The Universe in Planck Units

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby querious » Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:26 pm

I spend a lot of time puzzling over this table that shows the current state of the Universe, in Planck Units.

If it's not a simple coincidence based on the current age of the universe, it means that the universe gets more massive as it ages, which is a strange notion. It also increases it's size in lock-step with it's age & mass. That's kinda weird, no?
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:13 am

Yes, strange.

The universe just is, it can not grow in size nor mass, it is by definition all that there is. Universe and space are not physical concepts.

Planck length is also nothing fundamental, it is our smallest measure defined by the physical tools we use to measure.

The universe is fractal, i think you can go small and large indefinitely.

As conjecture i am thinking that maybe the largest size is also the smallest, as a loop.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby Webbman » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:42 am

math gone wild? It does have a certain level of arrogance to it doesn't it?

personally I don't think these maths does it justice. Great stories though.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:48 am

querious wrote:I spend a lot of time puzzling over this table that shows the current state of the Universe, in Planck Units.

If it's not a simple coincidence based on the current age of the universe, it means that the universe gets more massive as it ages, which is a strange notion. It also increases it's size in lock-step with it's age & mass. That's kinda weird, no?

If I understand correctly, then the conclusion about increasing mass with age and size with mass and age is predicated on the the fact that these are all roughly ~1061 in Planck units. To reach this conclusion, surely you would have to derive or observe the size and mass at some earlier epoch?

Also, note that as far as size goes, what is commonly called the size of the universe should properly be called the size of the observable universe within the Hubble volume. It seems certain that the universe continues outside the Hubble volume, and the Hubble length depends on if and how the Hubble constant changes over time. (Yes, I realise it's called a constant, but it would not be constant in time for any non-zero second derivative of the scale factor - accelerating expansion or contraction).

With regard to mass, these figures refer only to stellar mass, and the total mass is about 50 times higher if we include non-stellar ordinary matter, dark matter and the mass equivalent of dark energy. Also the equation of state for dark energy seems to be w=~-1 which implies that its equivalent mass density would be constant in an expanding universe, which becomes increasingly dark energy dominated over time.

It seems to me that the choice of Hubble volume and stellar mass to compare in Planck units is rather arbitrary.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:49 am

D_Archer wrote:Planck length is also nothing fundamental, it is our smallest measure defined by the physical tools we use to measure.

Planck length and Planck time are not defined by the limit of our physical tools because they are much, much smaller than we can measure.

A Planck length is 1.6x10-35mm. The most accurate measurement of a length or length change is around 10-19m , so 16 orders of magnitude larger.

A Planck time is 5.4x10-44s. The shortest interval that can be measured is via an ultra-short laser pulse. The record was about a femtosecond (10-15s) about 30 years ago, but people are making attosecond (10-18s pulses now. Still that is a whopping 26 orders of magnitude longer than a Planck time. To give this some perspective, there are about the same number of attoseconds in a year as there are Planck times in an attosecond.

The Planck units are fundamental in the sense that they are culture and history independent and they are derived by setting a number of fundamental constants, such as the speed of light and the gravitational contant equal to 1.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby querious » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:09 am

Higgsy wrote:
querious wrote:It seems to me that the choice of Hubble volume and stellar mass to compare in Planck units is rather arbitrary.


Point taken, but the age, Hubble constant, and Cosmological Constant also seem related to each other.
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:37 am

Higgsy wrote:
D_Archer wrote:Planck length is also nothing fundamental, it is our smallest measure defined by the physical tools we use to measure.

Planck length and Planck time are not defined by the limit of our physical tools because they are much, much smaller than we can measure.

A Planck length is 1.6x10-35mm. The most accurate measurement of a length or length change is around 10-19m , so 16 orders of magnitude larger.

A Planck time is 5.4x10-44s. The shortest interval that can be measured is via an ultra-short laser pulse. The record was about a femtosecond (10-15s) about 30 years ago, but people are making attosecond (10-18s pulses now. Still that is a whopping 26 orders of magnitude longer than a Planck time. To give this some perspective, there are about the same number of attoseconds in a year as there are Planck times in an attosecond.

The Planck units are fundamental in the sense that they are culture and history independent and they are derived by setting a number of fundamental constants, such as the speed of light and the gravitational contant equal to 1.


I am pretty sure Planck length is a measurement, it says so in the defintion >
This is the �quantum of length�, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton


Unless modern science woo has abused the original idea by Planck i rest my case. I was taught it was about measurement.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:46 am

D_Archer wrote:I am pretty sure Planck length is a measurement, it says so in the defintion >
This is the �quantum of length�, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton


Unless modern science woo has abused the original idea by Planck i rest my case. I was taught it was about measurement.

Regards,
Daniel

No - the Planck length is the smallest possible length that can exist, but it is not defined by a practical limitation of measurement. As I have pointed out, both Planck distance and Planck time are much much smaller than can be measured now. They are, as I said, defined by setting some fundamental constants equal to 1.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:58 am

querious wrote:
Higgsy wrote:
querious wrote:It seems to me that the choice of Hubble volume and stellar mass to compare in Planck units is rather arbitrary.


Point taken, but the age, Hubble constant, and Cosmological Constant also seem related to each other.

Well, wouldn't you expect the age of the Universe to be related to the cosmological constant and the Hubble constant? That just drops out of the cosmological equation of state, doesn't it? If w=-1 then the scale factor is proportional to eHt.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby Cargo » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:22 pm

"when the universe was 1 Planck time old and 1 Planck length in diameter, and had a Planck temperature of 1"

As you start to peel back the layers, it's pretty clear where this going.

"Much like the rest of the Planck units, there is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length. However, it is considered by quantum gravity theorists to be the quantization of space which makes up the fabric of the universe, also referred to as quantum foam.

The Planck length is believed to be the shortest meaningful length, the limiting distance below which the very notions of space and length cease to exist. Any attempt to investigate the possible existence of shorter distances, by performing higher-energy collisions, would inevitably result in black hole production."

So be careful what you Plank around with. "The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate" Don't cross the event horizon or tangle your Quantum Strings.

Now imagine the Mass of a 2-100 Solar Mass object being compressed to 1 Plank, by Gravity. And when the Universe began, it was 1 Plank too.
Cargo
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby querious » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:17 am

Higgsy wrote:Also, note that as far as size goes, what is commonly called the size of the universe should properly be called the size of the observable universe within the Hubble volume. It seems certain that the universe continues outside the Hubble volume, and the Hubble length depends on if and how the Hubble constant changes over time. (Yes, I realise it's called a constant, but it would not be constant in time for any non-zero second derivative of the scale factor - accelerating expansion or contraction).

It seems to me that the choice of Hubble volume . . . in Planck units is rather arbitrary.


If the actual universe was 50 times bigger than the observable universe, how would that affect our estimate of the age of the universe? Isn't the age estimate based on taking the current SIZE and expansion RATE and running the clock backwards?
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby Webbman » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:19 pm

I choose to believe that half of a protons effective circumference is the smallest unit of length, so for me planck units aren't good enough.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby Higgsy » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:48 pm

querious wrote:
Higgsy wrote:Also, note that as far as size goes, what is commonly called the size of the universe should properly be called the size of the observable universe within the Hubble volume. It seems certain that the universe continues outside the Hubble volume, and the Hubble length depends on if and how the Hubble constant changes over time. (Yes, I realise it's called a constant, but it would not be constant in time for any non-zero second derivative of the scale factor - accelerating expansion or contraction).

It seems to me that the choice of Hubble volume . . . in Planck units is rather arbitrary.


If the actual universe was 50 times bigger than the observable universe, how would that affect our estimate of the age of the universe?
It wouldn't.
Isn't the age estimate based on taking the current SIZE and expansion RATE and running the clock backwards?
Not to the first order. The age of the universe is given by the Hubble constant and the current scale factor. So for example, the current measurement of the Hubble contant is ~70km s-1Mpc-1. So the distance of a galaxy at 100Mpc is increasing at 7,000km/s. Divide 100Mpc by 7000km/s to get how long ago that distance was zero, and hence the age of the Universe. 1Mpc is ~3x1019km, so 100Mpc/7000 is ~4.28x1017s or ~13.6 billion years. This result is for a Universe in which the expansion rate has always been constant. There is strong evidence for a non-constant rate of expansion and the best estimate of the age of the Universe based on data from the anistropies in the CMB is 13.8 billion years.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: The Universe in Planck Units

Unread postby Cargo » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:37 pm

Circular references always point back to themselves of course. Therefore the equation must always equal One. or Zero, depending on your frame of reference. For Plank, it's always 1. Unless you're talking about the Beginning, in which case 1=0. Get it?
Cargo
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests