Re: Predeterminism and parallel universes

From: Gary Collins (gwcollins@algol.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 04:03:30 EDT

  • Next message: Don Winterstein: "Re: MWH experimental test"

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:46:42 -0400, George Murphy wrote:

    >Gary Collins wrote:
    >....................
    >> Q2) Is this not an assumption? I remember reading somewhere (don't ask
    >> me where now!!!) that space itself might be quantized; i.e. that there might
    >> be a minimum quantum length. Might this not also apply to angular measure?
    >> If so, again, it would alter the answer numerically but maybe not in principle.
    >> Same may possibly apply to your (2), (3) and (4) (which I have trimmed out)
    >> - or no?
    >
    > The uncertainty principle says that the accuracy of a clock is inversely
    >proportional to its energy, while general relativity says that the gravitational
    >effect of energy (aka mass) changes the rate at which clocks run. If these effects are
    >combined you find that for time intervals ~10^-43 sec the uncertainty in measurement is
    >of the order of the measurement itself, so intervals smaller than this - or the
    >corresponding length ~10^-33 cm - cant be measured. The classical concepts of space and
    >time lose their meaning below this "Planck length." But I don't see right offhand that
    >this would require a limit on angular measurements.
    >
    > Shalom,
    > George
    >
    Thanks for the info. I wasn't intending to suggest that any limit on angular measurement
    was required as a result of the limit on length (sloppy writing on my part) but rather
    inquiring as to whether there might be such a limit (for whatever reason). In any case,
    to assume that there definitely isn't seems to me to be an assumption.
    If the number of possible positions for a proton is limited, as seemed to be implied at
    least in previous posts) and presumably a similar restriction would apply to other types
    of particle as well (incidentally, is there a reason for the focus on the proton?) then it
    would seem to me that there would be a limit on the number of orientations possible
    for an object made of such particles. Or am I missing something?
    Wanting to understand this,
    /Gary



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 09 2003 - 04:04:02 EDT