1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Smallest Delta T?

  1. Feb 11, 2006 #1
    This question could have been posted in qm or gsr but since it is so versitile i'll post it here.

    Is there a smallest [tex]\Delta T[/tex]?


    year => minutes => seconds => atto seconds etc.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 11, 2006 #2


    User Avatar

    some might have speculated that the Planck Time

    [tex] t_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}} \approx 5 \times 10^{-44} \mbox{s} [/tex]

    or somewhere in the ballpark, but don't ask me to justify it.
  4. Feb 12, 2006 #3
    from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time :

    /../The Planck time /.../is the "quantum of time", the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning/../

    /.../we can neither measure nor discern any difference between the universe at the time it first came into existence and the universe anything less than 1 Planck time later./.../

    So there isn't a smallest [tex]\Delta T[/tex] only a smallest period of time during which something might actually happen i.e. everything below Planck time is to small for anything to happen (complete a cycle from being unfinished to being finished)?
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2006
  5. Feb 12, 2006 #4

    Meir Achuz

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Wikipedia is worth what you pay for it.
    "This is the "quantum of time", the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning." is just speculation with no foundation.
  6. Feb 12, 2006 #5
    So then what is Planck time and is there a smallest [tex]\Delta T[/tex]?
  7. Feb 12, 2006 #6

    Claude Bile

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There is no evidence as far as I'm aware, that time is quantised, thus from our current understanding, there is no smallest dt.

  8. Feb 13, 2006 #7


    User Avatar

    yeah, that should be fixed. the Planck Units article doesn't have that speculation in it, but others have disagreed with the section on invariant scaling of nature.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook