The Planck Length and Speed

[Farid7]

Hello,

I would like to share something interesting about the Planck length and it's relationship to speed.

The Planck length requires that objects move at the speed of the Planck length/the Planck time. Which means that every thing would move at the same rate. But, we don't see that happening. Objects move at different speeds and so does living beings. The only way around this is if motion is an illusion or happens by objects disappearing and appearing in places.

What does this mean for the Planck length. Does it disprove it? Not necessarily, but it does mean that motion cannot be used as the proof of the Planck length.

 

[Bradskii]

The Planck length requires that objects move at the speed of the Planck length/the Planck time.

You're saying that a distance requires that objects move at a particular speed. If you have two out of the three: distance, time and speed, then you can calculate the third. But neither 'requires' the others. The Plank distance is fixed. And Plank time is how long light takes to travel a plank length. Which, using the same units will be Plank speed. Which is another way of saying 'the speed of light'

Which means that every thing would move at the same rate.

Only light moves at that same rate. I, for example, move a little slower.

 

[jacks]

It means we are all in way over our heads.

 

[Farid7]

You're saying that a distance requires that objects move at a particular speed. If you have two out of the three: distance, time and speed, then you can calculate the third. But neither 'requires' the others. The Plank distance is fixed. And Plank time is how long light takes to travel a plank length. Which, using the same units will be Plank speed. Which is another way of saying 'the speed of light'


Only light moves at that same rate. I, for example, move a little slower.

The Planck length requires speed of objects to be the same if time has a Planck time. If time is infinitely divisible, then motion cannot be possible.

 

[Bradskii]

The Planck length requires speed of objects to be the same if time has a Planck time.

You might as well say that 'if time is Plank seconds and we have a distance of Plank metres then the speed of any object travelling those Plank metres needs to be constant.' Which will be Plank m/s.

And..?

 

[Farid7]

You might as well say that 'if time is Plank seconds and we have a distance of Plank metres then the speed of any object travelling those Plank metres needs to be constant.' Which will be Plank m/s.

And..?

It means that you cannot use the fact that motion is possible to prove that Planck length exists.

 

[Bradskii]

It means that you cannot use the fact that motion is possible to prove that Planck length exists.

Hey thanks for the responses. I'm going to head off now. Have a nice day.

 

[Farid7]

Hey thanks for the responses. I'm going to head off now. Have a nice day.

Okay, thanks for having this discussion with me.

 

[sjastro]

Hello,

I would like to share something interesting about the Planck length and it's relationship to speed.

The Planck length requires that objects move at the speed of the Planck length/the Planck time. Which means that every thing would move at the same rate. But, we don't see that happening. Objects move at different speeds and so does living beings. The only way around this is if motion is an illusion or happens by objects disappearing and appearing in places.

What does this mean for the Planck length. Does it disprove it? Not necessarily, but it does mean that motion cannot be used as the proof of the Planck length.

This is incorrect as the Planck time tₚ is a constant and therefore lₚ/tₚ= c the speed of light where lₚ is the Planck length which is also a constant.

To understand why this is so, consider an object (which can be the universe) shrunk down to its Compton wavelength where it behaves quantum mechanically and is subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Δp.Δx ≥ h/2 ↔ ΔE.Δx ≥ ch/2.
For a specific measurement x = ch/2E

If the object is shrunk down to nearly become a black hole then x = rₛ where rₛ = 2mG/c² = 2GE/c⁴ is the Schwarzschild radius or event horizon and represents a limit below which quantum mechanics applies and not general relativity.
x >> rₛ describes subatomic particles and are subject to quantum mechanics, while rₛ >> x describes macro sized objects where general relativity applies.

lₚ = x = rₛ then
lₚ² = (ch/2E).( 2GE/c⁴) = hG/c³
lₚ = √( hG/c³)

lₚ and tₚ =√( hG/c⁵) represent the smallest units of length and time respectively below which quantum mechanical effects apply.

 

[Laodicean60]

I remember a little about light particles in radiology equipment repair and some quantum physics videos I watched. What surprises me is how light particles act and what we think is solid isn't (space between atoms).

objects disappearing and appearing in places.

I saw another video where they split a photon and separated it by some distance (many yards or even mile) and what they did to one photon the other half reacted.

 

[Farid7]

This is incorrect as the Planck time tₚ is a constant and therefore lₚ/tₚ= c the speed of light where lₚ is the Planck length which is also a constant.

To understand why this is so, consider an object (which can be the universe) shrunk down to its Compton wavelength where it behaves quantum mechanically and is subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Δp.Δx ≥ h/2 ↔ ΔE.Δx ≥ ch/2.
For a specific measurement x = ch/2E

If the object is shrunk down to nearly become a black hole then x = rₛ where rₛ = 2mG/c² = 2GE/c⁴ is the Schwarzschild radius or event horizon and represents a limit below which quantum mechanics applies and not general relativity.
x >> rₛ describes subatomic particles and are subject to quantum mechanics, while rₛ >> x describes macro sized objects where general relativity applies.

lₚ = x = rₛ then
lₚ² = (ch/2E).( 2GE/c⁴) = hG/c³
lₚ = √( hG/c³)

lₚ and tₚ =√( hG/c⁵) represent the smallest units of length and time respectively below which quantum mechanical effects apply.

Yeah, you might be right. I may have used the wrong word here by using "Planck". I should have just stated that if space had a minimum length, motion would have to happen through disappearing and reappearing to avoid the constant speed dilemma.

 

[partinobodycular]

Yeah, you might be right. I may have used the wrong word here by using "Planck". I should have just stated that if space had a minimum length, motion would have to happen through disappearing and reappearing to avoid the constant speed dilemma.

While I admittedly know absolutely squat about quantum mechanics I think that part of your problem lies in how you're visualizing things at the quantum level. At that point we ain't talking about particles anymore, at best we're talking waves, and even that's probably a poor analogy, it's presumably more like a nebulous cloud of probabilities all overlapping in a homogeneous mixture of possible outcomes.

So to you, the macro observer, things may appear to be jumping from one place to another, but that's due to the limitations on the rate at which you can measure them. It's not that they can't move in a seamless manner, it's simply that you can't measure them that way. At least not without encountering the Zeno effect.

So the hangup here doesn't lie in the nature of the particles... it lies in the nature of you the observer, and when we factor in the speed of you... things become relative.

But as I say I know nothing about quantum mechanics... so pay no attention to the man behind the monitor.

 

[sjastro]

Yeah, you might be right. I may have used the wrong word here by using "Planck". I should have just stated that if space had a minimum length, motion would have to happen through disappearing and reappearing to avoid the constant speed dilemma.

If space-time foam exists which is a prediction of quantum field theory the Planck length is the minimum length.
At scales less than this length space-time is no longer smooth but exists as a foam and properties such as the speed of light is no longer constant for every observer.

What the NASA video doesn't state is that the main area of research for the existence of quantum foam is the use of cavity interferometers which are billions of time more sensitive than the interferometers used in the early 20th century which supported Einstein's theory of special relativity which postulated the speed of light is the same for all observers irrespective of their velocities.
These interferometers are searching for Lorentz violations where special relativity no longer holds and would provide strong evidence for the existence of quantum foam.

 

[AlexB23]

Hello,

I would like to share something interesting about the Planck length and it's relationship to speed.

The Planck length requires that objects move at the speed of the Planck length/the Planck time. Which means that every thing would move at the same rate. But, we don't see that happening. Objects move at different speeds and so does living beings. The only way around this is if motion is an illusion or happens by objects disappearing and appearing in places.

What does this mean for the Planck length. Does it disprove it? Not necessarily, but it does mean that motion cannot be used as the proof of the Planck length.

The Planck length is 1.6 x 10^-35 meters, while the Planck time is 5.4 x 10^-44 seconds.

Math: (1.6 x 10^-35 meters)/(5.4 x 10^-44 seconds) = 300,000,000 m/s

This is just a speed man, measured in units of distance over time. It is not a law that says all objects must travel at multiples of Planck lengths per Planck time. For instance, a car traveling 30 m/s travels at 10^-7 c, where c is the speed of light. So, in other words, light is 10 million times faster than a car going 67 mph (108 km/h). It would take 10 million Planck time durations for the car to travel a Planck length.

 

[Stephen3141]

Hello,

I would like to share something interesting about the Planck length and it's relationship to speed.

The Planck length requires that objects move at the speed of the Planck length/the Planck time. Which means that every thing would move at the same rate. But, we don't see that happening. Objects move at different speeds and so does living beings. The only way around this is if motion is an illusion or happens by objects disappearing and appearing in places.

What does this mean for the Planck length. Does it disprove it? Not necessarily, but it does mean that motion cannot be used as the proof of the Planck length.

If it is true that there is a minimum unit of distance,
and a minimum unit of time,

THEN the minimum measurable speed (distance per time)
must be made in reference to complete Planck lengths and complete
Planck times.

For most speeds that human beings are interested in, the measurement
of distance and time is not anywhere near a minimum theoretical
Planck distance, or Planck time.

Why would you assert that all things must move at the same rate???