5 ms·

I wish any of you with the down vtes would at least have a conversation with me...

eigenket 3y ago
There is absolutely no evidence that the Planck length is anything like the smallest possible length or wavelength. Its "just" a length scale that pops out when you combine several physical constants. That combination of constants means that at the Planck scale quantum effects and gravitational effects are likely to both be relevant, which is cool, but other than that it doesn't really have any fundamental meaning.
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  I’m giving you a hypothesis about the reason why the Planck length exists as a constant. Below Planck length there is no length, time, mass, or temperature. All of those things are given “reality” by our mental process.
  - eigenket 3y ago
    That is certainly a hypothesis, but there is no evidence for it.
    - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
      Hey, I’m no Einstein, but even he had hypothesis that took decades to be shown evidence to prove they were true. I don’t know how someone is supposed to come up with evidence before a hypothesis, but if you have a new understanding of the scientific process Please let me know.
      - eigenket 3y ago
        > I don’t know how someone is supposed to come up with evidence before a hypothesis Sure, this is usually how science works. A good example is the famous Michelson–Morley experiment which was performed in 1887 and was a key piece of evidence directly inspiring Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905. The way science usually progresses is that there is some piece of evidence which current theories can't explain or deal with. That prompts the development of new theories, which make new predictions, which are then tested in further experiments.
        FollowingTheDao 3y ago
        What are ridiculous thing to say. The Michaelson Mosley experiment was sent experiment based on the hypothesis that something called the Luminiferous aether existed. So someone had a hypothesis, and they tested it. I have a hypothesis, go out and test it if you wish.
  - consilient 3y ago
    It's not a constant, any more than the meter or the foot. It's just part of a unit system that happens to be convenient for carrying out certain calculations.
    - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
      I have questions about your understanding. Or maybe it is a problem with my communication. There is a planck constant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
      - consilient 3y ago
        Planck's constant is not the Planck length.
        FollowingTheDao 3y ago
        The Planck length ℓ P is defined as: ℓ P = ℏ G c 3 ≈ 1.616 255 ( 18 ) × 10 − 35 m , where is the speed of light, G is the gravitational constant, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant. I know they’re not the same. But they obviously depend on each other, no?
        consilient 3y ago
        > But they obviously depend on each other, no? Sure, but so does twice the Planck length. Also half the Planck length. Also 86.173491 times the Planck length. And so on.
      - eigenket 3y ago
        The Planck length and Planck's constans are both named after Max Planck. That doesn't mean they're the same thing. The Max Planck Institutes are also named after Planck, but they are neither lengths nor constants.
317070 3y ago
> our minds collapse the wave function While I know there are many sources available of people saying this exact thing, this is a common misunderstanding of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. There is nothing special about our minds.
- goatlover 3y ago
  It was Wigner who speculated that consciousness causes collapse. But Neils Bohr had a Kantian approach to science, so he did think it mattered how our minds understood the world, and what we can and can't say about physical formalisms.
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  First, thank you for responding. I’m not saying there’s anything special about our mind, it’s just a function of our mind. And is it misinterpretation or is it my interpretation that you disagree with? How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? I do not believe, for example, that the moon exist, only because I look at it. I think it exists in a probabilistic state in that probabilistic state turns to certainty when I look at it. But that is only my certainty. How do I share my mind’s interpretation of what the moon looks like with someone else? Exactly? I can’t, it’s impossible. The moon both exist, and does not exist at the same time. And what I mean it does not exist. I mean it does not exist in any sense of certainty. Hence the moon is a wave function. The fact that my brain in your brain can collapse the way function in an apparent 100% similarity provides no proof that the moon exists in a single state outside of our own minds.
  - consilient 3y ago
    > How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? Photons are not particles or waves. They are similar to classical particles in certain respects and similar to classical waves in other respects, but what they're really like is a localized excitation of the electromagnetic field. Because that's what they are. Physics by analogy simply does not work. If you understand the math, analogies can occasionally be a helpful signpost. If you don't, they're worse than useless.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Planck length is anything like the smallest possible length or wavelength. Its "just" a length scale that pops out when you combine several physical constants. That combination of constants means that at the Planck scale quantum effects and gravitational effects are likely to both be relevant, which is cool, but other than that it doesn't really have any fundamental meaning.

FollowingTheDao 3y ago
I’m giving you a hypothesis about the reason why the Planck length exists as a constant. Below Planck length there is no length, time, mass, or temperature. All of those things are given “reality” by our mental process.
- eigenket 3y ago
  That is certainly a hypothesis, but there is no evidence for it.
  - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
    Hey, I’m no Einstein, but even he had hypothesis that took decades to be shown evidence to prove they were true. I don’t know how someone is supposed to come up with evidence before a hypothesis, but if you have a new understanding of the scientific process Please let me know.
    - eigenket 3y ago
      > I don’t know how someone is supposed to come up with evidence before a hypothesis Sure, this is usually how science works. A good example is the famous Michelson–Morley experiment which was performed in 1887 and was a key piece of evidence directly inspiring Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905. The way science usually progresses is that there is some piece of evidence which current theories can't explain or deal with. That prompts the development of new theories, which make new predictions, which are then tested in further experiments.
      - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
        What are ridiculous thing to say. The Michaelson Mosley experiment was sent experiment based on the hypothesis that something called the Luminiferous aether existed. So someone had a hypothesis, and they tested it. I have a hypothesis, go out and test it if you wish.
- consilient 3y ago
  It's not a constant, any more than the meter or the foot. It's just part of a unit system that happens to be convenient for carrying out certain calculations.
  - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
    I have questions about your understanding. Or maybe it is a problem with my communication. There is a planck constant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
    - consilient 3y ago
      Planck's constant is not the Planck length.
      - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
        The Planck length ℓ P is defined as: ℓ P = ℏ G c 3 ≈ 1.616 255 ( 18 ) × 10 − 35 m , where is the speed of light, G is the gravitational constant, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant. I know they’re not the same. But they obviously depend on each other, no?
        consilient 3y ago
        > But they obviously depend on each other, no? Sure, but so does twice the Planck length. Also half the Planck length. Also 86.173491 times the Planck length. And so on.
    - eigenket 3y ago
      The Planck length and Planck's constans are both named after Max Planck. That doesn't mean they're the same thing. The Max Planck Institutes are also named after Planck, but they are neither lengths nor constants.

317070 3y ago

> our minds collapse the wave function While I know there are many sources available of people saying this exact thing, this is a common misunderstanding of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. There is nothing special about our minds.

goatlover 3y ago
It was Wigner who speculated that consciousness causes collapse. But Neils Bohr had a Kantian approach to science, so he did think it mattered how our minds understood the world, and what we can and can't say about physical formalisms.
FollowingTheDao 3y ago
First, thank you for responding. I’m not saying there’s anything special about our mind, it’s just a function of our mind. And is it misinterpretation or is it my interpretation that you disagree with? How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? I do not believe, for example, that the moon exist, only because I look at it. I think it exists in a probabilistic state in that probabilistic state turns to certainty when I look at it. But that is only my certainty. How do I share my mind’s interpretation of what the moon looks like with someone else? Exactly? I can’t, it’s impossible. The moon both exist, and does not exist at the same time. And what I mean it does not exist. I mean it does not exist in any sense of certainty. Hence the moon is a wave function. The fact that my brain in your brain can collapse the way function in an apparent 100% similarity provides no proof that the moon exists in a single state outside of our own minds.
- consilient 3y ago
  > How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? Photons are not particles or waves. They are similar to classical particles in certain respects and similar to classical waves in other respects, but what they're really like is a localized excitation of the electromagnetic field. Because that's what they are. Physics by analogy simply does not work. If you understand the math, analogies can occasionally be a helpful signpost. If you don't, they're worse than useless.