A serious question, if the minimum length of a single quanta (where n =1) is the Planck length; and the maximum wavelength, from E=hf (where f=1), is the speed of light in meters, then how are these diametrically opposed lengths resolvable.
The 300,000,000m answer is: "utilizing the laws of symmetry, spin and doubling/halving".
The 10^-35m answer is: "same".
A more generic account of this is the simple sound harmonic which doubles/halves at each octave of 8 whole notes, similar to the Periodic Table harmonic groups. The number 8 is key here, which can give us a method of halving/doubling peering into the quantum world in a manner of speaking. Therefore the 10^8 can simply be a harmonic of the 10^-35 world, with similar properties.
We have all been a bit lost when attempting to describe spacetime with equations alone. Spacetime gets lost in the mix, yet is what we are attempting to describe! I believe there must be a mix of both. In other words, bring a bit of a visual structure into the mix, attach some equations, and see if it works... numerically. We know some of the numeric answers, and yes we have had good mass correlations (some unfortunately by inventing new particles or phantom particles), but the question still remains... what does the quantum mass model actually look like with all the SM "particles" attached. To state that one can never know both the momentum and position simultaneously of a matter is simply a non-structural matheze answer to non-reality. This would be in opposition to the determinism statements in the macro. If one could show a complete cyclic set of a quantum dynamic structure, then both can be known, otherwise the dynamic structure is imaginary, similar to the imaginary equation. Perhaps an "Uncertainty Principle" is simply due to the uncertainty of what the structure actually is.
To date any atomic structure is still a foggy bag of SM particles and anti-particles shaken up in a dark room. Perhaps its time to conceptualize an actual structure, turn on the light in the dark room of particles and see if all the charges, spins, polarities and symmetries actually give observed results when placed onto that structure. Once this occurs, now at last we would have something tangible which can be related back to the real world.... a structure. Without this structure, any equation remains an equation, yet we don't drive an equation to work, eat equations or go on an equation vacation. Structures must be involved. Perhaps a structural engineer might have some overdue insight.
PS: I feel confident in these above statements due to the fact I have discovered such a structure, and verified it by successfully placing all 17 SM particles (and their anti-particles) onto it describing a 12 cycle dynamic, with numeric results of charge, polarity, spin, orbit and symmetries agreeing with current observations. This discovery also answers why space and time must be inherently linked, why N/S exists, the spacetime gravity gradient, why elements with atomic numbers greater than 82 are radioactive, why the neutron (not having a charge) exists within the nucleus, along with many others. It is a structure which answers these and more questions, not equations. Equations are simply tools to verify a structural system. If interested, I can forward this UFT once published by simply following me here (2019 time frame).
Dear Andrew,
It is very simple! You just have to put to action some kind of "Inflation" (pun intended)! If the universe can do it from the size of an atom, surely a Planck size "string" can do a similar miracle!
I like to put it as an analogy: a molecule of water is very small, but a wave in the ocean can reach 10 km or more.
- Badges
- Science topic