Why does anything smaller than planck lenth makes no sense?

>>8469206
yea pretty confusing bc your dick is 10^-36m

>>8469210
oh shit nigga

>>8469206
It does make sense, planck length is a meme.

>>8469257
Wrong. Obviously it is the smallest possible length yielding a smallest possible Volume in which we could conceptually write a number. As a result, the biggest number is 10^200 since this is the maxinum of numbers we could write by exploiting all planck cubes in the observable universe. This fact disproves the Goldbach conjecture btw.

it's not that it makes no sense, it's that our physics can't describe anything that happens at smaller scales

The Planck length is not an exact measure. It is just an estimation of the order of magnitude of the length scale in which quantum gravity effects are expected to be important. Its value even changes depending of the normalization (using 4πG=1 instead of G=1 leads to a different value of the Planck units).
Physicists say that our current laws of physics break down around this length scale because we don't yet have a single accepted theory of quantum gravity. All our current theories assume that spacetime is continuous (that there is not a minimum length).
Anyways, a gravitational point singularity is not special in regards to having zero volume. An electron is, as far as we know, also a point particle (in the sense that it has no interior structure), and all experiments to this date have confirmed this with big accuracy. It's of course possible that electrons (or singularities) have a nonzero volume, but to the date no experimental data suggests that this may be the case.

>>8469206
It does. We just can't measure distance with any greater precision than it; two Plank scale objects within the same Planck area will appear and calculate as being in the same spot.

>1 dimensional strings exist at this level
oh yeah right, what part of 1 dimensional do they not understand?

>>8469266
>Goldbach conjecture
How ?

>>8469266
t. ultrafinitist

>>8469281
t. moron with no understanding of quantum

>>8469332
https://youtu.be/Lme-uNPrry8 :^)

>>8469206

we define the planck length to be the smallest length that still makes sense. As soon as we can go smaller, theoretically we should redefine the planck length, but we likely won't for the same reason we didn't rename the atom as soon as we found subatomic particles.

>>8469266
wildberger pls go

>>8469206
the plank length is the wavelength of the most energetic particle possible. those created at the beginning of the universe. anything smaller than that isn't physically realizable and measurement precision smaller than that isn't possible.

lol @ these replies. It makes no sense due to the uncertainty principle, which says Δx*Δp >= h/2 where h is planck's constant, Δ is uncertainty. This means that within a planck length, at best, there is no discernible difference between fractions of h. This is a theoretical artifact of quantum mechanics, not an experimental one (so far it holds up though).

>>8469364
>>8469377
>>8469380
How do these types of ideas even originate? I mean, these ideas sound sort of plausible to people with no scientific background so I can see how they spread among gullible popsci readers, but how does anyone even come up with something this grossly inaccurate in the first place?

>quantum foam
>Einstein space time
popsci not even once