271

Irrational (mander.xyz)

submitted 5 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Ziglin@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

And that they might still move continuously. Which is impossible to prove (see Planck length).

Edit: Corrected my statement based on the reply

[-] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That’s not what Planck length is. It’s the minimum resolvable accuracy not measurement. Meaning we can’t prove something was somewhere specific beyond the Planck length. Not that it’s the building size of the universe.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length#:~:text=It%20is%20about%201.616255,Planck%20length%20per%20Planck%20time.

it is a common misconception that it is the inherent “pixel size” or smallest possible length of the universe.[1] If a length smaller than this is used in any measurement, then it has a chance of being wrong due to quantum uncertainty