Does Planck Time Imply an Acceleration Limit?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between Planck time and the limits of acceleration in the context of special relativity. Participants clarify that while the speed of light (c) serves as an asymptote for velocity, Planck time is not the smallest unit of time, thus not imposing a strict limit on acceleration. The concept of acceleration being velocity divided by time suggests a theoretical acceleration limit, but the nature of reference frames in relativity complicates this notion. Ultimately, the discussion concludes that both Planck time and Planck length do not serve as fundamental limits due to the principles of relativity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity principles
  • Familiarity with Planck units, specifically Planck time and Planck length
  • Basic knowledge of acceleration and its mathematical definition
  • Concept of inertial reference frames in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Planck units in quantum gravity theories
  • Study the concept of time dilation in special relativity
  • Explore the relationship between acceleration and reference frames in physics
  • Investigate the role of asymptotic limits in relativistic physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics and relativity, and anyone interested in the fundamental limits of acceleration and the implications of Planck units in theoretical physics.

Battlemage!
Messages
292
Reaction score
44
Mods, I wasn't sure whether to put this in quantum physics or relativity, but since the speed of light is the limiting factor I chose here. Move wherever you think is best.

Okay so the speed of light is the asymptote for the speed that objects can accelerate to, and the Planck time is the smallest unit of time, right?

So shouldn't this put a cap on how large an acceleration an object can have? I.e., the asymptote for acceleration would have to be the speed of light divided by the Planck time, right?

Or am I missing something crucial here?

Acceleration is basically velocity divided by time, so if there is a speed limit of c and a minimum time, then doesn't there have to be an acceleration limit too?Thanks for any responses!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Battlemage! said:
and the Planck time is the smallest unit of time, right?
No. Just like the Planck length is not the smallest unit of length (see our Insights article about this), the Planck time is not the smallest unit of time. (both "as far as we know", of course)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Battlemage!
Thanks for the info jtbell! Reading the Insights article right now.

EDIT- I see it's just more unit choices. While useful, not necessarily fundamental to the universe (although some of those ratios seem really important).

Anyway, this pretty much answered the question for me:

"
The simplest reason that Planck-pixels don’t make up the universe is special relativity and the idea that all inertial reference frames are equally valid. If there is a rest frame in which the matrix of these Planck-pixels is isotropic, in other frames they would be length contracted in one direction, and moving diagonally with respect to his matrix might impart angle-dependence on how you experience the universe. If an electromagnetic wave with the wavelength of one Planck length were propagating through space, its wavelength could be made even smaller by transforming to a reference frame in which the wavelength is even smaller, so the idea of rest-frame equivalence and a minimal length are inconsistent with one-another.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/hand-wavy-discussion-planck-length/"

Obviously the same thing applies to time dilation and the Planck time, I would imagine.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: stoomart

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 167 ·
6
Replies
167
Views
9K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K