Lilliputians and Brobdignagians

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jeremy]: Do you truly assert that micro and mega people might exist?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, not "people" of course. "Beings" would be the proper generalization. And that would include intelligences.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If this true then how does one create analogous worlds when the behavior of matter at the two ends of the scale are so different?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I see no fundamental differences when MM interpretations of experiments are used instead of QM interpretations. Forms everywhere in space, time, and scale have accidental differences (differences of detail), but no fundamental differences (e.g., all are just particles and waves).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Electrons move with quantum jumps in their orbits while planets do not.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Generally, quantum jumps are wave indicators. However, in the case of electron orbits, the problem seems to be time resolution. If planet orbits are disturbed and orbit crossings are created, orbital evolution occurs over long time periods, and equilibrium is eventually restored with a new Bode's-law-like spacing. But that might take billions or even trillions of revolutions. It is the same for electrons. What appears to us like a "quantum jump" actually represents billions or even trillions of electron revolutions. That gives the electron plenty of time to evolve its orbit in just the way that planet orbits evolve over a great many revolutions.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Matter at the micro scale seems to have measured parameters equal to many decimal places while planets and stars aren't even constant to the first decimal place.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

?? I have no idea what you mean here. Celestial mechanics, not quantum mechanics, is the most precise science. We now measure small effects in the twelfth decimal place for solar system orbits.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The average separation of elements at different scales is not the same in relation to the fundamental bodies at that scale i.e. galaxies are spread thinner than atoms.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

On smaller scales, things happen "faster" and matter is "denser". But that really just maintains the sameness of every scale. For example, if sub-atomic matter had a density of around 1 g/cc, the average spacing of constituents at that scale would be very large compared to the size of the constituents, which would be a fundamental difference. But instead, matter gets denser in just such a way that the average spacing of constituents is about the same on every scale, so that you could not tell what that scale was if you were an observer in it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>We seem to be able to determine our scale by simply looking around us. In the MM do you claim that we have just got to go further down or higher up to have things level out again?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The details change, but the fundamentals do not change. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Matter at the micro scale seems to have measured parameters equal to many decimal places while planets and stars aren't even constant to the first decimal place.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

?? I have no idea what you mean here. Celestial mechanics, not quantum mechanics, is the most precise science. We now measure small effects in the twelfth decimal place for solar system orbits.


What I mean here is that the physical dimensions of electrons and protons and their masses is constant to many decimal places, planets and stars do not show this discreteness. We do not observe massless planets that travel at only one speed nor do we observe any equivalent of spin. As for Bode spacing no one has yet been able (to my knowledge) show a direct provable physical cause of this spacing. We do not observe polarity in attraction/repulsion of planets and stars. It still seems to me that an observer can easily tell what scale he is at by looking around him. If the hypothetical mega and micro beings exist they would have to be far outside any scale we have yet observed. If so then one would have to conclude that new inhabited realms are observable in quantum jumps of order 10^?. Between the jumps one could say what scale one was at but not at multiples of them.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jeremy]: the physical dimensions of electrons and protons and their masses is constant to many decimal places, planets and stars do not show this discreteness.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As I remarked, "quantization" is a wave property but not generally a particle property. One can argue that air molecules, grains of sand, or drops of water all show this "sameness" characteristic. But ultimately, as you say, large masses can take on any value for mass by simple accretion. So the key point to notice is that experiments do not measure the masses of fundamental particles independent from their charges. For the most part, experiments have established the sameness only of the ratio q/m, but not for m alone. Moreover, we have established that to high accuracy only statistically for many particles, not for individual particles.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>We do not observe massless planets that travel at only one speed nor do we observe any equivalent of spin.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

These again are interpretations of experiments, not direct observations. What we call "spin" has some attributes in common with classical spin (by contributing to the overall angular momentum). But it might not be physical spin at all. It might be a type of vibration instead. Or it might be a wave property. The key is not to get locked into unproductive theories by over-interpreting experiments.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>As for Bode spacing no one has yet been able (to my knowledge) show a direct provable physical cause of this spacing.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Ovenden developed the "principle of least interaction action". When combined with any source of small perturbations, such as the occasional passage of the solar system through Giant Molecular Clouds, it becomes inevitable that a Bode's-law-like spacing will result until planetary explosions change the balance again, and a new evolution begins.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>one would have to conclude that new inhabited realms are observable in quantum jumps of order 10^?. Between the jumps one could say what scale one was at but not at multiples of them.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, 10^20 seems to be the operative number here, accounting for Eddington's "large numbers hypothesis", in which he noted that the constants of physics, if made dimensionless, then to cluster around values spaced by roughly 20 orders of magnitude. This may simply be the average interval between stable particle configurations, given the existing density and momentum of matter. -|Tom|-

It seems that scaling should provide a new universal constant. If we speed time up to make mega scale activities appear more like atomic phenomena and vice versa. Since characteristic density seems to decrease from atomic particles to galaxies we might hypothosize that

dT K

where d is the density and T is the adjusted time unit at a given scale. But we still seem to have a scale asymmetry going on here. The characteristic speed of interaction between galaxies(gravity) is far greater than the interaction speed between atoms(electromagnetism). If things looked roughly the same at all scales wouldn't we expect the opposite?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jeremy]: The characteristic speed of interaction between galaxies(gravity) is far greater than the interaction speed between atoms(electromagnetism). If things looked roughly the same at all scales wouldn't we expect the opposite?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Your question is confusing. Did you mean "characteristic time" when you said "speed"? Assuming so, then for things to look the same on every scale, the characteristic time for a typical body to move its own diameter should vary with scale, and be very short at small scales and very long at large scales, just as we observe. This makes sense if time is a measure of change, and not an absolute thing. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Your question is confusing. Did you mean "characteristic time" when you said "speed"?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The ratio of the propagation speed of the interacting force to the average movement speed of the bodies is different at the different scales. Galaxies move slowly (in relation to each other) but respond to each other essentially instantaneously because of the extreme speed of gravity. Atoms move very rapidly in relation to each other but the propagation of electromagnetism is much closer to their average motion speed. Aren't atoms more affected by propagation delay and shouldn't we expect this to become even more severe at even smaller scales?