Sponsored Links
L
Lincsbodger
if the motion of the ball is continuous, then the Planck time and the Planck length are the shortest possible time and distance it can stop and reverse direction
not at all, the Plank units are the smallest units of distance and time WE we can observe, but there may be units of time that are shorter and distances that are shorter. we dont know. If Roger Penroses Twistor theroy is correct , then there are smaller units than these, but the dimensionality of space time breaks down. If thats the case we wont be able determine motion changes in 3 dimensions in a 2 dimensional space anyway.
Perception isn't relevant, surely. It's what a physical (quantum) limit is that counts
its all to do with the amount of time it takes external data to travel up your nerves, processed by your brain, and your internal mental model of the world to modify using hte new data. This is another debate - your perception of 'now' is actually about 200 milliseconds behind whats actually going on. So the scales in which the ball MIGHT be stationary ( 0.539 x E-43 are 41 orders of magnitude faster than we can perceive.
L
Lincsbodger
Nah its a schoolboy simplification of the problem, its accurate enough for A Levels and thats about it.
It does depend on relative density, and my uncle's thick as firk!
Sponsored Links
J
JMLanders
We seem to have determined it to be either zero (it time is continuous) or 1 planck (if time is discrete, but also continuous
)
L
Lincsbodger
We seem to have determined it to be either zero (it time is continuous) or 1 planck (if time is discrete, but also continuous
yes, pretty much so.
but if its less than the Planck time, we cant measure it for all sorts of reasons.
J
JMLanders
Bit of a harsh precis of some newtonian mechanics
Anyway, the formula referred to relates to the energy changes (as it's based on the relationship between kinetic and potential energy), which is surely part of quantum physics
J
JMLanders
Can't get cigarette paper thin enough
Which brings on another question - just how thick is a lamina
?We seem to have determined it to be either zero (it time is continuous) or 1 planck (if time is discrete, but also continuous
yes, pretty much so.
but if its less than the Planck time, we cant measure it for all sorts of reasons.
Correct
L
Lincsbodger
Bit of a harsh precis of some newtonian mechanics
Anyway, the formula referred to relates to the energy changes (as it's based on the relationship between kinetic and potential energy), which is surely part of quantum physics
yea but Newton was a bit slapdash with his theories, thats why Einstein and Hawking had to improve them.
Him and Margaret Thatcher was Granthams contribution to UK history.........
J
JMLanders
Leslie Grantham - as in Dirty Den from Eastenders
So if it cant be measured ...........There is no conclusive answer...?????????????
There COULD be a point at which the ball is 'stationary'........
(my coats already on).....
is that not relative to the puzzle, the ball will stop when it reaches zero velocity, for how long god knows.(as it's based on the relationship between kinetic and potential energy), which is surely part of quantum physics
J
JMLanders
is that not relative to the puzzle, the ball will stop when it reaches zero velocity, for how long god knows.(as it's based on the relationship between kinetic and potential energy), which is surely part of quantum physics
Well, not exactly, or then again maybe.
That v^2 = u^2 + 2as formula.
Shove an "m" before anything and divide everything by 2 gives you the energy change "rule" ( with "0.5mv^2" being kinetic energy, and "mgh" being potential energy)
Thus :
Final energy = initial energy + potential energy
L
Lincsbodger
So if it cant be measured ...........There is no conclusive answer...?????????????
There COULD be a point at which the ball is 'stationary'........
(my coats already on).....
yes but we cant measure it
they were thinking about this problem in 1947, thus guy wrote a paper on it
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v71/i1/p38_1
Sponsored Links
