#1

We know space cannot be, you hit a certain length where you can't make light any smaller because there isn't enough energy in a single quanta to make the wavelength arbitrarily small, but can time be broken down forever?

#2

I'd say yes, we have things called instants which are utterly precise moments of time which have no magnitude time themselves.

or that's what I was told vis-à-vis instants

or that's what I was told vis-à-vis instants

#3

You can't know velocity and position, therefor I don't think you can measure a precise moment in time.

#4

I just said no magnitude, therefore no, it's not a measurement.

#5

To me time isn't really constant. It seems to be, sort of, but actually I think maybe it slips by at different speeds, like I notice nothing change for a year or two, then almost overnight, people somehow look older and things seem vastly different.

#6

On a scale to 1 thru 10 how dank that shit be?

#7

ok, that's dubious interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but go on

#8

the smallest possible length is a planck length

the fastest possible speed is the speed of light

the smallest possible measurable time is the time it would take the fastest speed (light) to travel the smallest distance (planck length)

this is called a planck time.

it's around 10^-43 seconds.

the fastest possible speed is the speed of light

the smallest possible measurable time is the time it would take the fastest speed (light) to travel the smallest distance (planck length)

this is called a planck time.

it's around 10^-43 seconds.

#9

yes they're called minutes

there are also seconds

it's pretty sweet

there are also seconds

it's pretty sweet

#10

i guess if you can find someone who's willing to write down all the zeros

#11

i dont see why it couldnt be

#12

Even if physically "space" can't be smaller than Plank's length, that doesn't prevent you from manipulating the abstract model of space (i.e the mathematical model, with coordinates, points, vectors, etc).

The mathematical model of space is a field (or something) with various dimensions (RxRxR if we take the simple "3D space" one). I can certainly imagine distances smaller than Plank's length in that model. Does that mean space

If we work in the world of real numbers, dense intervals, infinitesimals, etc, then we can "subdivide infinitely" with anything. This includes time and space, as well as any other stuff (like temperature, etc)

Maybe the simplest explanation is that all of these models are utterly wrong, and right now we use them just because they make things easier to work with (and is the best we've got), not because they are 100% correct. If everything in the world ends up being discrete (for instance), then these models would lose their meaning and thus the answer to "can we divide X infinitely?" would be false.

Though even if that was the case, the intuitive concepts we have which we represent with the current models can still be of use. For instance, you can easily conceive there being "space" outside of the universe, just by conceving of space as this metaphysical construct that defines anything that's physical, whether inside our universe, outside of it, bounded to "real" space (i.e spacetime) or not. This intuitive conception of space can be modeled with the usual RxRxR mathematical model, and we can reason about it with that. In this model, yes, we can divide things infinitely. So maybe the answer to that question can be true, even if we prove it to be false.

The mathematical model of space is a field (or something) with various dimensions (RxRxR if we take the simple "3D space" one). I can certainly imagine distances smaller than Plank's length in that model. Does that mean space

**can**be subdivided infinitely then?If we work in the world of real numbers, dense intervals, infinitesimals, etc, then we can "subdivide infinitely" with anything. This includes time and space, as well as any other stuff (like temperature, etc)

Maybe the simplest explanation is that all of these models are utterly wrong, and right now we use them just because they make things easier to work with (and is the best we've got), not because they are 100% correct. If everything in the world ends up being discrete (for instance), then these models would lose their meaning and thus the answer to "can we divide X infinitely?" would be false.

Though even if that was the case, the intuitive concepts we have which we represent with the current models can still be of use. For instance, you can easily conceive there being "space" outside of the universe, just by conceving of space as this metaphysical construct that defines anything that's physical, whether inside our universe, outside of it, bounded to "real" space (i.e spacetime) or not. This intuitive conception of space can be modeled with the usual RxRxR mathematical model, and we can reason about it with that. In this model, yes, we can divide things infinitely. So maybe the answer to that question can be true, even if we prove it to be false.

#13

Have you been reading Zeno again, Peppers?

#14

the smallest possible length is a planck length

the fastest possible speed is the speed of light

the smallest possible measurable time is the time it would take the fastest speed (light) to travel the smallest distance (planck length)

this is called a planck time.

it's around 10^-43 seconds.

I think this answers the question better than I did and is correct

also was expecting it to be smaller than -43, like -70 or something but hey, it checks out

#15

the smallest possible length is a planck length

the fastest possible speed is the speed of light

the smallest possible measurable time is the time it would take the fastest speed (light) to travel the smallest distance (planck length)

this is called a planck time.

it's around 10^-43 seconds.

I know this but it isn't what I am looking for. It's cool to see that you knew that though (:

#16

yea, i do it all the time

#17

ffs peppers one of these days im coming over, chaining you to a chair and hiring a few physics profs to give you nonstop lectures for like 30 days straight

#18

ffs peppers one of these days im coming over, chaining you to a chair and hiring a few physics profs to give you nonstop lectures for like 30 days straight

Sounds hot

#19

Sounds hot

"oh bby derive those maxwell equations for me"

#20

I think the thread is silly because the OP assumes that current knowable limitations are definite and won't change the further we advance our tech and knowledge.

#21

I know this but itisn't what I am looking for. It's cool to see that you knew that though (:

are you fucking with us?

"oh bby derive those maxwell equations for me"

"Where do you want it?"

"If I know that, I won't know how fast you go"

no takers? I'll show myself out.

*Last edited by Pastafarian96 at Oct 3, 2015,*

#22

Time is but a measurement, a relation. Yes, you can just go on and break it infinitely, but since it's a relation, it only makes sense to break it to the point where you can still relate it to something.

Let's look at planck time: it's the time a photon at speed of light (the fastest possible speed known) takes to travel a planck length (the smallest possible length known). A planck time relates to something, but if you take anything smaller than the planck time what would it relate to? You have nothing that's faster than light and nothing that's smaller than a planck length so you can't realistically make the function that determines time give you something smaller than planck time.

A fellow classmate once told me that time is a tool to help measure changes in space. If you follow his line of thinking you can say that anything smaller than planck time is useless since no changes can happen in such interval.

That said, my answer is:

Yes, there's nothing that keeps you from doing it, but when you hit the point where you have something smaller than planck time you'll have something useless to our current knowledge.

Let's look at planck time: it's the time a photon at speed of light (the fastest possible speed known) takes to travel a planck length (the smallest possible length known). A planck time relates to something, but if you take anything smaller than the planck time what would it relate to? You have nothing that's faster than light and nothing that's smaller than a planck length so you can't realistically make the function that determines time give you something smaller than planck time.

A fellow classmate once told me that time is a tool to help measure changes in space. If you follow his line of thinking you can say that anything smaller than planck time is useless since no changes can happen in such interval.

That said, my answer is:

Yes, there's nothing that keeps you from doing it, but when you hit the point where you have something smaller than planck time you'll have something useless to our current knowledge.

#23

the fastest possible speed is the speed of light

the smallest possible measurable time is the time it would take the fastest speed (light) to travel the smallest distance (planck length)

this is called a planck time.

it's around 10^-43 seconds.

well, thread is both informative and boring now

#24

drugs