Why isn't the Planck-scale limit taken as a postulate?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gerinski
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the Planck scale in the context of quantum gravity, questioning why it is not taken as a postulate that energy density reaches a limit at the Planck-size volume. Participants explore the implications of such a postulate for reconciling General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM), and the significance of Planck units in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the Planck scale imposes limits to length and time dimensions, questioning why it is not considered a fundamental postulate.
  • Others argue that Planck units do not hold physical significance and are not the smallest possible measurements, likening them to arbitrary units like feet or meters.
  • One participant points out that energy density is not invariant and depends on the choice of coordinates, which complicates the idea of establishing a postulate based on it.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the issues with GR are deeper than just a limit on length or energy, highlighting the differences in how GR and QM treat physical quantities.
  • Some express skepticism about the notion that Planck units are fundamental, stating that current understanding does not support this view.
  • There are claims that without empirical models that work at the Planck scale, assertions about the fundamental nature of Planck units remain untested and uncertain.
  • Participants discuss the possibility that GR may fail to accurately describe phenomena at scales much larger than the Planck scale, suggesting that the breakdown of GR could occur at lower energies or longer lengths.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the significance of the Planck scale and units, with no consensus reached on their fundamental nature or the implications of adopting them as postulates. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the potential benefits of such a postulate in reconciling GR and QM.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of empirical evidence for models operating at the Planck scale and the dependence of energy density on coordinate choices, which complicates the establishment of universal postulates.

Gerinski
Messages
322
Reaction score
15
Layman question here, kindly provide layman-understandable answers. The problem of quantum gravity is often expressed as saying 'GR predicts a collapse into a genuine singularity, there is no known mechanism which would stop such a collapse', and 'QM has nothing to say about gravity, it can not answer what happens close to the hypothetical singularities'.

But we have reasonable hints that the Planck scale imposes some limits to length and time dimensional extension. My question then is, why is it not considered as just a postulate, an assumption, that the energy density reaches a limit at the Planck-size volume, and it can not get any more dense than that?

What sort of physics would it represent assuming such a postulate, and why are they rejected as an actual possibility? Why are we discarding this option and keep searching for some other quantum gravity options?
Would taking the Planck-scale limit as a given postulate help in any way in reconciling GR and QM, and if not, why so?

Thanks
 
Space news on Phys.org
Gerinski said:
But we have reasonable hints that the Planck scale imposes some limits to length and time dimensional extension.
It does not, any more than the foot or the meter or the second does. There is no physical significance to the Plank units and they are not considered the smallest possible amount of anything.
 
Gerinski said:
why is it not considered as just a postulate, an assumption, that the energy density reaches a limit at the Planck-size volume, and it can not get any more dense than that?

Because energy density is not invariant; it depends on your choice of coordinates. You can't base a postulate on something that depends on your choice of coordinates. (Similar remarks apply to length and time.)

Gerinski said:
Why are we discarding this option and keep searching for some other quantum gravity options?

Because there's no "option" to discard. See above.
 
Gerinski said:
Would taking the Planck-scale limit as a given postulate help in any way in reconciling GR and QM, and if not, why so?
The problem with General Relativity is much deeper than just a length/energy limit. General Relativity assumes a matter distribution with exact energy, momentum, pressure, etc. Quantum mechanics doesn't work like that: particles can be in superpositions of multiple states, and the uncertainty principle limits how precisely these variables can be defined. There is no such thing as a superposition of gravitational fields in General Relativity, and if you try to make it so that there is one, the math (at least done in the simple way) doesn't work out.
 
Thanks PeterDonis, so you are saying that Plank units for length and time are not fundamental in any way, that they are just a 'choice of coordinates' same as any other choice of units may be?
 
Gerinski said:
you are saying that Plank units for length and time are not fundamental in any way

Not as far as we know at this point.
 
PeterDonis said:
Not as far as we know at this point.
Thanks. I have read that Planck units seem to be somehow 'fundamental', even to saying things such as that 'the Planck length is the smallest length we can make sense of' or that 'the Planck time is the smallest time interval we can make sense of'.
So just to confirm, those things I read were just wrong?
 
Yes, because we don't have empirically tested model that works on that scale. So we simply don't know.
 
Gerinski said:
Thanks. I have read that Planck units seem to be somehow 'fundamental', even to saying things such as that 'the Planck length is the smallest length we can make sense of' or that 'the Planck time is the smallest time interval we can make sense of'.
So just to confirm, those things I read were just wrong?
The best way to understand the Planck length is that there are some arguments that experiments on those scales should likely show large differences from General Relativity. These arguments come from assumptions about how gravity interacts with quantum mechanics, and are based upon the strength of gravity. The very short length scale/high energy stems from the fact that gravity is so incredibly weak compared to the other forces.

Since we have no experiments which are able to probe anywhere near the Planck regime, it is entirely plausible that General Relativity fails to work long before you get to those scales. There are some models that do precisely this.

There are good reasons to believe that General Relativity can't make sense of things at the Planck scale, but it may cease to make sense of things at much lower energies/longer length scales as well.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: krater and stoomart

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K