Is a tabletop search for Planck scale signals feasible

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of a tabletop experiment proposed by Beckenstein for detecting Planck scale signals, specifically focusing on the experimental design and its implications for measuring phenomena like quantum foam. Participants explore the technical aspects, challenges, and potential sources of error in the proposed methodology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants find Beckenstein's proposal intriguing and question its realism in practical terms.
  • Concerns are raised about the focus on thermal vibrations, with one participant suggesting that non-thermal sources of vibration may not be adequately addressed.
  • There is a comparison made between Beckenstein's design and LIGO, noting differences in the time intervals used for measurements.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the types of gases present in high vacuum conditions and their potential impact on the experiment.
  • Another participant speculates that the accelerations involved might not significantly affect photon transmission, despite the small displacements being measured.
  • A suggestion is made to consider an alternative idea for measuring quantum foam using a tabletop apparatus, prompting questions about its soundness and potential mistakes in its premise.
  • References to external commentary by Bee Hossenfelder are made, highlighting her expertise in quantum gravity phenomenology and her evaluation of the proposed experiment.
  • Concerns are also raised about the vagueness of a blog post discussing the experiment, suggesting that it lacks depth in understanding quantum gravity theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of viewpoints, with no clear consensus on the feasibility of the proposed experiment or the adequacy of its design. Multiple competing views remain regarding the significance of thermal versus non-thermal vibrations and the implications for measurement accuracy.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the assumptions about vacuum conditions, the nature of vibrations, and the speculative aspects of photon transmission based on displacement measurements.

Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
11,420
Reaction score
750
This paper - http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3816 - by Beckenstein is fascinating. I would like to know if the experimental test proposal is realistic.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cool! He seems to discuss thermal vibration transmitted through atoms of gas, photons, and thermal contact through the fiber. However, he doesn't seem to discuss non-thermal sources of vibration. Hasn't he simply designed the world's most sensitive seismometer? These vibrations aren't thermal in nature, and can't be eliminated by cooling. I don't understand the last section of paragraph II, which seems to be addressing something related to this. The first two sentences don't seem to be connected logically to the rest of the paragraph.

This seems very similar to what LIGO does, but they're still measuring displacements many, many orders of magnitude above the Planck scale. I guess the big difference is that Bekenstein's design involves time intervals that are short (e.g., compared to the time between hits by atoms of gas), whereas LIGO uses time intervals that are long, so they're in the business of averaging out the thermal fluctuations.

In his discussion of vacuum, he says that He is what you'd choose to use, because the low mass is more favorable. But when you're trying to achieve high vacuum, you don't necessarily get to choose what gas it is you're pumping out. Different types of vacuum pumps work differently (e.g., cryopumps get rid of stuff that condenses, turbopumps work on everything). I've never worked with high vacuum at this level, and I don't know what techniques they use. But I suspect that you might be dealing with a lot of high-molecular-mass gunk such as finger grease or stuff that outgasses from various surfaces, which also might be high in molecular mass.
 
Last edited:
But I suspect that you might be dealing with a lot of high-molecular-mass gunk such as finger grease or stuff that outgasses from various surfaces, which also might be high in molecular mass.
I would expect mainly hydrogen in the vacuum, as it can diffuse through other materials easily. It is the dominant contribution in the LHC vacuum, for example.

Hasn't he simply designed the world's most sensitive seismometer?
If the accelerations are slow, it might not matter.I think the general assumption there that photon transmission depends on the displacement is very speculative, even if that displacement is of the order of the Planck length.
 
Tabletop Measurement of Quantum Foam

Here's an idea put forth for measuring the existence of Quantum Foam by use of a tabletop apparatus:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/507691/how-to-measure-quantum-foam-with-a-tabletop-experiment/#comments

Does this idea seem sound enough? Or are there any mistakes in its premise?
 
Chronos said:
This paper - http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3816 - by Beckenstein is fascinating. I would like to know if the experimental test proposal is realistic.

Bee Hossenfelder comments on the paper here:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/11/is-tabletop-search-for-planck-scale.html

Bee is a recognized expert in quantum gravity phenomenology and has organized 3 international conferences on the experimental search for QG effects. She is familiar with the main QG models and can judge whether the proposed experiment actually would test any of them.

There was also a blog entry at the MIT Technology Review website. It doesn't say who the author was and it doesn't sound as if the author knows anything about actual QG theories---the blog post impresses me as being somewhat on the vague, naive side.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/507691/how-to-measure-quantum-foam-with-a-tabletop-experiment/#comments

EDIT: I see sanman has already given a pointer to the TechReview blog post. The short answer would be to read Bee's post.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
16K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
12K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K