I heard an explanation of the planck length that gave a better impression of how increadibly small the planck length is. Imagine the planck length on the one side, and the size of the universe on the other side, then humans are just in the middle. So, to the planck length we are as big as we think the universe is relative to us. The planck length is that small indeed.
Ronald de Rooij Logarithmically, yes, the 'amount' of planck lengths it requires to stretch over one brain cell is equal to the amount of brain cells it requires to stretch over the observable universe. It's not additive, so a logarithmic scale is required for that to work. That is how someone explained a planck length to me.
Dat klopt niet ronald. Het universum is 10²⁶ meter groot dus 0.5x10²⁶ keer zo groot als mensen. Wij zitten dus niet in het midden wij zitten er nog ver boven.
***** All gematria is is just using letters instead of numbers to represent numerical value. Although I will say that personality and name do have strong statistical connection. You can't really prove much about the secrets of the universe with it. Plenty failed.
+Feynstein100 Right, theoretical physics has no logic to it just cos you don't understand it. If you knew how the scientific method works, you'd know the phycisists don't just tote some nonsense someone came up with just because.
Wiz I know your comment is old at this point but what you are saying isn't taking into account how well the Planck length works with everything in physics Have you ever heard of the ultra violet catastrophe? If not, I would definitely recommend researching it, not only is it interesting, but it will also give you a much better idea of where Max Planck got his idea from Basically, the universe HAS TO have a smallest size, just like it has to have a maximum speed (c, the speed of light), otherwise or couldn't exist as it does, and Max Planck simply figured out what that size was
No, that's not what happened at all. Planck discovered that energy had to be quantized, not space. We still do not have a theory of quantized gravity yet and until then you can't say anything about how length is quantized. Planck lengths are a purely mathematical construct. I can take almost any 3 dimensional constants and make a length out of them. Planck lengths are only an order of magnitude estimate of approximately where we expect the quantization to occur, and it definitely is more complicated than a simple length. It's likely made up of loops or complex manifolds not individual lengths.
Erik Mallory Fluid theory (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) decanted selfmultidimentionalover... The polydynamics of the movement generates pseudo-autonomy as material property, of the autogenous phenomenon; existing.(...) Simultaneous as my unidimensional variability... unidimensional variability = live-beings
Many people in the comments seem to misunderstand the video. There ARE lengths smaller than the Planck length, they just wouldn't make sense to measure since time and space wouldn't make any sense at a level lower than that. A Planck length is not an undividable pixel/voxel of the universe.
Jcknight7996 There might not be anything physical beyond that scale, however thinking about the Planck length as a pixel of the Universe is the wrong way to go about it. It's wrong to think that movement in the Universe works as a fast teleportation one Planck length at a time without ever being in the space in-between. It just wouldn't make sense to make measurements at a scale smaller than that since the Universe is inherently "fuzzy" and undefined at that level so the results of those measurements wouldn't make any practical sense. For two points that are less than a Planck length apart, it would be impossible to determine which one of them was on the left and which one on the right (or up or down, but you get my point), but that doesn't mean that those two points can't be that close.
But imagining points is not imagining the universe, just like imagining infinity is not imagining the universe. There is nothing (known) that is represented by infinity or hypothetical points besides the mere thought of them. And what's wrong with imagining plank volumes as "universe voxels?" (Thanks for teaching me the term voxel btw lol) I guess I'm having trouble understanding the "role" such a concept would even play since I don't get how the Plank length was even determined, even with the video...
Another view of the Planck Length: Quantum Mechanics has pairs of numbers that cannot both be made as tiny as one would like, which is what the Uncertainty Principle means. The one usually described is the position-versus-momentum pair where there is a minimum floor as to how closely you can know both of these simultaneously. Try to get a tighter value on one and the other goes up -- a "whack-a-mole" game. It turns out that time and energy also have this pairing, so that if you try to know when something is occurring too precisely, you no longer know how much energy (mass-times-speed-squared) it has. To nail down moving bodies to be able to measure their properties, you have to take as narrow a time interval as possible -- just like in movies you need a fast frame rate if the object moving is not to become just a messy blur. If you try to measure the properties of an object at or below the Planck Length, you have to stop its movement by getting an unimaginably short time interval, but this means getting a huge "whack-a-mole" energy uncertainty, which turns out to be the energy needed to make a sphere of Plank Length size into a black hole, inside which it is impossible to measure anything. Thus the Plank Length is the black hole length if you try to do anything on a smaller scale and, thus, nothing (literally) can be smaller.
My question is coming from something quite elementary T*cos(a)=m*g so I thought that if 'a' was 90 degrees then T should be infinite and thought if it was in plank length then it should have been possible, but is it actually infinite on a plank length string?
It's not the smallest number possible, it's the length that marks the boundary between the laws of physics (at least as we understand them) applying and not; essentially, anything smaller than a Planck length is meaningless.
You've got a very nice point. But what you need to remember is that science is defined by two things 1. how we experience the world as humans and 2. what we already know or don't know about our world. So, in the world as we experience it and as we know it Plank's length is indivisible. But we can later know more about our world or come across new experiences that may tell us otherwise. The bottom line is, is something you've never experienced and don't know real to you? Food for thought!
This video is really about the quantum structure of space and time, if you think about it, which is awesome for me because it captures the essence of my mathematical research. Thanks for the video! I didn't know the planck length was associated with the entropy of a Black Hole :)
so if the Planck Length is the shortest possible length, that would mean moving things are actually jumping a Planck Length and then waiting for a short time and then jump another Planck Length ?
but if it's the smallest jump that we can measure it means that it is the smallest jump since the ability to measure something just means that it is possible to interact with it.
Infinity doesn't need figuring out, it's not a mystery, it's a concept that represents an idea, it only needs "figuring out" when it's applied to a problem. and whether they abhor them or not, they do still have to deal with them in certain scenarios.
What I really don't get about this "it from bit" idea, that the universe is fundamentally a "grid" of planck lengths that are either occupied or not, is that how does motion happen at all from one planck length to another. For example, the shortest time is the planck time which would basically be the time that it would take for a "bit" in a certain "cell" to move to an adjacent cell. Now the problem that I see with that is that a geometric point on bit moving from its original cell to the same geometric point of an adjacent cell would move at exactly the planck time; however, if you compare different geometric points between the cells then the bit is actually moving faster than the planck time. Consider thes illustration: planck time 0 ___ ____ | x | | | |___| |___| planck time 1 ___ ____ | | | x | |___| |___| Now here, the x has moved from one cell to the next in exactly one planck time, but the geometrical points of "x" have moved to different parts of the cell faster. For example the right part of the x at planck time 0 must have past the geometrical point to where the left part of the x is at planck time 1. I really don't see how this at all gets around a "zeno's paradox" of sorts. Sure, you can say that to talk about anything shorter than a planck length or planck time is "ill-defined" or "incomprehensible" in terms of the mathematical equations, but that (it seems to me) is more about the limits of what we can know and can't know using reason than it does about what is going on in the universe. I understand that a planck length can't be divided further because the uncertainty becomes too great to deal with, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more going on that we don't quite understand. A similar problem happens when we measure the "planck area" corner to corner. We get root 2 planck lengths. This is greater than one, so no problem, but what happens when we take that root 2 planck lengths and then subtract exactly one planck length? It seems the remaining must necessarily be less than one planck length, and if we're going to deny that there are any distances shorter than a planck length, then it must be the case that root 2 is equal to 1 (which appears to me to be an absurdity above anything in quantum mechanics). I'd really appreciate it if someone could help me out with this.
I've wondered this too but between the last couple videos and the wikipedia article I finally understand it: planck length isn't a limitation of particle movement at all. Rather, it's where our models of particle movement cease to make any predictions. Maybe they jump, maybe they slide, maybe they twist through 19 dimensions and look like they jump while they really just slide. Maybe something really weird. We simply don't have any clues.
Adam Olsen That's absolutely right, and it is very important to make that distinction. But if you're going to say that the fundamental property of our universe is "information," instead of say something more "qualitative" like in an Eisenstein universe, then this question is still going to need to be addressed: "how is motion possible?" That question, about motion, is the fundamental question to physics. Physics, ever since the Ancient Greeks, has been about understanding motion. Modern physics (basically from Newton, to Einstein, to Quantum physics) uses forces to explain motion; where Aristotelian physics used something like "tendency," "what," or desire to explain motion (and this shouldn't be entirely berated, Alan Chalmers in his book "What is this Thing We Call Science, actually makes the concession that as a physicist there really isn't much of a difference between explaining something like an electron's attraction to a proton via an electromagnetic force than what Aristotle was doing. He doesn't dismiss the idea outright entirely). So, this question, can't just be skirted by saying "this is just the limits of our knowledge" when, especially digital physics, relies on the actual existence of such a "planck-grid" to have a real existence, rather than just a breakdown of our understanding of what's going on. If the limit of our knowledge is a "planck-grid" then digital physics doesn't seem to be a position that can be rationally or, more importantly, scientifically justified. I'm not saying that this question can't be resolved, but I fundamentally reject the idea that we ought to base our models of reality on unobservable, unjustifiable, and even untestable assertions (such as digital physics and, dare I say, the many world's hypothesis in quantum physics).
hey. sup I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If I said something that makes you think that I don't already understand your point, then please direct me to my statement so I can clarify that. I know full well that the planck length is about the breakdown of understanding particle movement, but if particles can only move "one" planck length at the "speed" of light, then really what is happening is they are "teleporting" to an adjacent "cell" while moving at an "instantaneous velocity." It makes sense mathematically, but it does NOT make sense physically.
Ill give you an example. When something heats up the associated radioactive wavelength of that object gets smaller. The smallest of these wavelengths, is a planck length long. This is also the hottest temperature we know is possible.
c is the speed of light in a vacuum. Even then, the net speed of light may appear to slow down depending on the medium, but photons actually only travel at c. The slowing down you see is the time it takes for atoms to absorb/reemit those photons. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Thanks for understandable presentation, also thankful to those who named a sawn piece from a timber log also as a plank and honoured wood the wonderful material of Nature. Thanks again.
@freemanx2x don't forget that the water holds together because of molecular interactions, if you apply some force strong enough to break that tension then the droplets are formed because the liquid is separated, but they still follow the distortion of space (the still fall down) even thought they're not together anymore
@KingsBlend1 A nanometer is 0.000000001m. The Planck length is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000016m. You could fit about 100 billion billion billion billion Planck lengths into one nanometer.
This was really neat in that most popularized stuff I've found on the subject is just the same stuff over and over again, this time it was both fresh and still simple so that it is easy to understand!
There might be some versions of string theory that deal with this (e.g., situations in which the speed of light in a vacuum or the gravitational constant are not actually constant), but we must know a cosmologist or particle physicist who knows more....
Well yes actually I believe so, as the universe expands the distance that we call 1.6x10^-35m grows, but relative to say a meter ruler the length remains constant as that meter ruler is also growing.
In other words with every passing second a meter grows, therefore so too does anything measurable in meters. Interestingly as the speed of light is measured in m/s, and it's speed remains constant, either light must be accelerating with the expansion of space or time must be warping too such that each second is larger than the one before it.
I like to think (In my quite uninformed mind) that the planck length is the answer to zeno's paradox. Where the distance between Achilles and the tortoise eventually become a planck length and can not become smaller, and Achilles catch up and pass the tortoise. Just a fun thought.
Why do people always gloss over the equations?! That's the best possible way to picture what is going on. People always cube or square pi, and the speed of light, but then never explain why. I have so much trouble trying to wrap my head around the uses of the Planck Length because of this. I understand the concept, but the use is wasted because I don't understand this one simple thing. I get that a square may be regarding an area, and is cube referring to a sort of 3 dimensional area? Is this equation he is showing at 4:15 just a way of saying: Planck length times Big G divided by a supposed 'cube of the speed of the light'? Can someone put this in much simpler terms and basic terms, so that I can understand how this equation was derived. Please, no need to be highfalutin with a cryptic response. I would love to see some people try to put this in a different context. Like, building measurements, or something. Real life examples so that I know how the equation was derived, then I can understand how to use it in my own thought experiments.
The solution is a result of dimensional analysis, and it is a unique one. It is the only solution for constructing a unit length from the fundamental physical constants. As in, try to construct a unit length with any choice for a, b, d from (G^a)(c^b)(h^d), and the only answer is what gives the Planck length. An object with this length is the smallest thing that will obey known laws of Physics. For instance, a black hole with a radius of a plank length will evaporate from Hawking Radiation in a plank time (plank length/speed of light). Scales below this are unmeasurable, and mass cannot sustain itself. Something this small would collapse into a black hole and immediately evaporate.
Brian Bradley Thank you! Maybe I have just grown a little wiser since I first made my prior comment, but your description actually clicked and I was finally able to visualize this unit. Thank you for putting this in your own words for me. That was exactly what I needed. That first sentence was crystal clear. I am starting to think that the big divide between experts and average people is in the visualization. It's virtually impossible to grasp something one your own in a reasonable time frame if you are visualizing it wrong. Thanks for the help! ^___^
a vacuum is void of any medium, that's why it is a constant (so the "even, then" doesn't apply) the rest is right from what i know; both of light and the plank length are relative to spacetime, which is relative to gravity and anything else warping it; the planck length is not necessarily a variable any more than spacetime is, but technically yes--it is from what i have seen: the smallest measurement that behaves in accordance with spacetime, which is malleable under the right conditions
+TheBaconWizard When the term "area" is applied to 3D objects, it is often meant as "surface area." So I would assume that this is the case, but I could be completely wrong.
one would think the universe is infinitely small as it is infinitely big.. i think of the universe as a Mandelbrot set with no beginning nor end we are stuck within infinity.. just my thoughts forgive me if it sounds silly..
Not at all silly, though perhaps not provable. However, it immediately brought to mind a recent "Simpson's" opening where the view expands to take in the observable universe until it becomes unclear and as the image begins to redefine you end up journeying upwards from proton to molecules, dna, cells, then Homer's face, thus ending up where you started.
Belle La Victorie What's that got to do with me saying it's not the smallest length? It's just the point at which any attempt to measure creates a mini black-hole, which collapses and chucks out a single proton in a random direction, since the original measuring particle was turned into a photon with a random velocity, we can't divine any measurements from it.
4:48 It exists.... it's called a wait state. And the wonderful thing about the mistake made in observing a proton and saying an electron is a fundamental particle, but a proton is a composite particle made of quirks is it demonstrates the arrow of time is maintained even in a wait state. Something you might think would be relative without a direction. Without establishing an initial inertial frame of reference for Mass oscillation that must occurs in 4 phases if space is relative to time, and adding the value of weak force asymmetry that maintains the fine structure constant ( e{a}/t=hv ) using it's value of time dilation you cannot make accurate measurements on the scale of an atom and must resort to using dice that will never work accurately enough to balance E with universal gravity, a force the size of a proton compared to the size of the entire Universe in relation to the electric force. And the fine structure constant shows this ratio is maintained by time dilation as the Universe increases in size. At some point you must reverse the information frame to see the world from a proton's frame of reference where the photon (and it's forward arrow force carrier space the neutrino) is relative to a still non-moving point of observation within a Mass oscillation cycle where the Observer is moving (not the photon) past a point in time that creates a "spark". The act of observation is the result of Mass oscillation which creates 2 still non-moving states (top and bottom, theta 12 and 13) in every Mass oscillation and a 3rd "apparent" (degeneracy associated with theta 23) still non-moving view in the middle of the oscillation cycle created where we view the Universe from to make a measurement and see our position in relation to the collapse of the wave function. Using a common term best suited for initial comprehension the Planck length shows us that Consciousness (Mass) has an apparent viscosity, and it's length represents the minimum amount of energy measured by both time and space that it takes to move Mass. It shows the speed of light is created by Mass oscillation, and time is created by an oscillator just as a clock has a pendulum, and the concept and observation of viscosity is created by the need of energy measured by time to move Mass. Technically "empty" space is an illusion created by reduced Mass density where Mass has the density of iron. If it were not for the asymmetry of the weak force space would be a block of iron and no movement could occur to reduce it's density, nor increase it. Stars are like vessels of water where space is a hose connecting them and iron is the water line of equilibrium within each vessel when you remove the time separating them. Excellent video....
I still am convinced that it is a mistake that Plank is the smallest possible length. We used to think atoms were the smallest things; even if there are quanta, that does not mean it has to be the smallest. There may be things a million, trillion or googol times smaller. Of course, it is possible that this is a "computer" simulation from far higher beings, which can effectively use the toonforce on us and create/destroy things, but I'm not going to entertain that possibility fully until we KNOW things can not be smaller.
Because that's just silly. "Knowing" something is just due to your brain. If my brain makes up something that doesn't actually exist (like if tying your show isn't a real thing) then the fact that my brain is saying I can and the fact that I have physically experienced it multiple times means I can.
In a mathematical universe, the minimum distance between two point particles is the planck length. That being said, we cannot calculate pi because we presume, without evidence, that there are an infinite number of points between two points in space when there are not; there are a finite number of points separated by the planck length.
Spencer Lithium : I don't think that Planck length necessarily means that space looks like a fixed grid of pixels at the lowest scale. If you keep dividing wood, you eventually get things that can't be treated as wood anymore - proteins and protons and such. It still has properties, but it just isn't wood anymore. Similarly, at the smallest scale, any mathematical model which depends in some way on the idea of "length" might not apply anymore.
+touyubeusr What did you even mean with that? 35 decimal places is just a lame approximation. And also, multiple decimal places are merely the product of our number system and units of measurement. In the Planck Units, we simply decide that the physical constants G, c and h bar are all equal to 1. The Planck lenght, therefore, has a magnitude of 1 with no decimal places.
It may not stop there. our current understanding of the laws of physics have no meaning at distances shorter than the Planck length. This doesn't mean distances cannot include the set all real numbers, only that it isn't falsifiable based on any known laws.
If you tried to gather enough energy to discern resolution at the plank length while still keeping the particles used in a region of space large enough to make such an accurate observation, GR says that it would create a tiny black hole, consequently making that observation impossible.
Now is a moment of emission the smallest unit of measurable time radiating outward from an object relative to its own energy or mass. Most neurological investigations show action is taken before becoming conscious of it. Mind over matter. A locational spherical inward absorption density + and -outward emission density now of electromagnetic waves forming antimatter matter annihilation, input+0/1-output electric charge and EM-fields, or resonance and interference as time unfolds dividing gravity.
In Serbian we have letter for that special 'h' . It is 'ћ' , and it is read like 'c' in 'cheese'. My professor of physics even called it by name of that letter. Once, he had a lecture with some foreign students and they got so confused and he laughed.
The planck lengh would not be say the smallest entity of length. Because at time zero state the particle started to form even smaller than the plank length. After that space expands faster with speed of light.with space the time starts from millionths part of second upto years. So the paricle size are interrelated with time.i.e. particle size is directly proportional to time.
We can tell you how it works on the macroscopic scale using classical mechanics and relativity. We're currently working on how it works on the subatomic and quantum scales. Be more patient.
Is there such a thing as a satisfactory answer to this question? Are you asking how it works or why it works? It works by creating an attractive force between any 2 massive objects separated by space.
+NateNizz We can give you a nice and clean explanation filled with beautiful graphics and equations. The problem is, it only works for macroscopic scales. It's called Newtonian Gravity.
If E = vh, and v = c/lambda, E = hc/lambda lambda has a wavelength of L, if L is plancks length that means that there is a maximum possible energy level for a photon
If the planck length is defined by constants that are measurable, then, yes it doesn't have anything to do with metric or any other standard . . . c can be described in smoots/fortnight
Think of a proton as a fluid with a Reynolds number of 10^19. This is rather larger than aircraft Reynolds numbers (say 10^8 at most) but still within range. Viscosity can be thought of as Brownian motion of vorticity, so activity on the Planck scale could be thought of as Brownian motion. However, modification of the Schroedinger equation is prohibited on the grounds that quantum mechanics would be too easy if it were permitted. I would suggest tachyonic Brownian motion which is actually hinted at by the SE if you look carefully. This is orthogonal to the SE and does not modify it. It becomes apparent when the SE interacts with electromagnetic radiation and this is one for computer simulation.
In mathematics we can write/say 0.1*10^-100meters. But in physics this does not exist, because it is smaller than the Planck lenght. This indicates that the uncritical use of mathematics in physics leads to illusions.
1 / (1.616199×10−35 metres) would be : 1.616199 * 10^35 meters A lightyear is 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters, add 10 zeroes and we have almost the radius of the observed universe 9.4605284 × 10^25meters, still to get to the inverse of the planck lenght we would have to put 10 or 11 more zeroes on that number! Way bigger than anything ever observed; in other words 10billion times bigger than the observable universe! (hope I got the numbers right and didnt mess anything around :-)
There may not be anything less than a Planck length because length is in itself a spatial dimension. Below the Planck length, space gets "foamy" or possibly ceases to exist in order to even be able to measure the dimension of length itself.
Would the Planck length be the beat frequency of the ether? The ether can be in perfect "stillness" if all phases are 180 degrees opposite. One deviant wave pair in any direction will explode the universe into instant being. 1,6 x 10^35 can then be an easily manageable unit at our scale. Small changes at that small scale will have massive impact on our scale. Or "as above so below", or "at ultraultra high frequencies it will propagate into our light frequencies as well" The curvature of space time of matter can then be said to be analogous to stacking of batteries. One difference, two difference, three difference, n difference in a spherical world. Or it can be said that gravity forms matter. Matter comes into being in gravity wells. What is cause and what is effect? Just as light is just visible if you have cones and rods in your eyes and a brain to decode it - matter does only exist if there is a goal function to take into being. You have to have a well to have a gravity. Can "strings" control themselves locally or is everything directed from a centre of being? Are strings resonant properties of a wave function generator, or are strings the function generator?
its not that the number itself is indivisible, as thats all a 'length' is. What its really saying is that *space* is not divisible beyond that point. The length is essentially the space it takes for gravity and energy to interact physically, at least thats what i got from it. I agree with you though this says nothing definitive about reality, although i believe reality by definition is relative and the pursuit of further "defining" it is redundant in itself
If you look for the definition of Planck energy density, and Planck pressure you get exactly the same number, both in value and units, which is only logical after you consider our definitions of energy, energy density, and pressure. Does this convey some sort of meaningful fact about the universe? For example I was thinking: would a Planck energy density sphere exert a uniform Planck pressure outward?
The 5 Planck units are based on the 5 most commonly occurring and dimensionally-independent universal constants and defined using dimensional analysis. But the constants themselves are based on arbitrary definition of SI units. So multiplying any mathematical constant to the existing definitions would lead to another equivalent (dimensionally-accurate) definition. So, what is so special about current definition of Planck length esp. compared to 10^35 times Planck length as another equivalent new definition ? Perhaps there is a smaller quanta of length - say 10^-3 x Lp (instead of Lp). String theories do not calculate the constant as 1 times Lp.
no one can answer this because no one knows what the total ammount of mass/energy in the universe is . regardless if space-time is infinite or finite, the total matter of the universe must be finite, but we don't know how finite. it could be 10^100 grams,it could be 10^10000 grams ...
Quite contrary to the basic idea behind STRING THEORY, the smallest particle in physics has a perfectly spherical shape the diameter of which is l’p=(1/6)^37µm. This length is a fundamental physical constant and is really the smallest meaningful length in nature. More information is accessible in the article “Exact Planck Length Unveils Quantum Gravity”, published in toequest.com, August 2011.
If by absolutely ridged, you mean it will keep it's shape no matter how much force is applied, then no, I don't think it is possible. That would require each atom to be locked in place relative to each other. The more force that is applied, the stronger the forces holding them in place need to be. This would mean those forced would need to be infinitely strong in order to be completely rigid.
Well, perhaps that is why all the things we consider "ridgid" are all considered spherical (elementary particles and sutch), so thar the lever effect doesn´t apply to things on the scale of a planck length... It´s an interesting thought though
A pixel gives off a single color but is still divisible into other components.. I would wager that a plank length is simply the minimum in our laws of physics.. it has been said that once you get down to that size or smaller things get 'fuzzy'.. so its could still be divisible and at the same time be the smallest distance that some 'thing' can take up.
I wish you would have explained where that formula comes from a little more. If more energetic particles are needed to resolve shorter distances, eventually you create such a high energy density when trying to resolve smaller and smaller distances, that a black hole would form. Is this where the plank length comes from? It seems like a crazy assumption that gravity would work the same (Big G) on such small length scales.
heres an example, squeeze your fingers together. The space between your finger encompasses so much space it might as well be the entire universe, because of the nature of space.. You can alway go smaller, as well you can always go larger.
Is it possible to get one bit of info out of one plank length "-loop open or loop closed" thus rings of plank area sized dark matter might be all that those pesky black holes contain...
I didn't think cutting a 1.6 m plank into 10 pieces and repeating 35 times overs would get to such an incredibly small size as the Planck length. Amazing.
I see the revised SI, at least for physics language, unit of length to be expressed in planck lengths. "Real" numbers are human numbers, natural numbers is all there is.
Plank's Length has been derived by using three universal constants. I still don't get how it can be said that at any length less than Plank's Length the laws of physics and basically the reality is blurred? Does Plank Length, and for that matter Plank Time and Plank Mass, physically mean anything?
Interesting question, I'd be interested to know. I *think* that it doesn't apply to fractals, since they're not real as such, but just a mathematical construct.
But you can't make the difference between those two. "Floating in empty space" is falling (gravity affects you all the time and you're always falling towards something) and free falling in gravitational field are the same thing. you're somehow trying to differentiate them from each-other. Go and read relativity.
One of you guys gonner try and answer my Q on light passing through glass. Try it yourself with a blue laser thru cut glass paper weight. It goes green does not change to any other vibration frequency and returns to its original blue vibration upon leaving? Taking resistance into account one understands the slowing down to green in basic terms...as far as I am aware the case is not open and shut but even so....why do we not see a gradual slowing down to green/yellow- yellow....but perplexing to me is how the light beam speeds back up to its original speed??
So, there is an equation that ties distances and time after all. How come we still don't have a way to express space part of spacetime also in terms of t?
It just means that speed is inversely proportional to the pause taken after teleporting between Planck lengths. This would mean that if you raced against light for a single Planck length, you'd arrive from point a to point b at the same time, but if you raced for a thousand, Planck lengths, the pause you'd make between points would be bigger than light's. The universe is like a very fast stop animation, but stop animation all the same.
The Planck length is so small that a rectangular prism with two sides equal to the Planck length and the third dimension being the width of the observable universe would only have a volume of 41 protons.
How is Planck length the smallest possible length? Wouldn't you be able to take something with a length of 0, add the Planck length, and divide by 2, and get half of a Planck length?
"This is the length of a plank (points to wooden plank), but it is not the Planck length." Physics professor puns.
Ikr
So thats how they pick physicists... you get all the corny dads together and whoever gets the least laughs gets his phd in physics
instaBlaster.
I came here exactly for this
A helium atom compared to the Planck length is like the the diameter of the Milky Way to the diameter of a bottle cap for perspective
thats an inaccurate perspective. The Planck length to a pin head is what the pin head is to the observable universe.
Which bottle's cap?
If you took all the people who make size-comparisons and laid them out end-to-end, they'd be a whole lot more comfortable.
@@-danR maybe if you formed two lines of them, face to face.... Just so they had a comparison
it's about the size of a nanometre to the diameter of rhe observable universe ( 96 billion light years)
How many tiny pirates can walk on a planck length?
+PointyTailofSatan rofl !! superb
PointyTailofSatan rather than walk it, wouldn't they just transport to the end 🙂
Less than 1 at a time
Aar! Pirate jokes
H-barrrrrrrr times G over C cubed, me matey
I heard an explanation of the planck length that gave a better impression of how increadibly small the planck length is. Imagine the planck length on the one side, and the size of the universe on the other side, then humans are just in the middle. So, to the planck length we are as big as we think the universe is relative to us. The planck length is that small indeed.
Ronald de Rooij Logarithmically, yes, the 'amount' of planck lengths it requires to stretch over one brain cell is equal to the amount of brain cells it requires to stretch over the observable universe. It's not additive, so a logarithmic scale is required for that to work.
That is how someone explained a planck length to me.
thank you for blowing my mind.
Dat klopt niet ronald. Het universum is 10²⁶ meter groot dus 0.5x10²⁶ keer zo groot als mensen. Wij zitten dus niet in het midden wij zitten er nog ver boven.
@@hgfuhgvg Because the me from seven years ago was a dumbass that didn't know how quotation marks work.
@@justusschoenmakers8987 Ik had meer verwacht van Ronald :(
so a cubic planck length= one pixel of the universe?
+2thpic If you believe in the "it from bit"
+2thpic More like a voxel, but yeah.
+2thpic nobody said a "pixeloid" yet?
+justintime lol gtfo
***** All gematria is is just using letters instead of numbers to represent numerical value. Although I will say that personality and name do have strong statistical connection.
You can't really prove much about the secrets of the universe with it. Plenty failed.
wish it would show how and why the math was constructed, not just equations squaring, finding the root of, and multiplying by 4 because, because.
+Feynstein100
Right, theoretical physics has no logic to it just cos you don't understand it. If you knew how the scientific method works, you'd know the phycisists don't just tote some nonsense someone came up with just because.
Wiz I know your comment is old at this point but what you are saying isn't taking into account how well the Planck length works with everything in physics
Have you ever heard of the ultra violet catastrophe? If not, I would definitely recommend researching it, not only is it interesting, but it will also give you a much better idea of where Max Planck got his idea from
Basically, the universe HAS TO have a smallest size, just like it has to have a maximum speed (c, the speed of light), otherwise or couldn't exist as it does, and Max Planck simply figured out what that size was
No, that's not what happened at all. Planck discovered that energy had to be quantized, not space. We still do not have a theory of quantized gravity yet and until then you can't say anything about how length is quantized. Planck lengths are a purely mathematical construct. I can take almost any 3 dimensional constants and make a length out of them. Planck lengths are only an order of magnitude estimate of approximately where we expect the quantization to occur, and it definitely is more complicated than a simple length. It's likely made up of loops or complex manifolds not individual lengths.
Erik Mallory Fluid theory (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) decanted selfmultidimentionalover...
The polydynamics of the movement generates pseudo-autonomy as material property, of the autogenous phenomenon; existing.(...)
Simultaneous as my unidimensional variability...
unidimensional variability = live-beings
Many people in the comments seem to misunderstand the video. There ARE lengths smaller than the Planck length, they just wouldn't make sense to measure since time and space wouldn't make any sense at a level lower than that.
A Planck length is not an undividable pixel/voxel of the universe.
Thank you
I though the didn't know if there is anything past that.
Jcknight7996 There might not be anything physical beyond that scale, however thinking about the Planck length as a pixel of the Universe is the wrong way to go about it.
It's wrong to think that movement in the Universe works as a fast teleportation one Planck length at a time without ever being in the space in-between. It just wouldn't make sense to make measurements at a scale smaller than that since the Universe is inherently "fuzzy" and undefined at that level so the results of those measurements wouldn't make any practical sense.
For two points that are less than a Planck length apart, it would be impossible to determine which one of them was on the left and which one on the right (or up or down, but you get my point), but that doesn't mean that those two points can't be that close.
+EvilTim1911 I think I understood that.
But imagining points is not imagining the universe, just like imagining infinity is not imagining the universe. There is nothing (known) that is represented by infinity or hypothetical points besides the mere thought of them.
And what's wrong with imagining plank volumes as "universe voxels?" (Thanks for teaching me the term voxel btw lol) I guess I'm having trouble understanding the "role" such a concept would even play since I don't get how the Plank length was even determined, even with the video...
My new favourite physics rapper:
Big G
Another view of the Planck Length: Quantum Mechanics has pairs of numbers that cannot both be made as tiny as one would like, which is what the Uncertainty Principle means. The one usually described is the position-versus-momentum pair where there is a minimum floor as to how closely you can know both of these simultaneously. Try to get a tighter value on one and the other goes up -- a "whack-a-mole" game. It turns out that time and energy also have this pairing, so that if you try to know when something is occurring too precisely, you no longer know how much energy (mass-times-speed-squared) it has. To nail down moving bodies to be able to measure their properties, you have to take as narrow a time interval as possible -- just like in movies you need a fast frame rate if the object moving is not to become just a messy blur. If you try to measure the properties of an object at or below the Planck Length, you have to stop its movement by getting an unimaginably short time interval, but this means getting a huge "whack-a-mole" energy uncertainty, which turns out to be the energy needed to make a sphere of Plank Length size into a black hole, inside which it is impossible to measure anything. Thus the Plank Length is the black hole length if you try to do anything on a smaller scale and, thus, nothing (literally) can be smaller.
Black holes don't have 'length'.
The way he used the plank to illustrate... Was awesome!
if I had a rope, with Planck length, would it have infinite tension? (as it cannot snap because it cant get any shorter)
:o
It snaps then disappears?
My question is coming from something quite elementary T*cos(a)=m*g so I thought that if 'a' was 90 degrees then T should be infinite and thought if it was in plank length then it should have been possible, but is it actually infinite on a plank length string?
Man, that's so deep. I can't take it anymore, this is my limit D:
marco polo as Matter at it ' s smaller scales is MUCH bigger than plank lenght i don't think your example is legit
It wouldn't be a rope. It's shorter than an electron so it wouldn't have mass.
The Planck length is the smallest detectable distance possible, as he said, anything smaller you'd need new fundamental laws which no ones knows about
Very good explanation. If my physics teacher had said it this way, I think i might have had a better grasp of it. Thank you!
@Carutsu the Planck Mass is covered in the extra footage video posted over on the nottinghamscience channel
After this video, my girlfriend's insult makes finally sense.
Yoshi Dinoswar Cage Kira From Death Note Rawr damn
u made me giggle. upvote
Yur gramar meiks nou sens lol xd
it's because it gets foamy
lol
It's not the smallest number possible, it's the length that marks the boundary between the laws of physics (at least as we understand them) applying and not; essentially, anything smaller than a Planck length is meaningless.
These two professors seem like fun professors to take class with. Why can't all teachers be like this!?
@vashthefunker thank you, from the blushing video maker!
I like the Planck mass, because the Planck mass is on the order of 10 micrograms,
a mass that is nearly practically observable by a human.
For more information. Search about Planck Units on Wikipedia. It includes Planck Area, Planck Volume, Planck Time, even Planck Temperature, etc.
re: PabloFerroDesign
How many planks are there in a Gigaparsec????
A: 3.0985 x 10^60 Planck lengths
You've got a very nice point. But what you need to remember is that science is defined by two things 1. how we experience the world as humans and 2. what we already know or don't know about our world.
So, in the world as we experience it and as we know it Plank's length is indivisible. But we can later know more about our world or come across new experiences that may tell us otherwise. The bottom line is, is something you've never experienced and don't know real to you? Food for thought!
Could a particle move half a Planck length, or would it immediately jump that extra space forward?
Yes, it can move half a planck length. They do so all the time. You just can’t measure it.
This video is really about the quantum structure of space and time, if you think about it, which is awesome for me because it captures the essence of my mathematical research. Thanks for the video! I didn't know the planck length was associated with the entropy of a Black Hole :)
so if the Planck Length is the shortest possible length, that would mean moving things are actually jumping a Planck Length and then waiting for a short time and then jump another Planck Length ?
samramdebest
Like your tv screen
no
I think it's just the smallest "jump" that we can measure.
but if it's the smallest jump that we can measure it means that it is the smallest jump since the ability to measure something just means that it is possible to interact with it.
they wait one planck time actually
at least we see them do it
Infinity doesn't need figuring out, it's not a mystery, it's a concept that represents an idea, it only needs "figuring out" when it's applied to a problem. and whether they abhor them or not, they do still have to deal with them in certain scenarios.
What I really don't get about this "it from bit" idea, that the universe is fundamentally a "grid" of planck lengths that are either occupied or not, is that how does motion happen at all from one planck length to another.
For example, the shortest time is the planck time which would basically be the time that it would take for a "bit" in a certain "cell" to move to an adjacent cell. Now the problem that I see with that is that a geometric point on bit moving from its original cell to the same geometric point of an adjacent cell would move at exactly the planck time; however, if you compare different geometric points between the cells then the bit is actually moving faster than the planck time.
Consider thes illustration:
planck time 0
___ ____
| x | | |
|___| |___|
planck time 1
___ ____
| | | x |
|___| |___|
Now here, the x has moved from one cell to the next in exactly one planck time, but the geometrical points of "x" have moved to different parts of the cell faster. For example the right part of the x at planck time 0 must have past the geometrical point to where the left part of the x is at planck time 1. I really don't see how this at all gets around a "zeno's paradox" of sorts.
Sure, you can say that to talk about anything shorter than a planck length or planck time is "ill-defined" or "incomprehensible" in terms of the mathematical equations, but that (it seems to me) is more about the limits of what we can know and can't know using reason than it does about what is going on in the universe.
I understand that a planck length can't be divided further because the uncertainty becomes too great to deal with, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more going on that we don't quite understand.
A similar problem happens when we measure the "planck area" corner to corner. We get root 2 planck lengths. This is greater than one, so no problem, but what happens when we take that root 2 planck lengths and then subtract exactly one planck length? It seems the remaining must necessarily be less than one planck length, and if we're going to deny that there are any distances shorter than a planck length, then it must be the case that root 2 is equal to 1 (which appears to me to be an absurdity above anything in quantum mechanics).
I'd really appreciate it if someone could help me out with this.
I've wondered this too but between the last couple videos and the wikipedia article I finally understand it: planck length isn't a limitation of particle movement at all. Rather, it's where our models of particle movement cease to make any predictions. Maybe they jump, maybe they slide, maybe they twist through 19 dimensions and look like they jump while they really just slide. Maybe something really weird. We simply don't have any clues.
Adam Olsen
That's absolutely right, and it is very important to make that distinction.
But if you're going to say that the fundamental property of our universe is "information," instead of say something more "qualitative" like in an Eisenstein universe, then this question is still going to need to be addressed: "how is motion possible?"
That question, about motion, is the fundamental question to physics. Physics, ever since the Ancient Greeks, has been about understanding motion. Modern physics (basically from Newton, to Einstein, to Quantum physics) uses forces to explain motion; where Aristotelian physics used something like "tendency," "what," or desire to explain motion (and this shouldn't be entirely berated, Alan Chalmers in his book "What is this Thing We Call Science, actually makes the concession that as a physicist there really isn't much of a difference between explaining something like an electron's attraction to a proton via an electromagnetic force than what Aristotle was doing. He doesn't dismiss the idea outright entirely).
So, this question, can't just be skirted by saying "this is just the limits of our knowledge" when, especially digital physics, relies on the actual existence of such a "planck-grid" to have a real existence, rather than just a breakdown of our understanding of what's going on.
If the limit of our knowledge is a "planck-grid" then digital physics doesn't seem to be a position that can be rationally or, more importantly, scientifically justified.
I'm not saying that this question can't be resolved, but I fundamentally reject the idea that we ought to base our models of reality on unobservable, unjustifiable, and even untestable assertions (such as digital physics and, dare I say, the many world's hypothesis in quantum physics).
Planck length is clearly not the shortest length we can imagine or exist.It is just that beyond the planck length our physics wont work
hey. sup
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If I said something that makes you think that I don't already understand your point, then please direct me to my statement so I can clarify that.
I know full well that the planck length is about the breakdown of understanding particle movement, but if particles can only move "one" planck length at the "speed" of light, then really what is happening is they are "teleporting" to an adjacent "cell" while moving at an "instantaneous velocity." It makes sense mathematically, but it does NOT make sense physically.
Ill give you an example. When something heats up the associated radioactive wavelength of that object gets smaller. The smallest of these wavelengths, is a planck length long. This is also the hottest temperature we know is possible.
Thumbs up for the opening pun.
c is the speed of light in a vacuum. Even then, the net speed of light may appear to slow down depending on the medium, but photons actually only travel at c. The slowing down you see is the time it takes for atoms to absorb/reemit those photons. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Thanks for understandable presentation, also thankful to those who named a sawn piece from a timber log also as a plank and honoured wood the wonderful material of Nature. Thanks again.
@freemanx2x don't forget that the water holds together because of molecular interactions, if you apply some force strong enough to break that tension then the droplets are formed because the liquid is separated, but they still follow the distortion of space (the still fall down) even thought they're not together anymore
I can't stop watching sixty symbols!
No :D
lol
+Sebastian Gulbransen Its been 9 months, have you stopped yet?
zuke I took a break :C...
Mike Hawk it's been a year, how about now?
@KingsBlend1 A nanometer is 0.000000001m. The Planck length is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000016m.
You could fit about 100 billion billion billion billion Planck lengths into one nanometer.
I just have to say, I love scientists
This was really neat in that most popularized stuff I've found on the subject is just the same stuff over and over again, this time it was both fresh and still simple so that it is easy to understand!
Maybe this is a foolish question, but as the universe expands, does planck length change?
That's not foolish at all. Actually I'd like to know that myself.
There might be some versions of string theory that deal with this (e.g., situations in which the speed of light in a vacuum or the gravitational constant are not actually constant), but we must know a cosmologist or particle physicist who knows more....
Well yes actually I believe so, as the universe expands the distance that we call 1.6x10^-35m grows, but relative to say a meter ruler the length remains constant as that meter ruler is also growing.
In other words with every passing second a meter grows, therefore so too does anything measurable in meters. Interestingly as the speed of light is measured in m/s, and it's speed remains constant, either light must be accelerating with the expansion of space or time must be warping too such that each second is larger than the one before it.
NZRoflcopter If that were true, then how would we even notice the universe's expansion?
I like to think (In my quite uninformed mind) that the planck length is the answer to zeno's paradox. Where the distance between Achilles and the tortoise eventually become a planck length and can not become smaller, and Achilles catch up and pass the tortoise. Just a fun thought.
Why do people always gloss over the equations?! That's the best possible way to picture what is going on. People always cube or square pi, and the speed of light, but then never explain why. I have so much trouble trying to wrap my head around the uses of the Planck Length because of this. I understand the concept, but the use is wasted because I don't understand this one simple thing.
I get that a square may be regarding an area, and is cube referring to a sort of 3 dimensional area? Is this equation he is showing at 4:15 just a way of saying: Planck length times Big G divided by a supposed 'cube of the speed of the light'?
Can someone put this in much simpler terms and basic terms, so that I can understand how this equation was derived. Please, no need to be highfalutin with a cryptic response. I would love to see some people try to put this in a different context. Like, building measurements, or something. Real life examples so that I know how the equation was derived, then I can understand how to use it in my own thought experiments.
The solution is a result of dimensional analysis, and it is a unique one. It is the only solution for constructing a unit length from the fundamental physical constants. As in, try to construct a unit length with any choice for a, b, d from (G^a)(c^b)(h^d), and the only answer is what gives the Planck length. An object with this length is the smallest thing that will obey known laws of Physics. For instance, a black hole with a radius of a plank length will evaporate from Hawking Radiation in a plank time (plank length/speed of light). Scales below this are unmeasurable, and mass cannot sustain itself. Something this small would collapse into a black hole and immediately evaporate.
Brian Bradley Thank you! Maybe I have just grown a little wiser since I first made my prior comment, but your description actually clicked and I was finally able to visualize this unit. Thank you for putting this in your own words for me. That was exactly what I needed. That first sentence was crystal clear.
I am starting to think that the big divide between experts and average people is in the visualization. It's virtually impossible to grasp something one your own in a reasonable time frame if you are visualizing it wrong. Thanks for the help! ^___^
a vacuum is void of any medium, that's why it is a constant (so the "even, then" doesn't apply) the rest is right from what i know;
both of light and the plank length are relative to spacetime, which is relative to gravity and anything else warping it; the planck length is not necessarily a variable any more than spacetime is, but technically yes--it is from what i have seen: the smallest measurement that behaves in accordance with spacetime, which is malleable under the right conditions
wait... the AREA of a black hole, or the volume?
+TheBaconWizard When the term "area" is applied to 3D objects, it is often meant as "surface area." So I would assume that this is the case, but I could be completely wrong.
"The area of the black hole" = the area of it's event horison
+M&O COMPANY What do u actually mean??
the planck lenght is the lenght of the smallest particle/field of which everything is made of , its the basic building block of spacetime
one would think the universe is infinitely small as it is infinitely big.. i think of the universe as a Mandelbrot set with no beginning nor end we are stuck within infinity.. just my thoughts forgive me if it sounds silly..
Not at all silly, though perhaps not provable. However, it immediately brought to mind a recent "Simpson's" opening where the view expands to take in the observable universe until it becomes unclear and as the image begins to redefine you end up journeying upwards from proton to molecules, dna, cells, then Homer's face, thus ending up where you started.
It's not the smallest length, it's the smallest measurable length.
lolzomgz1337
It is the smallest measurable length today.
If we ever discover a smaller particle, the planck length will have a competitor.
Belle La Victorie What's that got to do with me saying it's not the smallest length?
It's just the point at which any attempt to measure creates a mini black-hole, which collapses and chucks out a single proton in a random direction, since the original measuring particle was turned into a photon with a random velocity, we can't divine any measurements from it.
We just need to find a smaller particle is all.
4:48 It exists.... it's called a wait state. And the wonderful thing about the mistake made in observing a proton and saying an electron is a fundamental particle, but a proton is a composite particle made of quirks is it demonstrates the arrow of time is maintained even in a wait state. Something you might think would be relative without a direction. Without establishing an initial inertial frame of reference for Mass oscillation that must occurs in 4 phases if space is relative to time, and adding the value of weak force asymmetry that maintains the fine structure constant ( e{a}/t=hv ) using it's value of time dilation you cannot make accurate measurements on the scale of an atom and must resort to using dice that will never work accurately enough to balance E with universal gravity, a force the size of a proton compared to the size of the entire Universe in relation to the electric force. And the fine structure constant shows this ratio is maintained by time dilation as the Universe increases in size.
At some point you must reverse the information frame to see the world from a proton's frame of reference where the photon (and it's forward arrow force carrier space the neutrino) is relative to a still non-moving point of observation within a Mass oscillation cycle where the Observer is moving (not the photon) past a point in time that creates a "spark". The act of observation is the result of Mass oscillation which creates 2 still non-moving states (top and bottom, theta 12 and 13) in every Mass oscillation and a 3rd "apparent" (degeneracy associated with theta 23) still non-moving view in the middle of the oscillation cycle created where we view the Universe from to make a measurement and see our position in relation to the collapse of the wave function.
Using a common term best suited for initial comprehension the Planck length shows us that Consciousness (Mass) has an apparent viscosity, and it's length represents the minimum amount of energy measured by both time and space that it takes to move Mass. It shows the speed of light is created by Mass oscillation, and time is created by an oscillator just as a clock has a pendulum, and the concept and observation of viscosity is created by the need of energy measured by time to move Mass. Technically "empty" space is an illusion created by reduced Mass density where Mass has the density of iron. If it were not for the asymmetry of the weak force space would be a block of iron and no movement could occur to reduce it's density, nor increase it. Stars are like vessels of water where space is a hose connecting them and iron is the water line of equilibrium within each vessel when you remove the time separating them.
Excellent video....
+John F Hendry 5:09 At that point the arrow of time is lost which is impossible so you can't go any smaller which is what the constants are showing.
I still am convinced that it is a mistake that Plank is the smallest possible length. We used to think atoms were the smallest things; even if there are quanta, that does not mean it has to be the smallest. There may be things a million, trillion or googol times smaller. Of course, it is possible that this is a "computer" simulation from far higher beings, which can effectively use the toonforce on us and create/destroy things, but I'm not going to entertain that possibility fully until we KNOW things can not be smaller.
Constantine Zahariev So far as we know.
To claim to "know" anything is a mistake.
griff mcdaniels I know how to tie my shoe.
electrocat1 How claim to know anything? How do you know that your senses are not fooling you into thinking you know how to tie your shoelaces?
Because that's just silly. "Knowing" something is just due to your brain. If my brain makes up something that doesn't actually exist (like if tying your show isn't a real thing) then the fact that my brain is saying I can and the fact that I have physically experienced it multiple times means I can.
In a mathematical universe, the minimum distance between two point particles is the planck length. That being said, we cannot calculate pi because we presume, without evidence, that there are an infinite number of points between two points in space when there are not; there are a finite number of points separated by the planck length.
one planck two planck 3 planck etc...nothing but planck...no empty space stand between each planck...nothing but one planck after the next...
Plank length, the pixel equivalent to the world of quantum mechanics.
Whatever a pixel is in your "world".
Spencer Lithium : I don't think that Planck length necessarily means that space looks like a fixed grid of pixels at the lowest scale. If you keep dividing wood, you eventually get things that can't be treated as wood anymore - proteins and protons and such. It still has properties, but it just isn't wood anymore. Similarly, at the smallest scale, any mathematical model which depends in some way on the idea of "length" might not apply anymore.
In mathematics, real numbers might have infinite decimal expansions, is it disappointing the universe stops at 35 decimal places?
+touyubeusr What did you even mean with that?
35 decimal places is just a lame approximation. And also, multiple decimal places are merely the product of our number system and units of measurement.
In the Planck Units, we simply decide that the physical constants G, c and h bar are all equal to 1. The Planck lenght, therefore, has a magnitude of 1 with no decimal places.
It may not stop there. our current understanding of the laws of physics have no meaning at distances shorter than the Planck length. This doesn't mean distances cannot include the set all real numbers, only that it isn't falsifiable based on any known laws.
It's commonly understood that new space is being created and the meter stick is still the same length today as it was yesterday.
So why can't we say that something can be 1.6*10^36?
no, that's illegle in physics, you could end up in physics jail.
Oh okay. Thanks!
Play it cool. Play it cool. Here come the space cops.
These are not the plancks you are looking for.
No but really.
If you tried to gather enough energy to discern resolution at the plank length while still keeping the particles used in a region of space large enough to make such an accurate observation, GR says that it would create a tiny black hole, consequently making that observation impossible.
Intriguing. I imagine Sci-Fi writers having a field day with this length.
To think, all of this got started with the search for a better light bulb.
Entropy is the measurement of order or disorder of particles as the universe expands and heat is diluted to attain thermodynamic equilibrium...
Bubble universes springin out of a Plack Length :D. Dem cosmologists
Ya-what does that even mean in the first place?
That happens if physicists need to find words for their equations so ppl like you even have a chance to take part at the discussion at all.
Now is a moment of emission the smallest unit of measurable time radiating outward from an object relative to its own energy or mass.
Most neurological investigations show action is taken before becoming conscious of it.
Mind over matter.
A locational spherical inward absorption density + and -outward emission density now of electromagnetic waves forming antimatter matter annihilation, input+0/1-output electric charge and EM-fields, or resonance and interference as time unfolds dividing gravity.
In Serbian we have letter for that special 'h' . It is 'ћ' , and it is read like 'c' in 'cheese'.
My professor of physics even called it by name of that letter. Once, he had a lecture with some foreign students and they got so confused and he laughed.
+Mladen Milić - That's so funny! I'm lol. Serbs have _such_ a sense of humor!
Mladen Milić yup 😂
Mladen Milić I know that Russians do that also. Ć or će. Mislim da je će nekako prirodnije od samo ć
The Planck Length is also roughly
~1.6*10-³⁵ m
I'd like a jamal length with 50 zeros after the decimal
The planck lengh would not be say the smallest entity of length. Because at time zero state the particle started to form even smaller than the plank length. After that space expands faster with speed of light.with space the time starts from millionths part of second upto years. So the paricle size are interrelated with time.i.e. particle size is directly proportional to time.
How does gravity work? You can't tell me how one of the most fundamental forces of the universe works? Fan-fucking-tastic.
We can tell you how it works on the macroscopic scale using classical mechanics and relativity. We're currently working on how it works on the subatomic and quantum scales. Be more patient.
Is there such a thing as a satisfactory answer to this question? Are you asking how it works or why it works?
It works by creating an attractive force between any 2 massive objects separated by space.
+NateNizz We can give you a nice and clean explanation filled with beautiful graphics and equations. The problem is, it only works for macroscopic scales. It's called Newtonian Gravity.
If E = vh, and v = c/lambda, E = hc/lambda
lambda has a wavelength of L, if L is plancks length that means that there is a maximum possible energy level for a photon
Sorry can you use imperial I can't grasp the size in meters.
Get with the times, mate! Most of the world uses metric.
@@TaiFerret /s
It is 1.909*10^-33 barleycorns.
@@BlueEyesWhiteTeddy Yes, but how many fathoms?
8.88*10^-36 fathoms
If the planck length is defined by constants that are measurable, then, yes it doesn't have anything to do with metric or any other standard . . . c can be described in smoots/fortnight
Did someone say hot bodies?
Damn you guys - I was gonna go to bed two hours ago, but I can't stop watching your fascinating videos! Haha, thanks . . .
Trust me you can visualize a Plank length. All you need is a lil LSD.
Or ask Ant Man...
@@evertonporter7887 Antman couldn't remember
@Area 51 Never done it - on my bucket list, tho.
Sorry I've done LSD multiple times and couldn't even visualise a micrometer, let alone Planck length
@@ivarbaratheon264 Sounds like you need stronger LSD ;)
Think of a proton as a fluid with a Reynolds number of 10^19. This is rather larger than aircraft Reynolds numbers (say 10^8 at most) but still within range. Viscosity can be thought of as Brownian motion of vorticity, so activity on the Planck scale could be thought of as Brownian motion. However, modification of the Schroedinger equation is prohibited on the grounds that quantum mechanics would be too easy if it were permitted. I would suggest tachyonic Brownian motion which is actually hinted at by the SE if you look carefully. This is orthogonal to the SE and does not modify it. It becomes apparent when the SE interacts with electromagnetic radiation and this is one for computer simulation.
In mathematics we can write/say 0.1*10^-100meters. But in physics this does not exist, because it is smaller than the Planck lenght. This indicates that the uncritical use of mathematics in physics leads to illusions.
Kosmos er for å bli sett, formuleringer ikke nødvendig.
Have anyone considered the existense of lenghts greater than: 1/(Planck lenght) ?
Tore Jens Oftenæs so around 6 E 34? Well, the circumference of the known universe would be a multiple of that no?
1 / (1.616199×10−35 metres)
would be : 1.616199 * 10^35 meters A lightyear is 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters, add 10 zeroes and we have almost the radius of the observed universe 9.4605284 × 10^25meters, still to get to the inverse of the planck lenght we would have to put 10 or 11 more zeroes on that number! Way bigger than anything ever observed; in other words 10billion times bigger than the observable universe! (hope I got the numbers right and didnt mess anything around :-)
Tore Jens Oftenæs But then wouldn't the circumference be given by C=2*Pi&R^2? so you would have to square 10^25 > (10^25)^2 = 10^50?
There may not be anything less than a Planck length because length is in itself a spatial dimension. Below the Planck length, space gets "foamy" or possibly ceases to exist in order to even be able to measure the dimension of length itself.
Planck's constant is h, Dirac's constant is h-bar. The difference is just a factor of 2 pi.
Nobody is going to mention that this size is essentially the Golden Ratio. This is the signature of The All in Infinity /YHWH
Would the Planck length be the beat frequency of the ether? The ether can be in perfect "stillness" if all phases are 180 degrees opposite. One deviant wave pair in any direction will explode the universe into instant being. 1,6 x 10^35 can then be an easily manageable unit at our scale. Small changes at that small scale will have massive impact on our scale. Or "as above so below", or "at ultraultra high frequencies it will propagate into our light frequencies as well"
The curvature of space time of matter can then be said to be analogous to stacking of batteries. One difference, two difference, three difference, n difference in a spherical world. Or it can be said that gravity forms matter. Matter comes into being in gravity wells. What is cause and what is effect? Just as light is just visible if you have cones and rods in your eyes and a brain to decode it - matter does only exist if there is a goal function to take into being. You have to have a well to have a gravity.
Can "strings" control themselves locally or is everything directed from a centre of being? Are strings resonant properties of a wave function generator, or are strings the function generator?
its not that the number itself is indivisible, as thats all a 'length' is. What its really saying is that *space* is not divisible beyond that point. The length is essentially the space it takes for gravity and energy to interact physically, at least thats what i got from it. I agree with you though this says nothing definitive about reality, although i believe reality by definition is relative and the pursuit of further "defining" it is redundant in itself
If you look for the definition of Planck energy density, and Planck pressure you get exactly the same number, both in value and units, which is only logical after you consider our definitions of energy, energy density, and pressure. Does this convey some sort of meaningful fact about the universe? For example I was thinking: would a Planck energy density sphere exert a uniform Planck pressure outward?
The 5 Planck units are based on the 5 most commonly occurring and dimensionally-independent universal constants and defined using dimensional analysis. But the constants themselves are based on arbitrary definition of SI units. So multiplying any mathematical constant to the existing definitions would lead to another equivalent (dimensionally-accurate) definition. So, what is so special about current definition of Planck length esp. compared to 10^35 times Planck length as another equivalent new definition ? Perhaps there is a smaller quanta of length - say 10^-3 x Lp (instead of Lp). String theories do not calculate the constant as 1 times Lp.
no one can answer this because no one knows what the total ammount of mass/energy in the universe is .
regardless if space-time is infinite or finite, the total matter of the universe must be finite, but we don't know how finite.
it could be 10^100 grams,it could be 10^10000 grams ...
Quite contrary to the basic idea behind STRING THEORY, the smallest particle in physics has a perfectly spherical shape the diameter of which is l’p=(1/6)^37µm. This length is a fundamental physical constant and is really the smallest meaningful length in nature. More information is accessible in the article “Exact Planck Length Unveils Quantum Gravity”, published in toequest.com, August 2011.
If by absolutely ridged, you mean it will keep it's shape no matter how much force is applied, then no, I don't think it is possible. That would require each atom to be locked in place relative to each other. The more force that is applied, the stronger the forces holding them in place need to be. This would mean those forced would need to be infinitely strong in order to be completely rigid.
Well, perhaps that is why all the things we consider "ridgid" are all considered spherical (elementary particles and sutch), so thar the lever effect doesn´t apply to things on the scale of a planck length... It´s an interesting thought though
A pixel gives off a single color but is still divisible into other components.. I would wager that a plank length is simply the minimum in our laws of physics.. it has been said that once you get down to that size or smaller things get 'fuzzy'.. so its could still be divisible and at the same time be the smallest distance that some 'thing' can take up.
I know that.. I was just making an extension of what you said.. I was taking the analogy further because to an extent I basically agree..
I wish you would have explained where that formula comes from a little more. If more energetic particles are needed to resolve shorter distances, eventually you create such a high energy density when trying to resolve smaller and smaller distances, that a black hole would form. Is this where the plank length comes from? It seems like a crazy assumption that gravity would work the same (Big G) on such small length scales.
heres an example, squeeze your fingers together. The space between your finger encompasses so much space it might as well be the entire universe, because of the nature of space.. You can alway go smaller, as well you can always go larger.
it is a number which has been determined experimentally.
Alternatively, you could take a stick ~1.343 meters long and divide it 116 times in half to get planck length.
Is it possible to get one bit of info out of one plank length "-loop open or loop closed" thus rings of plank area sized dark matter might be all that those pesky black holes contain...
I didn't think cutting a 1.6 m plank into 10 pieces and repeating 35 times overs would get to such an incredibly small size as the Planck length. Amazing.
Like the folding paper thing.
I see the revised SI, at least for physics language, unit of length to be expressed in planck lengths. "Real" numbers are human numbers, natural numbers is all there is.
Plank's Length has been derived by using three universal constants. I still don't get how it can be said that at any length less than Plank's Length the laws of physics and basically the reality is blurred? Does Plank Length, and for that matter Plank Time and Plank Mass, physically mean anything?
small things are imaginable. individual atoms are easily put in to scale. the plank length is unimaginably small compared to the smallest atom.
Interesting question, I'd be interested to know. I *think* that it doesn't apply to fractals, since they're not real as such, but just a mathematical construct.
But you can't make the difference between those two. "Floating in empty space" is falling (gravity affects you all the time and you're always falling towards something) and free falling in gravitational field are the same thing. you're somehow trying to differentiate them from each-other.
Go and read relativity.
The thing is that all the Planck values are derived from the Planck Constant. How is the key constant established as a natural number?
if a foot was 100 miles; how long would a planck length be ?
One of you guys gonner try and answer my Q on light passing through glass. Try it yourself with a blue laser thru cut glass paper weight. It goes green does not change to any other vibration frequency and returns to its original blue vibration upon leaving?
Taking resistance into account one understands the slowing down to green in basic terms...as far as I am aware the case is not open and shut but even so....why do we not see a gradual slowing down to green/yellow- yellow....but perplexing to me is how the light beam speeds back up to its original speed??
So, there is an equation that ties distances and time after all. How come we still don't have a way to express space part of spacetime also in terms of t?
It just means that speed is inversely proportional to the pause taken after teleporting between Planck lengths. This would mean that if you raced against light for a single Planck length, you'd arrive from point a to point b at the same time, but if you raced for a thousand, Planck lengths, the pause you'd make between points would be bigger than light's. The universe is like a very fast stop animation, but stop animation all the same.
The Planck length is so small that a rectangular prism with two sides equal to the Planck length and the third dimension being the width of the observable universe would only have a volume of 41 protons.
How is Planck length the smallest possible length? Wouldn't you be able to take something with a length of 0, add the Planck length, and divide by 2, and get half of a Planck length?