- Thank you received: 0
Changing speeds at different MM scales
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
20 years 3 months ago #11243
by tvanflandern
Reply from Tom Van Flandern was created by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Do you have any specific general relationship for varying speeds? ... whereby one could estimate relative timespans for inhabitants of the universe at, say, 10^-x times smaller than we.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then it is not speed you want to know, but the rate of flow of time (the rate at which change takes place).
The basic rule applicable here is that everything appears fundamentally the same at every scale. So most things scales with scale itself. If the scale is 10^-x, then a time interval that is 10^-x of a lifespan to us will seem to be a lifespan's worth of change on that scale.
Take gravitons for example. To us they travel so fast that, as a first approximation, we can use infinite speed for them. Yet in a lifespan on the scale of 10^-x, they move relatively "short" distances. But distances that are short to us can still be major when viewed from a smaller scale. -|Tom|-
<br />Do you have any specific general relationship for varying speeds? ... whereby one could estimate relative timespans for inhabitants of the universe at, say, 10^-x times smaller than we.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then it is not speed you want to know, but the rate of flow of time (the rate at which change takes place).
The basic rule applicable here is that everything appears fundamentally the same at every scale. So most things scales with scale itself. If the scale is 10^-x, then a time interval that is 10^-x of a lifespan to us will seem to be a lifespan's worth of change on that scale.
Take gravitons for example. To us they travel so fast that, as a first approximation, we can use infinite speed for them. Yet in a lifespan on the scale of 10^-x, they move relatively "short" distances. But distances that are short to us can still be major when viewed from a smaller scale. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 3 months ago #11248
by EBTX
Replied by EBTX on topic Reply from
That's what I was looking for.
So, their photons (on a smaller scale ... or larger) would physically race neck and neck with our photons for whatever time they existed before being absorbeb on their own scale?
Have you ever generated any estimate about where the next lower or higher scale could start? Under Planck scale length? Over Hubble radius length?
I would expect some "quantization" of scale here ;o)
So, their photons (on a smaller scale ... or larger) would physically race neck and neck with our photons for whatever time they existed before being absorbeb on their own scale?
Have you ever generated any estimate about where the next lower or higher scale could start? Under Planck scale length? Over Hubble radius length?
I would expect some "quantization" of scale here ;o)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 3 months ago #11251
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Have you ever generated any estimate about where the next lower or higher scale could start? Under Planck scale length? Over Hubble radius length? I would expect some "quantization" of scale here ;o)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I haven't, but Eddington did. He noted that the physical constants, expressed in dimensionaless units, tended to cluster in groups spaced by 20 orders of magnitude. So that is probably the best estimate we can make of the "quantization of scale". -|Tom|-
<br />Have you ever generated any estimate about where the next lower or higher scale could start? Under Planck scale length? Over Hubble radius length? I would expect some "quantization" of scale here ;o)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I haven't, but Eddington did. He noted that the physical constants, expressed in dimensionaless units, tended to cluster in groups spaced by 20 orders of magnitude. So that is probably the best estimate we can make of the "quantization of scale". -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.257 seconds