Smaller than a planck length?

yeah, ur dick when it gets a boner

>>8305786

Kek OP BTFO

>>8305786
Fpbp
Requesting proof that it isn't a samefag

>>8305786
>>8305788
>>8305795
OP here,

I am butthurt and am disappoint.

plz no bully

File: image.png (186KB, 463x515px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 463x515px

>>8305783
If it did, you could not measure it.

The Universe was smaller than Planck Length (we think) before T=Planck Time but we can't theoretically measure it.

There.
Is that a better answer?

>>8305826
>If it did, you could not measure it.

OK, I googled that one up prior, however, what if it then moves by another half of a planck length?
And another, and so on? Does iot then move?

File: image.jpg (57KB, 450x852px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 450x852px

>>8305827
Look. Planck Length is in itself theoretical. We do not have the means to measure it anyway. Further, any attempt to measure something that (or anything really) small is effected by the act of observation itself.
(see Heisenberg and the Uncertainty Principle)

>>8305795
how do i prove that

did you see the post count???

>>8305837
So, we don't know if everything is discretely separated into a grid with resolution of one Planck length?

File: celestial4.jpg (111KB, 629x758px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 629x758px

When a CMB photon hits a black hole (which happens all the time), the hole's diameter grows by an amount that is about 40 orders of magnitude less than Planck length.

There is nothing special about Planck length or other Planck units. Planck mass, for example, is about 20 microgram - not too small or too big. They are just units.

File: image.png (88KB, 566x800px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 566x800px

>>8305846
The is no reason to imagine the Universe as a Planck Length grid.

>>8305783
We don't know, that scale is far too small to measure and any theories that imply anything of that sort are not currently testable.

>>8305846
Well, we "technically" don't know it, but are pretty sure that spacetime is continuous, not discrete.

>>8305865
So the argument that we live in a discrete Universe is BS?

>>8305872
Nobody knows how anything behaves at that sort of scale so claims like that are unsubstantiated.

File: Screenshot_20160829-131821.png (242KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1440x2560px

>>8305844
Nah.
Reply to Op and the first post.
Post the double reply.
Screenshot the post (it should have a (You) next to OP, but not the other post.
Post screenshot.

Pic kind of related

>>8305880
>what is paint?

>>8305783
Start recording a particle with highspeed camera.
Play it 400 times slower.
Do you see the particle simply teleport one point to another ?
Nope
You don't.
You see it move one planck unit very slowly
So yeah, planck unit is not the smallest unit of anything.

>>8305916
I mean there is no real reason to think that the Planck length is the smallest anything but this is a really bad argument.

When was the last time anyone filmed a particle?

>>8305783

Yes
A photon travels that distance in a half planck time

>>8305895
Bit far for a measly samefag, but a good point.

Can you tell me how to get proof?

>>8306080
Estimating from number of replies/ posters

>>8306045
>A photon travels that distance in a half planck time
Can "half a Planck time" pass? I mean, it feels continuous, but what if it passes with a fixed time step of 1 planck time?

>>8306101
Yeah, what if indeed.

That's all it is though, a what if.

>>8305916
You want to film a subatomic particle with a camera? Man, I just came check out this board but I think I'd rather go read /x/. At least they don't pretend to know what they are talking about.

>>8306138
they make very small cameras today

>>8306098
Without that.
Say I come in late to a thread where people are multiposting.
I'm not arsed working out who was behind every post