Planck time/length infinite and defined?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jarroe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite Planck
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of Planck time and length, questioning whether the shortest intervals and smallest objects can be infinite. Participants express the difficulty of conceptualizing these scales, with one suggesting that spacetime may be pixelated into discrete volumes akin to a digital image. There is acknowledgment that current mathematical models do not definitively prove the nature of these scales, and the ability to empirically investigate them remains beyond reach. The conversation highlights the disconnect between mathematical theories and physical reality, emphasizing that any conclusions drawn are speculative at this stage. Ultimately, the relationship between mathematics and the fundamental nature of spacetime is still an open question.
jarroe
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Wouldn't the shortest interval of time and the smallest object always be an infinite #? How can you ever stop splitting something in half? Hard to fathom on that level I guess. Logic tells me they are infinite?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you're looking at it all wrong. There is a view that Spacetime is pixelated into small volumes of Planck length. Rather like a digital photo where you can only zoom in so far.
 
Makes it easier to comprehend. thanks
 
This is one of many examples where Maths and 'Reality' part company at some stage.
 
sophiecentaur said:
This is one of many examples where Maths and 'Reality' part company at some stage.
We don't know that yet. Some people presume it to be the case, but we are not anywhere near being able to probe length scales this small to actually see.
 
DaleSpam said:
We don't know that yet. Some people presume it to be the case, but we are not anywhere near being able to probe length scales this small to actually see.
Agreed. But the Maths doesn't prove it either way. Any connection would, as yet, be a matter of faith, not based on available evidence.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top