>The Planck length is the smallest distance When will

You can kill a man. But memes are bulletproof.

File: Idi Amin thinks its funny.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>8363256
>The Planck length is the smallest distance
>When will this meme die?

You have an alternative?
Please explain

>>8363256
When you stop repeating it

kek babby probably thinks analog is still continuous

>b-buh sound waves cant be quantized!

>>8364888
What the fuck. Is there reason to support the planck length? It seems like Planck just wanted to define things without observation. Your argument is akin to religion. "We don't know why we're here right now so I'll impose an answer I like". The length we're talking about is way beyond our scientific reach. there's better ways of studying quantum interactions besides imposing quantization because it feels right.

>>8364888
>didnt even read the wiki article at a bare minimum

Planck just wanted his name on something long enough to last so he made up some shit. This shit may be based in reality, but people get it wrong when they want an answer so bad that they pull one from a set of equally likely answers without narrowing it down. Due to lack of time, resources, or ability.

>>8364895
>with out observation
Hmmm Rayleigh Jeans Blackbody experiment, the ultraviolet catastrophe etc

>>8363256
It's not though, it's completely valid to use measurements like half a planck length

File: image.jpg (22KB, 236x324px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 236x324px

>>8364895
>It seems like Planck just wanted to define things without observation.
>>8364901
>Planck just wanted his name on something long enough to last so he made up some shit.
Planck length is the diameter of the Universe when gravity became a separate force. This occurred at Planck time.
You understand this, right?
You've actually read something about the origin of the Universe, right?

Explain Zeno paradoxes if it isn't

>>8364888

I remember the French documentary video on Idi Amin where that animated .gif came from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7actrUqwkyQ

>>8364985
You solve Zeno's paradox by ceasing to cut space in half like a dumb asshole after some point, once you get tired of it.

>>8364988
Damn I never even realized that was Idi Amin

>>8364990
The point is that if there's no smallest length then you can divide space into infinity, yet there are finite things resulting from infinite parts which can't happen.

>>8364888
I propose the smallest distance is half the planck length. Please prove me wrong.

>>8364995
>then you can divide space into infinity
No you can't. It would take an infinite amount of time to do so.

>>8365003
Stop being fucking retarded. Are you also going to claim that there's a finite amount of numbers because we can't count all of them?

>>8365006
>Stop being fucking retarded.
Why, are you the only one allowed to play dumb word games? Dividing is a process, it would take you an infinite amout of time to do it.

>Are you also going to claim that there's a finite amount of numbers because we can't count all of them?
If you were arguing that numbers only exist when you can count them, then yes that would imply they are finite. But that's an asumption I don't make.

Define your terms better or don't bitch when they bite you in the ass.

>>8364995
Yeah but it doesn't take an infinite amount of time

>>8365003
Jesus christ

>>8364999
I propose the algorithms get a syntax error with that and roll with a planck length anyway.
>they are not actual algorithms because a level of randomness is involved, so take them as quantum algorithms

>>8365009
>it would take you an infinite amout of time to do it.
Nah. 1/∞. Done.
>Logos trumps physics and AI approach

>>8365009
Instead of dividing which is a process use "constitution". Can a finite thing be constituted from an infinite number of parts? No time involved now.

>>8365019
I've never encountered the term constituted in my math classes, can you define it?

>>8364985
The Universe is obviously a 4-dimensional vector space over some Archimedean complete field.

>>8365021
What the fuck did you say to me you little bitch

>>8365019
>highschooler is still confused by the concept of infinity
in this case, being "constituted from an infinite number of parts" would mean that for any N you can divide a line into more than N parts. Of course it's possible dummy.

>>8365019
A Planck length is composed of an infinite number of fractional Planck lengths

>>8365025
>A Planck length is composed of an infinite number of fractional Planck lengths
Planck length is a physical limitation, not mathematical. Sheesh...
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a new case of "atom, the undivided.", but yeah.

>>8365024
No it's about the concept of actual infinity not being possible in the real world

>>8365028
>Planck length is a physical limitation
Nah, it's just a length unit derived from physical constants. There's no indication that it's a limit on anything.

>>8365037
concepts are not part of the real world anyway.....

>>8365037
Sure it is, whenever I move somewhere I have to cover an infinite amount of fractional distances. Luckily this only takes a finite time.

>>8365047
The "fractorial" doesn't change a thing. You still have to cover an infinite distance. Ever heard of metaphysical grounding?

>>8365052
Who said anything about a factorial?

Say I have to travel a distance of 1 (units unimportant). I have to first travel over 1/2, then 1/4, then 1,8 and so on to infinity. However this is not an infinite distance and it doesn't take an infinite amount of time to cross.

>>8365052
>You still have to cover an infinite distance.
No you don't.

File: image.jpg (43KB, 604x483px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 604x483px

>>8365044
>There's no indication that it's a limit on anything.
Actually it is limit.
When the diameter of the Universe is less than Planck Length Gravity is combined with the other forces.
When the diameter of the Universe is greater than Planck length Gravity is a separate force.

Even Mike Rowe knows this.
You guys read, right?
Why don't people understand that Planck Units describe the condition of the Universe when Gravity became a separate force. We do not have a model for the condition of the Universe between T=0 and T= Planck Time. That is the importance of Planck Time and Distance.
Don't they teach this in middle school?

>>8365056
Sorry typo. And why doesn't it take an infinite amount of time? That's why the answer to the paradox was "because you can't infinitely divide space"

>>8365058
>it's a popsci fag spouts back shit he doesn't understand episode

>>8365057
>>8365056

>>8365059
If I'm travelling at a constant speed the infinite sum of times taken to cover the infinite sum of distances converges in the same way to a finite amount.

>>8365058
Don't pretend you know what you're talking about when you talk about forces combining

The Planck length is an approximate length scale at which we need a quantum theory of gravity. It is not known to be a PHYSICAL limit of anything.

>>8364909
Had he just forgotten about the Planck fucking constant when he pulled out the Planck length?

>>8365063
Could you explain again please?

File: image.jpg (19KB, 191x264px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 191x264px

>>8365060
No.
We were taught about Planck Time and Distance in middle school ((7th grade) many years ago).
And it's not popsci. Max Planck (1858-1947) proposed these units in 1899 and they have been an accepted part of physics for over a century. I don't understand why people don't grasp it. It's a pretty simple concept.

>>8365072
If I'm traversing a distance of 1m at a speed of 1m/s then it will take me 1/2s to travel the first 1/2m, 1/4s to travel the 1/4m and so on. That sum of times will never be more than 1s.

>>8365076
Interesting, but wouldn't it need the infinity to end for it to actually be equal to it? How and why does it just converge? Thanks for taking your time with me anon.

>>8365074
>it's not popsci
nigger, do you even know what it means for forces to be unified?

>>8365074
Yeah man, he proposed them then but only because he wanted a set of units that weren't based off arbitrary values. All they are is a set of unambiguous units derived from physical constants, although some of them happen to roughly line up with scales of some interest.

Sure, the Planck length is around the same length scale where our current understanding begins to fail but the Planck mass is nothing special at all.

>>8364982
Theoretical significance[edit]
There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length; it is, however, a topic of theoretical research. Since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is no way of examining it directly. According to the generalized uncertainty principle (a concept from speculative models of quantum gravity), the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no theoretically known improvement in measurement instruments could change that.[citation needed]

In some forms of quantum gravity, the Planck length is the length scale at which the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects, and it is impossible to determine the difference between two locations less than one Planck length apart. The precise effects of quantum gravity are unknown; it is often guessed that spacetime might have a discrete or foamy structure at a Planck length scale.[citation needed]

You were saying....

>>8364909
Einstein was the first to refer to plancks constant as plancks constant.

Git gud

>>8365081
No, because you can show that the sum of all those times will never be more than some finite value, so when that finite time passes you know that those distances will have been covered. No infinite time needed.

You should probably learn about limits for this to make more sense.

>>8365092
It makes sense now. Thank you for clearing up a misconception I had for quite a long time.

>>8365104
No worries. I mean, my explanation is probably nowhere near rigorous enough but if it makes some sense to you then that's cool. You should probably ask a maths professor if you want the full story though.

>>8364988
>made me watch a stormfag video

fuckin' /pol/...