Plank Time & Speed: Is Light C Plank Speed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brianhurren
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Speed
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between Planck time, Planck length, and the speed of light (c). It suggests that if Planck time is defined as the time it takes for a photon to travel a Planck length, then c could be considered a form of Planck speed. However, it emphasizes that the speed of light is a physical constant defined in terms of the meter, which complicates the notion of using it as evidence for Planck time. The conversation also questions the need for "evidence" of a unit of measurement, suggesting that units like the meter and second are definitions rather than empirical evidence. Ultimately, the discussion leans towards treating c and Planck units as fundamental definitions rather than evidence of physical phenomena.
brianhurren
Messages
71
Reaction score
2
If plank time is the time it takes a photon to travel a plank length and speed is d/t or meters/second. then is the speed of light c plank speed? is the constant speed of light evidence of plank time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yep, I guess.

Note however, that the speed of light is a physical constant and in fact the meter is defined in terms of it. A unit like the Planck time and Plank length are also defined in terms of other fundamental constants, e.g. t_\mathrm{P} = \ell_\mathrm{P} / c where \ell_\mathrm{P} = \sqrt{\hbar G c^{-3}} is defined in terms of c and two other fundamental constants. So it's basically by construction, which I wouldn't call "evidence".
 
brianhurren said:
evidence of plank time?
What does that mean? Do you need evidence of ounces, or teaspoons? What does it mean to have evidence of a unit?
 
Meter is a definition, second is. (Teaspoons also). So it is better to set c as 1. And lp as 1.

Sincerely.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top