It's just a Planck bro

Comments

• Hacksaw@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Max Planck: I just discovered the shortest amount of time something can last any ideas what I should name it? Marie Planck: Planck time Max Planck: :'(

  source

  • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Minor Planck

    source
• creation7758@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Would you rather it be called Max length?

  source

  • refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yes

    source
  • DannyBoy@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Absolutely.

    source

    • tocano@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Image

      source
  • ByteJunk@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Definitely.

    source
  • duisgur@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Doubtlessly.

    source
  • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Undeniably

    source
  • FooBarrington@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Indubitably

    source
  • roguetrick@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Unhesitatingly

    source
  • Klear@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Totally

    source
  • levzzz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Insidiously

    source
• tdawg@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  See it’s funny bc his name is max

  source
• N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Planck died before he finished his Grower/Shower addendum to the scale.

  source
• kyle@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Tiniest thing imaginable

  source

  • EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Nah, I can imagine half a plank length Image

    source
  • henfredemars@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Any smaller and it’s not even there at all!

    source
• Kaput@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Any good link for a simple explanation on how there cant be smaller length?

  source

  • VoterFrog@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    In order to accurately measure the location of something requires energy. The more precise the measurement, the more energy is required. The amount of energy required get the precision below the Planck length would literally create a black hole.

    source

    • Shou@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Why does it require more energy?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • lambdabeta@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’ve never found a good link, and I’m not certain that I know best, but I can try to explain it to you.

    First: an understanding of the Pauli exclusion principle. Often people ask “Why can’t there be 3 electrons in that orbital, there’s plenty of space?” The thing is that the electrons are completely¹ defined by just 4 numbers: spin (±½), shell (positive integer), subshell (integer from 0 to shell-1) and magnetic (integer form -subshell to +subshell). Why there can’t be more than 2 electrons in the 1st shell is that you can chose spin from (±½), shell is 1, subshell has to be 0, magnetic has to be 0. Its like asking “Why can’t there be 3 integers between 0 and 3, there’s plenty of space?” and the answer is that whatever integer you come up with will be one of the 2 already known (1, 2).

    Similarly, as I understand it, the fundamental laws of physics don’t distinguish between “things” closer than 1 Planck length apart. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the universe operates on a 1 Planck length grid, just that any two “things” separated by less than a Planck length are indistinguishable from one new “thing” with different properties.

    I’m fairly confident in the PEP description, the Planck length one I’m less 100% sure about, but its how I understand it at least.

    ¹assuming a universe comprised of only a single hydrogen atom, otherwise the states of everything else in the universe can perterb the state functions and things can get messy, but usually not enough to merge shells.

    source

    • Kaput@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Thank you for trying, your explanation is not nearly dumb enough. I feel like the match girl smelling the roast while having a bite of stale bread. There is knowledge I just can smell but not taste. The one thing I got though that clarified a bit is that Planck lengths is not a statement that space, the 3 dimensions, is quantized but rather that it’s mathematically insignificant when trying to distinguish two particules separated by Less than that length.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think the best way to understand the Planck length is to understand how we came to Planck’s constant in the first place. Science girl has a good video on it (she shared today that she’s getting better, which is fantastic news)

    source
• nintendiator@feddit.cl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Planckiest violin, play me Despacito.

  source
• AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Half planck

  doggirl-smug centrist wowee

  source
• MITM0@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Why does it remind me of Max Payne for some reason ?

  source
• Zerush@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  How much in Inch?

  source

  • Evotech@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Roughly 0

    source
  • CaptainBlagbird@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Not much

    source
  • Fuck_u_spez_@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    6.363×10^-34 in

    source

    • Zerush@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Now in feet and miles

      source

      • -> View More Comments