If so, is 'its half' also not a real size of space?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

What I am asking is pretty much; what is the meaning of the notion of a 'smallest possible' 3d area? What is the meaning of that cusp between 2d and 3d?

Almost like asking what is in between 1.999999999999(repeating) and 2.

Must every 3d area, even the smallest, have some greater than 0 value of length,width and depth? Therefore must those values of length, width and depth be dividable further?

I think the answer might have to do with the planck length not being a quantitative and qualitative area of 'a pure space of absolute nothing' but a quantitative and qualitative area of common denomination related to the substantial nature of fundamental quanta, but im not sure.

And I realize the notion of size is different than the notion of mass, though when getting down to the smallest sized levels I think there might be a relation, that is to say; at some point matter can only be dissected so many times, and this perhaps is the idea of fundamental minute quanta that are the smallest possible building blocks of the universe. Is it possible the smallest sized of which happens to be the massless photon?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Is the Planck Length a 3d area?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Planck Length area | Date |
---|---|

B What is the Planck length? | Jun 5, 2017 |

I Has Planck length been derived rigorously? | Mar 16, 2017 |

B What is the Planck length? | May 20, 2016 |

Insights A Hand-Wavy Discussion of the Planck Length - Comments | Sep 9, 2015 |

I Planck length/Time Paradox | Jul 30, 2015 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**