The Universe's FPS limit
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 бер 2024
- Even the universe has a fps cap...
As ℏ (or hbar) is a constant, there are multiple ways to derive it, and we can even work backwards to get it from the Planck length without a circular definition, as the Planck length itself represents something else fundamental. Here is one possible way to find it out. www.ptep-online.com/2023/PP-6...
Fitting that an incomprehensibly small distance and high speed result in an equally unfathomable frame rate
A nice one. Many years ago I wrote some inspired code to ensure a minimum of 30 FPS for an adventure game.
I can't believe it, Cookie Clicker is breaking the laws of physics...
It's refreshing to see content like this once in a while!
I hope you keep doing the things you love.
your feelings are irrational
@@Fire_Axus ok
This is all fascinating and overwhelming at the same time.
I hope not to lag behind on the comprehension! My mind can only have so much resolution for complex ideas.
is that a refresh rate pun?
Your optimistic paradigm cannot be factored into this equation.
i need a universal monitor. imagine how smooth Minecraft would look!
Whoa! My RTX 4090 might struggle with that, ought to consider setting DLSS to high performance
Nah just a couple of overclocks and it'll be fine.
@@karageyou I dunno, heat might turn into a problem. Don't want so much heat to accumulate that the card collapses into a Kugelblitz. ;)
Sounds like an entertaining science fiction story, planet disrupted by singularity created by the excess heat of a hobbyist computer...
I'll just get my hat...
@@spvillano If you build a computer that could perfectly simulate the universe 1:1 it would be a black hole
Plank's frame rate
woahhhh congrats on 100 subscribers !!!!! cool video
oh, an undiscovered channel!
Welcome
you're making a good start
“undiscovered”
Yes, but if I go really fast then distances get shorter. Arbitrarily short.
It looks to me that you're looking at this through the lens of length contraction from special relativity.
Length contraction is a transformation of matter, not space itself. The Planck length is a measure of space, not matter.
The common idea would be lo look at the lorentz transformation equation, and say that you can get a length infinitely short if you limit velocity to the speed of light. However this is where we need to take a look at the application of physics rather than just the quantification. In which case we realise that you cannot limit the speed of a particle much less a body to the speed of light due to the hugely impractical amounts of energy envolved.
Let me know if you want some more information about this matter, or if I didn't answer your question.
@@karageyou actually lenght contraction is not a transformation of space nor matter but a transformation of the simultaneity of measurement that gives you the lenght contraction. In other words because we use measuring devices that depend the speed of causality to measure the difference between two points of moving objects but time is dialated you get this additional of effect of lenght contraction.
@@stefan24georgiev You are right, length contraction fundamentally isn't synonymous with a transformation of matter (as this would create a lot of problems at a microscopic level), however I believe that for practical and conceptual purposes, it is interpretable as matter contraction.
@@karageyou fair enough
From a layman’s perspective, it’s not clear what this value represents or that it’s even meaningful.
We did some dimensional analysis to get a time quantity, but it’s not very convincing that this leads to anything meaningful.
Granting that it is meaningful, what does it actually mean? Does it mean that we can model the universe as “ticking” in discrete time units, like on a computer (i.e. is time discrete)? Or is the underlying time continuous, but the smallest unit of time we can meaningfully talk about is that quantity?
I think the honest answer is that we don't know. We don't have a proven "theory of everything," so we can't say a whole lot about what time fundamentally *is*.
My best understanding of theories in this area is that conventional notions of what space and time are tend to break down when we attempt to describe things at this level. So personally, I think the answer is probably something pretty unintuitive.
If nothing else, I think we can say that around that timescale, attempts to describe time using everyday concepts don't really work.
(Credentials: I have a PhD in physical/theoretical chemistry and have done some reading in this area. I am very much not an authority on this topic.)
The significance comes in when you talk about theoretical physics, as the Planck time represents the shortest time frame that we can measure at. Any measurement envolving matter also envolves a speed limit of c. Imagine Einstein's "light clock", a device which timekeeps via light continuously being reflectted between two mirrors. Now move these mirrors as close as they can be and the duration it takes for the light to travel from one side of the light clock to the other is the smallest measureable amount of time.
If there is a shorter possible timeframe we will theoretically never know. In fact, it will be an engineering nightmare for us to even get anywhere close to measuring the Planck time.
If we are living in a simulation, this is the refresh cycle speed :).
You're correct, this video is mistaken, the Planck length and Planck time have no physical significance.
Why not 2*10^25?
That's the correct standard notation - I should have used that instead.
I said 20 septillion right before, so I probably messed up the editing there for that reason.
If you consider the mathematical model - where time is an added complexity (spin) Then the frame rate of the universe is 5.39 x 10^-44 FPS. In this model, time is an undefined location in the future and becomes defined in the present, then crystalized space in the past.
What would be the highest achievable frame rate if the shutter speed of the camera used, was bound to these limits of the universe?
The numerical value of the framerate of the universe is around 20 septillion. However this envolves taking the speed of ligh and running it over the smalles possible distance. As camera shutters cannot travel anywhere close to the speed of light (due to the significant amoun of enerrgy envolved in acceleration and deceleraion), and travel overr distances thatt seem infinite when compared to he Planck length, the shutter speed is much slower. The fastest cameras currenly run over 1 million fps, and there's no reason that this couldn't double or triple within a decade or so. However, it would not increase in magnitude to anywhere even in the neighbourhood of the universe's limits. Cameras (and other devices) are an engineering problem, not a physics poblem.
Why is the distance we get when multiplying the 3 constants the smallest possible?
They are not exactly “multiplied together” instead they are “carefully combined” to present a solution in units of distance only.
The units of G are (distance * distance * distance) / (mass * time * time)
The units of c are distance / time
The units of h are distance * distance * mass / time
This is the only way to combine these three fundamental constants that connect quantum to relativity to obtain a single unit of distance (I.e. a length) and that is
Distance = √ (h*G/c*c*c)
technically it is not the “smallest possible” distance full stop; it is the smallest possible distance that, due to Planck’s uncertainty principle combined with Einstein’s mass energy equivalency (e=mc2), we can reliably determine to have any meaning. Distances below that are fundamentally unmeasurable.
There will always be more future than past.
why?
wouldn’t it be equal as the progress the future gets smaller as the past gets longer
Frame length: Planck second. You also get the pixelsize of the universe: the Planck-lenght. One planck length per planck second equals Lightspeed. Now let's see what the video says 😂
20 x 10^24 and yet some gamers would still complain lol
Now check out what Planck had to say about God and being religious.
There's definitely a lot out of interesting stuff out there, and in the future I am considering doing a viceo about religion's place in the philosophy of science.
@@karageyou yeah man, it's a really neat thing to look up. I'm in college right now and started going to church just to chill out more and I've met my physics dean there and everything. It is wild what you can begin to tolerate when you start to consider it from the perspective that it's the truth in the Biblical sense. Now when I'm working through university physics and calculus it feels more like a cross to bare than a frustrating mess.
such a nice vid! I guess you know already, but pleaseeee get a better microphone.
Ahh yeah I am aware that my audio is not great... I do regret to inform you that the mic probably won't be improved for a while - as it is difficult to justify spending an upfront cost given that I have something like 5 videos up which have a combined total of just over 2 thousand views.