Planck Time - The shortest measure of time

We have looked at the smallest thing in the universe and I think my head has recovered from that, so what about the shortest amount of time possible. This is Planck time and is very strange indeed, let’s find out more.
Planck time is defined as the time taken for light in a vacuum to travel 1 Planck length. Now I’ve already made a video about the Planck length that you can go and watch, but spoiler alert, the plank length is really tiny. That means that the time taken for light to travel across 1 Planck length is very short indeed. In fact it is 5.39 times 10 to the minus 44 seconds. That’s about this much. OK so we’re going to try and imagine just how mind meltingly short the plank time is, but just like we did with the Planck length we’re going to get there in stages.

[@is_bolo_e_cha]

Planck was such a shortsighted man, he could never go very far thinking so small.

[@gandalf_thegrey]

lmao

[@6armslollolol]

Yeah and his middle name is length and his last one is tiny

[@chickey333]

But when he's operating at Planck temperature he can get pretty hot under the collar.

[@timelessperspective]

Holy crap, that's a great joke!

[@marcux83]

hahahaha

[@jamesmatthews8881]

One Planck time: roughly the time between starting a new job and realising it's not all it's cracked up to be.

[@joostdriesens3984]

My new job only allows two femtoseconds break time, and that includes going to the toilet.

[@senorpepper3405]

I have a Planck length weenis😔

[@janes_dick5843]

@@senorpepper3405 still bigger then bidens loololololol

[@winstonsmith9533]

Oh, Nyuk!

[@imacmill]

Or put another way, one Planck time is the time between when the signal light you're stopped at turns green and the cab driver behind you honks his horn.

[@rightwingsafetysquad9872]

Minor correction, kinda off the main topic. Each cone in the eye updates around 40-50 times per second. Each rod updates almost twice as often. But not all rods and cones update at the same time which means that as a whole the eye is much faster. Most people can perceive an improvement in a screen's refresh rate up to 100Hz. About 20% of people can perceive an improvement up to 144Hz. But people can generally react to screen refreshes faster than they can perceive. Elite gamers perform better with screen refreshes up to 300Hz. This is different than a game or video having 300fps, it's about how soon you are shown a change rather than how frequently you are shown changes.

[@troll_486]

agreed my dad bought a 120Hz phone recently, and I managed to spot it with no major problems even tho he didn't tell me this was 120Hz and I never seen 120Hz before sure, it took some seconds but definitly human eye can see more than 30-60 fps + I think for gamers, higher Hz aren't better because of "I see better" but "I feel better"

[@eire0945]

@@troll_486 same reason we get motion sick in vr at frame rates lower than 90hz

[@boldCactuslad]

off topic from this comment but for everyone here: if i claimed the limit for human perception was half a standard candle of light two miles away for 1/20,000th of a second i'd be giving figures from the 1980s. the eye is not a digital sensor. it is biological. please stop comparing these two disparate concepts. it does not operate with a shutter. rods and cones are not magical ideal 1st year electrical engineering student circuit diagrams. they exist in the real world: at the macro scale, events are never discrete phenomena. energy which reaches the eye and is absorbed impacts the system regardless of its magnitude or duration, any alternative to this idea quite obviously violates conservation of energy. the photon was absorbed, it doesn't get to disappear into nothing at all. the rest is up to the brain. this is why most nation's air forces routinely find new records for what people can detect, we're just getting better at taking the measurement. the eye has not changed, it's just really difficult to sit a person an exact distance away from a light which is shown to the person for an exact, tiny amount of time, emitting a very specific amount of energy at the desired wavelength, and measuring what effect that has on the brain.

[@A._Meroy]

It's still more or less in the same region of the scale. The whole point is to show how short 1/100 of a second is, and that's roughly how long it takes for our eyes to update. It doesn't really matter if it is 1/60 or 1/150 exactly, as long as it is way shorter than 1/10 and much longer than 1/1000 of a second it is still a good example for showing how short 1/100 of a second is.

[@A._Meroy]

@@boldCactuslad It's not about perceiving singnals, it is about distinguishing multiple signals. While most people can easily percieve flashes that are vastly shorter than 1/1000 of a second, you cannot really tell if it was one flash or two.

[@potatocannon4]

“Avoiding the obvious jokes” was not expecting that gold in a physics video🤣🤣🤣

[@Yezpahr]

3:09 Luckily we discovered that people who use monitors with much higher frames per second (165-240Hz), can actually see the frames in between. Some really can't see a difference between two monitors of 30Hz and 60Hz, but that same person will notice it if you let them compare monitors with 60Hz to 165Hz. (a difference of 105 instead of 30) We're not just apes, we're complicated inventors and learners, capable of nullifying our own intelligence or boosting it with school, "trains of thought" and experiments, or just "because we're told". The researchers that decided 30-60Hz was the max did not actually use monitors with higher capabilities and just drew a line there. (-edit: they might've used lamps instead of screens in some cases?)

[@satyris410]

Yeah my dad got a massive HD TV and continued to watch sd content thru his old TV tuner. It looked absolute potato but he was happy.

[@KitsuneNoNatsu]

Yeah, this bit kinda annoyed me, we can see a hell of a lot more than 60 hz, likely in the millions to be honest

[@tortordenful]

There was no real science done for this, but people trying to save a buck, 50-60hz was simply the lowest frequency of electricity you could push into an early lightbulb and most wouldn't perceive flickering. Not only relying on the eyes image retention but also the fact that the filament needs almost a full second to cool down to stop giving off light. 30hz is from old hollywood where similiarily most people would accept it as continuous motion to save money on film. Its not the peak of what we can perceive, which is closer to 600hz than anything, but the very lowest we are able to trick our brains to perceive as video vs a sequence of pictures.

[@nekotranslates]

@@tortordenful Would films, movies, games be in Frames Per Second? I know there are 2 types: 25 FPS and 30FPS - one's European, other is American. Yet nowadays, things would be better Does hertz and FPS go hand in hand?

[@bobfleischmann5208]

@@nekotranslates - In the early days of cinema, the movie was show with whole pictures (frames) at once. Think of those old reel-to-reel projectors. A "frame" consisted of a single picture being flashed on the screen in its entirety. (There was also a brief period on "blackout" in between frames while the shutter closes as the film advanced.) This is where FPS was a big deal. it determined how much film was needed and how smooth the motion would look. When the first televisions came out (CRT), a single electron beam would scan the image on the screen line by line. They did not show an entire frame at once. (There are cool slow-mo videos on this!) We still used "frame rates" as the standard speed to observe smooth motion, but the images were progressively scanned and even overlapped each other. Hence, there was no blackout between frames. It was kinda like drawing a picture with an Etch-A-Sketch about 25 times per second! Today's flat panel TVs are a mixed bag of progressive scan tech and single frame images. The frame-rates (FPS) can fluctuate depending on the brand and TV style, but we all agree that today's TVs are clear and smooth with no motion blurring. The term "Hertz" used to refer to the electricity swap for AC power. In America, this +/- fluctuation is 60 Hz. In Europe, it's only 50 Hz. Initially, this was a huge factor in TV technology (along with many other early electronics). Today, the frequency of AC power coming from your outlet has little to do with anything else in the circuits (once you get past the DC rectifiers). The term "Hertz" is now interchangeable with "frame rate" for TVs, but this can be misleading. A sticker on the back of your TV that says 60 Hz might only be referring to the AC power that it runs on from the wall outlet! You really have to look for the actual frame rate capabilities of the screen (plasma, LED, DLP, LCD, etc.). On a side note: I run laser shows that are also measured in FPS. A laser image is exactly like the Etch-A-Sketch analogy. A single laser beam draws the entire image about 20-45 times per second. The higher this number gets, the smoother the image will be. A complicated image (lots of text or details) can only be scanned between 11-19 FPS. These images will appear choppy and glitchy. I try to stay above 20 FPS as much as possible to give the audience a smooth image. :)

[@MountainRaven1960]

The Zeptosecond should be followed by the: Harposecond, Chicosecond, and the Grouchosecond! That’s because it’s all ridiculously small.

[@mikethunman436]

😅😅😅

[@franciswalsh8416]

Brilliant!!

[@anic1716]

There's the yoctosecond after the zeptosecond, which is in fact the smallest prefix of SI, which is 10^-24 s

[@scottbilger9294]

Also the Yakkosecond, Wakkosecond, and the Dottosecond.

[@anic1716]

@@scottbilger9294 this one's aren't standard

[@alecisla]

Amazing video, awesome channel, I'm watching all the videos, pure science, straight to the point, no clickbait... we need more channels like this! Thanks for your amazing work! Subbed and liked!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[@Coastfog]

The first video of yours I watched and I'm getting "gonna enjoy this channel a lot" vibes. Interesting topic, really good communication of the science, and a very likable and professional style. Looking forward to seeing you grow!

[@OVAstronomy]

Great explanations and examples, that ending has really made me consider the uncertainty of spacetime differently!

[@doctorwu1303]

You blew my mind sir! Very well presented…

[@OnlyTrueNeko]

now that is a video that just blew my mind.. i barly was able to visualise the planck times in a second and was amazed by how small this truly is~ VERY well done video! earned a sub and like

[@bill392]

We could truthfully say that our arms actually never stop moving. In fact, nothing ever stops moving. Another super interesting presentation, thanks.

[@yallprettysus]

I am really enamoured with the way you say thank you for watching! I feel that you appreciate each and every viewer as I deeply appreciate the way you present these borderline science topics! You are a great person with an awesome talent and I am happy to follow you through te wonders of our universe ❤️

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you, and yes I do appreciate every view. It is my belief that science should be for everyone. I try to make my videos as understandable as possible, I'm not saying I get it right every time, but I try.

[@spx730]

yea there's something about it haha, esp with that music in background

[@sourcecode6467]

Explained and illustrated beautifully, mind blown. Thank you 👍

[@artdonovandesign]

Beginning at @9:20 This analogy is stupefying! And the following comparison is impossible to get my mind around. 11:26 You're a wonderful narrator. Clear, simple and dignified. And congratulations on all of the research you did to produce this fine video. Best Regards and wishes for many more subscribers!, Art

[@jlwilder8436]

Such great visualization! I'm one of the original subscribers and viewers and can't believe this channel hasn't hit hundreds of thousands of views yet. Come on, people!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much for your continued support. I don't get to make videos as much as I would like to as I work full time. I appreciate everyone who comes and watches my videos and I hope they get as much joy out of watching them as I do in making them.

[@benj5889]

@@LearningCurveScience if you want to your videos full time I'm sure once the channel hits 100k subscribers you'll have no trouble crowdfunding a career shift

[@CrakenFlux]

he may not want/need one.

[@enigmag9538]

This is the first video I've watched from this channel and I'm doing the "like, comment , subscribe" thing! I don't know why it hasn't been in my recommendations before now.

[@benj5889]

@@CrakenFlux yes good point...but wow the world needs more of these videos. His students very fortunate indeed

[@nehoymenoy3845]

God this is an enjoyable series. Thank you for your work on this. I know it can't have been an easy project.

[@scarv9584]

1:26 this is why i love this channel, little jokes but the info is explained well and in an amusing effort to learn. Perfect delivery of education

[@larrygraham3377]

Thanks for a really wonderful.video. This is truly a very different way of visualizing the universe we live in. Hope you get the opportunity to enjoy all the plank times that life has to offer !!!

[@MikePattison]

How am I just now discovering this gem of a channel? Well done. Subscribed.

[@rightwingsafetysquad9872]

I think the quantum model of the universe does a good job of describing a moving object traveling less than the speed of light. There is a certain probability that a particle will jump a Plank Length during any given Plank Time. With a photon that probability is near 1. With "normal" objects that probability is near 0, but not 0. I propose a new fundamental aspect of the universe. The Plank Probability. That is the smallest possible probability that a particle will jump a Plank Lenght in any given Plank Time. It would describe the slowest possible motion.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

Do you really need that? If you imagine that all fundamental particles travel at roughly the speed of light, the slower you move as a massive object, the more of that speed will be dedicated to advancing the massive object through time. Local interactions in a massive object traveling at close to the speed of light are why molecules look like they are vibrating in animations. So, as you move closer to the speed of light as a massive object, less of that speed is spent locally. The speed is used in translational motion, so the massive objects appears to slow down in time

[@cougar2013]

Who says that the Planck length is the smallest distance? It’s just a fairytale that sounds nice. Kind of like string theory.

[@cougar2013]

@@ElectronFieldPulse pretty much none of what you said makes any sense. If you don’t have a physics PhD, best not to try and tell others what you think about relativity. ✌️❤️

[@BlackBull.]

but planck lenght is not a pixel

[@cougar2013]

@@BlackBull. people want it to be lol

[@artisanrox]

This is REALLY well explained, thank you so much!

[@fredkelly6953]

Those numbers exist between awe-inspiring and downright scary. I'd have to be in a completely rested state to even begin to comprehend them. I'll know where to come to when I feel like putting a hole in my head, subbed.

[@JafoTHEgreat]

You have an amazing and beautiful mind. Thanks for teaching me!

[@hummakavula1304]

This video is exactly what I am looking for! I need to keep pausing though because of the jam-packed information. This is exemplary! Thank you so much for the effort! Subscribed!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you so much. I'm glad you enjoyed it (and thanks for your subscription)

[@everythingisalllies2141]

This video is about pure nonsense, why don't you study real physics instead of pseudoscience?

[@satyris410]

@@everythingisalllies2141 lol small brain

[@billlawson3467]

@@everythingisalllies2141 better to stay quiet than to show your ignorance

[@everythingisalllies2141]

@@billlawson3467 so you wont be wanting to discuss Einstein's errors with me then? Because you are ignorant?

[@r.gelmers6580]

Amazing. Mr Planck was a true genius. The real mind blowing aspect is where all these planck units come together and connect. It's simply exhilarating!

[@LyubomirIko]

Where?

[@dudono1744]

nah he was just lazy to remember all constants so he created a unit system where all constants are 1

[@GetOutsideYourself]

Great content. Subscribed. I'm sure you're about to blow up. Keep making great videos.

[@Mike-cu3kj]

Amazing. Especially the move you body part at the end. Leaves me breathless

[@epicpatato2571]

i always wondered the fps of the universe. thank you for making this video i may be able to glitch reality to dupe some cool stuff with this knowledge

[@strikermodel]

"avoiding the obvious jokes" I was actually so into your explanation, that didn't cross my mind until you said it LOL

[@dunyakas4833]

Sooo good. Luv it. Perfect analogies. Keep on!

[@outdoorcoaching]

Already hooked during the introduction. Great content ‼️‼️‼️

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much. I'm glad you enjoyed the video.

[@justanotherguy469]

Thank you for the great video, very well illustrated and dictated.

[@andrewroberts5988]

"...avoiding the obvious jokes". I love it! Thanks. ALso, there was a very interesting question at the end (many interesting things thruout the vid), but the shortest time and shortest distance. Reminds me of the Zeno (?) paradox and the ancient Greeks and the arrow. Also, is space and time a continuum or discrete at the smallest level. Very cool video and thoughtfully put together.

[@berylman]

This video series on Planck is GREAT! and totally up my alley. Subscribed. *insert clapping animation here*

[@peterlawson777]

Excellent video, expertly narrated. Thank you 🙂

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[@ReflectiveLayerFilm]

Another interesting topic and great video. No matter how hard I try, I still can't properly visualized the dynamic range of the tick of a clock and the Planck time. Can't imagine that range for anytime. Distance, size, temperature, etc. My head hurts just putting it into words!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much. Sorry I haven't been active here for a while, my job has kept me very busy recently.

[@ReflectiveLayerFilm]

@@LearningCurveScience No problems. I haven't uploaded either since Oct last year. Got tied up also. But I'm working on finishing my latest hopefully in the next 2 weeks.

[@abbyofgenderpronouns]

Man's found the framerate, the pixel density and all the game parameters

[@mikethunman436]

Nice! I love these number games...! Good luck further with your channel. As of today, I'm in and looking forward ofr what's to come... 😉

[@dunyakas4833]

Sooo good. Luv it. Perfect analogies. Keep on.

[@anic1716]

Pretty sad to see a so underrated channel have this amazing quality videos. Keep going!

[@tncorgi92]

I just ran across this channel, watched 3 videos and I'm now subscribed.

[@ahklys1321]

Same

[@justanotherguy469]

"That body part moved a certain distance during 1 Plank time. That distance must have been less than the plank length. To travel 1 plank length in one plank time, you must be traveling at the speed of light." I find that to be very interesting. To travel at a fewer Plank length, you would have to be traveling at fewer plank times, which means that you would have to be traveling faster than light. It is a conundrum, because not only is the Plank length an aggregate for the other fundamental forces, it also brings about the resolution of space, time, and velocity as well, where everything is in equilibrium, everything is the same, everything is the one. The plank length is beautiful. We should have a day, dedicated to the birth of our Universe.

[@djs2006]

I don't agree with that statement. I believe that at Plank time and length, there is no smaller increment. So, the universe is digital. Fastest is light at 1 Plank length / Plank time unit. At that speed, the photon will exist at a position, then, exist at the next Plank length. For slower things, like a finger, it will exist for n Plank time units, then exist at the next Plank length. There is nothing in between.

[@justanotherguy469]

@@djs2006 That is exactly what I said. The first paragraph is in quotations, it is what he said in the video. I think that the world is pixelated at one plank length and one plank time. The plank time is the ultimate refresh rate and that is what gives the illusion of the fluidity of time. Did you read my whole comment?

[@justanotherguy469]

@@djs2006 Forgive please., your statement is exactly what I said in another comment. I went back and read the comment that you are responding to and I did not say what you said in this one. I disagreed with what he said in the video about moving your body fewer than one plank length because that there is no fewer than one plank length. I agree 100% with what you said.

[@djs2006]

@@justanotherguy469 Sorry. I must have missed the 'More' button. I read it now. Since particles can blink in and out of existence, we must be doing the same thing. Apparently, the 'More' must have blinked out while I was looking at your comment. Either that or my brain cells blinked out and I blanked out.

[@Ziplock9000]

In a PBS Spacetime video he mentions that there's nothing in physics that says things can get smaller than plank length, just that we don't have any formula as to how they would work.

[@dunyakas4833]

So good. Luv it. Perfect analogies.

[@csmic-phantm8095]

That's just excellent, I'm thoroughly impressed.., but mostly by the Planck'- just to be clear 👌🏻✨️

[@Kevinrothwell1959]

Although you explain the concept very well, it is totally beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend Planck sizes! You could go insane trying!

[@Linventor]

...our eyes are not limited to 60fps. There is an entire market for "high refresh rate" displays - even a cheap gaming monitor can do upwards of 120hz, with top-tier esport monitors able to do _triple_ that. The tech is also making its way into more mainstream gadgets, including phones and TVs, because the only way you can't tell the difference between 60 and 120 hz refresh rates is if you're looking at a static image.

[@foramagasobeselettucepurpl6911]

Totally mind blowing man! I love it!

[@lucasstrujak]

Such a great content! Thanks for sharing.

[@EvetheFurry]

The frame rate of the simulation

[@dudono1744]

it's pretty damn high

[@SeraphimKnight]

If the speed of light is going at 1 planck length / planck time and you can't measure anything less, than technically it's impossible to measure any speed BUT the speed of light. A real Achilles paradox here innit.

[@Furyswipes]

I do think there is an implicit paradox here. Planck distance is the smallest incremental distance. You can't "move a distance less than the planck distance". At all.

[@dudono1744]

so you either go at 0 or c ?

[@Furyswipes]

@@dudono1744 Yeah, this seems really paradoxical.

[@mordet2]

@@Furyswipes I don't think this is a paradox at all. Imagine a particle that moves at .5c, half the speed of light. the thing this means is that every other planck time, the particle moves 1 planck length and the other it does not.

[@Furyswipes]

@@mordet2 Ah! I didn't think of that at all. Good point.

[@MarcFromBerryland]

Cool you already made it. On your Planck length video I left a comment asking you to make a video on Planck time not knowing that you already had then next in my KZbin recommendations this video shows up.

[@florincoter1988]

"Where the Universe breaks!" - The Universe does not break. This is only a model. The model breaks. A newer one will be discovered in due time and all will be fine.

[@williamt4749]

I would really like to know how the development of the final analogy actually went. Like did you start with grains of sand? Or did you start with a universe of time? Or did you start somewhere else like numbers of atoms within something?

[@satyris410]

Number of chess moves x number of pokemon x number of embarrassing incidents you remember from when you were 8.

[@robertpierce1981]

I like your descriptions of events.

[@KarlMarcus8468]

lol those facts are so awesome that when I hear them I just laugh, like my brain can only deal with how insane those numbers are by just categorizing it in the "that's ridiculous, shut up" list. I also got a kick out of this, when my friends and I would have like our little pretend scientist 'look how cool the universe is' type of discussions, I would throw out my little fact of "hey guys did you know, there are more planck time in 1 second, than there are seconds in the age of the universe WWOOOAAHHH" and while I guess I wasn't technically wrong, I think I missed the true gravity by a couple orders of magnitude. Great video man.

[@Jodawo]

Here's something that's more unbelievable. A deck of cards being shuffled and how many different combinations those 52 cards can get into is so large. If you got one Plank Time for every combination, you could go from The Big Bang to our time over 10 million times. (Universe is a little over 13 billion years old)

[@isabelaatenska]

Well my mind is fucked now and nothing can unfuck it, thanks.

[@shiftyjim4138]

🧢

[@JanezMLGucek]

@@shiftyjim4138 It's true

[@NaomiLi-iz6my]

18 million times over, actualy.

[@spaceman081447]

@Joe Wollick Do you mean every combination or every permutation?

[@whirl3690]

Seeing that the speed of light, the planck length, and the planck time are all related as just the fastest units of distance, time, and speed, why is the speed of light not called "planck speed?" I think it would make more sense, since light isn't the only thing that travels at the speed of light. Gravitational waves, false vacuum decay, and more all travel at the same speed.

[@onlyguitar1001]

Physicists will refer to it as the speed of information when they're being pedantic. It's definitely easier to teach people about this speed in reference to light because they experience it, and historically it was the first thing to be measured that travels at this speed.

[@MidnightSt]

yes, I remember when I realized that speed of light is planck length per planck time, it was a magical moment :)

[@Resomius]

for the same reason americans still use unites like Eagle per freedom square and europeans are not meassuring temperature in Kelvin. Because changing it would be very hard, the people are used to it and in day to day live it works. When needed the correct thing gets used. Untill then the easy thing gets used. And we always called it Lightspeed and till now it worked, why should we Change it?

[@whirl3690]

@@Resomius In this case, it's not switching to a new system. This theoretical "planck speed" is literally just the same as the speed of light. It is still c, it is still 299,792,458 meters per second. All I proposed was simply changing its name to "the planck speed."

[@hotpawsmathsandscience3124]

if you divide planck length by planck time, "planck" is reduced because it's both in numerator and denominator

[@Martin_xd69]

Not a second wasted by watching this video, thank you

[@satyris410]

Fantastic explanation thank you!

[@slydog7131]

So does this mean that time is discrete instead of continuous? My understanding is that we just don't know, but I think that it is. It seems to be the only way to resolve some classical paradoxes.

[@mryellow6918]

Its just more that the speed of causality is the limit

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

Planck length and time (and weight, if it exists) could be the basis of our measuring systems when scaled up. What we use today, whether it’s based on the length of a king’s thumb, a fraction of the earth’s circumference, or even defining a meter as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second, is completely arbitrary.

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

@@MrHurricaneFloyd There’s no need to measure anything. The precise mathematical calculation is known. From that we dimply scale up by many orders of magnitude

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

@Queeb Borda The Third These are all based on arbitrary measures.

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

@Queeb Borda The Third A ten millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole is arbitrary. So is a random fraction of light speed. Whereas Planck length has a formal mathematical definition: 1.62×10-35m There’s nothing arbitrary about it.

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

@Queeb Borda The Third An exact definition of the shortest measurable length isn’t arbitrary, it’s a benchmark of physics. It’s like the speed of light, which isn’t arbitrary either.

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

@Queeb Borda The Third If the speed of light is arbitrary then you have a point, otherwise…

[@cceres]

These Planck videos are beautiful.

[@ezza88ster]

Gloriously Mind-bending!

[@jackiereynolds2888]

Your comment at the end reminded me of explaining Zeno's paradox. It's like when you mentioned the amount of time we moved our arms- say; you-were-like, - well of course your arm 'moved' - 'some' distance in 1 single unit of plank(c) time - because if it didn't your arm wouldn't move - 'at-all' ! It's just interesting (and very difficult) using the concept of 'distance' when trying to imagine the Plank constant (length) - which begs a question - can-you-imagine one WITHOUT the other ? Plank length must be entirely conceptual, it must always be conceptual because it is simply not possible to ever have any 'perceptual' experience of it. You can pinch your fore-finger and thumb together to pretty-tiny measurable lengths, - say, one inch, one centimeter, even a single millimeter ! But now imagine squeezing them together to even smaller and smaller lengths ! ! AT SOME POINT Plank-length (or 'distance') ties-in together with

[@Furyswipes]

You can't move a distance less than the planck distance, by definition. Do you not agree?

[@jackiereynolds2888]

@@Furyswipes Yes, but I think that perhaps most of us need to remove the 'idea of distance' from our minds, because to approach an understanding of a 'Plank' anything, the common and conventional ideas of temperature, length, or distance - or the Plank reference to anything else - the 'common' understanding of these familiar units must be abandoned. The commonly held idea about space itself rather comes apart at the quantum level. It's because I suppose, none of us have had an actual 'experience' of this rather hidden (but nonetheless there) reality. 'Theoretical' reality is another variety of understanding entirely as opposed to experienced reality.

[@jeremysargent5037]

Great to know the processor CPU speed of our universe as a multiverse VM if it was a simulation 😂

[@user-cy1rm5vb7i]

it's just the simulated speed, you can spend a lot more units of time on simulating just one unit of time

[@MusicalRadiation]

I love the subtle reference to the soundtrack of Interstellar in the piano part of the background music in this video! You can hear it really well between 7:22 and 8:00

[@erika-xu1wg]

The video was good but the narration made it great - I love this guy's voice! Plus he sounds like Holly from Red Drwaf so that's even better!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Aww thank you very much.

[@MrDino1953]

The strong force doesn’t keep atoms together, it binds quarks into baryons and baryons into atomic nuclei. Atoms, the combination of nuclei with electrons, are held together by electromagnetic force.

[@JonahRoyes]

Protons in a nucleus is bound by the strong force

[@JonahRoyes]

As well as neutrons , although electrons orbit via electromagnetic force and that also holds molecules together

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@JonahRoyes True. Taking it further, Quarks are bound by the strong force, protons and neutrons are bound by "the residual strong force" Strong force is carried by gluons, residual strong force is carried by mesons (which contain gluons and quarks). Atoms are bonded together into molecules by the electromagnetic force. And matter is gathered into planets by gravity. And universes are held together by... puppies.

[@GD_Argyza]

0:05 and its you

[@xam2215]

i woke up this morning wondering just how much far can we get to record reality ...i couldn't find a best teacher then you on this subject,thank you very much.

[@artdonovandesign]

"An Attosecond ...is seriously brief" You have a remarkable skill for understatement😊

[@LearningCurveScience]

I'm British, it's what we do.

[@kavalkid1]

Terrific! I see the Plank Length used to describe the Universe to be rather like using triangles to describe a circle. No matter how many you use, there is still more accuracy to be gleaned as one approaches Infinity.

[@luckyluc9972]

Double comment. At 10:00 you talk about the number of galaxies we think there might be. With the new images of the James Webb Space Telescope, we believe there may be 10x more galaxies than previously thought!

[@vinstyles]

loved the vid. So interesting. Still trying to get my head around Planck time, but still.....

[@joshonemoore]

thanks. great work. keep living.

[@JIREH0924]

This is a cool video Love it 😊

[@TheEmeraldYT]

awesome video, 10:20 part was a mind f*ck but beautiful at the same time, keep up with these videos!!!

[@dommice]

Great video. Thanks!

[@X3MgamePlays]

Oh, I actually learned something new from this video.

[@badtaste311]

This is key information in regards to its application towards meta material.

[@fatneek4554]

This is something i was wondering about for years and year but couldnt get an answer on

[@n20games52]

Instead of being paid by the hour, I wish I was paid by the planck time. Enjoyed the video!

[@ESLTopics]

Wonderful video! Subscribed!

[@berthold64]

underrated channel

[@baronvonhoughton]

Fascinating.

[@charleswheeler3689]

Mind fairly and well Boggled.

[@rj795w6]

awesome video, awesome quality

[@leaguefan3186]

that you for a great explanation

[@JWS1968]

My new guilty pleasure.

[@foxabilo]

Enjoyed that.

[@ErenisRanitos]

thanks for the trip 😀

[@kereiltutt5769]

Amazing summary

[@ebob4177]

That last thought is cool.

[@JM_Tushe]

Thank you for giving me an existential crisis. 🥰

[@chrisregister8021]

The fact that planck time operates on such a vast scale gives some explanation to how the entire universe could be held Together by tiny particles...

[@Guesswork01]

Great video mate

[@whirledpeas3477]

Lol

[@danielfraga5756]

Very good

[@shaunhumphreys6714]

​ @Learning Curve part one) you've inspired me to do my second degree in quantum cosmology, or plain cosmology. my bachelors is in astronomy. il still get to do lots of stargazing with great telescopes. i hope you can make one video a week. that sounds achievable, and many super successor youtube creators in education side of things do one a week, no more. any more andf you become another youtuber, which is bad. dont want you having to be in front of screen everyday, all day. your videos could be audio podcasts, but the visuals though not essential do help, but they are static visuals and not taxing on the eyes as with moving video, so i appreciate that, with eye sight, as my optical lobes have a disorder. this is alot,im posting here, didnt intend to post more than a thankyou, appreciation message, but i use a voice to text app as i cant type-loss of motor functions and im in pain today, so i gradually voiced all this and just thought to hell with it, i havent spoken to anyone in weeks due to being in too much pain, and photophobic to leave home. so even if noone reads it served a communication mental healthy purpose. if one person, i.e. yourself reads it all then the full purpose is realised, only a precious few people of my slightly pre millenials and older have the attention span to read long things. the rest are whinging tik tokers. i dont want you getting alot of subscribers because then such success means mega sponsor deals, the content maker stops replying to messages e.c.t so two hundred thousand subscribers hits the sweet spot of success of plenty of subscribers and thus make money just by being youtuber, patrion for makers like you i think.is best. having loyal band paying monthly provides some stabibility. if you havent opted into patrion i think you should. loyal watchers will join you as a member, me included.and then a few adverts per video.but keeping the day job i hope. what do you do? i have it in my mind you do computers. dont know why. its your voice i think reminds me of some IT technicians ive known.

[@shaunhumphreys6714]

@Learning Curve part two you've actually covered these planck units better than any science educator on youtube, and i mean even the big ones like pbs spacetime. fermilab e.c.t and better than any cosmologist/astrophycist who tend to stop with the tired ' quantum gravity/general relativity dont agree line''and get all vague i.e. they dont agree, and keep saying this statement rather than stop saying tired lines and say something different. e.g. what about dirac's treatment of low-energy gravity at quantum scales, or feynmans or asymptotic gravity , or emergent gravity you instead mentioned precise things- planck epoch, string foam which all cover the same unknown without having to presume such a thing as quantum gravity even exists. there is an implicit presumption in insisting on quantum gravity. im moaning about it, as my university seminar goers and teachers, even say it too much. you didnt even utter that aforementioned tired anathema of a phrase. the quantum foam you mentioned is john archibald wheeler, decently deceased his idea i think, he was first to coin it as a concept, i stand corrected if someone else coined it before him. he also named black holes.teamed up with feynman for absorber theory.though that went nowhere. wheeler was a great phd student supervisor, and ideas man e.g. one electron universe, feynman turned into the most powerful version of quantum mechanics-path integral formulation which is used since seventies on my favourite cosmological model-the no boundary proposal of hawking, in which the first singularity is in fact a finite spherical region working the same as a north and south pole, a shuttlecock model. time begins as a euclidean fourth spatial dimension and morphs into the temporal dimensional when expansion starts, so time goes upwards-expands out, with lots of slice like horizonal [pizza like slices of space being the three spatial dimensions i think this is correct, as time is demonstrably on par with space, and minkowski's geometrical model of special relativity is the best conceived of i was thinking when you talked of light traveling a planck length, what is the wavelength of this light,what would its wavefunction look like shape wise. can a photon exist, a wavefunction of a quantised energy packet exist at less than much less than femto seconds? even if spacetime could be divided infinitely and the planck length is just the limits of our present understood laws of physics, light would cease to exist below planck length and i think particles cease to exist far above planck length. surely.you could have some foamy spacetime which would be another phase of spacetime, a phase transition. spacetime could be like a superconductor liquid. and a heat engine, at same time, then going through phase transitions at the scales we discussed here. cosmologically much comes down to infinite vs finite universe. a finite phase of a big bang cannot produce an infinite plane.contrary to pop science. as roger penrose explains expertly in his cyclical cosmology model-you have a scale factor that replaces space and time durations. but not seconds of duration nor any spatial units, not even light travelling planck lengths. only an infinite singularity can produce an infinite universe. im of opinion the big bang started with a finite singularity, and the universe is finite therefore but large in extent. probably too large so if its a torus or sphere we will never see the light return from the backs of our heads, as light wont ever come back to us from that far away given the expansion rate of the universe. inflation strongly suggest as does no boundary that we have a multiverse, since the false vacuum, bubble nucleation process may not stop. or it might stop at finite many universes. the latter sounds more sensible and likely to me, say it stops at seven universes, seven bubbles. separated by heavens knows what. i would add that continuous spacetime is needed to preserve the lorentz factor governing special relativity so the quantum foam being another phase transition of space might preserve the lorentz covariance of special relativity. i.e speed of light as a constant, laws of physics same in all inertial reference frames and equal footing of time and space.every test of light to foam a granular spacetime fails as gamma rays travel exact same speed as radiowaves over billions of light years from the earlier universe. the fact that dirac relativised quantum theory in the first quantum field theory of the electron and positron tells us that quantum theory is governed by relativity. general relativity hence gravity is likely macroscopic. gravity probably stops at some microscopic point. its just mass affecting geometry. mass from the higgs field, or from the gluon type binding energy between quarks. no mass no gravitational force. what if gravity is not part of this presumed one fundamental force of all four in planck epoch. mass plus no space equals no gravity. mass-stress-energy had to push outward to form spatial dimensions. dimensions of space may have been “frozen in” during the early moments of the universe.The Helmholtz free energy density (f) reaches its maximum value at a temperature T = 0.93, which occurs when space had n = 3 dimensions. space maybe 3D because of a thermodynamic quantity called the Helmholtz free energy density. In a universe filled with radiation, this density can be thought of as a kind of pressure on all of space, which depends on the universe's temperature and its number of spatial dimensions. some researchers looking at cosmological models viewed just as thermodynamics showed as the universe began cooling from the moment after the big bang, the Helmholtz density reached its first maximum value at a very high temperature corresponding to when the universe was just a fraction of a second old, and when the number of spatial dimensions was approximately three.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you so much. I'm so happy that I've inspired you.

[@lerk.]

If my arm has to move less than a planck length in one planck time (otherwise it woould be faster than light), and we could do a "1 planck time time step", would my arm move at all if we can't really measure any distance smaller than a planck length? How many of those steps do we have to do until the movement is measurable?

[@purplehaze2358]

“So let’s think about some things that last for one second..” That would be m- “Avoiding the obvious joke” Damn it.