Quantum Gravity 397.1: What Would Happen if We Could Shrink A Human Observer Indefinitely?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Light speed is constan "c". I am puzzled
Next: Libertaria Still Oozing Into the Gulf; Why Not Flare Off the Libertaria Down At the Leak?
From: Osher Doctorow on 24 May 2010 01:20 From Osher Doctorow As readers can guess from 397.0, the people whom the human Observer left behind at "ordinary" human size would interpret the "shrinking Observer" as eventually entering the Quantum level and no longer obeying Classical Physics. The human Observer who shrinks would retain Classical Physics throughout, including F = ma, etc. I will try to continue this later, but the idea is fairly clear from the above. Osher Doctorow
From: Osher Doctorow on 24 May 2010 02:25
From Osher Doctorow It all may seem like pure speculation, but there are some arguably interesting aspects. 1) Intuitively, it makes sense for any physical object to be shrinkable - to an arbitrarily small positive "length". 2) Intuitively, it makes sense for any physical object to have arbitrarily increasing speed and acceleration under appropriate conditions. 3) The imposition of "barriers" to small size and large speed, respectively h and c, seems to be related to their remoteness from Human Scale Physics (Classical Nonrelativistic Physics). 4) There appear to be no fractal barriers to "decreasing self- similarity", that is to say to self-similarity on decreasing size scales, and a smallest length scale seems out of place in fractals. 5) There is no explanation in physics as to why a contracting object in Classical Physics should suddenly transition to a different kind of object in Quantum Physics. 6) Eddington's interpretation of sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) as admitting both imaginary and real solutions, that is to say the existence of v^2 > c^2 (superluminal) and v^2 < = c^2 (subluminal) regimes that do not intercommunicate, indicates that c separates phases or universes rather than constitutes an upper bound on speeds. 7) The notion of "collapsing geometry" at the sub-Planck level contradicts the mathematical definitions of Euclidean geometry and even topology including the notion of geometric similarity and topological continuity/connectedness, while the "explanations" of why this supposedly does not contradict them have something of the quality of "fine-tuning" and after-the-fact which is regarded as undesirable in physics. 8) Inflation with superluminal GEOMETRIC speed involves several of the above problems and introduces problems of its own including a counter- intuitive notion of geometric versus physical speed, unless the Inflation reflects potential characteristics of all objects (physical as well as geometric). Osher Doctorow |