6 ms·
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
by 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 agoI’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 agoThat is certainly a hypothesis, but there is no evidence for it.
- FollowingTheDao 3y agoHey, 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 agoWhat 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 agoIt'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 agoI 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 agoPlanck's constant is not the Planck length.
- FollowingTheDao 3y agoThe 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 agoThe 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.