What benefit, if any would there be
Discussion
of experimentally finding and proving the Planck length?
I've been reading a few Q and A science books recently and there was a suggestion in one that you would need a planet sized particle accelerator to generate the collision speeds to break the particles up into their smaller constituent parts
am i right in thinking that if we experimentally proved this then we would have found the smallest particle possible and that would be an end to the concept of an infinite universe and thus an end end to infintie probablility? i.e. a finite universe has finite probability and that a universe with limits means there is an ultimate universe boundary?
or have I got my wires crossed?
I've been reading a few Q and A science books recently and there was a suggestion in one that you would need a planet sized particle accelerator to generate the collision speeds to break the particles up into their smaller constituent parts
am i right in thinking that if we experimentally proved this then we would have found the smallest particle possible and that would be an end to the concept of an infinite universe and thus an end end to infintie probablility? i.e. a finite universe has finite probability and that a universe with limits means there is an ultimate universe boundary?
or have I got my wires crossed?
Edited by Nom de ploom on Thursday 20th December 11:47
My understanding is that a Planck length is a distance travelled by a photon (at light speed in a vacuum), in one Planck time unit.
It is not really the description of the size of any base particle.
It is more to do with the scale (or size) required to investigate the effects of quantized gravity. Or more that its only at these scales where anything regarding quantized gravity can be analysed.
On the notion of your question though, I have always been on the mind set that anytime the term "infinite" is used, it is because we have no other meaningful substitute to fit in to the maths, and as such the results should not be taken as 100% proof, but rather as a 'best to date model'.
To answer your question, science/maths can already play around with smallest this or that by throwing numbers in to equations, and then evaluating the results for any significance. The issue with probability is not only the effects of scale but also what is accepted regarding cause and effect.
As we do not know the scale of the universe, only the observable universe can be modelled, we can therefore not know the full extents of cause and effect.
Black holes are also a mystery on cause and effect, because beyond the event horizon it is theorised that space-time becomes time-space, the two constructs are reversed.
The major problem with science attempting to prove such small scale or such large scale effects is that we are never likely going to reach those domains with present or future technology.
The best we have is to observe the effects that they have on other systems and then "reverse engineer" or model what may be happening by inference.
It is not really the description of the size of any base particle.
It is more to do with the scale (or size) required to investigate the effects of quantized gravity. Or more that its only at these scales where anything regarding quantized gravity can be analysed.
On the notion of your question though, I have always been on the mind set that anytime the term "infinite" is used, it is because we have no other meaningful substitute to fit in to the maths, and as such the results should not be taken as 100% proof, but rather as a 'best to date model'.
To answer your question, science/maths can already play around with smallest this or that by throwing numbers in to equations, and then evaluating the results for any significance. The issue with probability is not only the effects of scale but also what is accepted regarding cause and effect.
As we do not know the scale of the universe, only the observable universe can be modelled, we can therefore not know the full extents of cause and effect.
Black holes are also a mystery on cause and effect, because beyond the event horizon it is theorised that space-time becomes time-space, the two constructs are reversed.
The major problem with science attempting to prove such small scale or such large scale effects is that we are never likely going to reach those domains with present or future technology.
The best we have is to observe the effects that they have on other systems and then "reverse engineer" or model what may be happening by inference.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff