What is "miraculous"?

In the infinite scale process is there any contact between scales? How do you know which scale we are in or that there are scales other than the one we are in?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />In the infinite scale process is there any contact between scales?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Scale is a dimension, like time or space. So scale is continuous. It doesn't have borders.

Think of it as "mass" or "matter" instead of "scale". Then there is no limit to how large a structure can be, nor is there any limit to how small we can divide any structure. All dimensions (units) of physical entities can be reduced to five fundamental ones, length (L), time (T), and mass (M). For example, acceleration has units of L/T^2, and energy has units of (M L^2)/T^2. Scale is the "M" unit.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How do you know which scale we are in or that there are scales other than the one we are in?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, scale is continuous. Everything we see can be divided smaller and smaller. The smallest bits our instruments can detect are quarks. But there is already evidence of more structure inside quarks.

Likewise, everything we see is part of larger structures. Our whole planet is part of a solar system, which in some ways resembles an atom. And the Sun and its planets are part of the Ursa Major cluster, which is part of the Milky Way galaxy, which is part of the Local Group, which is past of the Local Supercluster, which is part of a Great Wall, etc. Walls and voids are the largest structures we can now recognize. But in infinite-universe cosmologies, they are just bits of much larger assemblies of a yet-to-be-determined nature. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
...But I assume you must be sitting on your chair in a vacuum, because it would be too "Tom Potterish" (whatever that means) to believe that invisible, high-speed air molecules were striking your body all over at this very moment.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is the fallacy of false analogy. Trivial case.

The fact that air molecules are invisible to human eye does not make then undetectable too. But gravitons in MM cannot be detected by definition. It's the typical realist approach in postulating unobservable/undetectable quantities in order to explain the phenomena. It is well known to physicists that an infinite number of such theories can be developed using different types of unobservable causes and can be as accurate.

Can you explain this? Why do you think you are forced to postulate unobservable to explain the observable?

If you stop and think about it apart from any prejudice, you will become skeptical of your approach. You are postulating a universe essentially in which causes are unobservable and only the effects are observable. But even if it is so, as one could argu to the contrary, that is not the subject of physics.

Can you present us with a thoery that explains the observable via the observable?

Then, I take my hat of to you. For now, I call your theories desperato metaphysics.

Mike

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by makis</i>
<br />Can you explain this? Why do you think you are forced to postulate unobservable to explain the observable?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's an easy one. Given the necessity of five infinite dimensions as deduced in chapter one of <i>Dark Matter, ...</i>, the scale dimension is infinite in extent. So no matter how sophisticated our instruments become, there must necessarily always be more phenomena just out of reach of our instruments, waiting to be discovered in the future.

A corollary is that there is no such thing as an unobservable force mediator. There are merely forces waiting for our species to develop enough to observe them. We advanced those frontiers 3-4 orders of magnitude on both the small scale and large scale ends during the past century. If our species survives, I expect we will make continued progress in this century. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
That's an easy one. Given the necessity of five infinite dimensions as deduced in chapter one of <i>Dark Matter, ...</i>, the scale dimension is infinite in extent. So no matter how sophisticated our instruments become, there must necessarily always be more phenomena just out of reach of our instruments, waiting to be discovered in the future.

A corollary is that there is no such thing as an unobservable force mediator. There are merely forces waiting for our species to develop enough to observe them. We advanced those frontiers 3-4 orders of magnitude on both the small scale and large scale ends during the past century. If our species survives, I expect we will make continued progress in this century. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Your main argument begs the question. Can you describe a hypothetical futuristic experiment to detect the graviton? The burden of proof is on you. Assume that the state of the art has reached the graviton scale. What can that experiment be?


You corollary is an attempt to assert your logic is monotonic. You intoduce another premise that is similar to the Anthropic principle. You assume the new premise does not change your conclusions, i.e. your model. But is does in several possible ways. Your statement that there is not an unobserved force mediator does not follow from your premises. A non sequitur. Because you postulate an infinite scale, that does not mean it can be observed in its totallity.

In order to relate scale and observation, you must first prove that the two are connected at all levels. One could argue that the infinite limit of observations is enclosed in the interval of all possible observations whereas the infinite limit of observability is not enclosed in the range of all observable phenomena and thus, at the limit the possible connection gets discontinuous.

Obviously, since you postulate an infinite scale in a quasi-static universe, the interval must be closed in the observation part. That is, all phenomena are part of your universe. However, it remains to prove that all the observations that result from those phenomena are also part of the corresponding interval of observability. This last chore is not an easy one, in my view it is impossible to prove and taken only as an a priori truth.

There are severe holes in your model which you seem to think are common sense answered but are not.

Makis

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by makis</i>
<br />Can you describe a hypothetical futuristic experiment to detect the graviton?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Of course. The experiment parallels the way we first detected air molecules, which we also cannot "see" visually. We simply look for quantum jumps in "matter ingredients" (as defined in chapter one). In fact, an experiment of that type has already been done, and it had a detection. See Amer.Inst. Phys.Bull. #573, 2002/01/16; also Nature 415, ix & 267-268 & 297-299 (2002):

<i>Quantum gravitational states have been observed for the first time. An experiment with ultra-cold neutrons shows that their vertical motion in Earth's gravitational field comes in discrete sizes. The researchers report seeing a minimum (quantum) energy of 1.4 pico-electron volts (1.4x10-12 eV). This corresponds to a vertical velocity of 1.7 cm/sec for the neutrons in Earth’s gravity field.</i>

However, MM does not attribute this to the graviton, but rather to the elyson (unit of elysium). The experiment allows us to estimate the elyson mass, 7x10-35 g. The same type of experiment will eventually detect the graviton, estimated to be at least 8 orders of magnitude smaller. -|Tom|-