Planck Particle Pairs
Key reference is the monograph by Barry
Setterfield: Cosmology
and the Zero Point Energy
(Natural Philosophy Alliance Monograph series, No.1, 2013, ISBN 978-1-304-19508-1).
Planck Particle Pairs are introduced at page 44 of Barry's book, if memory and eyes
serve me well.
A few Wikipedia references are the following:
No problem with Planck length and Planck time. Almost everybody agrees with the idea that
the Planck length is a lower bound to the shortest measurable length and that the
Planck time similarly is a lower bound to the shortest measurable time. Here I am leaving
aside all sort of highly speculative extensions which are present even in mainstream theories.
Concerning the Planck Particle Pairs as proposed in Barry's book, there is a nasty
thing, however. The Wikipedia definitions are:
$$
l_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar\,G}{c^3}}=\frac{1}{c^2}\sqrt{\hbar\,c\,G} \quad ; \quad
t_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar\,G}{c^5}}=\frac{1}{c^3}\sqrt{\hbar\,c\,G}=\frac{l_P}{c}
$$
Meaning that Planck length as well as Planck time are very much dependent on the magnitude
of the light velocity. But how then can PPP be the cause of any variability in $\,c$,
if the fabric of space and time is defined by the same speed of light? Shouldn't cause
and effect not be the other way around?
Furthermore we have the Planck mass (dependent on $\,c\,$ as well at first sight):
$$
m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar\,c}{G}} \approx 21.7651\,\mu g
$$
But OK, according to Barry's theory, the combination $\,\hbar\,c\,$ is a constant and so is
the constant of gravity $\,G$ . As a result, the Planck mass is an absolute constant.
I think we must conclude herefrom that the PPP is invariant and cannot change with time in
the first place. But there is another nasty thing. Quote:
"Unlike all other Planck base units and most Planck derived units, the Planck mass has
a scale more or less conceivable to humans. It is traditionally said to be about the
mass of a flea, but more accurately it is about the mass of a flea egg". Consequently,
if there would be a real production of Planck Particle Pairs with such giant mass
(when compared with the usual mass of sub-atomic particles) then the ZPE certainly would
not be difficult to detect. Such in contrast with a header on page 35 of Setterfield's
book: 2.3 Why the ZPE is Hard to Detect.
Dear Barry,
So I must conclude that your Planck Particle Pairs are not PPP's in the sense of Wikipedia.
That's your theory, of course and you're free to adopt any viewpoint you like. Then I have
only one objection: Planck length, Planck time and Planck mass already have a well-defined
meaning in standard physics. It's reasonable that you are not free to change that meaning
at will, for your own purposes. Therefore, in order to prevent further confusion, wouldn't
it be wise to choose another name for those objects? Setterfield's Virtual Particles (SVP)
would be my proposal. (Hope you appreciate the pun)
Every human being should have the right to create his or her own
Elementary particle.
I mean, Peter Higgs has one:
the Higgs particle. People like
Satyendra Nath Bose and
Enrico Fermi even have many:
bosons and
fermions.
So why not Barry Setterfield? Here is my proposal. I'd suggest that we shall call the
Setter-field of
SVP particles:
Barry-onic matter.
(Can't resist ..)
But it seems that I've been too hasty with saying that constant of gravity $\,G\,$ is an absolute
constant with the definition of the Planck Particle Mass. In Setterfield's overly complicated theory,
only the product of the gravity constant and a mass is an absolute constant. So here we go
again, applying this "fact" to the Planck Particle Mass, which after all is a mass, isn't it?
$$
m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar\,c}{G}} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad m_P G = \sqrt{\hbar\,c\,G}
$$
Now everything on the left side is an absolute constant, $\hbar\,c$ is an absolute constant,
so indeed $\,G\,$ must be an absolute constant as well, quite contradictory to Setterfield's
idea that the Gravitational constant may be variable with varying ZPE. I've made no mistake.