The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Times less than Planck Time?  (Read 9308 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11582
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Times less than Planck Time?
« Reply #25 on: 29/04/2012 10:13:26 »
Although I better point out one thing. As I think of relativity, from a point of 'locality', meaning that all reference frames are locally equivalent. Which simply stated please me by making a Planck length 'invariant' in any local measurement (that is, if we could:) no matter where you do it, or your relative speed. If looked at that way one does not have to consider a relative length of something, depending on mass/motion etc. So a Planck length will then be a Plank length. But I agree fully on that there will be something more after that, although I don't expect our current definitions to cope with describing it.

And I can do that by relate a 'arrow' to 'c', as well as define a length to never change for you 'locally'. You may find a twin experiment to be true, But there is no way you will find a 'changed length', as some rulers compared between frames of reference relatively,  to stand the final test of joining 'frames of reference'.

So what is 'real' to me is how you can put it to that test, and from the conclusions you get you will be able to define the 'properties' of whatever concept you're laboring with. Which makes the arrow locally equivalent to 'c', and a 'length' locally invariant.
« Last Edit: 29/04/2012 10:29:46 by yor_on »

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Times less than Planck Time?
« Reply #25 on: 29/04/2012 10:13:26 »


SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums