Are Planck Units the Ultimate Limit for Measurements?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tclack
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Planck Units
Tclack
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
So, the three very small quantities:

Planck length
Planck mass
Planck time

Does the physical interpretation actually mean for example that when something moves, the smallest distance it can move is one Planck length, that there's no such thing as moving half a Planck length?
And further that all other lengths, masses and times are just integer multiples of their associated Planck units?

Am I understanding this correctly?

And if that interpretation is correct, this is proven? (i.e. tried through rigorous and exhaustive experimentation)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

Its just units that make our equations cleaner an clearer.

It is however closely related to dimensional analysis which can tell us some profound insights.

The most profound I know of (it's just what I know of - others may know stuff that's even more profound) is the insight it gives to the renormalization problem and associated infinities that plagued QFT for quite a while until Wilson and others sorted it out:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0212049.pdf

It turns out the cause is a dimensional mismatch and a cutoff needed to be introduced to avoid it.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
I don't quite understand the paper about the renormalization problem.

From the wiki article, I've arrived at the following:

1. These Planck units are just units that are physically derived from small natural hapenstances. i.e. are not plagued by earthly or human units, like the light-year, kg, and second

2. This DOESN'T necessarily imply that it's the SMALLEST unit of x,y or z.

3. Most of these Planck units are either too large or small for present instruments to accurately probe to.

Is this accurate?
 
Tclack said:
Is this accurate?

Yea - looks about right.

Don't worry about the renormalisation thing - it was just an aside on how useful dimensional analysis is.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Further research (numbers obtained from wiki, take that as you wish)

Mass of a Proton 1.67262178 × 10-27 kg
Planck mass 2.17651(13)×10−8 kg

Clearly, the proton is much less massive than the Planck mass...

Thank you Bill for clarifying this for me. Too bad, it was a cool idea originally. But, I'm glad that I'm not going to go around spreading misinformation eventually looking like a fool in front of an actual expert.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
Back
Top