1. fine, the number of quarks that fit between here and there. if we discover something smaller it will be that. If this wasn't true, it seems to me that spac

1. fine, the number of quarks that fit between here and there. if we discover something smaller it will be that. If this wasn't true, it seems to me that space would be infinitely divisible, but it's not. Why would the Planck length be derivable from so many other physical constants such as the speed of light? 2. no, i think it's everyone else who has begged the question by referring to space-time first because it is observable. fallacy of scale is involved here. It seems to me that what I'm saying is what the article was trying to do as well, derive the fact of 4 dimensional space-time from the physical properties of matter.