Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ General Gaming _ Planck Length

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 11 2007, 08:45 AM

OK, let's say that you can't move less than a Planck Length (which may well be true, since you can't measure movement of less than a Planck Length). Does this imply that our universe has a discrete (if massively large) number of points in it through which we move?

Discuss.

-Frank

Posted by: odinson Aug 11 2007, 08:57 AM

I would save for the part where Plank length has as much to do with Shadowrun as how awesome curry chips are have to do with Shadowrun. Seriously, this is shadowrun forums. People want to discuss shadowrun not physics. Now, if you came up with some crazy way to tie that in with some crazy magical theory I'm in.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 11 2007, 09:17 AM

QUOTE (FrankTrollman)

Does this imply that our universe has a discrete (if massively large) number of points in it through which we move?

No, because Heisenberg's uncertainty principle will make you cry.

Posted by: Synner Aug 11 2007, 09:51 AM

Ah, so Zeno did get it right.

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 11 2007, 10:08 AM

Based upon your setup there, no, it doesn't imply that.

While you assume that you can't move less than a Planck length, there is no requirement that when you move more than a Planck length that you do so in integer multiples of the Planck length.

Posted by: virgileso Aug 11 2007, 10:11 AM

Man, I only wish it was as simple as that, using Plank's length to create discrete points. Instead, it just means there's a HARD limit on resolution with our perceptions.

A more fun debate with philosophy vs science is the whole Schrodinger's Cat experiment, and the real life macroscopic examples (I'm looking at you, double slit experiment).

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 11 2007, 10:15 AM

QUOTE (virgileso)

Instead, it just means there's a HARD limit on resolution with our perceptions.

Not our's - it just proves that God was already farsighted from old age when he implemented that stuff... so the really small things are a bit fuzzy.

Posted by: knasser Aug 11 2007, 11:53 AM

QUOTE (Vaevictis)

Furthermore, it says nothing about starting positions being at fixed places on the "plank length matrix." So even if you could only move in integer multiples of the plank length, you'd require a separate theory justifying everything starting at fixed distances from everything else in order to make a de facto case of discrete points.

However, this being Frank, I suspect a set up in which someone naively agrees with the proposal and then Frank springs on us a massive 4th edition rules implication based on this. Probably to do with using the Movement power on atom nucleii to improve fusion power

-K.

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 11 2007, 12:39 PM

I'd rather not live in a discrete universe. I'm an analog kind of guy.

Posted by: Buster Aug 11 2007, 01:41 PM

As a quantum private detective, I'm both discrete and discreet.

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 11 2007, 02:03 PM

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

QUOTE (virgileso @ Aug 11 2007, 12:11 PM)

Instead, it just means there's a HARD limit on resolution with our perceptions.

Not our's - it just proves that God was already farsighted from old age when he implemented that stuff... so the really small things are a bit fuzzy.

heh, you should sell that to those "intelligent design" people

Posted by: Prime Mover Aug 11 2007, 02:46 PM

And the old man sternly announced, " Come now rock snatch this grasshopper from my hand!"

Reminds me of the old question, if a tree falls in the woods and no ones there does it make a noise?

Which came first the Thunderbird or the egg?

Does a Piasma shit in the woods?

Posted by: Eleazar Aug 11 2007, 03:42 PM

QUOTE (Synner)

Ah, so Zeno did get it right.

Don't you mean Xenu?

Posted by: Demerzel Aug 11 2007, 03:52 PM

The point about there being no requirement of moving an integer multiple of a Planck Length are valid. Consider also that a particle cannot exist in a point in space, so it therefore cannot occupy only a point, and therefore cannot be characterized by any sort of non-continuous grid.

Posted by: Aaron Aug 11 2007, 04:48 PM

Except that a Planck length is just the lower threshold at which one can measure distance with a photon. Or more accurately, a Planck length is the minimum distance an object may move in order for one to be able to predict the attributes of that movement.

Out of curiosity, is this question setting up some sort of Shadowrun-related argument? Perhaps about magic? Or maybe a battlemat-style set of miniatures rules? =i)

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 11 2007, 05:26 PM

Oh, I'm not suggesting that the universe is a Planck Length grid, there are angles to be considered. This means that either you can move a Planck Length East and a Planck Length North and be Root 2 Planck Lengths from your previous position or we live on a topological map and discrete points only connect to finite other discrete points and thus that movement puts you 2 Planck Lengths away from your previous position.

But more specifically, just because you had to move in units of Planck (which may or may not be true), does not mean that the grid (if it exists) is in units of Planck. It could be in deciPlanck or centiPlanck or whatever.

Of course, if there are discretized locations in physical space, what about Magical space?

-Frank

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 11 2007, 05:28 PM

ok, thats it, my head is spinning...

Posted by: Fortune Aug 11 2007, 06:33 PM

QUOTE (Eleazar)

Don't you mean Xenu?

I prefer Gabrielle.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 11 2007, 06:38 PM

QUOTE (hobgoblin)

ok, thats it, my head is spinning...

No problem. I'll break it down for you:

It can be shown that there is an amount of distance smaller than which you cannot measure.
.
Therefore, if you make the claim that distances smaller than that don't exist, noone can prove you wrong.
.
If you belive in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice, it can be shown that the Real Numbers are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-order That means that there is a number n which is "next to" 4 on the number line such that (4 + n) / 2 is not a real number.
.
Noone can actually prove the Axiom of Choice to be wrong either, so if you make claim that there is in fact a minimum difference two real numbers can have that's an apparently legitimate claim as well.
.
So the idea that in fact we may live in a digital universe where things move in very small granular jumps rather than in continuous anything is quite defensible.

And if our physics plays by those rules...

-Frank

Posted by: the_dunner Aug 11 2007, 06:49 PM

Moved to General Gaming, as I'm not seeing a Shadowrun connection here. For that matter, while it's an interesting discussion on physics, I'm not seeing a connection to gaming in general. Let's either make that connection in the next couple posts or move the discussion to a theoretical physics board, please.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 11 2007, 07:03 PM

I disagree. I think the core interesting portion of Shadowrun magic is the fact that it interacts with Physics. Distinct from, for example, D&D Magic which "just does stuff", magic in Shadowrun actually does specific things. You can levitate things and drop them in order to generate power from drain.

And really, the interaction of extremely small physics with Magic is something that is interesting in Shadowrun precisely because it's an investigatable question is Shadowrun.

-Frank

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 11 2007, 07:31 PM

Vaevictus, knasser, and Demerzel are wrong—a position cannot be measured to a fractional planck length according to current understanding of physics and is thus meaningless, fractional planck lengths that are part of improper fractions included. I'll have to think more as to whether this implies an upper bound of countably infinite meaningful points in space, but you can discard their arguments.

~J

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 11 2007, 07:47 PM

I suspect I don't have nearly enough maths to give a good opinion (especially since as far as I can tell it's still an open question—no major breakthroughs coming from an amateur in a different field today ), so in lieu of that I give you http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9601014, in which it appears that the author is arguing for the viability of viewing space and time as lattices.

~J

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 11 2007, 10:58 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Aug 11 2007, 02:31 PM)

I'm not claiming that you can measure to a fractional planck length.

Frank's original premise is that we shall assume that one cannot move less than a planck length.

What I am claiming that in the absence of a similar assumption and/or fact that one cannot move a planck length plus a fraction of a planck length, then the system isn't discrete. So far, I don't see any such assumption or fact.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 12 2007, 02:50 AM

Yeah, he really should have relied on preexisting terminology. <my comment has been removed until I can sleep on it>

~J

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 12 2007, 05:25 AM

I also think you're going to have to discretize the angle of departure from a point in order to have a discrete system, but I'm not sure.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 12 2007, 04:10 PM

That's not difficult to do, it seems—if you travel one planck length at angle θ_1, the results do not seem to be distinguishable from traveling one planck length at angle θ_2 where the distance between the endpoints is less than one planck length.

But don't take my word to mean too much. Like I said, I'm just an informed amateur.

~J

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 12 2007, 06:39 PM

A length of 3.2 Planck Lengths cannt be distinguished from a length of 3 Planck Lengths, and thus you can make a currently irrefutable argument that there is no distance of 3.2 Planck Lengths possible.

-Frank

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 12 2007, 06:41 PM

Right, but for now, the only assumption that exists is that you can't move less than a Planck length. While it may be what lead Frank to make that assumption, it is not yet stated that just because two points are not measurably different that we shall assume that they are the same.

Further, if despite the fact that two points may not be measurably different from each other, I wonder if you could distinguish by measuring with reference to a point that is less than a Planck length from one point, but more than from the other.

EDIT: BTW, this post is with respect to Kage.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 12 2007, 09:40 PM

QUOTE (FrankTrollman)

A length of 3.2 planck lengths is indistinguishable from a length of 3 planck lengths and a length of 4.1 planck lengths, while a length of 3 planck lengths and a length of 4.1 planck lengths are distinguishable from one another, unless I'm erring in my understanding (which I may be—I'd love to see a paper covering that issue if there is one, but my Google-fu has thus far failed).

~J

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 12 2007, 11:10 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Aug 12 2007, 01:39 PM)

http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber5.pdf

QUOTE

Further, if despite the fact that two points may not be measurably different from each other, I wonder if you could distinguish by measuring with reference to a point that is less than a Planck length from one point, but more than from the other.

No. You can't.

-Frank

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Aug 12 2007, 11:15 PM

QUOTE (the_dunner)

It's related to gaming because it has implications for creating rules. Can rules relating to movement be absolutely correct if they're written in terms of planck length?

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 12 2007, 11:25 PM

I'm mostly curious as to what exactly happens when you move something at the minimum speed and then divide that speed by six using Movement.

I think you win Inertia.

-Frank

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 12 2007, 11:55 PM

I think, provided you could observe the object at the minimum speed, you'd probably hit a potential energy barrier.

Posted by: the_dunner Aug 13 2007, 12:46 AM

Sorry folks, but we (the mods) are just not seeing the gaming connection. Thread locked.