My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Planck Length, Discretized position? |
 Aug 12 2007, 05:25 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441  |
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.
|
 |
 
|
|
Aug 12 2007, 04:10 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2007, 06:39 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2007, 06:41 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2007, 09:40 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
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 |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2007, 11:10 PM
Post
#31
|
|||||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
No. You can't. -Frank |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 12 2007, 11:15 PM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
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? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2007, 11:25 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2007, 11:55 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
I think, provided you could observe the object at the minimum speed, you'd probably hit a potential energy barrier.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13 2007, 12:46 AM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Retired Admins Posts: 1,784 Joined: 28-July 04 From: Cleveland, OH Member No.: 6,522 |
Sorry folks, but we (the mods) are just not seeing the gaming connection. Thread locked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th April 2022 - 04:56 AM |
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.