3 ms·
"the Planck length, at which the concept of distance may break down" ... seems reasonable enough for the purposes of the joke, anyway. It's true enough at this
by h2odragon 4y ago
"the Planck length, at which the concept of distance may break down" ... seems reasonable enough for the purposes of the joke, anyway. It's true enough at this scale that the error bars are negligible.
Perhaps re-evaluate the yardstick which you're using to measure pick-able nits?
- beardyw 4y agoxkcd has certainly lost top place in my list of scientific reference material.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoIt's untrue. The Planck length is utterly unrelated to the concept of distance breaking down, just like the meter or the furlong. That's not nit-picking; this was a repeating of an old erroneous trope that the Planck length is some minimal possible distance, which as I said in the title, makes me sad. Whatever joke is being made. I hold Mr. Monroe in high esteem, as his humor is often smart and spot-on with the science. I hope this lapse is temporary.
- h2odragon 4y agoI think a reference to a common misunderstanding is fine for the joke; which is about a possible failure mode of a user interface quirk. Since you're obviously passionate about the subject tho, perhaps you could help me understand the error better? I dunno much more about the Planck length than that most places offer them in 8 and 12 foot, and pressure treated costs extra. So just what is it then and how is it we can still shoot the tortoise with an arrow?