[Zer0]

@BilboGrabbins

Hi there!
🙋

I have a Query, Especially for You.
Interested?

A_______B

A simple line.
Start point A.
End point B.

I suppose i can keep dividing it into Halves.

But considering Planck's Length, Can i Divide it until Infinity?

If i Know the Line's point of Origin(A) & am Aware of the Line's point of Cessation(B)...Does that sound like Infinity?

Or if i didn't know the Origin, n was clueless bout the End.
Infinity!

Ps - Thanks E_S for the suggestions.
I've Realized my capacity to understand & learn is Not infinite.
Hence i do not bother myself, & also spare Others of goin thru the troubles of explaining me things which i Firmly Believe i shall never understand.
(Reason i Request for short & brief answers, i Hate it when Teachers waste their Precious Time on Futile Things)
: )

[BilboGrabbins]

@BilboGrabbins

Hi there!
🙋

I have a Query, Especially for You.
Interested?

A_______B

A simple line.
Start point A.
End point B.

I suppose i can keep dividing it into Halves.

But considering Planck's Length, Can i Divide it until Infinity?

If i Know the Line's point of Origin(A) & am Aware of the Line's point of Cessation(B)...Does that sound like Infinity?

Or if i didn't know the Origin, n was clueless bout the End.
Infinity!

Ps - Thanks E_S for the suggestions.
I've Realized my capacity to understand & learn is Not infinite.
Hence i do not bother myself, & also spare Others of goin thru the troubles of explaining me things which i Firmly Believe i shall never understand.
(Reason i Request for short & brief answers, i Hate it when Teachers waste their Precious Time on Futile Things)
: )

No, to divide through the Planck length infinitely many times would be equivelent to a singularity. That is itself equivelent to a breakdown in physics.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

I've Realized my capacity to understand & learn is Not infinite.

   Neither is mine.  I was especially "thick" as a child and couldn't read, write or do arithmetic until I was about 10 years old.  Fortunately the UK doesn't hold people back a year when they don't pass exams, so I did get out of primary school.

No, to divide through the Planck length infinitely many times would be equivalent to a singularity. That is itself equivelent to a breakdown in physics.

    This is about the limitations of our ability to probe below the planck length not the actual nature of space.

...The Planck length is expected to be the shortest measurable distance, since any attempt to investigate the possible existence of shorter distances, by performing higher-energy collisions, would inevitably result in black hole production....         [from Wikipedia]
    It doesn't follow that space isn't continuous, just that our current experiments to probe below that length are expected to create a black hole and change the nature of space in the region.

Best Wishes.

[BilboGrabbins]

It's sort of the point here. Physics breaks down below this length.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

...The Planck length is expected to be the shortest measurable distance, since any attempt to investigate the possible existence of shorter distances, by performing higher-energy collisions, would inevitably result in black hole production....         [from Wikipedia]

What prevents us from expanding a 1 meter rod to 1 meter plus half Planck's length, eg. by heating it up?

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

What prevents us from expanding a 1 meter rod to 1 meter plus half Planck's length, eg. by heating it up?

   Are you asking me?  BilboGrabbins was the one proposing that space cannot be divided into units smaller than the Planck length.
   There's nothing I know of that would prevent space from being continuous.  Indeed, the standard formulation of General Relativity requires that space is continuous.
   However, when you come to measure a rod there are practical limits in our ability to measure things that accurately.   It also assumes the rod is some idealised body and not a quantum mechanical system.  Treating the particles that make up the rod as quantum mechanical objects would put a theoretical limit on the ability to localise the ends of the rod. 
    If I recall correctly, it was this sort of limitation on the ability to localise a particle that lead to the first proposals that space (and time) may not be continuous since it almost becomes irrelevant:  You can't localise a particle to one point in space unless it's momentum* → ∞, there is some uncertainty in it's position and therefore there isn't any great difference if you just split space up into discrete intervals rather than assuming it is continuous.  However, I prefer to remain open to both possibilities.  Space might be continuous or it might be discrete.
    From a purely mathematical point of view.  We often take derivatives or integrals with respect to some co-ordinate.  This Calculus does assume the co-ordinate will be a continuous variable.

Best Wishes.

LATE EDITING:   * See comment below by Hamdani Yusuf.  "uncertainty in momentum".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can't localise a particle to one point in space unless it's momentum → ∞

It's not the momentum itself that becomes infinite. It's the uncertainty of momentum.