Shortest distance you can travel?

[AstrophysicsX]

I understand what you're trying to describe. On the macroscopic scale, physics is completely different than on the microscopic scale. Planck Length is actually the one point where quantum mechanics takes over and classical physics is cut out of the picture. And since Planck Lengthis still a topic in theoretical physics, it's pretty hard to deduce what would happen at such a small scale.

 

[AtomicJoe]

I understand what you're trying to describe. On the macroscopic scale, physics is completely different than on the microscopic scale. Planck Length is actually the one point where quantum mechanics takes over and classical physics is cut out of the picture. And since Planck Lengthis still a topic in theoretical physics, it's pretty hard to deduce what would happen at such a small scale.

I know they are different on the macroscopic and macroscopic scale, well...I also know they are the same, it is just man's careless lackadaisical approach which makes him think things are different.

All macroscopic events are just a huge number of microscopic events.

It seems to me it moves a distance smaller than the plank length but we just can't detect it.
I don't really see what else it could be.

 

[AstrophysicsX]

That's the beauty of theoretical physics. There is absolutely no way to prove that you're right. You could be right, but you could also be wrong. So it's pointless to argue about things that can't be experimented.

 

[AtomicJoe]

Well if I am wrong them it seems perhaps that things have the ability to remember forces applied to them in the past and then make a response 5 time the value of the currently applied force.

 

[mishrashubham]

I also know they are the same, it is just man's careless lackadaisical approach which makes him think things are different.

Correction; it is man's practical approach.

All macroscopic events are just a huge number of microscopic events.

Agreed. But think it this way. If I am suppose a person who simply wants to calculate the trajectory of a thrown ball or the speed of the ball when it hits the bat; can I go and consider every single particle that makes the ball, try to understand and calculate the complex interactions between the atoms and molecules and then pass my result? It is far easier to understand the behaviour of a system of particles as it exists as a whole, not the individual particles inside them.

Apart from that, a single particle does not show the properties of a bulk system because macroscopic properties arise due to particle-particle interaction. A single particle cannot interact with anything and hence does not show macroscopic behaviour.

You cannot say that if I go down to the atomic scale and squash a gold atom it will flatten because, don't we know that gold is very malleable.

 

[AtomicJoe]

Correction; it is man's practical approach.



Agreed. But think it this way. If I am suppose a person who simply wants to calculate the trajectory of a thrown ball or the speed of the ball when it hits the bat; can I go and consider every single particle that makes the ball, try to understand and calculate the complex interactions between the atoms and molecules and then pass my result? It is far easier to understand the behaviour of a system of particles as it exists as a whole, not the individual particles inside them.

Apart from that, a single particle does not show the properties of a bulk system because macroscopic properties arise due to particle-particle interaction. A single particle cannot interact with anything and hence does not show macroscopic behaviour.

You cannot say that if I go down to the atomic scale and squash a gold atom it will flatten because, don't we know that gold is very malleable.

Well whilst I agree with all of that I don't see it as an argument against mine.
I just maintain there are movements we cannot measure, but that does not mean there was no movement.

 

[mishrashubham]

I just maintain there are movements we cannot measure, but that does not mean there was no movement.

I agree with that too. But the movements that you are specifically referring to (about the moon's orbit and stuff) are not simply theoretical predictable using F=ma. What I am saying is that F=ma does not apply to things that are very very small (subatomic scale) and hence cannot be used to justify statements such as yours (about things moving half a Planck length etc).

I do not deny that a thing can move half a Planck length (though we still need to ask the experts). It is just that thought experiments should be formulated taking appropriate things into consideration.

 

[Gabe21]

so if we can't put a limit on the size of the universe and it is accepted that space is infinitive in size then y can't space also be infinitely small? there is a limit on how far we can see into space so y don't we assume the same in relation to how small something is? so if the theoretical largest distance travelable is infinite y isn't the theoretical smallest distance travelable infinite also.

 

[JaredJames]

so if we can't put a limit on the size of the universe and it is accepted that space is infinitive in size then y can't space also be infinitely small?

Doesn't that contradict itself?

there is a limit on how far we can see into space so y don't we assume the same in relation to how small something is?

Surely we do. Planck length?

1. Capital letters.
2. It's 'why' not 'y'.

 

[Gabe21]

so grammatical errors aside, u r saying that smaller distances do exist but we can't see on a scale smaller than Plancks?

and its more redundant than contradictory. not being able to put a definite size on the universe means its infinite. a shorter version would be" if space is infinitely large y can't it also be infinitely small."

 

[mishrashubham]

so grammatical errors aside, u r saying...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380

In the interest of conveying ideas as clearly as possible, posts are required to show reasonable attention to written English communication standards. This includes the use of proper grammatical structure, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. SMS messaging shorthand, such as using "u" for "you", is not acceptable.

 

[JaredJames]

so grammatical errors aside, u r saying that smaller distances do exist but we can't see on a scale smaller than Plancks?

I don't see why distance can't be zero - but we have a limit for what we can measure.

You said:

there is a limit on how far we can see into space so y don't we assume the same in relation to how small something is?

We do. The limit on how small we can measure is the Planck length.

Note, our ability to see a certain distance does not limit the maximum size something can be, only what we can measure. The inverse with 'small' is exactly the same.

and its more redundant than contradictory.

You are either infinitely big or you have a limited size. The limit you keep referring to is purely our ability to measure (or see that far). It has nothing to do with the size of the universe.

not being able to put a definite size on the universe means its infinite.

I can't put a definite size on my car, that doesn't mean it's infinite. Again, the inability to measure does not imply an infinite size.

a shorter version would be" if space is infinitely large y can't it also be infinitely small."

No, you can only get to zero in size. That is as small as something can be (well there abouts) so unlike space which could go on infinitely, you could only tend to zero with size.

 

[physiqueper4]

since the universe is continum, then maybe no limit.
If it is descret it may be h (planck cst)
I say maybe