Is There a Macro Version of the Planck Length?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Cody Richeson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits Scale
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether there exists a macro version of the Planck length, specifically questioning if there is a limit to how large an object or the universe can be before it ceases to make physical sense. The scope includes theoretical considerations and speculative reasoning about the nature of large-scale structures in the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the Planck length imposes a limit on small scales, questioning if a similar limit exists for large scales.
  • One participant argues that the universe might be infinite, and that credible arguments against this notion do not necessarily imply it doesn't make sense.
  • Another participant raises the idea that if two points are causally disconnected, they may not be part of the same object, implying a limit to how large objects can be.
  • Concerns are expressed about the arbitrary nature of the Planck length and the unknown physics at that scale, suggesting that smaller scales might still be meaningful under undiscovered theories.
  • One viewpoint is that defining an "object" at larger sizes may not be straightforward, implying a potential limit to the size of objects.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of infinities in physics, with some participants noting that infinities are generally not observed in nature, except possibly in black holes, and questioning if energy constraints could limit the size of macro objects.
  • Another participant discusses the relationship between mass, density, and the formation of black holes, suggesting that there are constraints on how large an object can become based on these factors.
  • A later reply challenges the assertion that the Planck length imposes a limit on small scales, indicating a disagreement on this foundational concept.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the existence of a macro limit analogous to the Planck length, with no consensus reached. Some argue for the possibility of an infinite universe, while others propose constraints based on physical properties like density and mass. The discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives on the nature of large-scale structures.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of current understanding regarding large-scale structures and the implications of density and mass on object formation, as well as the potential for undiscovered physics to alter these concepts.

Cody Richeson
Messages
60
Reaction score
2
Hopefully this is in the right sub-forum. Anyway, we all know the Planck length placed a limit on how small something can be and still make physical sense. Is there a macro version of this? Is it possible that the universe/multiverse, or some other macro object, can only be so big before it fails to make physical sense?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One of the main contenders for the size of the universe is that it it infinite and I don't think any of the credible arguments against it are that that doesn't make sense.
 
If two points are far enough apart that they are both causally disconnected from a 3'rd point half way between them, then I can't think of any sense in which they could be part of the same object.
 
Be careful. The plank length is to certain extant a bit arbitrary and we don't really know what happens at that length. It is possible that even smaller scales make sense but have to be dealt with by some physical theories we haven't developed yet.
 
My vote's on no since that suggests at larger sizes we have a set definition for what an "object" is
 
Infinities supposedly don't occur in nature, though, if I'm not mistaken, though they may occur in black holes. Is it possible a macro sized object could only be so big due to the energy in that space being finite?
 
well infinities indeed tend not to exist , and the places where we think they are are rather because either we have a lack of knowledge about them as of yet or because or theories are not perfect enough to give a more precise understanding or maybe mother nature just doesn't let you see in what happens at the center of a BH for example.
But I doubt one can call the center of a BH a true infinity in the classical sense , as that center still formed from a star that had some finite amount of mass and even after all that matter that has fallen in still has some finite mass not infinite.

Also I think there are constraints as to how large an object can get and they have to do with the density of that particular object , as when the mass would be large enough and the density too which are actually kinda related then that object would start to form a Black hole.After that I think you have to look upon how big a BH can get.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K