| New Reply |
Planck length and dimension |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Nov11-12, 06:32 AM | #1 |
|
|
Planck length and dimension
Hello all .
We know Planck length is and universe was in that density at big bang .Is that mean there was dimension at that time ? I mean , can we move in Planck length ? like up , down, right, left, forward, backward ؟ |
| Nov11-12, 09:21 AM | #2 |
|
Mentor
|
|
| Nov11-12, 09:37 AM | #3 |
|
|
|
| Nov11-12, 09:42 AM | #4 |
|
|
Planck length and dimensionIn any case it had no center, no edge, and no direction. |
| Nov11-12, 09:51 AM | #5 |
|
|
The new theory and other new theory such as m-theory ( Brane ) said there was any singularity at that moment So can we consider any direction at that moment ?
|
| Nov11-12, 10:23 AM | #6 |
|
Mentor
|
I don't think you use "direction" and "dimension" the same way physics usually does. As a result, your questions look strange (at least to me) and I don't know how to interpret them.
|
| Nov11-12, 11:03 AM | #7 |
|
|
You consider direction and dimension is same ! and replace "dimension" to "direction" in my question . So if we don't consider any singularity at big bang , can we say we have dimension or direction at that moment ? |
| Nov16-12, 04:51 PM | #8 |
|
|
First, "space-time is classical" is nonsensical. Space and time are classical things, space-time is not. Second, the time scale is just weird. I mean, "today" is 10E17 seconds and the first galaxies are 10E16 seconds. So galaxies just started forming 10 seconds ago? Doesn't seem likely. |
| Nov17-12, 02:19 PM | #9 |
|
Mentor
|
If you consider "classical" as "not quantum-mechanical" (but allow special relativity), it is fine.
10E17s=1017s (~3 billion years) 10E16=1016 (~300 million years) 10E17-10E16=9*1016 (~2700 million years) The universe is older than 3 billion years, but the order of magnitude is still correct. |
| Nov17-12, 08:36 PM | #10 |
|
|
Not ten seconds. This a logarithmic scale. |
| Nov17-12, 10:06 PM | #11 |
|
|
|
| New Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Planck length and dimension
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| below the Planck Length | High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics | 1 | ||
| Traveling at c-(1 planck length/planck time), then accelerate. What happens? | Special & General Relativity | 9 | ||
| How can the Planck length be claimed to be the smallest length? | General Physics | 47 | ||
| Planck length | High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics | 20 | ||
| Planck Length | General Physics | 1 | ||