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

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.

Ah, so Zeno did get it right.

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.

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).

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

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

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?

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.

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)

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

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

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.

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

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 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

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

~J

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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