4 ms·
I think the Pythagoreans had the same silly crisis about square root of two that you have about the real-valued measurements. And the solution, I believe, would
by Joker_vD 2y ago
I think the Pythagoreans had the same silly crisis about square root of two that you have about the real-valued measurements. And the solution, I believe, would be the same: there simply are two physical things with lengths that relate to each other exactly as sqrt(2) to 1.
So, how would result of measuring e.g. length of something to an infinite precision look like? It would look like two particles that are kept at rest relative to each other; the distance between them is the measured distance. Whether this distance has to be commeasurable with the Planck scale or not is an interesting question but it really can go either way.
- lisper 2y ago> two particles that are kept at rest relative to each other And how do you do that in the face of Heisenberg uncertainty?
- Joker_vD 2y agoAnd how do you measure the length of a burning rod (that's moving past by you at a considerate speed) in the face of relativity of simultaneity? I guess it's impossible, and so the very concept of length must be meaningless. To actually try to answer your question: I don't know. But that's just me; and ain't there some interesting experimental setups with super-cooled crystals? In any case, inability to imagine something is hardly a convincing proof of anything.
- lisper 2y agoIn some cases it is. Do you think perpetual motion machines are impossible, or is that just a matter of our inability to come up with a sufficiently clever design?