Plank time is the only time. 1 hour, 1 second, 1 attosecond past the"now" of Plank time duration can have no more existence than their future counter parts.
6.626x10.-34 is the Plank constant= denotes the size of an energy quanta. It actually describes the relation between the energy of a photon and it's wave. .
Just out of morbid curiosity, if the further we look out into space means we are looking further into the past, what then for the deeper we observe inward? Would that mean we are looking a bit into the future? And might this have relevance to the Uncertainty Principle?
@MrCaptainDerp "The further we look out into space means we are looking further into the past".
This has to do with the fact that the light from a star, say, 14 million light years away, took 14 million years to reach us.
Imagine I sent you a letter in the mail today, it got caught up in the system, and took you a month to receive. You wouldn't be "receiving a letter from the past" it just took that long for the information to reach you.
Therefore, you can't really look into the past or future.
@MrCaptainDerp No, you see things as the were in the past at great distances as a result of the distance, so the closer you're looking at something simply means you're looking at it closer to the present. You ALWAYS see things as they were in the past, just to varying degrees in proportion to the distance of the object viewed. And I doubt it, because the uncertainty principle is based off the inability to know any objects velocity AND position (see continuation please)
@MrCaptainDerp Con't. at the same time. However, the degree to which you are uncertain is virtually non-existent for large objects, but is greatly increased when dealing with something the size of an electron. This is because in order to measure and object's velocity necessarily alters its position, and vice versa. Does this make sense?
10 to the minus 99999(repeating). its an incredibly short amount of time, more of them passed by as you were rading this than there are atoms in the known universe
WTF they talking about? The Big Bang was created by Stewies PortaPad when he went back in time and ended outside time and space. Then he had to overload his portapad in order to return to time. He then ran a few tests and found out that the energy signature of the Big Bang matched the Energy signature of his PortaPad. Get your stuff straight you nerds.
@Dreamslayer0987 Going by your answer i can tell you are one of these nerds, talking big so everyone else thinks they are smart when the truth is you are bald fat and alone.with no wife and friends and your only window to the world outside is your computer.
@sixtysymbols Firstly, I've been watching all your videos the past couple of days and I love them, they're fantastic. You're all great!
Secondly, a question: If light travels one Planck length in one Planck time, surely that means anything traveling slower than the speed of light will travel less than a Planck length in one Planck time? If a Planck length is the smallest unit of length then there must be something wrong with this idea of Planck time being the smallest time, right?
hahahah puny humans still havent figured it out, hey frank come watch this is i think theyve almost got it!!! ....* What?! Really?! Hold up and freeze time for a minute im gonna grab a few beers and ill be right over!!
Perhaps nothing; we don't *know* that the Planck length is the shortest possible distance. But consider that we *do* know that energy is quantized -- it comes in tiny bits that cannot be further subdivided. It takes energy to move an object -- but you cannot move an object an infinitesimally small distance, because you must use at least one quantum of energy to move it. Thus, there is a minimum meaningful distance you cannot "take one away from".
@bvssvni I understand the explanation..I'm just conceding to the fact that no matter how unreasonable people of faith seem to be..people that subscribe to the philosophy of science ultimately reach a 'scale' at which point 'we cannot test'..and so it becomes a matter of faith in fellow scholars and, notably, the correlations found between the behavior of things that instruments are capable of measuring and our senses (the basis/proof for the application of math to the real world).
@1DrJuice I know that feeling. What people misunderstand in general is that when you make a complex hypothesis about the world you are likely to be wrong in one or more central issues or a combination of them. If something is complex, one is likely never able to find it out before one finds a simple way to look at it. Mathematics works because it's the simplest language we have to describe the world and it requires it requires a lot of imagination, but not exactly blind faith.
@bvssvni No, not blind faith....we call them Axioms...they are propositions that are intrinsic truths...basically, unprovable except for faith in the belief what is observed is true
@1DrJuice Yes, but there are no intrinsic axioms in physics, they might get debunked in the future or interpreted differently. That's the difference between physics and mathematics, that physics relies on future work to validate the theories, it does not state something is absolutely unprovable since it may be observable after all, which makes it falsifiable (in theory). Anybody are free to choose among any theory that fits with experiments. The rest is discussion.
@bvssvni Physics and math go hand-in-hand. They use the same axioms. For instance, take a simple case: 1+(2+3) = 3+(2+1) = 6 = 2*3. Here one axiom is closure (if i add stuff or multiply stuff then it is to be a unique value, why? because experience tells me); Then associative, commutative, reflexive axioms too. These are intrinsic truths to both physics and math...unprovable other than by stating it's "by definition" or "our senses tell us". Physics is a set of sound expectations/implications.
@1DrJuice Math has several types of definition of logic and algebras and groups and universal algebra to unite them, but the way it unites with physics is the understanding of symmetry, which is quite difficult to make axioms about because in order to know when we have symmetry in nature you need a brain to recognize it, therefore no axioms in the same sense of strict mathematics (which is solving problems through analogies and analogies need axioms to be correctly applied)
@bvssvni I could agree that in order to recognize patterns (not necessarily symmetry) in nature you need a brain and that is what unites math and physics...but in physics every theory is preceded by a set of other theories and definitions, all rooted in axioms (def: proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis)just like math is set of theorems preceded by other theorems and definitions also rooted in axioms
@1DrJuice but returning to my point...i can't judge someone that believes they've received enough validation (through direct experience) to believe that a version of a personal God is real. As long as we agree on the axioms of the physical world...we're good.
@1DrJuice If you play chess, you have rules like in physics, but there is no rule that tells you to win, because "winning" is in your head. Likewise, there is no law in the universe that tells you what's moral and truth, you have to make up your own mind on that issue. The idea of "winning" is so strong that when a person meets something unfamiliar, it's likely they form a hypothesis based on how they want it to be, a bit of chemistry in the brain playing them a trick.
just shut the fawk up. ALL UP! there is no future, there is no past, its non existent , why do i always have to listen to you idiots, im alone on this planet. IT all goes on inside Planck time, a Quantum mechanics space with infinite solutions. All contained in the very same moment and space, SO! that dont leave much room for god to throw hes mechanic solutions, so even writhing here is obsolete, see ya boyz in the after life
@rexmundixed I think you're getting a bit caught up in thinking about the abstract theoretical aspects of physics. Also, remember that these theories you talk about are but one possible explanation for things. There are other theories that don't agree with your views of time.
@rexmundixed ive been saying this for a while now, when you think about the past its just a shadow in your mind that your thinking about now, theres is always just now. and of course the future is just imagination also thought about in the now. It blows my mind but i know thats how it is. time is illusion, or maybe now is an illusion
Some time ago I thought about time being our 3 dimensions (space) travelling through a 4 dimensional "timeline" and I thought that our 3 dimensions had no "thickness" in the 4th "direction". And as we all know 0+0+0+0+...=0 so that would mean that our space had to be taking small steps in time like this 0+0.01+0+0.01+0+0.01+...
I also thought that light had to be taking small steps in space for the same reason and that light had to be travelling at 1 "step in space" per 1 "step in time".
Isn't time just how we experience how particles get more disorderly, called entropy? Which imply that time doesn't exists? If I am correct, and understood it right, why are you talking about time units? Please correct if I am horribly wrong =)
@topas12345 I'm probably going to sound like a relative idiot with a lay understanding, but anyway. In this context time is a measurement like length. Going according to your definition of time as a measure involved in entropy, then the shortest possible time would be the time it takes for anything and everything in the universe to move one planck. The equation they use to calculate it in this video is: T = D/S where T = time, D = distance and S = speed.
@topas12345 Time actually does exist. If it really was just a human concept invented to make things easier, the laws of general relativity would not exist.
I remember reading in a science magazine that the shortest measured length of time was 100 attoseconds (measured with pulses of uv lasers, IIRC) and, to put that into perspective, 100 attoseconds is to 1 second what 1 second is to 300 million years.
@PacRimJim If it has real explanatory power and makes everything to work without braking something else, then it's a hypothesis worth to chase for until something better is found.
I've always found science an extremely interesting subject and can understand it with relative ease compared to the average person, these comments make me laugh, like how stupid do you have to be to not understand these videos when they're telling you what they're talking about.
Just did some quick research; apparently comparing one attosecond to one second is like comparing one second to twice the age of the universe (31.7 billion years).... :O
@asaw1994 -- Ah, that's where quantum reality becomes unknowable, it defies logical deduction or analysis. Beyond Planck length or time, the structure of spacetime itself becomes non-linear, indeterminate and only statistically-accessable (in the abstract). It's a little like successively halving the distance the hare travels in each time interval in Aristotle's Hare & Turtle 'race' ostensibly 'proving' the Hare can never catch the Turtle. At Planck scales, 'reality' gets fuzzy & out of focus.
In the string theory if you keep cutting up an atom, don't you eventually end up with a "string", the smallest particle? (correct me if i'm wrong.) So couldn't you keep cutting time until you can virtually be no smaller.
Am I right in thinking there is an no shortest time?
For example, you may think 0.0000000000000000001 is the shorts possible time, but I can just take a fraction away, and mine would be the shortest 0.00000000000000000009.
@SuperCorey95 that holds up under some systems of math, but that doesn't mean it has to carry over into out world. We can define all sorts of weird number systems that have no analogues in the real world easily.
In reality, the universe could be a lot more like a TV image; it looks continuous, but is actually composed of discrete images, with no other images between them.
I'm a programmer, used to thinking in terms of making efficient use of non-infinite resources. I'll say right up front that this is not a "What if we're just elements of a computer simulation?" post. But the quantized-everything nature of QM, and the compression of the holographic principle, all look so very familiar to me from a bird's eye view. If I had to bet, I'd be inclined to bet against infinities of time and space in our U, and to place bets in favor of quantized time and space, as well.
@sbergman27 I think i would have to agree with you there. Im leaning toward the quantized (digital or granular) form too. I cant imagine something to be continuous (analogue)
@YourBrainOnReligion It means 10 with an exponent of negative 18, written 10^-18. It's a shorthand notation for the number 0.000000000000000001, which is a 1 with 17 zeros between it and the decimal point. This shorthand is called scientific notation
If there is no shortest possible time length, then that means there is no limit to how "young" something can be. So, at any given thing's initial point of existence, how old was it? Again, since it could always be younger, how did it at one point no exist? That means that there is no 0 point of existence, for there is no LOWEST time frame of existence (no first point from 0). So, anything and everything has always existed. There is absolutely no "new" thing.
@iAMxWiL There's a difference between numbers, and the usefulness for a number to exist in nature. You usually don't see many numbers smaller than 10 to the -50th or larger than 10 to the 50th that have anything to do with reality. Other than maybe how many plank lengths is the known universe (impossibly small to impossibly large then you get 10 to the 100th type stuff. Even then, its impossible to actually quantify that kind of measurement.
@melis256 HAHA, well said. Those are some huge ass numbers though. what would that be like 10 to the 50th frames per second...thats....impossible smooth frame rate. :P
Why is is suggested that to divide planck distance by the speed of light gives the shortest time, planck time? This isn't explained. I understand that this gives the time taken for light to travel the planck distance, but so what? Isn't time a continuum? (I guess not, but I'd like to know more)
I have a theory, jff. I say time exist due to irreversibility of interactions, so whatever interactions took place there would be time. But also we need a future, so there should be a certainty that there would be interactions in that's to be experienced. Interactions is the exercising of laws, so to measure the shortest time possible you would look for what law / which law that is the quickest to be exercised in the universe.
My clock is accurate to planck time - it has 43 hands on it, each one revolves ten times faster than the hand below. It still doesn't help me get to work on time :-S
Wouldn't it mean that if the plank time was the smallest unit of time, that time would not be continuous? And these plank chunks of time make up our existence, but there could be possibly something else in between the chunks... something that could affect our existence but not be a part of it, like forces or dark matter?
@joshuasmithd21 Time is continuous, but we break it down into segments to help us measure things. The Plank Time is the smallest unit we have thought of so far.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
They may be knowledgable, but that doesn't mean they're moral. To me this is just another load of misleading twaddle, which makes the common, less educated people feel inferior to their supposed superior understanding of the unknowable.
For example, if the question was 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' they would be discussing the current price of eggs in China.
They're just confusing the issue. Time never began. Space is infinite.
@BobStinkfulla: ...get rational. Usually people call others idiots because they cannot cope with what they say. As soon as these idiots get institutionalized such people change their statement "I don't understand it but it must be very intelligent what he or she said".
I work in a labratory that does high intensity ultrashort laser pulses. Our pulses are in the femto-second range. Other labs have gotten pulses into the atto-second range, but it is hard to get much power in them.
@Nanoq11 you should check out my other channel called BackstageScience - I think you'll like some of the videos on that one, including the Vulcan laser ones!!!
There is a limit to how cold a given area of matter can get, but is there a limit to how hot it can get? (This is for the professors at Nottingham, not the amateur youtube professors haha)
@ryanredbaron "but is there a limit to how hot it can get?" I not any sort of professor but going to answer. :)
Upper limit for how hot some area could get is when all ions in area would be moving at 99.999999999999999999999999999999...% of speed of light. :) Basic hIgh school equivailent study place physics.
@GeneralCalculus I know the answer, like I said... THIS IS FOR THE PROFESSORS TO EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE. I hear this question everywhere and I would be interested in the professors explaining so. I'm glad you can apply high school physics, but lack elementary reading skills.
May I say, that it is brilliant and beautiful to hear scientists say "I don't know" -- not because it's rare, but because it *isn't* rare! Any fool creationist or anti-science activist who comes across this video will be forced to confront clearly knowledgeable men who have no reservations about emphasizing the contours and limits of their and our knowledge. Science rules, the scientists on sixtysymbols rule, and Brady rules. SCIENCE!!
@johnclavis I don't get involved in religious arguments... much. But your evaluation is one reason why i love science, apart from it being so awesome. Also, if something is proved wrong in science, it isn't shoved in a black box and forgotten about because 'science can't be wrong,' it is instead publicised. All because scientists care more about a valid collection of knowledge then pride.
@TheValvesoftware If you believe, despite all evidence to the contrary from all areas of science, that the entire universe is only 6000 years old: You. Are. A. Fool.
@TheValvesoftware Maybe reliogion has helped you in your life but that in no way makes your beliefs true. I contend that if you're doing good things now then you are a good person and would continue to do good whether you believed in a god or not.
Religion teaches people many life lessons that science does not. we can always learn the speed of light, or how to create nuclear weapons. however, GOD has taught me to turn the other cheek, forgive my enemies and to start a charity helping many. if i became a scientist, how many people would and will be in a mmuch worse position then they r now
@TheValvesoftware 1st, let me say, wonderful arrogance on your behalf there. "if i became a scientist, how many people would and will be in a mmuch worse position then they r now". Really? C'mon man, it's great that you run a charity. But don't use it to try and make yourself morally superior.
2nd "turn the other cheek, forgive my enemies" I do these things, and I didn't need God to teach them to me.
@TheValvesoftware Ive learned those exact same things and I didnt learn them from any god. Dont sell yourself short, you're a good person with good morals and it had nothing to do with any gods. If anthing throughout history its been secular morals that have got us to where we are today. Religion has done nothing but hold back progress. I believe religion has done some good things over the years but the amount of pain and suffering it has inflicted has far outweighed the good.
Listen i hate aurguing, but as if u cant say first of all that science hasnt done bad things two. I will give you one example, hiroshima. but religion is not at fault for the bad it has done for things like the crusades or terrorism. Muslims and Christians believein loving everyone, even your enemies. terrorists or the kkk are all faulty belivers. it is not religion it is the people who make it look bad.
@TheValvesoftware You're just being dishonest now. es science is responible for creating the bomb but it was the believers who used it. As far as these religions being peaceful, I dont know how you can say that. The bible and the quran are full of rape, murder, incest, genoside, slavery and the list goes on and on. The god of the bible likess the smell of blood and tells you how to beat your slave and told his followers to take the young virgin women for yourself after you slaughter the others
@JamesIsKing30 You have never read the Bible. All of those are taken out of context to make it seem to support those. The Bible despises all of those terrible things. READ THE BIBLE. then state an argument
42... I had to.
ASquared007 11 hours ago
"Plank time" The length of time it takes before your muscles give out or you fall over. If less than 1 second then try Owling!
FondlesInTheDark 12 hours ago
Is this related to 'Planking'? =P
Tridecalogism 1 day ago
Everytime one of those guys talked it was like hearing english with a mysterious and complex dialect... Wow :D
LegendarySayayin 3 days ago
There is no Planck Time, because there is no maximum speed limit.
SuperMagnetizer 5 days ago
@SuperMagnetizer Yes there is, the speed of light is sort of a cosmic speed limit.
Hinduspy 1 day ago
The time between when my snooze alarm goes off and then goes off AGAIN is the shortest possible time.
frazzzer8888 5 days ago 3
What about the time it takes a faster-than-light neutrino to travel a planck length?
Alphxomega 1 week ago
@Alphxomega
There's no such things as a faster-than-light neutrino. CERN came out with a report that says one of their computer to GPS systems was faulty.
TheScarletSonata 4 days ago
@TheScarletSonata Yes, yesterday. I posted 6 days ago.
Alphxomega 3 days ago
Plank time is the only time. 1 hour, 1 second, 1 attosecond past the"now" of Plank time duration can have no more existence than their future counter parts.
Aluminata 1 week ago
And all this confusion started Planking
15butcherj 1 week ago 3
@15butcherj It's plancking time.
BrokenHorn90 1 week ago
@BrokenHorn90 I was joking :)
15butcherj 1 week ago
@15butcherj So was I xD Not a very good joke, I suppose. I meant for us all to go out and start planking.
BrokenHorn90 1 week ago
@BrokenHorn90 Precisely
15butcherj 1 week ago
i don't believe in the plank length or time.
resonantdave 2 weeks ago
6.626x10.-34 is the Plank constant= denotes the size of an energy quanta. It actually describes the relation between the energy of a photon and it's wave. .
CHuygens 2 weeks ago
@zythepsarian actually both numbers are infinite so that is not true.
JACKG42095 2 weeks ago
Just out of morbid curiosity, if the further we look out into space means we are looking further into the past, what then for the deeper we observe inward? Would that mean we are looking a bit into the future? And might this have relevance to the Uncertainty Principle?
MrCaptainDerp 2 weeks ago
@MrCaptainDerp no.
zcmini000 2 weeks ago
@zcmini000 I appreciate the response but a little depth would be nice.
MrCaptainDerp 2 weeks ago
@MrCaptainDerp "The further we look out into space means we are looking further into the past".
This has to do with the fact that the light from a star, say, 14 million light years away, took 14 million years to reach us.
Imagine I sent you a letter in the mail today, it got caught up in the system, and took you a month to receive. You wouldn't be "receiving a letter from the past" it just took that long for the information to reach you.
Therefore, you can't really look into the past or future.
zcmini000 2 weeks ago
@MrCaptainDerp No, you see things as the were in the past at great distances as a result of the distance, so the closer you're looking at something simply means you're looking at it closer to the present. You ALWAYS see things as they were in the past, just to varying degrees in proportion to the distance of the object viewed. And I doubt it, because the uncertainty principle is based off the inability to know any objects velocity AND position (see continuation please)
DiomedesStrosMkai 1 week ago
@MrCaptainDerp Con't. at the same time. However, the degree to which you are uncertain is virtually non-existent for large objects, but is greatly increased when dealing with something the size of an electron. This is because in order to measure and object's velocity necessarily alters its position, and vice versa. Does this make sense?
DiomedesStrosMkai 1 week ago
10 to the minus 99999(repeating). its an incredibly short amount of time, more of them passed by as you were rading this than there are atoms in the known universe
zythepsarian 2 weeks ago
WTF they talking about? The Big Bang was created by Stewies PortaPad when he went back in time and ended outside time and space. Then he had to overload his portapad in order to return to time. He then ran a few tests and found out that the energy signature of the Big Bang matched the Energy signature of his PortaPad. Get your stuff straight you nerds.
nimbus1983 2 weeks ago
@nimbus1983 haha... ur not funny seriously one of the stupidest comments ive seen on youtube
Dreamslayer0987 2 weeks ago
@Dreamslayer0987 Going by your answer i can tell you are one of these nerds, talking big so everyone else thinks they are smart when the truth is you are bald fat and alone.with no wife and friends and your only window to the world outside is your computer.
nimbus1983 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sixtysymbols Firstly, I've been watching all your videos the past couple of days and I love them, they're fantastic. You're all great!
Secondly, a question: If light travels one Planck length in one Planck time, surely that means anything traveling slower than the speed of light will travel less than a Planck length in one Planck time? If a Planck length is the smallest unit of length then there must be something wrong with this idea of Planck time being the smallest time, right?
MrJepcats 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
MrJepcats 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
this video was well edited, showing all their perspectives and explanations
crazystrongtower 3 weeks ago
Th LHC, Large Hadron Collider may find out
Films4You 3 weeks ago
hahahah puny humans still havent figured it out, hey frank come watch this is i think theyve almost got it!!! ....* What?! Really?! Hold up and freeze time for a minute im gonna grab a few beers and ill be right over!!
justkilledit21 3 weeks ago
@AllNamesWereOccupied it was a joke.1
jbsucksballs1000 3 weeks ago
I just wasted trillions of trillions of trillions of Planck times of my life.
grande1899 3 weeks ago 60
@grande1899
Probably googleplexes of Planck times.
scottycatman 3 weeks ago
@grande1899
Probably googleplexes of Planck times.
scottycatman 3 weeks ago
@scottycatman *googolplex
mangoismycat 3 weeks ago
@mangoismycat
Durp... once you corrected me, I knew how I spelled it even before looking at it.
scottycatman 3 weeks ago
@scottycatman - Ahahaha! They ARE taking over everything!
chibiariel 2 weeks ago
Wow. 1 attosecond = amount of time required to travel the length of three Hydrogen atoms. Context make head ouch.
Foxclass 1 month ago
What's stopping be taking Planck's length and taking away one from it to make it smaller?
mattyalanjones427 1 month ago
@mattyalanjones427 Aliens.
Pigville2 1 month ago
@mattyalanjones427
Perhaps nothing; we don't *know* that the Planck length is the shortest possible distance. But consider that we *do* know that energy is quantized -- it comes in tiny bits that cannot be further subdivided. It takes energy to move an object -- but you cannot move an object an infinitesimally small distance, because you must use at least one quantum of energy to move it. Thus, there is a minimum meaningful distance you cannot "take one away from".
pseudorandomly 4 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427 Anything shorter would make no sense and have no physical meaning.
AllNamesWereOccupied 3 weeks ago
Planck time is the amount of time it takes light to travel a Planck length.
InvertedColorz 1 month ago 49
@InvertedColorz at the speed of light if i understood that correctly (?)
ragiohead 1 month ago
The smallest length of time is Presence
Ashtree81 1 month ago
Comment removed
Ashtree81 1 month ago
"can't measure it.........physics we don't understand"......At that scale, I guess I couldn't make fun of you for saying "God did it"?
1DrJuice 1 month ago
@1DrJuice Nope, not falsifiable hypothesis = just weird explanations
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni I understand the explanation..I'm just conceding to the fact that no matter how unreasonable people of faith seem to be..people that subscribe to the philosophy of science ultimately reach a 'scale' at which point 'we cannot test'..and so it becomes a matter of faith in fellow scholars and, notably, the correlations found between the behavior of things that instruments are capable of measuring and our senses (the basis/proof for the application of math to the real world).
1DrJuice 1 month ago
@1DrJuice ..and things in science are falsifiable, hence our peer-reviewed work in attempt to control the mismanagement of statistical data
1DrJuice 1 month ago
@1DrJuice I know that feeling. What people misunderstand in general is that when you make a complex hypothesis about the world you are likely to be wrong in one or more central issues or a combination of them. If something is complex, one is likely never able to find it out before one finds a simple way to look at it. Mathematics works because it's the simplest language we have to describe the world and it requires it requires a lot of imagination, but not exactly blind faith.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni No, not blind faith....we call them Axioms...they are propositions that are intrinsic truths...basically, unprovable except for faith in the belief what is observed is true
1DrJuice 1 month ago
@1DrJuice Yes, but there are no intrinsic axioms in physics, they might get debunked in the future or interpreted differently. That's the difference between physics and mathematics, that physics relies on future work to validate the theories, it does not state something is absolutely unprovable since it may be observable after all, which makes it falsifiable (in theory). Anybody are free to choose among any theory that fits with experiments. The rest is discussion.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni Physics and math go hand-in-hand. They use the same axioms. For instance, take a simple case: 1+(2+3) = 3+(2+1) = 6 = 2*3. Here one axiom is closure (if i add stuff or multiply stuff then it is to be a unique value, why? because experience tells me); Then associative, commutative, reflexive axioms too. These are intrinsic truths to both physics and math...unprovable other than by stating it's "by definition" or "our senses tell us". Physics is a set of sound expectations/implications.
1DrJuice 1 month ago
@1DrJuice After an Axiom, EVERYTHING is a statistically (/experimentally) validated philosophy...in that, I agree with you.
1DrJuice 1 month ago
@1DrJuice Math has several types of definition of logic and algebras and groups and universal algebra to unite them, but the way it unites with physics is the understanding of symmetry, which is quite difficult to make axioms about because in order to know when we have symmetry in nature you need a brain to recognize it, therefore no axioms in the same sense of strict mathematics (which is solving problems through analogies and analogies need axioms to be correctly applied)
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni I could agree that in order to recognize patterns (not necessarily symmetry) in nature you need a brain and that is what unites math and physics...but in physics every theory is preceded by a set of other theories and definitions, all rooted in axioms (def: proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis)just like math is set of theorems preceded by other theorems and definitions also rooted in axioms
1DrJuice 1 month ago
@1DrJuice but returning to my point...i can't judge someone that believes they've received enough validation (through direct experience) to believe that a version of a personal God is real. As long as we agree on the axioms of the physical world...we're good.
1DrJuice 1 month ago
@1DrJuice If you play chess, you have rules like in physics, but there is no rule that tells you to win, because "winning" is in your head. Likewise, there is no law in the universe that tells you what's moral and truth, you have to make up your own mind on that issue. The idea of "winning" is so strong that when a person meets something unfamiliar, it's likely they form a hypothesis based on how they want it to be, a bit of chemistry in the brain playing them a trick.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni Agreed
1DrJuice 1 month ago
Did anyone else see the Miles Davis picture?
WaitingForTheNeonSky 1 month ago
just shut the fawk up. ALL UP! there is no future, there is no past, its non existent , why do i always have to listen to you idiots, im alone on this planet. IT all goes on inside Planck time, a Quantum mechanics space with infinite solutions. All contained in the very same moment and space, SO! that dont leave much room for god to throw hes mechanic solutions, so even writhing here is obsolete, see ya boyz in the after life
rexmundixed 1 month ago
@rexmundixed I think you're getting a bit caught up in thinking about the abstract theoretical aspects of physics. Also, remember that these theories you talk about are but one possible explanation for things. There are other theories that don't agree with your views of time.
nessdude14 1 month ago
@rexmundixed ive been saying this for a while now, when you think about the past its just a shadow in your mind that your thinking about now, theres is always just now. and of course the future is just imagination also thought about in the now. It blows my mind but i know thats how it is. time is illusion, or maybe now is an illusion
ricktbdgc 1 month ago
@rexmundixed
yea,
I have a piece of rope here if you want to free yourself of the world :)
xTheGerbilx 1 month ago
Divide planck length by lightspeed sounds logical. Very well explained.
DeathG4n 1 month ago
time doesn't exist
4444mrryan 1 month ago
@4444mrryan Actually yes it does.
anticorncob6 1 month ago
You should ask them about the Plank Energy...
opl500 1 month ago
0:53 does anyone else love the way he talks?
AraoftheFunk 1 month ago
Making it possible for light to be seen from every point in space.
SemperVinco 1 month ago
Some time ago I thought about time being our 3 dimensions (space) travelling through a 4 dimensional "timeline" and I thought that our 3 dimensions had no "thickness" in the 4th "direction". And as we all know 0+0+0+0+...=0 so that would mean that our space had to be taking small steps in time like this 0+0.01+0+0.01+0+0.01+...
I also thought that light had to be taking small steps in space for the same reason and that light had to be travelling at 1 "step in space" per 1 "step in time".
SemperVinco 1 month ago
@SemperVinco You must be a fan of stop motion videos
1DrJuice 1 month ago
Isn't time just how we experience how particles get more disorderly, called entropy? Which imply that time doesn't exists? If I am correct, and understood it right, why are you talking about time units? Please correct if I am horribly wrong =)
topas12345 2 months ago
@topas12345 I'm probably going to sound like a relative idiot with a lay understanding, but anyway. In this context time is a measurement like length. Going according to your definition of time as a measure involved in entropy, then the shortest possible time would be the time it takes for anything and everything in the universe to move one planck. The equation they use to calculate it in this video is: T = D/S where T = time, D = distance and S = speed.
18booma 2 months ago
@18booma Oh, okay :P So they meant like Big Bang and one planck time AFTER the big bang?
topas12345 2 months ago
@topas12345 Time actually does exist. If it really was just a human concept invented to make things easier, the laws of general relativity would not exist.
anticorncob6 1 month ago
I remember reading in a science magazine that the shortest measured length of time was 100 attoseconds (measured with pulses of uv lasers, IIRC) and, to put that into perspective, 100 attoseconds is to 1 second what 1 second is to 300 million years.
ProgHead777 2 months ago
Planck length and time are hypothetical constructs. They are untestable, hence unscientific.
PacRimJim 2 months ago
@PacRimJim like every mesure units, these are concepts... What's your point ?
Acrimonator 2 months ago
@PacRimJim If it has real explanatory power and makes everything to work without braking something else, then it's a hypothesis worth to chase for until something better is found.
Mtaalas 1 month ago
I've always found science an extremely interesting subject and can understand it with relative ease compared to the average person, these comments make me laugh, like how stupid do you have to be to not understand these videos when they're telling you what they're talking about.
Jijheoo 2 months ago
The significance of the planck time is that it is the length of time that most science nerds have had sex with another person.
(rimshot)
mphello 3 months ago
Just did some quick research; apparently comparing one attosecond to one second is like comparing one second to twice the age of the universe (31.7 billion years).... :O
ColdSteelandBlood 3 months ago
I Like planking too, on trains, buses, courtyards, even on walls :)
OhhSoulz 3 months ago
aaaandddd... i have no idea what they're talking about
Th0usandMaster 3 months ago
i would watch this show on tv
archaedemos 3 months ago
this is the first time I've heard of this "Planck length" but if it's "the smallest length" what happens if you halve it? :S
asaw1994 3 months ago
@asaw1994 that's like trying to place a pixel between two adjacent pixels on a computer screen. you just can't.
thedeathskittle 3 months ago
@thedeathskittle doesn't really explain why not though :\
asaw1994 3 months ago
@asaw1994 -- Ah, that's where quantum reality becomes unknowable, it defies logical deduction or analysis. Beyond Planck length or time, the structure of spacetime itself becomes non-linear, indeterminate and only statistically-accessable (in the abstract). It's a little like successively halving the distance the hare travels in each time interval in Aristotle's Hare & Turtle 'race' ostensibly 'proving' the Hare can never catch the Turtle. At Planck scales, 'reality' gets fuzzy & out of focus.
starmanskye 3 months ago
@starmanskye Hello.
The so-called `Planck time` is borne out of mathematical physics NOT `reality`.
LeconsdAnalyse 3 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Mathematics is reality, its all around you. In fact you are Mathematics. Mathematics is the language of everything.
PeculiarTactics 2 months ago
@starmanskye now THAT is an explanation! thanks man
asaw1994 3 months ago
In the string theory if you keep cutting up an atom, don't you eventually end up with a "string", the smallest particle? (correct me if i'm wrong.) So couldn't you keep cutting time until you can virtually be no smaller.
hahasomeoneisfunny 4 months ago
Am I right in thinking there is an no shortest time?
For example, you may think 0.0000000000000000001 is the shorts possible time, but I can just take a fraction away, and mine would be the shortest 0.00000000000000000009.
Just like the arrow paradox
SuperCorey95 4 months ago
@SuperCorey95 that holds up under some systems of math, but that doesn't mean it has to carry over into out world. We can define all sorts of weird number systems that have no analogues in the real world easily.
In reality, the universe could be a lot more like a TV image; it looks continuous, but is actually composed of discrete images, with no other images between them.
rgrannell1 4 months ago
So is our universe value- and time-discrete and we live in a digital universe?
Ichar0nI 4 months ago
I'm a programmer, used to thinking in terms of making efficient use of non-infinite resources. I'll say right up front that this is not a "What if we're just elements of a computer simulation?" post. But the quantized-everything nature of QM, and the compression of the holographic principle, all look so very familiar to me from a bird's eye view. If I had to bet, I'd be inclined to bet against infinities of time and space in our U, and to place bets in favor of quantized time and space, as well.
sbergman27 4 months ago
@sbergman27 I think i would have to agree with you there. Im leaning toward the quantized (digital or granular) form too. I cant imagine something to be continuous (analogue)
Noblyuntruthful 3 months ago
Subbed.
beansterman1998 5 months ago
@TheEsseboy u kno wat i mean
jbsucksballs1000 5 months ago
The shortest time is infinity to the power of minus infinity! ;3
Jamster9000 5 months ago
I just wasted trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of nanosecond of my life. Jk ;D
jbsucksballs1000 6 months ago 5
@jbsucksballs1000 Did you watch this clip in a loop in 16min times 3?! 1trillion nano Seconds is 16.6min xD
TheEsseboy 5 months ago
@jbsucksballs1000 That would be trillions of hours, so no, you did not.
AllNamesWereOccupied 3 weeks ago
yoctosecond?
harrygamer 6 months ago
@harrygamer it is (32 quadrillion years)!
EducationLover 6 months ago
!!this vid makes me fell like a retard!!
7380dan420 7 months ago 41
@7380dan420 Your grammar and spelling makes you look like one, maybe you are.
UprootedEagle 2 months ago
@7380dan420 for good reason
LaBderErste 2 months ago
Comment removed
jimmyphonghater 1 month ago
"The planck length is unimaginably small" but Mrs. Planck didn't mind. :)
DynamicUnreality 7 months ago 131
Its posted on 1st april, so this is a joke!
Callemainn 7 months ago
When they say, like "Ten to the minus 18", does that mean 10 minus 18 zeros? If not, what does that mean?
YourBrainOnReligion 9 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion It means 10 with an exponent of negative 18, written 10^-18. It's a shorthand notation for the number 0.000000000000000001, which is a 1 with 17 zeros between it and the decimal point. This shorthand is called scientific notation
xNYBBx 8 months ago
@xNYBBx ooooh!! okay... thank you!
YourBrainOnReligion 8 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion
Your welcome! :D
Great to help any other questions?
TheGunshipAC130 5 months ago
Planck time is an impenetrable wall for Scientists.
Since all the laws of Physics break down, there is no way to make order of the disorder that was then.
It's the end of the line and the end of Knowledge.
This video being short is evidence of that feat.
To be blunt, Planck time is where Science fails and where Philosophy must take it's place.
The human mind is the only thing that DARES to postulate anywhere near that time scale. Math and science utterly die in it's wake.
ViraIVideos 9 months ago
If there is no shortest possible time length, then that means there is no limit to how "young" something can be. So, at any given thing's initial point of existence, how old was it? Again, since it could always be younger, how did it at one point no exist? That means that there is no 0 point of existence, for there is no LOWEST time frame of existence (no first point from 0). So, anything and everything has always existed. There is absolutely no "new" thing.
itsMinuteMaid 10 months ago
@itsMinuteMaid It's obvious you haven't studied calculus. Google limits.
zachsilvey 9 months ago
I don't see why the smallest of time or measurement isn't infinitely small, as an infinite number of zeros can be put before a number...
Unless we are talking about the smallest MEASURABLE time/length humanly possible?
iAMxWiL 10 months ago
@iAMxWiL There's a difference between numbers, and the usefulness for a number to exist in nature. You usually don't see many numbers smaller than 10 to the -50th or larger than 10 to the 50th that have anything to do with reality. Other than maybe how many plank lengths is the known universe (impossibly small to impossibly large then you get 10 to the 100th type stuff. Even then, its impossible to actually quantify that kind of measurement.
Horathgar42 9 months ago
12 attoseconds – record for shortest time interval measured as of May 12, 2010.
krypekeeper 10 months ago
Turn it around and say [c/ planck length] and you get our universe in frames per second :D
No wonder it doesn't lag.
melis256 10 months ago
@melis256 HAHA, well said. Those are some huge ass numbers though. what would that be like 10 to the 50th frames per second...thats....impossible smooth frame rate. :P
Horathgar42 9 months ago
@Horathgar42
Like before, I punched "c/ planck length" (without quotes) into Wolfram|Alpha and it'll give the answer:
1.855×10^43 per second or Hertz [Hz] to be precise ;)
-
You should do the same, there are more answers you might want to look at, if you are interested.
melis256 9 months ago
so the present is gone before you say it..
asseeninYOURDREAMS 10 months ago
Why is is suggested that to divide planck distance by the speed of light gives the shortest time, planck time? This isn't explained. I understand that this gives the time taken for light to travel the planck distance, but so what? Isn't time a continuum? (I guess not, but I'd like to know more)
LsBaba 10 months ago
I have a theory, jff. I say time exist due to irreversibility of interactions, so whatever interactions took place there would be time. But also we need a future, so there should be a certainty that there would be interactions in that's to be experienced. Interactions is the exercising of laws, so to measure the shortest time possible you would look for what law / which law that is the quickest to be exercised in the universe.
Melki 10 months ago
The guy at 0:22 should record an audio book or become a voice-over artist (not necessarily regarding physics) he has a comfortable calm voice.
Moratorium 10 months ago
My clock is accurate to planck time - it has 43 hands on it, each one revolves ten times faster than the hand below. It still doesn't help me get to work on time :-S
Hewpie 10 months ago
Wouldn't it mean that if the plank time was the smallest unit of time, that time would not be continuous? And these plank chunks of time make up our existence, but there could be possibly something else in between the chunks... something that could affect our existence but not be a part of it, like forces or dark matter?
joshuasmithd21 10 months ago
@joshuasmithd21 Time is continuous, but we break it down into segments to help us measure things. The Plank Time is the smallest unit we have thought of so far.
tsimon1234 10 months ago
Video about vacuum energy or the Casimir effect one day soon please? ^^
MarkArandjus 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They may be knowledgable, but that doesn't mean they're moral. To me this is just another load of misleading twaddle, which makes the common, less educated people feel inferior to their supposed superior understanding of the unknowable.
For example, if the question was 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' they would be discussing the current price of eggs in China.
They're just confusing the issue. Time never began. Space is infinite.
johntob123 11 months ago
@johntob123 You're an idiot.
BobStinkfulla 11 months ago 22
@BobStinkfulla: ...get rational. Usually people call others idiots because they cannot cope with what they say. As soon as these idiots get institutionalized such people change their statement "I don't understand it but it must be very intelligent what he or she said".
screezwiitz 10 months ago
@johntob123 you should read the bible. Morality everywhere.
jk, google "immorality in the bible"
FrontlinerCdV 11 months ago
@johntob123 Source please.
GeneralCalculus 11 months ago 3
@johntob123 LOL
LamaPaj 6 months ago
lol... still going with the big bang theory I see.
BigNadz23 11 months ago
mind boggling
ipodvidoe 11 months ago
I work in a labratory that does high intensity ultrashort laser pulses. Our pulses are in the femto-second range. Other labs have gotten pulses into the atto-second range, but it is hard to get much power in them.
Nanoq11 11 months ago 14
@Nanoq11 you should check out my other channel called BackstageScience - I think you'll like some of the videos on that one, including the Vulcan laser ones!!!
sixtysymbols 11 months ago 10
@Nanoq11 What is the avail of such pulses?
Moratorium 10 months ago
lol april fool
JanBirsa 11 months ago
"You are now subscribing to SixtySymbols..." weee!
m00niee 11 months ago
There is a limit to how cold a given area of matter can get, but is there a limit to how hot it can get? (This is for the professors at Nottingham, not the amateur youtube professors haha)
ryanredbaron 11 months ago
@ryanredbaron "but is there a limit to how hot it can get?" I not any sort of professor but going to answer. :)
Upper limit for how hot some area could get is when all ions in area would be moving at 99.999999999999999999999999999999...% of speed of light. :) Basic hIgh school equivailent study place physics.
GeneralCalculus 11 months ago
@GeneralCalculus I know the answer, like I said... THIS IS FOR THE PROFESSORS TO EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE. I hear this question everywhere and I would be interested in the professors explaining so. I'm glad you can apply high school physics, but lack elementary reading skills.
ryanredbaron 10 months ago
May I say, that it is brilliant and beautiful to hear scientists say "I don't know" -- not because it's rare, but because it *isn't* rare! Any fool creationist or anti-science activist who comes across this video will be forced to confront clearly knowledgeable men who have no reservations about emphasizing the contours and limits of their and our knowledge. Science rules, the scientists on sixtysymbols rule, and Brady rules. SCIENCE!!
johnclavis 11 months ago 104
@johnclavis I don't get involved in religious arguments... much. But your evaluation is one reason why i love science, apart from it being so awesome. Also, if something is proved wrong in science, it isn't shoved in a black box and forgotten about because 'science can't be wrong,' it is instead publicised. All because scientists care more about a valid collection of knowledge then pride.
htmlrules 11 months ago
@johnclavis Do not call us creationists fools. It is not necessary. Religion had led me to do mnay good things in my life.
TheValvesoftware 11 months ago
@TheValvesoftware If you believe, despite all evidence to the contrary from all areas of science, that the entire universe is only 6000 years old: You. Are. A. Fool.
tsimon1234 10 months ago 4
@tsimon1234 I could'nt agree with you more.
JamesIsKing30 10 months ago
@TheValvesoftware Maybe reliogion has helped you in your life but that in no way makes your beliefs true. I contend that if you're doing good things now then you are a good person and would continue to do good whether you believed in a god or not.
JamesIsKing30 10 months ago
@JamesIsKing30
Religion teaches people many life lessons that science does not. we can always learn the speed of light, or how to create nuclear weapons. however, GOD has taught me to turn the other cheek, forgive my enemies and to start a charity helping many. if i became a scientist, how many people would and will be in a mmuch worse position then they r now
TheValvesoftware 10 months ago
@TheValvesoftware 1st, let me say, wonderful arrogance on your behalf there. "if i became a scientist, how many people would and will be in a mmuch worse position then they r now". Really? C'mon man, it's great that you run a charity. But don't use it to try and make yourself morally superior.
2nd "turn the other cheek, forgive my enemies" I do these things, and I didn't need God to teach them to me.
tsimon1234 10 months ago
@tsimon1234 whoevertaught u those things likelly learned forom GOD. no such rules were developed before the Bible.
TheValvesoftware 10 months ago
@TheValvesoftware Ive learned those exact same things and I didnt learn them from any god. Dont sell yourself short, you're a good person with good morals and it had nothing to do with any gods. If anthing throughout history its been secular morals that have got us to where we are today. Religion has done nothing but hold back progress. I believe religion has done some good things over the years but the amount of pain and suffering it has inflicted has far outweighed the good.
JamesIsKing30 10 months ago
@JamesIsKing30
Listen i hate aurguing, but as if u cant say first of all that science hasnt done bad things two. I will give you one example, hiroshima. but religion is not at fault for the bad it has done for things like the crusades or terrorism. Muslims and Christians believein loving everyone, even your enemies. terrorists or the kkk are all faulty belivers. it is not religion it is the people who make it look bad.
TheValvesoftware 10 months ago
@TheValvesoftware You're just being dishonest now. es science is responible for creating the bomb but it was the believers who used it. As far as these religions being peaceful, I dont know how you can say that. The bible and the quran are full of rape, murder, incest, genoside, slavery and the list goes on and on. The god of the bible likess the smell of blood and tells you how to beat your slave and told his followers to take the young virgin women for yourself after you slaughter the others
JamesIsKing30 10 months ago
@JamesIsKing30 You have never read the Bible. All of those are taken out of context to make it seem to support those. The Bible despises all of those terrible things. READ THE BIBLE. then state an argument
TheValvesoftware 10 months ago