IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
 Closed TopicStart new topic
> Planck Length, Discretized position?
FrankTrollman
post Aug 11 2007, 08:45 AM
Post #1


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
odinson
post Aug 11 2007, 08:57 AM
Post #2


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 5-April 07
From: Vancouver, BC
Member No.: 11,383
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotbart van Dain...
post Aug 11 2007, 09:17 AM
Post #3


Hoppelhäschen 5000
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Synner
post Aug 11 2007, 09:51 AM
Post #4


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185
Ah, so Zeno did get it right. :P
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vaevictis
post Aug 11 2007, 10:08 AM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 530
Joined: 11-June 05
Member No.: 7,441
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
virgileso
post Aug 11 2007, 10:11 AM
Post #6


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 25-July 07
Member No.: 12,354
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).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotbart van Dain...
post Aug 11 2007, 10:15 AM
Post #7


Hoppelhäschen 5000
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951
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. :P
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
knasser
post Aug 11 2007, 11:53 AM
Post #8


Shadow Cartographer
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 2-June 06
From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West)
Member No.: 8,636
QUOTE (Vaevictis)
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.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ancient History
post Aug 11 2007, 12:39 PM
Post #9


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,748
Joined: 5-July 02
Member No.: 2,935
I'd rather not live in a discrete universe. I'm an analog kind of guy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Buster
post Aug 11 2007, 01:41 PM
Post #10


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,246
Joined: 8-June 07
Member No.: 11,869
As a quantum private detective, I'm both discrete and discreet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Aug 11 2007, 02:03 PM
Post #11


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242
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. :P

heh, you should sell that to those "intelligent design" people :silly:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Prime Mover
post Aug 11 2007, 02:46 PM
Post #12


Shooting Target
****

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,755
Joined: 5-September 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 9,313
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eleazar
post Aug 11 2007, 03:42 PM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 9,130
QUOTE (Synner)
Ah, so Zeno did get it right. :P

Don't you mean Xenu? :eek:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Demerzel
post Aug 11 2007, 03:52 PM
Post #14


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,206
Joined: 9-July 06
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 8,856
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Aug 11 2007, 04:48 PM
Post #15


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314
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)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FrankTrollman
post Aug 11 2007, 05:26 PM
Post #16


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Aug 11 2007, 05:28 PM
Post #17


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242
ok, thats it, my head is spinning...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Aug 11 2007, 06:33 PM
Post #18


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486
QUOTE (Eleazar)
Don't you mean Xenu?

I prefer Gabrielle. ;)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FrankTrollman
post Aug 11 2007, 06:38 PM
Post #19


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665
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 Axiom of Choice, it can be shown that the Real Numbers are Well Ordered. 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
the_dunner
post Aug 11 2007, 06:49 PM
Post #20


Shooting Target
****

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 1,784
Joined: 28-July 04
From: Cleveland, OH
Member No.: 6,522
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FrankTrollman
post Aug 11 2007, 07:03 PM
Post #21


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Aug 11 2007, 07:31 PM
Post #22


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,008
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Aug 11 2007, 07:47 PM
Post #23


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,008
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802
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 this link, in which it appears that the author is arguing for the viability of viewing space and time as lattices.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vaevictis
post Aug 11 2007, 10:58 PM
Post #24


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 530
Joined: 11-June 05
Member No.: 7,441
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Aug 11 2007, 02:31 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

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Aug 12 2007, 02:50 AM
Post #25


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,008
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802
Yeah, he really should have relied on preexisting terminology. <my comment has been removed until I can sleep on it>

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
« Next Oldest · General Gaming · Next Newest »
 

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Closed TopicStart new topic

 

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 6th March 2025 - 07:02 PM
Powered By IP.Board © 2025  IPS, Inc.

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.