What Happens Beyond the Planck Length?

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 29 окт 2024

Комментарии • 500

  • @martinrumsey9639
    @martinrumsey9639 Год назад +637

    What happens beyond the Planck length? My wife said, you end up in the sea....every pirate knows that.

    • @thebaryonacousticoscillati5679
      @thebaryonacousticoscillati5679 Год назад +30

      The Planckthropic Principle says the Universe evolved to laugh at itself! Thank you for that!

    • @akajunior1225
      @akajunior1225 Год назад +3

      Ha ha ha ha

    • @brandyraccoon1473
      @brandyraccoon1473 Год назад +8

      A ruler you say. A ruler say you. Tis nothing but a small Planck of wood.

    • @wallyslow
      @wallyslow Год назад +6

      Medium Planck, small plank, micro plank , nano-plank, than probably plunk is this infinite small thingies namefication holds up
      The infinitesimal is an infinite, soo there will be endlessly smaller lengths found and crossed on to explain the closest approximation of really withour mere human intellect.
      Also an approximation of reality will never be the reality ( the map is not the territory)
      Because of our inability to gasp infinity in all shapes, forms an constructs, We will never be able to fully explain reality / the universe.
      Also in my humble opinion every thing around us has a piece of 1 or more infinity’s with it while co-exists with the undeniable entropy in our systems.
      On these the cross roads of infinite and entropy things all things become chaotisch , Emergent, changing..and (what might seem contradictory):
      Sentient, not self-aware but more selfreferal in processes.
      Sentient here meaning more how a star or a galaxy could sentient (which is for now also beyond our understanding in our approximation of reality)
      My humble conclusion: because of the uncomprehendingly of infinity mix with certain entropy our universe /reality will/can never be fully know.
      But with scientific principles and lots of theoretical and practical experiment, we might give the best hypothesises / educated guesses.
      Science will alway be malleable, should avoid to become dogma,
      Or a belief in objective truths.
      Science should be tool !
      To formulated an idea : to measure the outcome (2x) and then hypothesis what’s this could mean. (Preferably without a value-stamen)
      The scientific methode is the best we have for now.
      And I’m all happy for it..
      Maybe the friends were the algorithms we found along the way.

    • @bigbadbith8422
      @bigbadbith8422 Год назад +2

      YES!

  • @RomanNumural9
    @RomanNumural9 Год назад +201

    Thank you for not pulling any punches. Straight and directly to the point. So many other videos would try to describe this with 25 minutes of preamble. This is nice

    • @JoEbY-X
      @JoEbY-X Год назад +9

      Indeed... it's refreshing to find a physics video where I had to pause in order to keep up rather than watch at 1.5x due to impatience.

    • @frolsttyy
      @frolsttyy 10 месяцев назад

      Man, I have to see this video at least 10 times. But... it's has blown my mind out. Ok, we would need a way to measure the initial expantion, but the temperature and fusion of forces, oh man!

  • @SpaceCakeism
    @SpaceCakeism Год назад +22

    Saw the title, saw the duration; thought to myself, "try me."
    Glad I did, didn't expect to find this gem; getting tired of hearing the same few lines regurgitated thousands of times, so this was a breath of fresh air.

  • @KippiExplainsStuff
    @KippiExplainsStuff Год назад +82

    I'll tell you why I love your videos: as a science communicator myself (longform text), I disagree with the tendency of most pop sci channels to disrespect the readers/viewers by dumbing things down or glossing over important science. if you respect your viewers enough to explain it clearly without dumbing it down - you're doing it right.
    good job, my friend. love your content!

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад +10

      Thank you that means a lot.

    • @henrythegreatamerican8136
      @henrythegreatamerican8136 Год назад

      Can you imagine a nerdy chick telling her nerdy boyfriend his peewee is smaller than a Planck Length?

    • @archlich4489
      @archlich4489 Год назад +3

      It's a fine line between proper modeling and eye candy. The latter can really fire the imagination of a small child, say.

    • @assaf
      @assaf Год назад +3

      It is surprising, somewhat amusing, and somewhat lovely, to bump into Kippi Explains randomly on RUclips. Kippi mate, I still remember your longform texts from the COVID era periodically and appreciate what you did. Hope you're doing well and all the best.

    • @KippiExplainsStuff
      @KippiExplainsStuff Год назад +2

      @@assaf not as surprised as I am to read this comment. thanks a lot. the page is still up and running!

  • @thebaryonacousticoscillati5679
    @thebaryonacousticoscillati5679 Год назад +53

    I've read many different explanations/descriptions of this but I have to say the way you've presented it has given me a totally new way of thinking about it. Very much appreciated!

  • @julianemery718
    @julianemery718 Год назад +5

    I liked how you explained this.
    It feels like you had the brief of "Whats the fewest words needed to explain this without cutting corners or dumbing down?" And you stuck to it quite well.

  • @brucea9871
    @brucea9871 Год назад +62

    I'm glad you clarified that things can still happen below the Planck length. I also like that you suggested a minimum nonzero radius for a black hole. Although I think most physicists suspect a black hole doesn't really have zero radius I find in many discussions of black holes they claim it does have zero radius. I wish they would state what they believe instead of misleading people. I also dislike the habit many people have of referring to a black hole's size as the size of its event horizon. A black hole is actually much smaller than that.

    • @frun
      @frun Год назад +4

      Condensed matter systems and analog black holes tell much about Plank constants and black holes.

    • @AlmostEthical
      @AlmostEthical Год назад +4

      I agree, Bruce. Claims that the final scrap of stellar core is zero radius does nothing but confuse. And the problem with the event horizon measure is that we think of it epistemologically - in terms of our perception of black holes - rather than the object in itself.
      I've not seen a video dare to take this subject on but it seems pivotal to understanding the BB and black holes (if they are not the same thing).

    • @enterprisesoftwarearchitect
      @enterprisesoftwarearchitect Год назад +4

      Charged black holes may in fact be naked singularities (Reissner-Nordstrom metric) … we just don’t know. But because QCD calculations are on a lattice, there is reason to think that we’ll start to see new physics if we get down to 10^-20 cm. Physics may break down long before we reach the Planck length!

    • @manifold1476
      @manifold1476 Год назад +2

      He didn't "clarify" that idea, - - - He ASSERTED it!!!!

    • @nsacockroach4099
      @nsacockroach4099 Год назад +2

      Well the black hole *is* the region below the event horizon. The radius of a black hole is the Schwarzschild radius.
      What I think you meant is the Singularity. It is not known if the mass is actually concentrated in a singularity (most likely not) or compacted to plank scale lengths.
      Edit:
      Or were you refering to the fact that the radius in the Scharzschild metric is actually not a real distance?

  • @thejorgelopez9135
    @thejorgelopez9135 Год назад +12

    This channel is gonna sky rocket any day now. Some of the best explanations and visuals of complex topics I’ve ever seen. This thing is about to take off. Congrats.

  • @nicemandan
    @nicemandan Год назад +22

    I'd always imagined the planck length/scale as a universal voxel but thanks to this explaination I now realise this is not the case.

    • @sakesaurus
      @sakesaurus 11 месяцев назад +1

      That's physics. It has a tool, it uses it, doesn't make any assumptions. It tries it's best to not create unnecessary world views. But usually when you hear "planck lemgth is the limit", you don't think that it's the limit for current physics tradition, you think it's the actual objective limit, that something objects to dividing past that.
      Honestly i don't think the gravity vs. quantum will keep up for long we'll have anpther system for sub planck length physics. It's just gonna be a superstition...

  • @seanspartan2023
    @seanspartan2023 Год назад +15

    I just found this channel and I can't believe there are so few subscribers. The material and presentation reminds me of PBS Spacetime. I especially like that information and even complex concepts are explained succinctly yet I don't feel like they're being "dumbed down."

  • @MisakaMikotoDesu
    @MisakaMikotoDesu Год назад +19

    Thank you for this! This is very insightful compared to what you get with other channels.

  • @zxLoneWolf
    @zxLoneWolf Год назад +5

    Cohesive and aesthetically pleasing format. Concise information. Great video

  • @Slowpaws1389
    @Slowpaws1389 Год назад +3

    Good work, I usually watch these videos right after popping in a suppository. It is very calming.

    • @unclecarl5406
      @unclecarl5406 Год назад +3

      I know exactly what you mean. I've just come back from having a cystoscopy and found this very calming and soothing.

    • @winkywacky6173
      @winkywacky6173 7 месяцев назад

      Popping a pre-revelation suppository was the best comment yet! I'd been using Alka- Seltzers.

  • @anthonydraco7958
    @anthonydraco7958 Год назад +1

    Thank you for explaining this clearly. Planck units has never made sense to me until you. It’s always been to me they just pluck random numbers and shuffle them around in the least understandable way to get them. NOW I understand why they’re the smallest units that matter.

  • @enlongchiou
    @enlongchiou 7 месяцев назад +2

    Joseph Polchinski string theorist proposed at Planck length l=g*m/c^2=(h*g/2pi*c^3)^0.5 which can deduce vacuum energy ch=(4.9154)^3*pm=2pi*g*m^2=8pi*g*(m*c^2/2)^2/c^4 under critical mass[6^3*pm] is solution of GR field equation can expand to proton scale pl=g(p)*(4pi*pm/3)/c^2 generate strong force g(p)=g*m^2/pm^2=g*(pl/(4pi*l/3))^2=1.13*10^28 by Tesseract which can transfer into EM force between proton[pm], electron[me] in Atom[A] by k*e^2=g(p)*pm^2/137.036=ch/(2pi*137.036)[e+]=me*(c/137.036)^2*A[e-]=4pi*g(p)*pm*me*137.036/128.51991 which can reproduce Dirac's quantum field , deduce me^2/pm^2/g*m^2/k*e^2=(me/pm)^2/137.036=2.16*10^-9=0.00116592026-0.00116591810=(0.001165920+((61-41)+(57-25))*10^-9/2) - (0.00116584719+6845*10^-7+154*10^-8+92*10^-9) : discrepancy of muon magnetic moment of (g-2)/2 factor between experiment data, theoretical prediction from Fermilab at 8/10/23.

    • @kevincottam9684
      @kevincottam9684 18 дней назад

      I am having some trouble understanding this at the moment. But I had dome some work in this area in my notebook a while back. and a whole bunch of physics formulas come falling out of various descriptions of particles with the planck energy. The trouble is now how do we describe space-time. one such equation is both compatible with E=mc2 , the hawking equation, defines G in quantum terms and can by plugged into GR and the Shrodinger equation, and is the compton wavelength equation and the schwartzchild radius. the trouble then is half of these use one description of spacetime while the other half use a different one. There seems to be no way to reconcile the two. It is our decriptions of space-time that are wrong. Everything else is mathematically self consistent across many branches on physics.

  • @Rationalific
    @Rationalific Год назад +5

    Thank you for this video (and others that I'll check out later)! Please keep up the great work! I just subscribed, and I hope MANY more do as well in short order (even if not quite within the sub-Planck time...).

  • @durandalgmx7633
    @durandalgmx7633 Год назад +3

    Very deep but very enlightening. My perception of the universe is changed yet again. Thanks.

  • @xcoder1122
    @xcoder1122 Год назад +4

    This video treats gravity as a force but as far as we know, it isn't. Gravity is an effect of space time curvature. And not being a force, it cannot be unified with other forces. There may only be conditions at which spacetime is no longer curved and then gravity would go away but not because it got unified, but because if there is no curvature, there is no effect that we call gravity.

    • @fastlearner292
      @fastlearner292 6 месяцев назад

      You missed the point so horribly, I don't even know where to start.

    • @xcoder1122
      @xcoder1122 6 месяцев назад

      @@fastlearner292 You could start by educating yourself. You cannot combine a non-force with other forces and gravity is no force.

  • @martifingers
    @martifingers Год назад +3

    Remarkably well done. Simple as possible - but not too simple as Einstein advised! I have immediately subscribed.

  • @bbbl67
    @bbbl67 Год назад +3

    One thing about the Planck Length is that if it's the smallest length available in spacetime, then that solves the singularity problem in black holes and the Big Bang. If a singularity is a divide-by-zero error, then having the Planck Length as the smallest length solves that problem, as there is no zero lengths to divide by.

    • @xyhilwastaken
      @xyhilwastaken Год назад

      Can you give citing or any credible answer as to why you assume this is the case? Please don't be Dunning Kruger effected.

    • @bbbl67
      @bbbl67 Год назад

      @@xyhilwastaken I'll leave that upto you to figure out, as your own Dunning-Kruger test. I would've provided the supporting information otherwise.

    • @xyhilwastaken
      @xyhilwastaken Год назад +1

      @@bbbl67 Extremely meaningful reply as always.

    • @bbbl67
      @bbbl67 Год назад

      @@xyhilwastaken Oh, "as always", eh? So we've interacted before? I have not heard of you before.

    • @apophenic_
      @apophenic_ Год назад +1

      ​@@bbbl67dude... just cite sources.

  • @atil4
    @atil4 Год назад

    I asked my self some of fundamental questions related to the Planck units, I found here by far the best explanations, thank you!

  • @Chatsworth1979
    @Chatsworth1979 Год назад +1

    Excellent vid! Amazing that we can even begin to consider such processes with our finite minds.

  • @Thrillin_Chillin_Drillin
    @Thrillin_Chillin_Drillin 9 месяцев назад

    I was looking for clarification on why we can not investigate smaller units, and this helped a lot. Thanks!

  • @Elrond_Hubbard_1
    @Elrond_Hubbard_1 Год назад +7

    I'd heard of a Compton wavelength before but I didn't really know what it was, so thank you for teaching me that and more!
    I did a BSc but not in physics. I am a huge fan of these topic though, and I consider myself to have an advanced level of a layman's understanding. I really like that your video isn't pulling any punches because that's how I learn new things.
    Liked and subbed. Can't wait to see your channel grow mate 😊👍

  • @logosera
    @logosera 11 месяцев назад

    Excellent, straight into the (rather difficult) science without the “this is amazing, you must watch” sort of clickbait we see so often. Added to my ‘try to understand this video’ todo list.

  • @Argonaut320
    @Argonaut320 Год назад +1

    Beautifully done, Thanks !!

  • @DB-xp9px
    @DB-xp9px Год назад +2

    i've been wondering what's at the smallest scale for a decade. the trouble is, no matter how deeply we penetrate the fabric of existence, one can always imagine it's made up of smaller pieces. i sometimes think the universe is infinite at both the largest and smallest scales. we'll sadly always reach an observational limit in both directions.

  • @chrisgozzard9587
    @chrisgozzard9587 Год назад +3

    Excellent video... I always felt like the plank length was an indication that we are in a simulation, or computer memory bank with the plank length being the resolution of the bit grid. Anyone else thought of this?

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад

      Thank you - and I can see where you are coming from if you originally thought of the Planck length as a resolution of space itself.

    • @sakesaurus
      @sakesaurus 11 месяцев назад

      Yeah. It makes sense. Physics is basically a computer simulation of reality and it has a resolution in the "length" data type. You can't reasonably model things that don't fit in your model as you have limitations like the gravity at that length.
      Modeling things by putting them into formal systems with numbers representing things is a base of both science and of computer use.
      On another coincidence, the value of machine zero for double is 2^-31. I believe the Planck length in meters is like 2^-40. That has to mean something.

    • @justanotherguy469
      @justanotherguy469 11 месяцев назад

      This video explains it quite well and includes the mathematics which will enable you to verify what is being said, instead of just saying it and expecting it to be accepted as truth.
      ruclips.net/video/5kuRatz2rj0/видео.htmlsi=OEW_HuwU1x1IU7Ut

  • @crisrose521
    @crisrose521 4 месяца назад +1

    Very well spoken for such a complex subject . Would have been nice to get into a little Kelvin temperature 😊

  • @editman145
    @editman145 Год назад

    Nice vid. Very pleasant and efficient way of narrating and explanation. !!!!!!

  • @rahulronaldo6813
    @rahulronaldo6813 Год назад +2

    Just to say in a word, "Awesome"🎉, the way you narrating and a physics❤

  • @danilolabbate
    @danilolabbate 9 месяцев назад

    Best explanation of the Planck Length I've ever seen.

  • @dzejty
    @dzejty Год назад +2

    nice video. but i think there is a factor of square root of two in the "compton length equals schwardschild radius" derivation of planck length compared to the "square root of combination of universal constants" definition. which actually nicely highlights the point that planck length is not truly one exact value, but a length scale at which funny things beyond our current understanding of physics start to happen.

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад +2

      Possibly but you made a good point; the Planck length isn't anything special, but rather a scale or magnitude at which our current models break down.

  • @pavolusak2488
    @pavolusak2488 5 месяцев назад

    Uder the Planck length {r< l(Planck)}, the mass of the "Planck" black hole increases according to the
    m(bh)=(htrans/c).{1/r(bh)}

  • @OddRagnarDengLerstl
    @OddRagnarDengLerstl Год назад +1

    Very interesting. You explained it in such a good watch that I believe I understand 👍

  • @pugowner1347
    @pugowner1347 Год назад +3

    I think I sprained my Cingulate Cortex. 🤯

  • @MichaelBarry-gz9xl
    @MichaelBarry-gz9xl 4 месяца назад

    Best explanation so far. Thank you

  • @YouTubist666
    @YouTubist666 Год назад +1

    Excellent explanation

  • @Achrononmaster
    @Achrononmaster 2 месяца назад +1

    @3:00 this is a critical point, the Compton wavelength is certainly *_not_* "purely quantum mechanical". The mass is gravitational charge (or inertia, but then there's the Equivalence Principle), so it is a relationship that involves gravity. GR is already a quantum theory imho, just not classically, since classical GR presumes trivial spacetime topology (locally Minkowski) which is fundamentally wrong-headed. Any spacetime containing matter cannot be locally Minkowski. There has to be non-trivial topology. Provided that topology can contain ER bridges it will contain closed timelike curves, and that yields a quantum theory. The indeterminism due to CTCs is precisely the same as QM indeterminacy (gives a nondistributive orthomodular lattice of measurement propositions), only this indetermism is superior in a sense since it is explained with spacetime topology, whereas in QM it is just unexplained axiom.

  • @maxfmfdm
    @maxfmfdm Год назад +1

    Really good video. The questions we ask are quite intriguing. We sort of assume that what we know now has some sort of completeness to it. And so we use concepts we have defined in our current understanding to also define what we expect to know once we know more. Perhaps this is the result of our advancement in using formal systems like math. I expect that quantum superposition is actually a very high frequency vibration between two states. So high in freqency that its vibration only becomes relevant when the center of that vibration is near the midpoint of what we would consider two discrete states. Perhaps quantum computers will allow us to eventually collect some emperical data on the high frequency system by keeping it in play over longer and longer sequences of interactions. So we can finally discover that it is as deterministic as everything else.

  • @bloodyorphan
    @bloodyorphan Год назад +1

    If you have trouble with the stability equation with super high temperature collision physics consider this ...
    Inverse square any measured temperature back to a 6 Planck Radius.
    300 Million to 900 Million is cool compared to your average Bar heater 🙂
    E=1/(R2/R1)^2

  • @stellarswine9488
    @stellarswine9488 Год назад +2

    This is crazy, so any measurements that want to be made on scales smaller than Planck length are impossible without creating a black hole? It almost feels like the universe is gatekeeping the truth behind itself lmao
    Really cool video!

    • @sakesaurus
      @sakesaurus 11 месяцев назад

      Even if you take something like 1000 planck lengths the gravoty is still gonna mess up everything you could predict

    • @justanotherguy469
      @justanotherguy469 11 месяцев назад

      If there is such a thing as an area smaller than the Planck length it would have to be probed with something that has no mass, energy, or momentum.

    • @sakesaurus
      @sakesaurus 11 месяцев назад

      @@justanotherguy469 u meant planck length squared?

    • @justanotherguy469
      @justanotherguy469 11 месяцев назад

      Plank length cubed.@@sakesaurus

  • @RayRay-dv9xg
    @RayRay-dv9xg Год назад +2

    "Schwarzschild" is a german name. Almost every non german does this, but that name has nothing to do with a child :D It translates to "black shield" and you would pronounce it "schwarz-schild", not schwarzs-child.
    If you want to pronounce it nativley, you say schwarz and than you take the "sh" from should and the "ill" from hill, ending with d. Like "schwarz-shilld"

  • @JohnHoranzy
    @JohnHoranzy Год назад +2

    Holy mackerel! In less than 8 minutes you explained so much. You took so many concepts I knew and brought them from the abstract to a functional understanding. Thank you!

  • @fremtidenkommer
    @fremtidenkommer 6 месяцев назад +2

    If gravity (spacetime) is quantized, but the Planck Length is not the smallest length, would point particles, upon measurement, collapse to a black hole, for energy levels we know are too small for this to happen?

  • @Philomats
    @Philomats 11 месяцев назад

    That was well explained. Thank you.

  • @richardventus1875
    @richardventus1875 Год назад +1

    Perhaps the universe fractal and is like zooming into and out of a Mandelbrot set - ie the same complexity from below the Planck Length to the cosmological scale.

  • @ZionistWorldOrder
    @ZionistWorldOrder Год назад +1

    you explain better than others, thank you

  • @MattHudsonAtx
    @MattHudsonAtx Год назад +1

    I think it was Susskind who said we don't need to quantize gravity, we need to gravitize quantum mechanics. I really like the way he thinks.

    • @johnconnor7501
      @johnconnor7501 Год назад

      Isn’t it the same thing?

    • @MattHudsonAtx
      @MattHudsonAtx Год назад

      @@johnconnor7501 no, he's saying that our description of gravity is correct but qm has to change

    • @johnconnor7501
      @johnconnor7501 Год назад

      @@MattHudsonAtx got it!

    • @mastershooter64
      @mastershooter64 Год назад +1

      you mean, "geometrize quantum mechanics" not gravitize lol because GR is a geometrical theory of gravity

    • @MattHudsonAtx
      @MattHudsonAtx Год назад

      @@mastershooter64 no, that's not what I meant nor is it was Susskind said

  • @ConnoisseurOfExistence
    @ConnoisseurOfExistence Год назад

    I have a hypothesis about the structure of the universe at small scales, and according to it, the planck length is the resolution of the universe and spacetime is discrete at those scales. And that discretisation is exactly the quantisation of gravity.

  • @SergiuCosminViorel
    @SergiuCosminViorel Год назад

    This is much better than PBS!

  • @schrodingcheshirecat
    @schrodingcheshirecat 7 месяцев назад

    The Observer Calculus, I conceptualized a few years ago, points to space being infinitely divisible.
    Forces with ratios such as Q^2/D^2 contain an aspect of curvature.
    Truly continuous smooth curvature in turn, requires unending divisibility.
    The trace of F = Q^2/D^2 is a continuous curved structure with an asymptote when approaching zero length.
    The Universe isn't going to supply a particle with infinite energy.
    A regulating flexible spring-like force of allowable energies governs or maintains the ∆ range.
    If space-time is continuous rather than discrete it would be far more
    energy-information efficient, locally, not to mention across the entire Universe.
    This relationship suggests singularities don't exist.
    Everywhere (spring-like, flexible, bendable, deformable) forces and fields exist or can exist, requires continuous curvature, and thus continuous space-time

  • @fredericklockard3854
    @fredericklockard3854 8 месяцев назад

    I’m confused because sometimes we’re told gravity is a force, other times we hear it’s the illusion of force created by the bending of space time. So which is it? This seems important to understand before tackling these quantum theories.

  • @Dvpainter
    @Dvpainter 11 месяцев назад +3

    so the smallest stuff just kind of teleports around like a tick update in a game?

    • @TheKoloradoShow
      @TheKoloradoShow 11 месяцев назад +2

      That sounds like a really good analogy

  • @b.s.7693
    @b.s.7693 Год назад

    What almost everybody misses: the planck length does not limit the size of empty space. Its the lower limit for the size of an object, at least according to our current understanding.

  • @christophschoberl9701
    @christophschoberl9701 Год назад +1

    Small correction from a german speaker.
    Schwarzschild is not pronounced "Schwartz- child".
    It is pronounced more like "Schwurtz-shild", with the "u" being the same as in "button" and the "i" being the same as in "chill".
    Schwarzschild is just a name, but it translates to blackshield.

  • @bloodyorphan
    @bloodyorphan Год назад

    Going less than Planck means there is layers of space between the observer and the "matter".
    So the statement when talking about a black hole is it's relative density (xyz distances contract) goes less than Planck.
    It's mass based diameter inside the Black Hole is at least the same as the Galaxy it is occupying, assuming the galaxy has found stability.
    So a black hole is so big and hot it has layers of space between it and us the observer.
    Temperature Radio Frequency is just an assumed "smallest" window , and it does not consider the actual compressed space density of said photon (how hot it is) , i.e. how much space is compressed inside that Planck length of Big Bang expression that every full phase cycle produces (on and off) in our visible space.
    1c==1c^2==1c^3
    distance==mass==temperature
    That's relativity, the standard model.

  • @irwainnornossa4605
    @irwainnornossa4605 Год назад

    Damn, this was really good video!

  • @TexasRy
    @TexasRy Год назад

    DEEEEP, great video, thank you!

  • @glennabate1708
    @glennabate1708 4 месяца назад +1

    I don’t think there is no limit to how small space can be divided into and no limit to how large it can is as it is infinite. I believe time is infinite in both directions and space is not expanding only everything tangible in the universe and the larger amount of space between 2 objects in the universe is and always was already there. There are probably trillions of universes but every possible does not exist and you do not exist in a parallel universe that’s is fiction. The universe is probably a lot larger than the observable universe.

  • @bsal4097
    @bsal4097 Год назад

    Great video.

  • @gregmonks
    @gregmonks 7 месяцев назад +1

    I can tell you exactly what happens when you go beyond the Planck length.
    Things get very, very small.
    Don't bother . . . I will see myself out.

  • @SuperJibulus
    @SuperJibulus 11 месяцев назад +3

    Alright… who told him about my peener?

  • @latenightlogic
    @latenightlogic Год назад

    Does everyone else follow along easily? I sure don’t. I get what it’s all about but it’s coming to my mind in a vague broad way.

  • @vanikaghajanyan7760
    @vanikaghajanyan7760 Год назад

    6:31 "The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin).
    In "GR was QG" there is no problem with empty space, since the real variable gravitational field of any physical object is identified with the phase space.
    Consider a special case: the Universe.
    Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space (according to general estimates, this acceleration is: a=πcH)*.
    Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the equivalence principle. Then the energy density of the relic radiation, that is, the evolving primary gravitational-inertial field (= space-time): J= g^2/8πG=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4~1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (about 500 quanta/cm^3).
    P.S.You can also use the Unruh formula, but with the addition of the coefficient q, which determines the number of phase transitions of the evolving system for the case of variable acceleration: q=√n'=λrelic /√8λpl , , where n'=L/8πr(pl) is the number of semi-orbits; L=c/H, is the length of the phase trajectory.
    Thus, T*(relic)=[q]ħa/2πkc (=0.4K), which is in order of magnitude consistent with the real: T(relic)/T*(relic)=2,7/0,4=6,7.
    {However, there is no need to have a factor of 1/2π in the Unruh formula in this case.}
    -------------------
    *) - w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H,
    |a|=r(pl)w(relic)^2 =g=πcH,
    intra-metagalactic gravitational potential:
    |ф0|=(c^2)/2(√8n')=πGmpl/λ(relic).
    m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H;
    {
    w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H.
    From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. In the case of the Universe, I(G)=MH=c^3/8πG (~ the "dark energy" constant).
    n' =4,28*10^61;
    w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L.
    H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1).
    By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old!
    The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic).
    r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr.
    The phase velocity of the evolution of the Universe: v'=πcr/L=c/2, where c=√2(v): the "second cosmological velocity" in relation to the proto-universe.
    {In general, the masses of galaxies should be estimated as follows: M=(c/G)rv', since the evolution of the system makes an additional contribution to the overall picture, and thereby clarify the problem of "dark matter".}
    Addition
    In an arbitrary non-inertial reference frame, the equation of the total mechanical energy of a particle system is: ∆E=A(internal)+A(external)+A*, where A (internal) is the work of internal dissipative forces, А(external) is the work of external non-conservative forces, А* is the work of inertia forces. In order to preserve the mechanical energy of the system in a non-inertial frame of reference, it is necessary that ∆E =0, however, in an arbitrary non-inertial frame of reference, it is impossible to create a condition for fulfilling this requirement; that is, ∆E does not =0 in any way (by the way, in system C, the condition for fulfilling the laws of conservation of momentum and angular momentum does not depend on whether this system is an inertial or non-inertial frame of reference).

  • @marktunnicliffe2495
    @marktunnicliffe2495 Год назад +1

    Well presented in a clear & easy to understand format. Thanks.

  • @christopherellis2663
    @christopherellis2663 Год назад +1

    2:53 𝕾𝖈𝖍𝖜𝖆𝖗𝖙𝖟𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖎𝖑𝖉 not Schwårtzs child. 😅

  • @shripadwarudkar6487
    @shripadwarudkar6487 2 месяца назад

    Very good. Next time reduce the speed of delivery of narration... could it be made more illustratitive?

  • @enterprisesoftwarearchitect
    @enterprisesoftwarearchitect Год назад

    Boost a spinning, charged electron (Reissner-Nordström metric) and you’ll have a naked singularity with which to probe the less-than-Planck-Length. I don’t know why physicists haven’t thought of this yet.

  • @jsEMCsquared
    @jsEMCsquared Год назад +1

    It's almost Like asking how big is the universe. I tried to explain to someone that we did not exist because of quantum physics or lack of at the plank scale.

  • @humblemusicianandy6385
    @humblemusicianandy6385 10 месяцев назад

    B-A (A)= plank length starts whilst (B) = plank length ends therefore the exact distance between the two (B&A) is the furthest distance in space. Can someone write this out as an equation?

  • @kropotkinsoldbones9149
    @kropotkinsoldbones9149 28 дней назад

    Would love to see a video on the electric universe theory

  • @stevewhitt9109
    @stevewhitt9109 Год назад

    I believe that space is infinitely divisible. We need a new physics based on a deeper unstanding of the ultra-microscopic scale.
    Instead of trying to create a quantum theory of gravity, we need a NEW field theory of everything.

    • @MattHudsonAtx
      @MattHudsonAtx Год назад

      Sounds like you didn't watch the video

  • @JoséFidalgo-r2y
    @JoséFidalgo-r2y Год назад

    Gostei do vídeo. Mas, vejamos o seguinte:
    Ao considerarmos um comprimento limite (seja ele definido da forma que for) estamos a quantizá-lo. Dito isto, deixo uma questão: de quantas cores se pode pintar um pixel? Não há meio pixel para pintar assim como não há meio comprimento de Plank (ou qualquer fração deste) para percorrer.
    I hope this translation conveys the essence of the idea:
    I liked the video. But here's the thing:
    When we consider a limit length (however defined) we are quantizing it. Having said that, I leave you with a question: how many colors can you paint a pixel with? There isn't half a pixel to paint, just as there isn't half a Plank length (or any fraction thereof) to travel.

  • @pgm3
    @pgm3 Год назад

    This is clear and concise. Any successful candidate for a UFT must likely involve a consideration of this realm.

  • @LucasFerreira-gx9yh
    @LucasFerreira-gx9yh Год назад

    "factors of 2pi appear everywhere in quantum mechanics" 2pi also called Tau, the ratio of the circunference to the radius of a circle

  • @alfadog67
    @alfadog67 2 месяца назад

    I like it! I had a little trouble following the cadence of the narrator... maybe you can slow it down a little?

  • @idkwtfiswrong
    @idkwtfiswrong 5 месяцев назад

    For me there's an answer: Milliplank, microplank, nanoplank, picoplank, femtoplank, attoplank, zeptoplank, yoctoplank, rontoplank, quectoplank etc... There is no end in how small quantum realm can be

  • @timelapseofdecay9028
    @timelapseofdecay9028 Год назад +1

    Interesting video. I knew all this from other science channels, but it's interesting nonetheless. May I suggest a new video on how gravity propagates outside of black holes? PBS Space Time touched on that subject, but was not convinced at all by their explanation.

  • @cesarb714
    @cesarb714 Год назад +1

    Nobody will solve gravity until we can define what spacetime is, as in physical characteristics.

  • @James2210
    @James2210 Год назад +1

    Maybe at even lower temperatures the elecromagnetic force splits to the electric and magnetic force.
    One thing I never got about the planck length is that it's the smallest *radius* of a black hole. Does that mean that the smallest black hole is like a 2x2x2 planck length?

  • @jeancorriveau8686
    @jeancorriveau8686 Год назад

    Applying Newton's formula, I calculated that the force of gravity at the Planck units scale is 10^44 N, trillions of times stronger than the nuclear force. But that's assuming the Planck mass. Presumably, this mass is found only in black holes. The Planck length is not an arbitrary value. It is tied to gravitation.

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад

      Indeed, but be careful applying classical or even many quantum formula on the planck scale. As discussed we have no accurate models for how physics works there and so it is not necessarily correct to use such formulae to analyse the strength of gravity or nuclear forces etc.

  • @azjaguardesign
    @azjaguardesign 5 месяцев назад

    RE: “The forces of electricity, magnetism, and the nuclear electromagnetic “weak” force are indeed combinable, but only at extremely high temperatures exceeding 10 to the 15 degrees Kelvin, as far as we can see today.” … “That’s hot!” ~ Paris Hilton 😊 5:07

    • @azjaguardesign
      @azjaguardesign 5 месяцев назад

      So, extrapolate. What is the expected factor of degrees Kelvin within the original (1) Plank-second of the intrusion when simultaneously reaching the diameter of (1) Plank-length, if ALL of the forces were indeed unified at that level? ;where (1) Plank-second equals the amount of time within a vacuum for a photon to traverse the diameter of (1) Plank-length. 😊 6:13

    • @azjaguardesign
      @azjaguardesign 5 месяцев назад

      RE: “We have very little to go on when discerning that which occurred within (1) Plank-time second at a diameter of (1) Plank-time length.” So, you wish to see what unfolded PRIOR to the moment of manifestation when “Let there be light” became real? 😊 6:31

    • @azjaguardesign
      @azjaguardesign 5 месяцев назад

      RE: “Seeing deeper” … To do so you’d have to traverse to the sheet of anti-matter and view from there instead of optically viewing through the interstitial ether betwixt and between our dimension of matter and the corresponding dimension of anti-matter, the “dance” of which animates all vorteci south of their respective black hole surfaces and all vorteci north of their respective “anti-matter” black hole surfaces. 😊 7:49

  • @PhoticSneezeOne
    @PhoticSneezeOne Год назад

    Just in case you´re interested: Schwarzschild is pronounced like the Schwartz from Spaceballs and Shield

  • @ar-visions
    @ar-visions 8 месяцев назад

    I understood this for one planck time, then some neurons changed to lead

  • @LinkenCV
    @LinkenCV Год назад

    Question: Does the Planck length limit the fluctuations of the vacuum in energy levels? Considering the evaporation of black holes by Hawking radiation and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle dE*dt>h/2, could virtual particles with enormous(huuuuge) energy become black holes, evaporate and then recombine in less than dt seconds?

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад

      It is true that this limits the vacuum fluctuations of virtual particles but they cannot create black holes on Planck scales. Black hole formation and evaporation is much more complex

    • @LinkenCV
      @LinkenCV Год назад

      @@OVAstronomy oh yeah, find out. Virtual BH (dRmu*dXmu>=(Lpl)^2
      Nice topic

  • @proximitygaming8253
    @proximitygaming8253 10 месяцев назад

    I'm highly confident that at sufficiently extreme temperatures, the nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force unify, but definitely not gravity. Gravity is imo not a force at all, but simply the curvature of spacetime and can be described/acts like a force.

  • @nikhilbhale79
    @nikhilbhale79 Год назад +2

    Consider a very large water tank. The dimensions are such that if we add 1000ml of water to the tank then the water level rises by 1 Planc length. Now what will happen if we add only 500ml of water. Will the water level rise by 1/2 Planc length?

    • @vitovittucci9801
      @vitovittucci9801 Год назад +1

      But how can you measure 1000 ml, or 500ml, or even 1.0 ml ? You need an instrument with a graduate scale having the maximum sensitivity of 1 Plank length, and that would be also the error. So you never can measure 1Plank lenght or less.

    • @nikhilbhale79
      @nikhilbhale79 Год назад

      @@vitovittucci9801 For this experiment its not required to measure volume to 100th of decimal point. Anything less than 1000ml will work.

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад +2

      The size of a water molecule is much much bigger than a Planck length. So even if we disregard other factors and quantum effects which make getting a totally level water tank to the precision of the Planck length impossible, the water molecules themselves are too big

    • @nikhilbhale79
      @nikhilbhale79 Год назад

      @@OVAstronomy Consider another situation. A ship is floating in water with conditions such that the draft changes by 1 Planc length every time a 1kg mass is added or removed from it. Will the draft change when 0.5kg mass is added or removed?

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад

      @@nikhilbhale79 The ship floating in water is a classical system. It is impossible to have it move by exactly 1 Planck length when a mass is added or removed. This is the type of thing I mentioned at the end regarding thinking classically in a Planck regime - it does not work this way as things are no longer deterministic and have intrinsic uncertainty in the quantum regime, and likely even more strange effects on Planck scales.

  • @laurensiusluis5977
    @laurensiusluis5977 12 дней назад

    I invented ugawumba , 1 ugawumba is equivalent to 0.00001 planck length.

  • @spaceminers
    @spaceminers Год назад

    The fact that the plank length is smaller than any possible wavelength that a particle can create proves that gravity is created by complex wave patterns interference patterns affecting the fabric of space-time making it weaker. This causes the two bodies to be pushed towards each other from the stronger pressures of space-time outside the interference patterns. Quantum particles are not affected as they are too small. Also the more I research gravity and time the more I realize they are exactly the same and we perceive them differently as two separate things.

    • @johnconnor7501
      @johnconnor7501 Год назад

      I’ve seen a bunch of YT videos that explain how gravity is just time dilation and it’s not a force it’s an illusion caused by geodesics.

    • @MattHudsonAtx
      @MattHudsonAtx Год назад

      Do you believe what you type before you type it out, or does it matter to you?

    • @spaceminers
      @spaceminers Год назад

      @@johnconnor7501 it’s definitely not an illusion lol it exists and you are correct it’s not a force it’s a lack of force. Another way to explain gravity is with the Casimir effect more pressure on the outside than there is on the inside causing the two metal plates to fall together a.k.a. gravity!. gravity occurs when there is a difference of pressure kind of like voltage pressure. The greater the mass the more prominent the waves the more disturbance of the force.

    • @spaceminers
      @spaceminers Год назад

      @@MattHudsonAtx I would suggest to hit the physics books brother! I’ve been researching astrophysics for longer than you’ve been alive

  • @Govstuff137
    @Govstuff137 10 месяцев назад

    Good information. Thank you. I will be looking for more. I afraid to ask but I am very interested in the Compression of time. What has been discovered and what happened when time is compressed like a gass . What does the math say should happen? I know it's a lot. But I have to ask. Thank you.

  • @feynthefallen
    @feynthefallen Год назад

    The REAL question needs to be: WHY are we so obsessed with finding out? What, practically speaking, is in it for us?

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад

      That's one of the exciting things - until the research is done, we don't know! We could instantly find an application, or it could never happen - but expanding the wealth of human knowledge is always worth doing

  • @mahoneytechnologies657
    @mahoneytechnologies657 Год назад

    Most Theories are just the Best Current Guess/Estimation at a point in Time, New Thinking and New Information will cause New Theories to be found/Needed!

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад

      Indeed, as is the scientific method. Experiment drives theory.

  • @Samsv1
    @Samsv1 Год назад

    Light is an electron particle. It can be described as a frequency but it's simply interpreted. It starts on a scale of observable, and presumed constant. Here is how you know it's not constant. Beyond red shifted galaxies, you can't see the light because emission has inertia. What you do see is heliosphere around our gravitational region where this relatively still moving dark matter is collected, light can obviously escape our solar system, and our heliosphere is not that of our own origin. Why would it be?

    • @MattHudsonAtx
      @MattHudsonAtx Год назад

      Photon, not electron

    • @Samsv1
      @Samsv1 Год назад

      @@MattHudsonAtx That's the whole point, Einstein didn't have enough chemistry done to respect that light emissions don't just appear out of nowhere. Everything you see is an electron at the escape velocity of the molecular system it comes from.

  • @nicholasmaude6906
    @nicholasmaude6906 Год назад +3

    My understanding of the Planck length is that it's not the smallest possible length but the smallest meaningful length, anything shorter may as well not exist.

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад +7

      And that is because our models cannot explain what happens below those lengths, but what goes on on smaller scales is still important.

    • @tappetmanifolds7024
      @tappetmanifolds7024 Год назад +1

      ​@@OVAstronomy
      The physical model below the Planck length involves 5 / 4 supergravity.
      n = 8.
      A sphere with a radius smaller than the Planck length would collapse into a microscopic black hole.

    • @pyropulseIXXI
      @pyropulseIXXI Год назад

      @@tappetmanifolds7024you have no idea if it’ll collapse into an black hole or not
      The introductory of quantum effects may lead to non-collapse, for whatever reason.
      And you just choosing one model of super gravity to get the conclusion you want
      It is crazy how many times nature defies our models in areas thought well understood, and here you are making definitive claims in an area we don’t understand at all
      We have no idea about quantum gravity

  • @mertonhirsch4734
    @mertonhirsch4734 Год назад

    2pi x planck length is the only photon wavelength who's gravity would give it a swartzchild CIRCUMFERENCE equal to itself (2pi x planck length). This could allow it to be trapped in a resonant orbital around it's own gravitational field. The orbital could fulfill the definition of a black hole because it can be motionless in some reference frame. (It's mass would be the Planck mass).
    When I asked about this on Physics stack exchange they shut it down because it was "pseudoscience". I've been trying to talk about this with physicists for 20 years and no one knows what I'm talking about.

    • @bloodyorphan
      @bloodyorphan Год назад

      Photon diameter is predicted/observed at 12 Planck
      Radio Frequency is a different equation.

    • @mertonhirsch4734
      @mertonhirsch4734 Год назад

      @@bloodyorphan Do you mean photon sphere diameter? Where does 12 come from? At any rate, if you use the Swarzchild radius equation and energy equation for a photon it's circumference would equal its wavelength at the 2pi Planck length.

    • @bloodyorphan
      @bloodyorphan Год назад

      @@mertonhirsch4734 Photons are an aperture from plasma space, that is 12 Planck in diameter, it is considered to be monodimensional (x,z) in the **visible space , Compressed by the G constant for its' polarised height visible on Earth, and residing at a depth of it's temperature in the plasma space.
      When you move the entire Photonic aperture through space it exhibits an on off cycle of it's stationary temperature which we measure in Terahertz, i.e. Radio Frequency, which can red-shift in any expanding space.
      **Electron weight space (+5c) is 1 second equals one second space or "visible"
      Photons are the top of the Stable Standard particle model +1c.

  • @tomgraupner171
    @tomgraupner171 Год назад

    superb ! thank you

  • @InstaKane
    @InstaKane Год назад

    I would like to see actual number values being used to show how these calculations work

    • @OVAstronomy
      @OVAstronomy  Год назад +2

      G = 6.67 x 10^(-11) Nm^(2)kg^(-2). c = 3.00 x 10^(8) m/s. h = 6.63 x 10^(-34) Js. hbar is h/2pi. Feel free to plug these into the Planck length formula yourself to calculate it in metres.

  • @_BLACKSTAR_
    @_BLACKSTAR_ Год назад +1

    The Planck length isnt necessarily the smallest length, merely the smallest length we can observe.

    • @seanmcdonough8815
      @seanmcdonough8815 Год назад

      We are a billion years from observing it. We will never be able observe it directly.
      It's just the limit of we're here and there and now and then become inextricably mixed

    • @_BLACKSTAR_
      @_BLACKSTAR_ Год назад

      @@seanmcdonough8815 I just can't embrace the term "never" in regard to scientific discovery.
      You can't say with certainty that we will never observe it or smaller.
      Only that with current tech/understanding we cannot.

  • @charlesdavis3802
    @charlesdavis3802 9 месяцев назад

    nice exposition