Is the Planck length relative?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the Planck length, specifically whether it is a constant value or if it varies depending on the observer's motion. Participants explore theoretical implications, the relationship between the Planck length and physical constants, and the conceptual understanding of length in different reference frames.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the Planck length might be relative, suggesting that observers moving at different speeds could disagree on its measurement.
  • Others argue that the Planck length is a constant derived from fundamental physical constants, thus remaining the same across different reference frames.
  • A participant mentions that the Planck length is not an actual length of anything but rather an order of magnitude scale relevant to quantum gravity effects.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that while the Planck length itself may be constant, the measurement of objects in Planck lengths could vary between observers due to their relative motion.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of the formula for the Planck length and seek clarification on its meaning and relevance.
  • A later reply introduces the idea that the Planck length represents a relationship between fundamental constants rather than a direct measure of physical length.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the Planck length is relative or constant, with multiple competing views remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion regarding the mathematical formulation of the Planck length and its implications, indicating a need for further clarification on the topic.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the foundations of quantum mechanics, the nature of physical constants, and the implications of relativistic effects on measurements in physics.

Fiziqs
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
If space contracts relative to the motion of an observer, would two observers traveling at different speeds disagree on the Planck length? Or is the Planck length constant such that two observers would agree on the Planck length, but would disagree about how many Planck lengths long certain objects were. Show them an object one Planck length long and they would both agree about its length. But show them a much longer object and one might say that it is 1000 Planck lengths long while the other would see it as being only 900 Planck lengths long.

Is the Planck length relative or constant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would say it's relative, as it's just a unit of distance, so I don't see why it would be any different than say a, picometer!

This is just me thinking, so I would wait until someone who is more knowledgeable on Planck's length posts.
 
The Planck length is a combination of physical constants that has the dimensions of length: √(ħG/c3). It is only an order of magnitude scale, thought to be the scale at which the quantum effects of gravity become important. It is not the actual length of anything. And since the constants that make it up are the same in every reference frame, so is the Planck length.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tansu
Bill_K said:
The Planck length is a combination of physical constants that has the dimensions of length: √(ħG/c3). It is only an order of magnitude scale, thought to be the scale at which the quantum effects of gravity become important. It is not the actual length of anything. And since the constants that make it up are the same in every reference frame, so is the Planck length.

Bill K, thanks, and sorry, because the formula √(ħG/c3) really doesn't mean much to me, but I'm trying my best to decipher its meaning. I think it means that the Planck length is in some way the relationship between the speed of light and gravity, and that this relationship will hold true no matter the reference frame of the observer, and since C and G are constants, the Planck length will also be constant. So the Planck length is more a relationship, than an actual physical length. Thus it is a misapplication to try to use the Planck length as a measuring tool.

Am I even close?
 
I think it means that the Planck length is in some way the relationship between the speed of light and gravity
And the Planck constant.

You can say "this object has a length of 10^35 Planck lengths" - and this number will be different for observers moving relative to you (as the Planck length is absolute, but the length of the object relative). However, those numbers have no physical meaning itself, like "1m" is just the length relative to a different scale.
 
Fiziqs, G is Newton's constant of gravitation - it tells how strong the gravitational force is. ħ is Planck's constant - it tell us how much quantum mechanics affects things. c of course is the speed of light. If you're not familiar with these terms, a good place to look them up is Wikipedia.
 
Bill_K said:
ħ is Planck's constant
Being picky but this has always bothered me. h is Planck's constant and ħ is

...the reduced Planck constant or Dirac constant. It is equal to the Planck constant divided by 2π, and is denoted ħ ("h-bar"): ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planks_constant

:devil:
 
Bill_K said:
Fiziqs, G is Newton's constant of gravitation - it tells how strong the gravitational force is. ħ is Planck's constant - it tell us how much quantum mechanics affects things. c of course is the speed of light. If you're not familiar with these terms, a good place to look them up is Wikipedia.

Bill K, I have spent so much time on Wikipedia lately trying to assimilate as much information as I can. But so much of the information contained in the physics articles just goes right over my head. But I'm trying. Slowing but surely I'm putting the pieces together. I can be very tenacious when I want to be.

I'm trying to teach myself QM using the "Hole in the wall" method. http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html

Basically I have this box in front of me called the internet, and with it I have access to an amazing world of information. And I've always had a fascination for physics. People have an amazing ability to learn when they're curious. Unfortunately the members here on PF have become my "Granny cloud" Those are the people that I go to when I can't figure something out on my own, or I have an idea that I want to bounce off of someone. Consider me like the two year old with an annoying habit of always asking why. I know that it can be irritating, but I'll try to keep it to a minimum. And I'll try to remember that the members here are much smarter than I am.

Anyway, I appreciate any and all help. Any input is good input.
 
Being picky but this has always bothered me. h is Planck's constant and ħ is the reduced Planck constant
Whatever you do then, don't read the sci-fi novel "Eon" by Greg Bear. Throughout the book instead of h-bar he calls it "slash-h"
 
  • #10
Bill_K said:
Whatever you do then, don't read the sci-fi novel "Eon" by Greg Bear. Throughout the book instead of h-bar he calls it "slash-h"
Thanks for the heads up. :approve:
 
  • #11
Fiziqs said:
And I'll try to remember that the members here are much smarter than I am.

Also try to remember that none of us are getting paid for this, unlike teachers, professors, tutors, etc. :wink:
 
  • #12
Bill K, thanks, and sorry, because the formula √(ħG/c3) really doesn't mean much to me

Here is the explanation in this pdf document,which might help you.
 

Attachments

  • #13
Fiziqs said:
If space contracts relative to the motion of an observer, would two observers traveling at different speeds disagree on the Planck length? Or is the Planck length constant such that two observers would agree on the Planck length, but would disagree about how many Planck lengths long certain objects were. Show them an object one Planck length long and they would both agree about its length. But show them a much longer object and one might say that it is 1000 Planck lengths long while the other would see it as being only 900 Planck lengths long.

Is the Planck length relative or constant?

Yes. I have worked on Planck Lengths for about a year, the world is made of fundamental particles only by theory but there is strong evidence that the Planck Length has a fundamentally relative association.
 

Similar threads

Calculating the Planck Length
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Graduate Historical clarification of the Planck formula of blackbody radiation
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School Dimensional analysis peculiarity
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Thought experiment: Beyond the slowest measurable speed?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Graduate Planck length and quantized position
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Long String Theory: Unveiling the Universe's Secrets
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Is There a Connection Between Planck Length and Planck Time in Relativity?
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
Graduate What Happens When the Universe is Reduced to the Planck Length?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Planck Length and Lorentz Contraction
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad Does the Planck Length Experience Length Contraction at High Speeds?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K