4 ms·
As I understand it, this is indeed a fundamental feature of the Planck length; The universe might have structure smaller than this, but we wouldn't be able to t
by maggit 10y ago
As I understand it, this is indeed a fundamental feature of the Planck length; The universe might have structure smaller than this, but we wouldn't be able to tell. So the Planck length is the shortest meaningful length, in that we would never be able to discern structure smaller than this.
- criddell 10y agoSo, doesn't that suggest there's a Planck length for time? So the distance between two points in space-time is sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - ct). If you try to find the distance of a point in space at two different times, does the Plank length dictate some type of Plank interval?
- heydenberk 10y agoIndeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
- criddell 10y agoThat page says the Planck time is the time it takes for light in a vacuum to travel one Planck length. That doesn't imply it's the smallest interval, does it?
- qubex 10y agoInsofar as you can only really measure time as the interval it takes for something to happen, and insofar as light's travel is the fastest process in the universe, and that the plank scale is the smallest distinguishable distance, it follows that the measurement of time across that smallest interval is the shortest interval that can be reliably measured.
- criddell 10y agoDoesn't that imply that every process in the universe proceeds in lock-step? If two virtual particles were to randomly pop into existence, does the time between the first and second particle appearing have to happen in some whole multiple of Planck time?
- notduncansmith 10y agoTo my understanding, Planck time describes a limit on sample rate, not frequency. That is, we can't perceive time at a finer grain than whole multiples of Planck time. But even starting with only integers, we can theorize and simulate floats. The speed of light is as arbitrary a scale as anything else when you're talking about absolutes, hence "it's all relative".
- lgas 10y agoVirtual particles actually exist for less than a planck unit of time. I'm not a physicist and I'm having trouble finding a good clear reference, but this page mentions it (cmd-f 'less than') - http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
- 725686 10y agoThat would be the chronon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon
- taneq 10y agoWell, if light (the fastest possible thing) takes this amount of time to travel the Planck length (the shortest possible thing), then does that not imply that nothing could possibly happen faster?