1

If there is a length which no object can breach in terms of the smallest of size, how can that length hold true? Our earth is undoubtedly considered the Planck length to some monolithic planet out there (relatively speaking of course), yet a number was derived stating the smallest possible space occupied? I'm not saying this theory is wrong, I would just like it explained to me.

Brandon Enright
  • 11,937
ageattack
  • 127
  • Possible duplicates: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/28720/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Jan 05 '14 at 20:38
  • Perhaps you are asking about the physical meaning of the Plank Length? Also, what do you mean by the Earth being like a Plank length to some other planet? Do you mean angular resolution due to the distance? – Brandon Enright Jan 05 '14 at 20:38
  • The Planck length has a definition that would be the same for any being calculating it, regardless of their size relative to ours. Also there are some quantities which can be arbitrarily small, see the previous link. – Bowler Jan 05 '14 at 20:48
  • @BrandonEnright I meant, for instance, if there is a planet so large that we are 1.61619926 × 10-35 times the size of it. That would make our earth a Planck length in relation the other planet. I will check out the other link however. – ageattack Jan 05 '14 at 21:07
  • 1
    Well, for one, the Plank length is not a ratio so it doesn't matter if there is something that big. Two, an object can't be that big due to gravity. Three, the object you describe is bigger than the (visible) universe. – Brandon Enright Jan 05 '14 at 21:12
  • It is true that it isn't a ratio, but to us, 1.61619926 × 10-35 meters is what we consider Planck distance. To us. You see, the Planck number really depends on perspective. The smaller a being is, the smaller a meter is relative to them. The same is true in reverse. So although it may not be a ratio, if a planet that big could somehow be isolated as to not "suck" in everything in its range (I believe that's where you were going with gravity, but correct me if I'm wrong), then a meter would be huge to beings living on it, thus making the Planck number much bigger. – ageattack Jan 05 '14 at 22:33
  • Distance does not depend on perspective. When I was 4, the floor-ceiling distance in my parent's living room was 12 feet; it still is 12 feet now that I am 30. – Kyle Kanos Jan 06 '14 at 15:18
  • Yes, the distance is still the same because you measure it with the same system: imperial. The distance is 12 feet relative to the imperial system. But when you were smaller, that distance seemed greater then it does now. If you yourself were the size of an atom, do you not think that the Planck length would be much smaller then we discern it to be? – ageattack Jan 07 '14 at 00:27

0 Answers0