciate the time you are spending with me as a student

 

[marcus]

I appreciate the time you are spending with me as a student

monkeys groom each other, who is the student?

 

[marcus]

We are talking about Planck units.
Pete (pmb) contributed some useful LaTex in another thread and I copied it to the A&C reference library (a sticky thread for handy links and such)
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=30180#post301180

the Einstein equation shows the Planck force mediating between curvature and pressure (same like energy density)

first assume no cosmological constant $\Lambda = 0$
here's the standard 1915 Einstein equation relating curvture on LHS to energy density pressure quantities (terms of stress-energy tensor) on RHS. this is how matter bends space:
---exerpt from Pete---

$$G^{\alpha\beta} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T^{\alpha\beta}$$

---endquote---

The Planck unit of force (related to unit acceleration and mass) is $\frac{c^4}{G}$ so this force appears clearly in the equation. As curvature is measured here it is a reciprocal distance squared, an inverse area. So multiplying any curvature by a force gives a pressure or alternatively an energy density. Let's rewrite the Einstein equation trivially so as to make that explicit.

$$\frac{c^4}{8\pi G} ( G^{\alpha\beta}) = T^{\alpha\beta}$$

when the cosmological constant is included, the equation is only slightly more complicated

$$G^{\alpha\beta} + \Lambda g^{\alpha\beta} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T^{\alpha\beta}$$

rewriting as before

$$\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}(G^{\alpha\beta} + \Lambda g^{\alpha\beta}) = T^{\alpha\beta}$$

the Planck unit force (in this case divided by 8 pi) is what tells how much matter bends space. take a given curvature, multiply it by the force and you get an energy density----the energy density which would be required to produce that amount of curvature.

it's multidimensional so there are a lot of terms, on a term by term basis this is the role that the force unit plays.
if you want to know what the force is (in metric Newtons or some other conventional unit) you can easily calculate it just from
$$\frac{c^4}{ G}$$

I am wondering if the grandkid and the Baba we are discussing can talk about matter bending space and how this force plays a central role in the Earth going around the sun.
I wonder which is the most intuitive first step to take----the top temperature (we discussed before) or this everpresent bending force

 

[marcus]

so we have a scale up on the kid's wall with 32 steps
these are the 32 powers of ten
between 1.4 kelvin
and the top hots, which as you sol said was 1.4E32 kelvin

where is the core of the sun on that scale?

anybody know or want to guess?
there are steps 1 to 32
at the bottom there is the Cosmic microw. backgr. (very cold. 2.7 kelvin!)
and at the top end there is the beginning of the universe (very hot)

where do you picture the center of the sun being, on that scale of 1 to 32?

BTW gammaray bursts are much hotter than core of sun, much higher temp than the Xrays shining at center of sun, so the scale will not be
a total blank in that section

sol gave a start, he said 15 million kelvin.
where is that on a scale of 1 to 32? we need to visualize the long skinny poster on the kids wall

we 15 million is about the same as 14 million, which is 7 powers of ten bigger than 1.4 kelvin
Microwave Background (very cold) = step 0
Sun core = step 7
Top temp(big bang) = step 32


visible light and the radiant heat you can feel on your skin is betwen
3 and 4

cosmic ray energies and gammaray burst light is roughly 10 orders higher than the sun core temperature---somewhere between 7 and 32, call it roughly 17

here is a rough picture, with B for backround, V for visible, S for suncore, G for gammaray, T for top or Planck temperature. here are 32 + marks to show the logarithmic or power of ten scale of temp

B+++V++S+++++++++G++++++++++++++T

 

[sol2]

sol gave a start, he said 15 million kelvin.
where is that on a scale of 1 to 32? we need to visualize the long skinny poster on the kids wall

we 15 million is about the same as 14 million, which is 7 powers of ten bigger than 1.4 kelvin
Microwave Background (very cold) = step 0
Sun core = step 7
Top temp(big bang) = step 32


visible light and the radiant heat you can feel on your skin is betwen
3 and 4

cosmic ray energies and gammaray burst light is roughly 10 orders higher than the sun core temperature---somewhere between 7 and 32, call it roughly 17

here is a rough picture, with B for backround, V for visible, S for suncore, G for gammaray, T for top or Planck temperature. here are 32 + marks to show the logarithmic or power of ten scale of temp

B+++V++S+++++++++G++++++++++++++T

I certainly appreicate the paradigmalization of measures here in relation, and I am most certain on a most basic and human level my grandson would appreciate it too.

It would not be in appropriate here to add the conceptualization of Omega as the T, although, we would know that such temperatures could be reached within our own cosmos "now(B)". The hyperdimensional configurations of such a model in our curvature parametrization, will be revealled in the critical density and applicable relations, throughout this spectrum B ->T(as step 1-32).

To understand the holes, you needed to accept this variance throughout the whole universe, within this universe. If accepted how does this pave the way?

This would remove, some of the "speculation," that we could not return, to the basis of a Beginning, within the confines of this universe, as a question of, what is to emerge through our models of geometry that we are currently using?

 

[marcus]

sol there arent any holes in the energy spectrum or the electromagnetic spectrum AFAIK,
there is light of everwavelength from radio and infrared all the way up and past gamma
in the little picture I put some milestones on just to help me (and us) imagine what the color-printed strip of paper could look like
a rainbow is at one place, a supernova is at another place, along the long poster

you have put the problem more clearly than I did (with my curriculum committee of science teachers)
it is the 8-year-old grandson problem

our culture knows the speed of light in the sense
that 8-year-olds know 186,000 miles-----or 300,000 kilometers---a second
and sometimes talk about it with the Baba
this is a sign that it has seeped into our culture

what other Planck quantity (if any) can the Baba
and the grandchild discuss? and how could it be introduced
in a natural way (as if not in school)?

if gparent and gchild can happily discuss something then it is part of the culture

the speed of light is part of the culture---the 8 years old knows it by heart, even the Baba (who forgets easily) knows
it is some big number of miles or kilometers (300 thousand) a second
the night sky is measured in lightyears: that's how fast, that's how far.

how can we make the top temperature and the force be as familiar as that? how can we make them part of the culture too, along with the speed of light?

does it really help to talk about "omega" sol? doesn't that just add another
unfamiliar, another possible something to be confused about, and say "what do you mean Baba?"

which is the clearest and simplest next step to take after c?
is the most intuitive one the Planck force?
or is it the Planck temperature?
or some other of them.

 

[sol2]

I am wondering if the grandkid and the Baba we are discussing can talk about matter bending space and how this force plays a central role in the Earth going around the sun.

I wonder which is the most intuitive first step to take----the top temperature (we discussed before) or this everpresent bending force

There had to be a geoemtrical consistancy to the developemnt of GR, and historically our forbearers reveal this for our us, as we travel through Klien's Ordering of Geometries.

Without this basis of conisderation, no amount of moving from euclidean to non-eucldean is going to make sense. The graduation to the sphere, being Reimann's forte, was lead there with high expectation by Gauss(proud father). Going backward through this idea of breaking the stalmate on the fifth postulate, Giralamo Sachherri paved the road for Bolyai, Minkowski and others. You had to correlate how you were seeing with, temperature values.

It is very dynamical when you understand the CMB background has variance within it's over all structure. The value of Bose Nova becomes clear, becuase it geometrically tells us about the evolution of geometry, and also of the effect it can have in regards to returning back to the beginning T

It required that you understand the correlation between energy and matter.

So I would tell my grandson, imagine, you are standing on a bridge looking into a pool of carp and through the carp eyes you are looking at the surface.

You had to graduate the geometry, nd once you grok this, you know you have stepped off the planet

 

[sol2]

sol there arent any holes in the energy spectrum or the electromagnetic spectrum AFAIK, there is light of everwavelength from radio and infrared all the way up and past gamma in the little picture I put some milestones on just to help me (and us) imagine what the color-printed strip of paper could look like a rainbow is at one place, a supernova is at another place, along the long poster

For some, it is essential that they have some way in which to calculate mass impressions in the spacetime fabric.

So I would tell my grandson, look, if we stretch this fabric here, and say this represents the universe, take that marble I gave you and we will let it go, after you place this heavy rock in the middle of it. So my grandson as as smart as whip saids," Grandpa, the marble is rolling in the direction of the big rock!"

But one thing my grandson is having a very hard time understanding is that if you have a massless particle like the photon, it is effected very much like that marble is. Around objects that make a impression in that fabric.

So we use this spacetime fabric to aid us in the determinations, of where we might find this photon heavily influenced. So would it not be appropriate to say to him, "that the photon will be effected by the energy too?"

But hold the phone -- there's supposedly a maximum speed in the Universe, the speed of light. What happens if the escape velocity of a planet were greater than the speed of light? In other words, what if gravity were strong enough to trap light itself?

http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh1.html

The interesting thing is that these holes we are talking about require some visualizations to take place.

Lets say the spectrum could have been measured in the Octave, and one of the guiding principals of this universe is it's music.

So we have this string attached between two points(lets call them nodal points) So I look at my grandson and say, let's look at the way a vacuum is effected by sound(it's note) and so we might generate some geometrical patterns here for consideration.

So I strummed the guitar and low and behold after spreading these particles on this drum, we find that it is arranging itself to specific patterns?

Now son, if we considered the vacuum of space and the speed of light, what is the one thing that will effect that speed?

the speed of light is part of the culture---the 8 years old knows it by heart, even the Baba (who forgets easily) knows
it is some big number of miles or kilometers (300 thousand) a second
the night sky is measured in lightyears: that's how fast, that's how far.

Baba unbeknowst to his grandson has a secret. Baba's vsion is extremely farsighted when it comes to looking back in time. He knows that with all these events taking place in the cosmo, that there is a measure to it.

In the events where these holes are(one aspect of the geometry), the over all perspective of the geometry is telling us something about itself over this extremely long distances of measure, in relation to those billions of years.

Inverse square law, applies to other things as well. Some are more revealing about the events then others. Some, because they cannot escape, the strength of those very hot energetic locations in the universe.

I wonder which is the most intuitive first step to take----the top temperature (we discussed before) or this everpresent bending force

?

 

[sol2]

I wanted to add Nereids link here for consideration.