What is the smallest Volume possible in three-dimensional space?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Olias
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space Volume
Olias
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
And what are the minimum locations needed for a Volume to exist?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Olias, I think this is still controversial, some people think there is a minimum volume, distance, area, time, etc. while others think space and time are probably continuous. (Penrose?)(String theorists?)
Those who believe in quantized space talk about the Planck distance as the shortest distance possible. I don't remember the exact number as a fraction of a meter for the Planck distance but it is very, very small. (you can look it up in google)
If you are interested in these topics, you may also do a Google search on "quantum loop gravity".
There are some recent popularizations which you can probably find at your local Barnes and Nobles. Look for authors like Greene and Smolin.
Good luck, and let us know what you found.
--Alex--
 
Olias said:
And what are the minimum locations needed for a Volume to exist?

And what is the smallest bit of 2-Dimensional Space that can exist within an area that is Bounded by 3-Dimensions?

Actually does a 2-D space have to be Smaller than 3-D space?..does Quantizizing(sorry about spelling) of 3-D, actually reveal that 2-D must exist within a volume of 3-Dimensional Volume?

If one compactifies a Volume of 3-D space, then at a certain limit a 2-Dimensional Volume can encompass the 3-D volume, one can actually make the statement that a discrete 3-D can be surrounded by an infinite 2-D volume, I know that some Brane models are using a sort of Dimensional transposition, where embbeded Branes inter-mingle, but what if higher and lower branes collide, what is the outcome of such things..if at all they are possible.
 
If you believe that spacetime (this includes space and time) is quantised, then there are definite limits as to how far we can "zoom in" since after a certain point space and time will be playing with each other.

If you think spacetime is continuous as did Newton and Einstein, then you can go zooming in forever and forever and forever. For any two points with a small distance (or any two moments) there is another point (or moment) in between.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top