[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 15 KB, 250x243, 1579917187544.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12081644 No.12081644 [Reply] [Original]

can something move a shorter distance than a Planck length? if not , does that mean space is discrete?

>> No.12081662

>>12081644
We don't know and most probably never will.

>> No.12081679

yes it can you just cant observe it with any level of certainty you need to pay to the god of science every 3rd Tuesday and profess your faith to the infallibility of science

>> No.12081683

>>12081644
Be prepared for an answer that there can be shorter distance than the Planck's length but our physics break below that number and we just really do not know... It's the same as if you would ask about singularity. Then the answer would be 'inifinity'.

I will save you the trouble and tell you the truth: space is not discrete. It is continuous and smooth.

>> No.12081713

>>12081683
How do you know the space is not finite, much less smooth?

>> No.12081725

how can there be enough memory for the simulation to have continuous space?

>> No.12081765

Coom. See how far the coom goes. That is Planck length lads.

>> No.12081770

>>12081713
Because it would imply that there has to be something in between the 'chunks' of space. Something that fills the gaps between each chunk. Since there is nothing outside our space, no extra physical dimension, the space has to be continuous. Its true nature may not be known yet, but it definitely cannot be discrete.

>> No.12081776
File: 5 KB, 657x395, TIMESAND___e5s4j5fcgvr6d6fjm9rd5es5ea1drca143sd3ohv165d4463e753dx636xr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12081776

The Planck length is only a feature of the quantum theory. It is the distance beyond which the quantum theory cannot resolve separate locations. It doesn't say anything motion in nature. If space is a continuum, which I believe it is, then motions on scales below the Planck length are definitely allowed.

Overall, position states in Hilbert space describe the state of being between two locations, not the state of being at any one location. Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty, we can never squeeze the boundaries of a position state closer together than the Planck length but we have good reason to think that the boundaries of one position state might be shifted by less than one Planck length with respect to another. I don't know of they could exist in the same Hilbert space but they would describe the same position space without discrepancy. To do so, just define a coordinate system with its origin shifted by less than one Planck length from another. Since no coordinate system is favored, the continuum of possible coordinate systems suggests a continuum of positions.

Pic related; If Psi_AB and Psi_CD are states such that a particle is between A and B and C and D respectively, then the distances AB and CD must be at leas the Planck length. The distance XC, however, can be arbitrarily small.

>> No.12081872

I should have this shit on copy-paste by now if the mods are never going to fucking sticky it
Planck length is not a fundamental discretization of space. It is not a "minimum distance," as we currently think space is continuous (otherwise our theories have problems). It is only the minimum useful distance because we cannot observe smaller than that with light.

>> No.12082019

>>12081770
>Because it would imply that there has to be something in between the 'chunks' of space. Something that fills the gaps between each chunk
>hurr durr I can't conceptualize nothing so therefore space is smooth.
Youre brain might be smooth but space is definitely not and nothing in physics today suggest that it is.

>> No.12082037

ITT: retards who think it's just that our models aren't good enough

OP, any attempt to measure a distance at a finer resolution than the Planck length would require so much energy that it would create a black hole before you could get any information. This happens because the higher the resolution, the smaller the wavelength has to be, which means the higher the energy of the detection mechanism has to be.

The discreteness of reality (not just space or time), is a fundamental reality, not just a model limit. The "stuff at below the Planck length" is just as unreal as the stuff inside a black hole.

>> No.12082068

>>12081765
>anon's dick is the metric used for measuring a Planck

Sad!

>> No.12082084

>>12081683
>physics break below that number
Why? No need for explanation if u dont want, just want source so i can read on it

>> No.12082086

>>12081662
>>12081679
>>12081683
>>12081713
Brainlets. Every chemistry/physics 4th year undergrad knows translation is not quantised.

>> No.12083683

>>12082084
Physics doesn't break, Planck length is just the scale they think we need quantum gravity to describe what's going on. Like Schwarzschild radius is the scale we need relativity instead of Newtonianism.

>> No.12083708

>>12082037
Sounds exactly like monkeys when they try to justify their lack of comprehension for the phenomenons they experience.
Everytime we looked more closely at stuff, they're composed of smaller stuff, so it's not aberrant to suggest that this actually goes on forever.
We can't prove that, but you can't disprove it either.

>> No.12083865

>>12083708
there is no "lack of comprehension" because we understand why reality is discrete.
you are projecting your own ignorance which is really sad
desu, people like you who think they know what they're talking about shouldn't be allowed