Planck Length (extra footage)

[@Moondye7]

Sometimes the extra footage gives the right additional information :)

[@cann5565]

I cant get enough of these videos. Wish I found them when I was lost in college...

[@ryanmcleskey5039]

There's something fascinating about watching someone who knows so much about physics, fight against the wind to keep his paper straight. It just shows how little we really know.

[@rolirolster]

+Ryan McLeskey :)

[@TheErraticTheory]

Ryan McLeskey did you eat lead paint as a kid?

[@seraphik]

yeah... what? knowing physics doesn't give you magical powers over physics.

[@MakingVidsBreh]

This comment shows how little we really know.

[@harleyspeedthrust4013]

??? it's not about controlling physics, it's about understanding it

[@agr-f7h]

@forglegorktheork The diameter of the Milky Way is 9.5*10^20 metres (or 100000 light years, or 31 kiloparsecs) - if a proton was as big as the Milky Way, one plank length would be 9.5 metres. Saying it's quite small is rather an understatement.

[@seansteel3326]

Exactly !

[@ZipplyZane]

This is exactly the sort of thing that I wish had been said in the video. It actually gives me a visualization. Thank you!

[@suivzmoi]

that's why cosmologists prefer to use the reduced planck length (h/2pi) where the introduction of pi implies that areas refer to that of circles, and volumes to that of spheres. incidentally the planck mass is a mass of a black hole whose radius (schwarschild) is the planck length.

[@jeebersjumpincryst]

@nolongerlong Hi there - I LOVE your description of the planck length, the one where you use the proton the size of the milky way... Something I can sort of imagine (realistically, not very well*grins*) but its the closest and most helpful I've yet heard. It's truly mindbending, to say the least, so thanks!! =)

[@hephaestus1956]

I love this guy!

[@rageagainstthebath]

@Carutsu Well, he gave the most precise answer he could, bearing in mind the movie is not aimed to experts - it is helpful to calculate entrophy of a black hole, for instance. Many physical parameters don't make any sense alone. For instance, the wave function doesn't mean anything, unless you square it.

[@Yaaa234]

Yes, it should, but that pi and 1/2 is taken into account in any equations in which the planck area is used, such as the black hole equation, so although it would be easier to just put the pi into the constant, it still works with having the pi in the equation separately.

[@SpencerJolly]

You are technically right. They are being a little imprecise when talking about it. It is just a length scale and provides a guide for thinking about these things. Note for example that there was another length scale that was not the same number. It may be that the actual smallest length possible is some multiple, or some fraction, of the planck length, so there is no need to care about factors of pi when using it. However, in the black hole formula it is exact.

[@lolcharles]

If the planck area is the planck length squared, then the planck area must be a square with side lengths of the planck length. On top of that, no two points within the square can be differentiated from each other. This clearly contradicts with the fact that no two points less than one plank length apart can be differentiated from each other because the diagonal of the square is longer than one planck length. Shouldn't the planck area be a circle then? with the formula pi(plancklength/2)^2?

[@kinxectic]

@Lavabug Agreed, but it can be a little tedious: "Do i have to do all 35 for them" at the 1.36 mark is a Freudian slip that reveals the thought: " Can i go back and do semi-conductor physics now?"

[@johnclavis]

This guy is straight out of Neal Stephenson's "Anathem". He's marvelous. I wish there were a thousand Professor Eaves!

[@Lavabug]

@kinxectic The ability to bring it down to layman level is what makes a good scientist!

[@Seigge]

@EleVRs i think they did a vid about 137, the fine structure constant , check their website its really well organized for you to find.

[@bdiddy77777]

well, an elementary* unit, yes. the primary unit of measure is still the meter, since the PL is expressed in meters.

[@drgryz]

this is like watching hard skate video with all that math, still, amazing and well put, that practical, as much practical you can call telling size of something that is infinity away from us just by looking at it, way of deriving that value, ontological roots of that critical point. it's amazing how pure math can like contain rest of the mass of the world and in some level of abstract that math is not that big, speed of light here, acceleration of gravity there and it's done

[@drbonesshow1]

Planck length 1.63 x 10^-35 m. Planck time is even smaller 5.4 x 10^-44 s.

[@sergheiadrian]

The thing is you cannot fit another point within the square since it would be at a distance less than one Planck length from the points which define the corners of the square.

[@RaunienTheFirst]

Particles are generally very light, if a particle had the Planck mass, that would be unbelievably heavy. Perhaps the particle that we would find with enough energy to probe the Planck length has the Planck mass. Just a suggestion.

[@docsharp00]

some videos about semi-conductors soon? :)

[@UnitaryV]

That's a very good point. What happens if you were traveling next to a wall at a significant fraction of the speed of light and you try to measure the Planck length of the wall. would the Planck length of the wall be contracted from your frame of reference? Would information be lost because you can no longer differentiate two points within your own Planck length?

[@stephenmcdonald5201]

Can anyone answer this? As the universe expands does the plank length expand or do we get more planks of length in the universe ?

[@theheriffofb.c.p.d.6535]

We literally get more plank lengths. The space itself is expanding, which means if we have an imaginary center of the universe and we have a particle in the middle, a 2nd particle [x] meters away will travel further and further. / up to the point the expansion itself rips apart these particles overwhelming the force keeping the particles as they are. This will happen long after the blackholes have evaporated and the dwarfs have burned out.

[@theheriffofb.c.p.d.6535]

P.S. I might be wrong, don't judge me.

[@stephenmcdonald5201]

No, I don't know either. All I know is what 'they' try and teach us on these vids. It does beg the question though, if far away space is getting their plank lengths faster than space closer to us then to an observer at that point in far away must see it the opposite way round. So just what I've learnt from these vids, is must be a relativistic thing but it's a quantum thing at the same time?

[@theheriffofb.c.p.d.6535]

There's something else. Waves do stretch through space-time due to the expansion.

[@l34052]

As any unit of measurement is a human concept not a fundamental part of the universe as a whole, you will simply get more planck lengths because the length itself doesn't change but the distance between objects your measuring using that unit does.

[@Cuddlehead]

the guy is awesome! kudos to him, and his service to humankind.

[@jeebersjumpincryst]

@VeritasEtLibeHi again. Same spot 4:20-4:45 She says its not foamy ENOUGH to affect the speeds of diff energy(wavelength)gamma photons.I understood her to mean that the foamyness(?) was just that - still theoretically there but just not the factor in speed diff.Would be exciting if it was.Liked the bubblewrap analogy too.

[@RenshawYT]

Brady, I hope you go talk to a cosmologist about the Planck length as Professor Eaves recommended. I want to hear more about quantum foam (and the quantum beer on which it resides!)

[@davidwilkie9551]

Time duration is interpreted by our included sensory awareness as the perception of length/distance, when navigating in the map of the environment in which we live, so the Actuality of quantized time duration in superimposed temporal wave-package multi-phase/concentric orbital-quantization objectives, is the natural occurring environment of probability in potential possibility, the cause-effect of a Universal Holographic Image projection-drawing.

[@jpian0923]

In other words, At any length less than the Planck length, physics doesn't exist, or is undefined.

[@plasmatrix]

Love is the dimension of all sizes

[@forglegorktheork]

So if you were to take a fully inflated beach ball to be a proton, how small would the length of a Planck be? Something like a centimeter? Smaller?

[@bdiddy77777]

the two points can't be differentiated from each other because we don't yet have that quantum theory of gravity which would tell us what happens when you go within the Planck length.

[@technicalpeace]

Wikipedia defines Planck Mass as: ...the mass of the Planck particle, a hypothetical minuscule black hole whose Schwarzschild radius equals the Planck length.

[@azaas]

Anyway, i have been watching these series of videos for a couple of days now and i must say that all those wonderful topics managed to bring me back to the days when i used to go nuts about physics. Unfortunately that's way back and i need to catch up with simpler stuff first that i've forgotten but still i think that slowly i start being committed to studying physics again, even if it is just a hobby ;) Thank you for all those amazing videos sir ;)

[@RTRVII]

@Secretology I think not although i'm not sure. Prof. Susskind said in one of his lectures that quantum theory could be applied even to a bowling ball if the proper experiment could be set up (which we can't). I'm no expert on the subject at all though.

[@heavymetaldeath4life]

I'm pretty sure h/2pi is the reduced Planck's constant, not reduced planck length.

[@Chaosblade777]

@Kowzorz Yeah, probably is, as the video is recorded at 30 FPS, about the same rate your eyes perceive at.

[@JohnSmith-hm7zk]

"Greek Atom"? I was just thinking about Zeno's Paradox; that there is a primary unit of measure, like a pixel on a TV screen.

[@curtcoffee]

If an electron were the size of the Golden Gate bridge, a Planck length would be the size of a speck of dust.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

What are you using as the size of an electron?

[@leecain4052]

If the Plank length may be the unit of discrete space, is there a corresponding unit of discrete time. And might the speed of light be when the two are in a one-to-one ratio?

[@amedeofilippi6336]

Yes there is and you obtain Planck time dividing Planck length by the speed of light c, thus you obtain 10 ^-44 sec

[@harleyspeedthrust4013]

the speed of light is how fast an object would have to go to travel 1 planck length in 1 planck time. to put it more simply, the planck time is the time it takes for a photon to travel 1 planck length.

[@rhoadess]

There's the Lorentz transformation based on the idea that the speed of light never changes in any reference frame, but is there a transformation based on the idea that the Planck length or the Planck time can never change in any reference frame?

[@harleyspeedthrust4013]

why would we have such an idea? we already know that c is constant in all frames of reference, and we've tested this. it follows from that idea that time and length are not absolute (which is how we get time dilation and length contraction). so to suggest that the planck length and planck time are constant in all reference frames is wrong

[@SeanRhoadesChristopher]

@@harleyspeedthrust4013 I agree, now suppose each Planck volume contained its own clock, and each clock ticked at a Planck time. Now suppose that a Planck volume’s clock slowed if it where stimulated in such a way that it generated a particle with mass? This idea would simulate and explain GR on a quantum scale.

[@kidskillconscience]

Why is the timecode left on 'extra footage'? I've always wondered why they do that in deleted scenes and stuff.

[@Kowzorz]

Why does the number after the seconds on the ticker only go up to 30? Is that frames?

[@th34gt3npure]

if gravity goes out to the moon how come does our atmosphere not reach the moon or past it and stops where it does?

[@TheRealMeisl]

It's just *units*, no statement about a particular geometry. Neither do the Planck units - as such - imply any statement about fundamental minimality or maximality. Such are made in *theories*, independent of (sets of) units. That is, saying that c=299792458 m/s is the very same as saying that it's 1 Planck length per Planck time. Now, stating that nothing can ever move faster is completely independent. Similarly, there simply is no point in asking wether an area should be a square or a circle.

[@jeebersjumpincryst]

@VeritasEtLibertas82 hi - I had a look at the link - go and watch it again, I think u might have misunderstood what they were saying :)

[@docsharp00]

Prof Eaves is working on semiconductors? nice, I'm SC physicist too :D

[@Fetrovsky]

How about comparing the plank length to an electron?

[@Felhek]

What about the lenght of the singularity inside a black hole? How small is it?

[@Narokkurai]

Smaller than we can possibly imagine. That's the thing about the Planck Length: it's not strictly the smallest length that can exist, it's just the smallest distance that we can say anything meaningful at all about. Any shorter and physics doesn't work anymore. There could be something, there could be nothing, we have absolutely no way of knowing, and we might not be capable of ever knowing.

[@Felhek]

@@Narokkurai Maybe mathematically we could find a possible solution someday. After all it's about numbers. Thank you.

[@Wheau]

@Kowzorz the number goes up to 25

[@raydredX]

Yes but it is changed beyond recognition so I doubt he literally meant lost. I can be wrong.

[@DaffyDaffyDaffy33322]

Your name is very fitting.

[@zorawar98]

Wasn't it proved by Leonard Susskind prove that information does NOT get lost even in the blackhole? (07:11)

[@martiniverson750]

perhaps it is a circle, and that is where the idea of quantum foam comes into play.

[@zajec11]

So the speed of light is actually the speed of "pixels"?

[@bdiddy77777]

the PL is just the smallest magnitude of length that makes sense within the known laws of physics. not sure what you been by a "greek atom"

[@stephenmcdonald5201]

That's what I thought, so what is it, plank lengths stretching or more plank lengths.

[@ianian8022]

Glad i missed the one on dimensional analysis or else that might even add up. Which is headaches squirrels fly by the enth.

[@webpotato]

Sixty Symbols is brilliant. If only the physics major were as relaxing.

[@JohnSmith-hm7zk]

Ok. So as a High School drop-out, what I understand from this, is that the Planck length is an approximation of the Greek Atom. Which makes perfect sense to me; that there is a fundamental "pixel" to reality. Yes?

[@TMFlesh]

Maybe I'm missing something but he gave two different equations for finding the Planck Length, but then says that they give slightly different answers. Doesn't that mean that at least one of them has to be wrong? Then on the other hand he used 1st equation for Planck Length to derive the 2nd but since they give different answers wouldn't that mean that there is possibly an error in both? I'm not a mathematician or anything but logically this seem flawed, or am I just missing something?

[@mina86]

Uh? Photons don't have mass? If they had, they wouldn't travel at the speed of light. Or am I missing something?

[@solapowsj25]

Planck length. Length between shell points in 100% elastic collision?? at 'c' in free space?

[@BIT1FFY]

GOD i wish i payed more attention in school and wen on to study this stuff, Its just so interesting. Instead i dossed about n got an engineering degree

[@cbones13]

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 planck volumes.

[@8bit_pineapple]

Is the top comment correct? - I put "radius of the milkyway divided by the size of a proton multiplied by the planck length" into wolfram alpha and got the answer 3.1 miles.

[@nicoheckens1]

@antonb000 Watch water go down the drain, you could mathematically account for what happened and rewind time and calculate the physical movement of the water. This is theoretically impossible (some believe) with black holes. This what is meant when people say information loss, as far as I understand it.

[@sth128]

Long before that the radiation from the object will far exceed the energy input.

[@turbobusa2]

I know this is an old video but may I ask a little bit of a silly question?? If you were Antman and you were shrinking at the speed of light, would you essentially shrink for eons before you reached the Planck length?

[@harleyspeedthrust4013]

what do you mean by "shrinking at the speed of light?" do you mean that his volume shrinks by a factor 3E8 every second?

[@turbobusa2]

@@harleyspeedthrust4013 yes. As a thought experiment... If our size relative to the planck length is greater than our size to the size of the visible universe- could you essentially shrink at the speed of light for roughly as long as it would take to reach the "edge" of the visible universe.

[@gary.richardson]

What rate of shrinking?

[@jeebersjumpincryst]

@VeritasEtLibertas82 What are u thinkin? I assume u are in the northern hemisphere somewhere...? My second wish would be, (being lottery win the first lol) to have someone find the grand amazing beautiful "Theory Of Everything" discovered in my lifetime, that links the vast and the tiny together, and to have it explained and demonstrated to me in a way I could understand... and even to have it applied to something...

[@kinxectic]

I can see that the poor guy is restraining himself - watering down knowledge - to make such complex physics more accessible to the layman.

[@Varde1234]

That goes to show that physics boils down to units.

[@KuznVinny]

Not to be too hard--when I consider scientific topics, I want a teacher who lays out the facts and when I'm done I say, "That man did a great job, both of explanation of providing convincing evidence that what he said isn't science fiction." Too much of modern science is presented without sufficient substantiation.

[@Carutsu]

He didn't answer why it makes sense though. He didn't answer why this makes sense instead of mw just throwing constant so that the units give me whatever I want.

[@desalvo66]

why c^3 whycubed..?? what is c cubed based on.. referencing..??

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

desalvo66, dimensional analysis.

[@stuck_around]

look up the units and think about what unit were looking for

[@Carutsu]

@virumoz yep, that is.

[@packratlabs]

Planck length and Planck Time == Planck " period " , which ties in to string theory as a " harmonic" . String theory shows the basic FIRST CYCLE of the universe between 0 and 1 .

[@ze_rubenator]

@paronfisk yeah I figured most people would see it that way... =P

[@gamerhandlehere]

If u keep adding energy to something, making it hotter and hotter, the waves it emits become shorter and shorter. after a certain point the length of the wave become the Planck length. Any more energy than that and we don't know what happens, the object becomes hotter than temperature itself.

[@l34052]

Einstein taught us that energy has mass and mass produces gravity, excess gravity causes black holes, so in theory you are correct, in practice it doesn't work.

[@jeebersjumpincryst]

@VeritasEtLibertas82 PS - Im also obviously not a physicist... :-)

[@jeebersjumpincryst]

@rageagainstthebath lol yeah i know, but its a conversation about a vid on another link, - heres prob not the best place to have it, prob makes me seem like a bit of a deluded lunatic, but hey... :-)

[@JuanGomez_]

Logical (Number) Intelligence (Smart)

[@Seigge]

@EleVRs oo lol np.

[@godanm]

60 symbols rocks!

[@antonb000]

he lost me at black holes sucking in astronauts and ancient knowledge.. what did he mean by the entropy of the black hole and the information it sucked in?

[@azaas]

i get angry and impatient and quite frankly just a dick when i'm asked to explain far more simple things in my respective field ( which is economics ) ... i can't imagine how patient that kind man is in order for him to sit there and try to explain to us ignorant enthusiasts such complex stuff !!! I have to decide on whether i'll shoot for a PhD or a second masters degree and that impatience of mine is what's really holding me back from the PhD route. Don't think i'd ever make a good professor.

[@siddharthpandey5483]

Am I the only one who thinks that Professor Eaves looks like Anthony Hopkins?

[@yngmalm]

hes smart.

[@rageagainstthebath]

@jeebersjumpincryst Dude. That's "he".

[@kobil316SH]

We all watch Vsauce, don't try to act smart

[@ZipplyZane]

Okay, but what is the significance of the Planck mass? It clearly is not the smallest possible mass.

[@hjembrentkent6181]

The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible black hole

[@myguitardidyermom212]

super late, but the Planck Units are not necessarily the "smallest possible x", they're special in that they're defined in terms of certain physical constants

[@antonb000]

@nicoheckens1 ok thanks

[@toonyfatninjas]

if you get pi and divided in to the smallest number possible follow by the common denominator and get the root of 3/1 now multiply it by the 3 power, you would see!that the space is just like earth "spinning and/or rotating" super slow. this why you could never get this right. your doing base 1 angle. so the big ? here is. those the earth rotate or those it seem that way!? because of the universe is rotating making it look like its earth. maybe only part of it rotates.

[@lawrenceshuda]

W.O.W.

[@yoerijansen7721]

dude.. omg. xD mindfucked me in more ways then i know.... xD

[@wolfy9005]

Finally somebody who understands that lol. People telling me photons have no mass then telling me they have some form of energy...if they had no mass how would they have energy lol

[@harleyspeedthrust4013]

they have energy because they have momentum. if they had mass, it would not be possible for them to travel at the speed of light

[@_bobbejaan]

Dark matter makes sense to me now. It could be particles that are too small for us to detect.

[@peteq1972]

It's not exactly long to be called a Planck "length", it should of been called the Planck shortness. Being add absolutely everything is longer, it cannot be a length can it lol, it's a Planck shortness

[@AlMayer1100]

Love is a biochemical process.

[@pointblank0987654321]

HHHHmmmmmmmmmmmm...