Dear Dr. Alan Grayson ,
No SUSY, No AXION, No WIMP, No HIGGS, No BIG BANG...
Please, read it:https://vixra.org/pdf/2003.0448v1.pdf
Regarda,Dr. Gunnhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvHalv2f5oM
On Sunday, April 26, 2020, 01:33:12 AM GMT+3, Alan Grayson
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:53:52 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
To measure small things you need comparably short wavelengths. If you
make a photon with a wavelength so short it can measure the Planck
length it will have so much mass-energy that it will fold spacetime
around it and become a black hole...so you won't be able to use it to
measure anything.
Brent
I understand the BH issue. But suppose we want to measure the diameter of a
proton and use photons of large wave length, say of radio frequency. If we're
looking for a shadow on a screen, why won't the large wavelength leave a
discernible shadow of the proton? Or is it the back scattering we look for?
Same question; that is, why must the impinging wavelength be of comparable
length to measure a physical object of the same approximate length? TIA, AG
On 1/5/2019 11:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> What is the argument for the claim that we cannot, in principle,
> measure any length smaller than Planck length? TIA, AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e2e2b07-749a-442d-8109-3ce68a51d924%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1917556719.387401.1587871005251%40mail.yahoo.com.
