Can Electromagnetic Fields Interact with the Planck Scale?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interaction of electromagnetic fields with the Planck scale, exploring whether these fields can access or influence this scale and the implications of such interactions. Participants examine theoretical and conceptual aspects, including the nature of space, the requirements for probing the Planck scale, and the characteristics of electromagnetic fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the Planck scale may be considered a "no man's land" or empty, questioning if electromagnetic fields can interact with it.
  • Others argue that the Planck scale is a unit of distance, similar to the meter, and that fields like the electromagnetic field are continuous and occupy all of space without a defined boundary.
  • It is proposed that space is modeled as a smooth and continuous manifold in General Relativity, with no segmentation into Planck-length segments.
  • Some participants express confusion about why a solar system-sized particle accelerator is needed to probe the Planck scale if electromagnetic fields can access it naturally.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of electromagnetic fields and their wavelengths, with some asserting that fields do not have wavelengths but rather disturbances in these fields do.
  • One participant mentions that while cosmic rays and gamma-ray bursts are the most energetic phenomena observed, their wavelengths are still longer than the Planck scale.
  • Another participant introduces the idea that Superstring theory may describe the Planck scale as unknown and possibly devoid of space, suggesting a different conceptualization of space at this scale.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of the Planck scale or the interaction of electromagnetic fields with it. Multiple competing views are presented, particularly regarding the continuity of space and the necessity of high-energy colliders for probing the Planck scale.

Contextual Notes

Some claims depend on specific interpretations of theoretical frameworks, such as General Relativity and Superstring theory, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes unresolved questions about the nature of electromagnetic fields and their interactions at the Planck scale.

  • #31
oquen said:
To clarify:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass
"In physics, the Planck mass, denoted by mP, is the unit of mass in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is approximately 0.0217651 milligrams—about the mass of a flea egg."
"The Planck mass can be derived approximately by setting it as the mass whose Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are equal.[3] The Compton wavelength is, loosely speaking, the length-scale where quantum effects start to become important for a particle; the heavier the particle, the smaller the Compton wavelength. The Schwarzschild radius is the radius in which a mass, if it were a black hole, would have its event horizon located; the heavier the particle, the larger the Schwarzschild radius. If a particle were massive enough that its Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius were approximately equal, its dynamics would be strongly affected by quantum gravity."

It's saying if the Planck length is occupied by energy, it's like the mass of a flea egg.

No. You are reading it wrong.

It's saying that if you take some particle (say, an electron) and accelerate it so much that its wavefunction can be localized to fit entirely in just one Planck length, the necessary energy for such acceleration is equivalent to a mass of a flea egg. Which is an enormous energy for an electron. We are very far from being able to give electrons (or any other particles) that much energy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
oquen said:
But the flea mass is not the maximum that can fit inside the Planck length, correct? because in the big bang.. all the universe was once the size of a Planck length.. so I figure the mass can be higher. Back to the flea egg. If our detector can detect the mass of a flea egg in the accelerator sensor, then it means we can measure the Planck length? or no way to know if the flee egg is a real egg or mass from the Planck length?
The movement of your fingers while you typed this message produced several orders of magnitude more energy than the Planck mass. However they are interactions happening on a lot of particles (well atoms) and not on single particles (as eg an electron).
The string mass can be lower as well...
 
  • #33
nikkkom said:
No. You are reading it wrong.

It's saying that if you take some particle (say, an electron) and accelerate it so much that its wavefunction can be localized to fit entirely in just one Planck length, the necessary energy for such acceleration is equivalent to a mass of a flea egg. Which is an enormous energy for an electron. We are very far from being able to give electrons (or any other particles) that much energy.

But if someday we could accelerate particles and collide them and acquire enough energy to focus them in the Planck length with energy equal to the Planck mass.. ain't the effect the same as accelerating the electron itself to make its wavefunction be localized to fit entirely in just one Planck length??

At present.. what is the resolution of our sensor that we can distinguish whether the particles are blob or distinguish shape? is this entirely related to how much we can localize or make the wavelength smaller (by high energy) or is there other way?
 
  • #34
oquen said:
But if someday we could accelerate particles and collide them and acquire enough energy to focus them in the Planck length with energy equal to the Planck mass.. ain't the effect the same as accelerating the electron itself to make its wavefunction be localized to fit entirely in just one Planck length??

I will try one last time. There is only ONE method to "focus particles into" very small spaces - to accelerate them.

At present.. what is the resolution of our sensor that we can distinguish whether the particles are blob or distinguish shape? is this entirely related to how much we can localize or make the wavelength smaller (by high energy) or is there other way?

There is no other way.
 
  • #35
nikkkom said:
I will try one last time. There is only ONE method to "focus particles into" very small spaces - to accelerate them.
There is no other way.

Ok. Thanks. That's very clear now. So it is the quantum bullet that we must aim to reach Planck mass energy by accelerating it... I thought it was a particular Planck target that we must aim using different projectiles from all angles to reach Planck energy. No doubts about it now.

Early. It was stated the Planck area couldn't detect our radio waves because it was like amoeba feeling the wave of a tsunami. But let's say there are Calabi–Yau manifolds (or other dynamics) inside the Planck length that can transmit signal.. can they transmit it with wavelength bigger than them like as big as radio waves? Or are radio transmitters limited to the length of their antenna... In our cellphones.. we can only send microwaves the length of our cellphone antenna? but then the submarine are able to receive ELF.. can the submarine transmitter able to send ELF too.. if true.. then the Planck scale Calabi-Yau or whatever can also send radio waves (or illustrative of any wavelength larger than the Planck length?) This is just for sake of illustration.. of course I'm not implying there is radio station inside the Planck length
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K