lifegazer

So, for the sake of faster air travel within your lifetime, you support the deaths of 50+ million people and untold misery? With that in mind, I suppose the deaths of 2 billion people in WW3, for example (regardless of all the other environmental damage), will be justified as long as we can speed-up business-journeys and get to Playstation-6 before they throw you in a coffin? You're a complete ****

Hello again. At this juncture, it might help if I detail my concerns... Firstly, there cannot be a future for 'planck length/time' if one uses those notions as the smallest possible length/time. It's completely irrational, as discussed. Secondly, since the 'planck-scale' plays a significant part in other physical theories & mathematics, one also has to question the rationality of those theories. Thirdly, there is evidence here of physics completely ignoring and/or abusing basic rationale/logic when positing theories about this existence. That is very worrying, imo.

Hello. You obviously don't think that there is a problem with anything that you've said here, but there is. The problem is that the "intermediate yardstick" placed between two objects, that sub-divides the distance between those objects, can tell us nothing about the distance between those objects if there is no such notion as 'zero' distance. That is the crux of this discussion. The issue is that "there is no meaning (a meaninglessness) to distances less than a planck length". (the argument applies to planck-time too.). The issue is not one of whether we lack the technology to measure such minute distances. Indeed, we lack the technology to measure a planck-length itself. Let us not forget the all-important quote under consideration: "we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds." ... It is completely irrational to say that the origin of time started at 10-43 seconds. At what positions WITHIN a length that has no meaningful extension can foams/particles/bubbles appear? If there is no meaningful length less than the planck-length, then there is no meaningful position for these separate events to occur within that space. If all measuring sticks were to "melt" at a length of 1mm, then kindly inform this forum how any lengths of 1mm were measured in the first place. Since there are a finite number of planck-lengths (which themselves are immeasurable) between all two points, then it should be impossible to measure any length.

Nobody is biting. Perhaps I should add more... For any meaningful length 'X', there must be two points separated by a space. If one posits that there is no length less than the planck length, then one is essentially stating that the planck length is a distance which does not exist as a space between two points. In fact, one is stating that the planck length is not a space/distance at all. That is why it is ultimately reducible to a meaningless quantity. The same argument applies to planck-time, of course. I consider this to be quite an important consideration, so I'd like to hear a few more responses. Thankyou.

I can't remember specifically - something to do with science. I've seen forums like this before, but I was pleased to see (after a good browse), the quality of some of the posters here. It also seems like a relatively friendly/mature place. Plus, it's not every day that you get to chat with Buffy herself.

Thanks. An internet search.

Thanks for the tip. I'll soon forget though. It seems that you might now agree that the actual meaningful reality of any length is dependent upon length being an infinitessimally small parameter of universal existence. It appears that space cannot be real unless it is continuous.

What can "we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds" mean, if there is no time less than this value? This question highlights the problem, for if there is no time less than this, then that time (planck time) is effectively rendered as 'zero' from a rational point of view.

Hello. I want to discuss the meaning of the following statement, which I have pasted from physlink (.com). Because I'm new, I'm not allowed to link you directly to the source. "The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton. The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds." (I have underlined the points of significance, for me) I would argue that it is completely irrational to posit the meaninglessness of length less than any specific length (planck length, in this instance). For example, a length of 1mm is meaningless if there is "no meaning to length less than this". If there is no meaning to lengths less than this, then there can be no meaning to that length itself. In effect, the statement renders the planck length as 'zero'. So, would you agree that the actual meaningful reality of any length is dependent upon length being an infinitessimally small parameter of universal existence? Of course, a similar argument would apply to planck-time, which would render the last highlighted-sentence of the statement as incorrect.

It's customary to say hello here... so hi. My primary interest is philosophy, but I am interested in science too, especially physics... which is why I've joined. Thanks.