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.
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.
+Erik Mallory Unfortunately it's exactly that. There is no logic to it. Planck simply thought, "Let's put the fundamental constants of the universe in an equation and see what we get." And hence we have Planck length, Planck time, Planck mass, anything really. It tells us nothing. Physicists simply think it's a big deal because it came out from the fundamental constants. For all we know, there might be absolute nothingness at those scales.
+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.
oR3Io Sorry to burst your bubble but the Planck scale is nothing more than a mathematical result. It has no inherent meaning to it. If you're so sure that you're right, why not give some evidence? I mean, no one can refute evidence. You claim to know how the scientific method works and yet instead of presenting solid evidence, expect me to take your word for it? Also, I'm not just making stuff up. What I wrote here was what I found in Arthur Beiser's Modern Physics, 6th edition. So, unless Beiser was wrong, you've got nothing against me.
oR3Io My friend, doesn't the stuff in the link prove my point? Like I said, there's no inherent meaning to the Planck length. Planck simply messed some constants around and determined a value for length. And somehow that's supposed to be significant. I don't think so. You can get different values of lengths using different constants. So are they all "universal"? Of course not. One could argue that since it uses the "basic" constants i.e. h,G and c, the length obtained from these constants must be basic as well. No. The only reason these constants are basic is because we think they are. There are many other constants that appear on other equations that are just as important and we could not exist without those. Hence. what we consider basic is completely arbitrary in this case. Just as how we define a meter. We basically take a platinum iridium bar of arbitrary length and say "This shall be one meter." Why? Just because.
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?
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!
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.
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.
The idea of the Plank length is easy to understand if thought about in this way. 1) Energy (mass is a form of energy) causes gravitational field 2) If you get enough energy in one spot a black hole should form 3) We find the Plank energy or the energy a single photon would need to colapse to a black hole. 4) E = h*f and C = f * wavelength so wavelength = C*h / E and the value of the wavelength found is double Plank length or the smallest distiguishable length that does not colapse.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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 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.
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.
+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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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! ^___^
+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.
@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
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 :-)
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.
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
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.
Does planck length also deal with motion, as in, its the tiniest unit of motion that can occur for any particle, sort of like the pixels on a screen? Would it be a grid like pattern, or more hexagonal, since that is the geometry the spheres most like?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Nobody here seems to be contesting the underlying premises that the values held as "constants" are the results of consensus calculations. The value of "gravity" is a mathematical model. And the accepted value for the "speed of light" has changed many times in the past century. We will talk in circles as long as we continue to measure non-linear things with linear measures.
Of course, Chuck Norris once told the planck length to grow a pair. When it didn't respond, he roundhouse kicked it, smashing it into 10 smaller lengths, called the Chuck length.
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.
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.
@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.
That's literally what I just said. "Without this PUSH, you would have no way of knowing whether you were freely falling under the influence of gravity or floating in empty space." If you aren't feeling a push from the ground, you're in a state of freefall or floating. Or I guess I should say freefloating (technical term :P), since the two are the same. Go and read my comment.
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...
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.
I heard, in America, they call a plank a 2x4. Certain deductions, assumptions, measurements and observations can be made to extract the length of this 2x4.
"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
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
My new favourite physics rapper:
Big G
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.
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.
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)
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...
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!
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
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.
+Erik Mallory Unfortunately it's exactly that. There is no logic to it. Planck simply thought, "Let's put the fundamental constants of the universe in an equation and see what we get." And hence we have Planck length, Planck time, Planck mass, anything really. It tells us nothing. Physicists simply think it's a big deal because it came out from the fundamental constants. For all we know, there might be absolute nothingness at those scales.
+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.
oR3Io
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Planck scale is nothing more than a mathematical result. It has no inherent meaning to it. If you're so sure that you're right, why not give some evidence? I mean, no one can refute evidence. You claim to know how the scientific method works and yet instead of presenting solid evidence, expect me to take your word for it? Also, I'm not just making stuff up. What I wrote here was what I found in Arthur Beiser's Modern Physics, 6th edition. So, unless Beiser was wrong, you've got nothing against me.
oR3Io
My friend, doesn't the stuff in the link prove my point? Like I said, there's no inherent meaning to the Planck length. Planck simply messed some constants around and determined a value for length. And somehow that's supposed to be significant. I don't think so. You can get different values of lengths using different constants. So are they all "universal"? Of course not. One could argue that since it uses the "basic" constants i.e. h,G and c, the length obtained from these constants must be basic as well. No. The only reason these constants are basic is because we think they are. There are many other constants that appear on other equations that are just as important and we could not exist without those. Hence. what we consider basic is completely arbitrary in this case. Just as how we define a meter. We basically take a platinum iridium bar of arbitrary length and say "This shall be one meter." Why? Just because.
oR3Io
Huh. I stand corrected. It appears I was mistaken. Thank you for showing me the truth.
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.
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!
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.
These two professors seem like fun professors to take class with. Why can't all teachers be like this!?
Thumbs up for the opening pun.
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?
Nobody is going to mention that this size is essentially the Golden Ratio. This is the signature of The All in Infinity /YHWH
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
Plank length, the pixel equivalent to the world of quantum mechanics.
Whatever a pixel is in your "world".
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!
No one taught me more about physics than Friar Tuck.
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
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.
The idea of the Plank length is easy to understand if thought about in this way.
1) Energy (mass is a form of energy) causes gravitational field
2) If you get enough energy in one spot a black hole should form
3) We find the Plank energy or the energy a single photon would need to colapse to a black hole.
4) E = h*f and C = f * wavelength so wavelength = C*h / E and the value of the wavelength found is double Plank length or the smallest distiguishable length that does not colapse.
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.
re: PabloFerroDesign
How many planks are there in a Gigaparsec????
A: 3.0985 x 10^60 Planck lengths
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.
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!
Damn you guys - I was gonna go to bed two hours ago, but I can't stop watching your fascinating videos! Haha, thanks . . .
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.
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.
the planck lenght is the lenght of the smallest particle/field of which everything is made of , its the basic building block of spacetime
@Carutsu the Planck Mass is covered in the extra footage video posted over on the nottinghamscience channel
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.
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.
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 :)
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...
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 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.
It's commonly understood that new space is being created and the meter stick is still the same length today as it was yesterday.
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.
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 ;)
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.
I love these guys!
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.
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.
I'd like a jamal length with 50 zeros after the decimal
Fun fact: The Planck Length is considerably smaller than the distance from the front door to the cab, otherwise known as the Skank Length.
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.
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
Did someone say hot bodies?
these videos are AMAZING! ty.
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.
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! ^___^
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.
+Austin Lee (Jesus2ndCousin) It is.
"The area of the black hole" = the area of it's event horison
+M&O COMPANY What do u actually mean??
@vashthefunker thank you, from the blushing video maker!
@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
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.
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?
He is alive! 3:04
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.
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 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
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.
The Planck Length is also roughly
~1.6*10-³⁵ m
Chuck Norris can repeat the chopping process of that planck in the begging... 36 times!
Does planck length also deal with motion, as in, its the tiniest unit of motion that can occur for any particle, sort of like the pixels on a screen? Would it be a grid like pattern, or more hexagonal, since that is the geometry the spheres most like?
5:00 "Maybe space time gets foamy (as they say) on these sort length scales"
I don't know what it means but I love it.
Alternatively, you could take a stick ~1.343 meters long and divide it 116 times in half to get planck length.
great explanation thanks
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.
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
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..
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.
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.
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.
Planck's constant is h, Dirac's constant is h-bar. The difference is just a factor of 2 pi.
Nobody here seems to be contesting the underlying premises that the values held as "constants" are the results of consensus calculations. The value of "gravity" is a mathematical model. And the accepted value for the "speed of light" has changed many times in the past century. We will talk in circles as long as we continue to measure non-linear things with linear measures.
small things are imaginable. individual atoms are easily put in to scale. the plank length is unimaginably small compared to the smallest atom.
0:20
I'm going to miss that professor...
Of course, Chuck Norris once told the planck length to grow a pair. When it didn't respond, he roundhouse kicked it, smashing it into 10 smaller lengths, called the Chuck length.
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.
that gives some sense to it, thanks
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.
Planck length being a measure of space and time is also relative to the observer. To subdivide, simply speed up.
@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.
Entropy is the measurement of order or disorder of particles as the universe expands and heat is diluted to attain thermodynamic equilibrium...
I really like Prof. Eaves. I wish we saw more from him.
God I love those videos !
That's literally what I just said. "Without this PUSH, you would have no way of knowing whether you were freely falling under the influence of gravity or floating in empty space." If you aren't feeling a push from the ground, you're in a state of freefall or floating. Or I guess I should say freefloating (technical term :P), since the two are the same. Go and read my comment.
great video.
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...
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.
The ironic part is that according to General Relativity gravity actually is in fact a "push"
@Oxydox So like d(x) but with current physics restrains?
What is the Planck unit for Space-Time?
Planck volume per Planck time?
I heard, in America, they call a plank a 2x4.
Certain deductions, assumptions, measurements and observations can be made to extract the length of this 2x4.