The Planck Length: The resolution of the Universe?

[@grukk4051]

The Planck length is easy to imagine. It's the distance you need to move shower controls to get from from freezing to scalding

[@telebubba5527]

You need new taps....

[@pencilpauli9442]

This is a universal truth!

[@richardofoz2167]

Now that puts it in terms I can understand. Brilliant!

[@tedytarrify]

Relatable

[@ObservationofLimits]

Your water heater is set way too high if that's a thing

[@abcxyz6606]

The Humam egg comparison size with the entire measurable universe to that of a Plank length to a human egg really puts it into the absolutley scale perspective. Nicely done. Mind blow.

[@findystonerush9339]

I know it does!

[@thorinsee5129]

Jup that really puts it to scale. My brain is smoking but yeah i can imagine it now.

[@Icetea-2000]

@@thorinsee5129 In reality, none of us can even come close to imagining how vast the observable universe is, but we can be stunned that it is a large scale. Even if we’ll never truly grasp its size.

[@gamertardguardian1299]

Human egg???

[@jimbobkirk515]

Kinda backs up the simulation theory if you think about it.

[@Parmesan_Seeker]

Wait this means that humans, in all our cosmic insignificance, are closer in size to the largest thing (that we could ever observe anyway) than the smallest. Just... woah. From the perspective of a hypothetical Plank-being, a human body would seem even more impossibly vast than entire universe does to us! This is why I love this stuff.

[@seveng0th]

We are the only knowing thing which think about how our universe is. We are not insignificant.

[@Parmesan_Seeker]

@@seveng0th well we can't know for sure if that's true. Also, it's BECAUSE we are conscious that we even care about things like that In the first place.

[@TheEroticDonkey]

Not on a linear scale

[@PizzaPowerXYZ]

@@TheEroticDonkey yeah but the higher is lower than the lower is lower

[@merlin4real]

Makes me think about cosmic rescaling like Penrose talks about. Just instantaneously everything that was the size of mitochondria is now the size of the moon, and it all starts over.

[@chrismne92]

This is actually how science videos shall be made. You use the things people are familiar with and compare them in size to exmplain how something is small or big. Thanks a lot! Keep up with a good work.

[@justanotherguy469]

Let them eat cake! He touched on some important points, but did not elaborate in order to satisfy lesser minds. Let them follow the Kardashians!

[@fredjones7705]

This is not science. I suppose it could be viewed as a very juvenile introduction but it's at a 4th grade level. Have we sank that low?

[@alexanderzerka8477]

@@fredjones7705 *sunk

[@fredjones7705]

@@alexanderzerka8477 See what I mean?

[@DodgyDaveGTX]

The Midlands (UK) accent is a key component for the "perfect" science video too ofc

[@erikrichardgregory]

Has KZbin been shadow banning this guy? He’s freakin’ amazing. Love this stuff

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much. I'm sure KZbin isn't shadow banning me at all. I'm just not very good at self promotion, and my job means I don't get chance to make as many videos as I'd like.

[@erikrichardgregory]

@@LearningCurveScience yeah, we need “sponsors.” Pity that some are good at raising sponsors, but produce mediocre content. Then there are guys like you who produce great content, but raising sponsors “ain’t” your thing

[@mattsheldon9732]

No. It’s just that most people are idiots and would rather watch kids playing computer games than learn something. 🤦‍♂️

[@erikrichardgregory]

@@mattsheldon9732 ha ha…couldn’t have said it better

[@JoeOvercoat]

Your assertion of shadow banning requires some proof even as a hypothetical: the algorithm simply doesn’t shadow ban.

[@adamcole4623]

Excellent work, as always. I've never seen the Planck length - egg cell - observable universe comparison before. Simply mind-blowing! Thanks for uploading these superb videos.

[@ghhoward]

George Howard Great analogy of the human egg cell smallest size visable to the observable universe for Planck scale. :-)

[@findystonerush9339]

​@@ghhoward That's right! because any universe smaller than the human egg is not a universe anymore! because that's the smallest that a universe can possibly get! Universe*plank length=human egg.

[@mihailmilev9909]

@@findystonerush9339 wait what?

[@bikeanddogtripsvirtualcycling]

years ago i was told to add the smallest pencil dot i could manage on to a sheet of paper, then imagine that dot was increased to the size of the observable universe in which someone would be adding a new tiny pencil dot - with that second dot being a good estimation of planck length. The egg cell scenario is very similar but sounds way more scientific.

[@SH2-136]

Thank you for this, it was a great visualization and definitely helped.

[@VishnuPrasad-qu6qc]

I love how you saved the best comparison scale for the last. Couldn't have put it any better. Kudos!

[@Sun-p6e]

Here's another scale: the Planck length - man - is about 100 million observable universes.

[@intruder1300]

That last example of the human egg scale suddenly made it very clear, Amazing!

[@didierleonard7125]

clear ?..for me not really : it s like switching from one illusion to another .. look at the video on yuotube by trying to tag " how is the universe far bigger than you think". then you get how uncomprehensible large is already the observable universe ( not to mention the whole universe) . At this scale it s a fallacy to pretend to scope numbers that big ( like the size of the universe, plank lenght). then trying to explain one with the other is ... another fallacy ?!

[@gray1080]

@@didierleonard7125 true but it's still better than having no reference. Also plenty of people know that the observable universe is about 30-40 billion light years in radius.

[@arthurmigas2021]

There is an ERROR on the screen at 4:50, where the values and units are given for the fundamental constants as well as the formula to calculate Planck's length using them. Planck's constant's unit is [m^2*kg*s^-1] and *not* as given [m^2*kg^-1*s^-2]. If we tried to calculate the length with these units, we would get something like [m*kg^-1*s^(-1/2)]... If we use the correct unit for Planck's constant, all the units nicely reduce to [m]. I watch a lot of educational videos on math and the universe, not particularly Learning Curve 2b honest, and occasionally produce my own. So we should all be careful about the data and formulas we provide.

[@findystonerush9339]

Yes! i did not see that ERROR! :(

[@tuneboyz5634]

@@findystonerush9339 it's ok little buddy 😊

[@johno4521]

I knew that...

[@whiteafrican5895]

Such a small error🙄

[@findystonerush9339]

@@tuneboyz5634 Why? LOL.

[@smortemm2438]

finally, science videos that are (a) actually fun to watch and (b) don't require a degree in the topic to understand. great job!

[@antiphlex]

That last comparison between the universe, the egg cell, and the Planck length was really illustrative.

[@youtubesecurity7992]

This video isso amazing. The channel deserves more subscribers and hopefully will grow♡

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much. Honestly I just enjoy making the videos and the opportunity I get to do some research of some cool science, I'm glad you enjoyed it too.

[@youtubesecurity7992]

@@LearningCurveScience I do not only enjoy it - I love it! Keep it up 👍

[@jlwilder8436]

It's happening, very slowly, but finally both views and subscribers are at least into the thousands now.

[@Ninjahat]

Very nice scale explanation at the end there. It really made me understand how tiny the Planck length actually is. What a great example. I will remember this one when trying to explain science to my friends and family.

[@jlwilder8436]

FINALLY! This got up into the hundreds of thousands of views (& counting). It's taken a while for this channel and its great content to catch on, but I'm glad that many of its videos are finally getting their well deserved views and this channel getting into the many thousands of subscribers now, too. 💁

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you so much for your continued support. Every one of my subscribers is important to me.

[@punknoodles0]

Thank you for pointing out that you don't ACTUALLY GET SHORTER when moving faster, you just APPEAR SHORTER to an outside observer!

[@findystonerush9339]

Yes! if you where at light speed! an observer would see you the size of a planck length!

[@MichaelClark-uw7ex]

Planck length = the distance I can move before my wife asks where am I going.

[@princefiggy]

you do a really good job of explaining this and in giving weight to how truly small a Planck length is.

[@averylawton5802]

The fact that you can Envision the plank length at all really should humble more people than it does. Sometimes we're too smart for our own good and it causes us hubris when we should be humbled by capacity of our own brilliance. It just boggles my mind sometimes that our meat spaceship of seawater is capable of encapsulating the cosmos with inside our own imagination. I'm granting that we stand on the shoulders of giants to be able to conceptualize some of these things but the fact that we can even do it at all is truly fascinating.

[@Roberto-REME]

Outstanding video production: well narrated and your explanation is spot-on. You really put size into perspective. Thank you,

[@petrosros]

I remember a story about an early physicist; 18-1900s. He stated that a pin dropped on Earth was a measurable quantity on the surface of Sirius. Or vice versa, anyway this happened at a conference of like-minded Science Nut Bags, and apparently they all immediately went hurtling off to their respective labs to sweat out and confirm his maths. I don't know if he used the Plank length to do this, but the analogy was a good one, and it stayed with me.

[@technewseveryweek8332]

Their is a growing idea that the black holes is compacted to Planck length, which of course gives an incredible density

[@adraedin]

Very well done. Short and to the point, easy to follow, easy to understand, no deep diving into complex math equations. That said, I'll unwillingly be forgetting most of this stuff after my short term memory of it fades away and I'll be back to describing it "ridiculously super duper uber small". :P

[@everything777]

Weird coincidence that the human scale is almost exactly in the middle of the largest and smallest scales we can speak of with any meaning.

[@Existidor.Serial137]

we are always at the center of something.... However, history has shown us again and again that we are not. That makes you wonder...

[@ItsGamein]

Not really a coincidence, the universe has such a massive scale it's hard not to be roughly in the center no matter what you are, even cells are closer to the size of the universe than the size of a planck

[@AJ-cr8ef]

Most underrated channel on YT

[@stuboyd1194]

I've heard it put this way: Think of the size of the observable universe, around 92 billion light years in diameter. Now think of that compared to an atom in terms scale. The Planck length is around the same scale compared to an atom.

[@RishiAnupam]

The important thing to understand with all Planck units is the point of them - that when these are used as base units, the universal physical constants, namely the Gravitational constant, Planck's constant, Boltzmann constant and the speed of light in vacuum all compute numerically to 1. So, that if instead of using m, kg and s, we were to use lp as the unit (and so on), our constants would all be numerically equal to 1 (with the correct dimensions, of course). While the scales are cool, they are not meant to be understood by humans. They are only a mathematical convenience. Just wanted to put it out here in the comment section, in order for the idea to be complete.

[@lamcho00]

How did you derive this?

[@brown3394]

ah shit yeah that makes a lot of sense ty.

[@brown3394]

Trying to wrap my head around it though, thinking of a plank length as the smallest possible distance-before reading this-I was picturing as the point where reductionism of space ends and you only have 0 dimensional points that something can't 'move' across but can only jump from point to point since no smaller distance can be traveled. Would you say that's not the case? Haven't had a chance to learn about the plank length and all the science surrounding, etc. yet, but it seems super interesting so I'm gonna start now hehe.

[@jekytck]

@@brown3394 Just some more food for thought: it's practically impossible for an entity/object to enter in contact with anything else, on top of that: at that size nothing should move like we expect, so don't visualise it in a static environment, because it's pure chaos down there (although I'm talking with bigger particles in mind, as I can't even imagine how hard it would be to look in the exact spot where something of that dimension exists)

[@brown3394]

@@jekytcktrue, man the science down there is the most curious sh|t ever-and trying to reconcile all that, with being made of that stuff-I love it.

[@allenhonaker4107]

The beauty of the Planck length is that it allows more space for particles ,as yet undiscovered yet, to exist

[@newguy90]

Planck Length is not necessarily the smallest size in the universe. It's the hypothetical smallest size you can observe without the microscope collapsing into its own black hole. There are some theoretical models that use even smaller objects such as string theory.

[@findystonerush9339]

Well a microscope can't turn into a black hole! and nothing is smaller than the planck length! and if something was smaller than the planck length that would be so small that it would explode and dissapear out of existance!

[@lummymanpix]

i like the short simple descriptions! ill check out a few more of your videos for sure!

[@321ssteeeeeve]

An egg cell to the universe = a planck length to an egg cell. Much smaller than I expected, but more fascinating is the cell of life is the midpoint of length within all existence

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

I estimate that the theoretical minimum size that our visual cortex can process is in the vicinity of 1-10 micrometers. Interestingly, this is just above the wavelength of the light we see: red has a wavelength of about 0.9 micrometers.

[@zatchiel]

Just when I thought I had somewhat of a grasp that last example just made my brain walk out on me. Great vid!

[@Chrispy01a]

Eggcellent vid!!! The scales literally fell into my eyes as opposed to from them - thanks for a great bit of science 👍

[@SpiderGuyIsGoodAtMinecraft]

Gonna show her this when she says it’s small 😈

[@DodgyDaveGTX]

I liked Brian Cox's explanation: a plank-squared is basically a pixel in the giant display that we call the universe (hugely(lol) paraphrasing here btw)

[@nemlehetkurvopica2454]

the proton, neither the neutron nor the electron are all made of three quarks all of them are made of various numbers of quarks, and the number is changing constantly from 15 quarks to 2 quarks

[@Dark0neone]

"things are starting to get strange here" hehe I see what you did there.

[@GetUpTheMountains]

Man, this one hurt to think about. Especially that last comparison. Excellent video.

[@w8363]

I will make a unit of size so small that it will make Planck length very massive by comparing it and I will call it Kutemeter.

[@ezziboo]

Mind blowing and easy to understand. Excellent!

[@ReflectiveLayerFilm]

Theoretical limits on our ability to measure nature is a scary thought. Because it means that there are potential interactions that affects us but we'll never be able to detect them. Good Topic, Great video.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you, yes theoretical limits are interesting and a little unsettling. Fortunately at the moment, Planck length is a long way from what we are able to discern.

[@htran10]

Freaking great! I can’t believe how small this length is

[@larryslemp9698]

........and just.....how small is it?!

[@findystonerush9339]

@@larryslemp9698 The planck length is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000016 metres! and that is how small it is!

[@marjanj8789]

This is the best explanation I have seen on KZbin! Very clear and easy to understand, much better than other videos with millions of views. Keep up the great work! Subscribed

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you so much. I do try to keep my videos understandable for people who are interested in science. Thank you again, such a lovely comment.

[@benj5889]

@@LearningCurveScience Quality communication skills too in your videos...your students are really lucky

[@NeverSnows]

I thought this was gonna be a deep dive into the maths and physics of WHY it is the smallest possible length.

[@nHans]

So the Planck Length doesn't undergo Lorentz Contraction? That's fascinating-I didn't know that! Obviously the equations of Special Relativity themselves contain no hint of quantum phenomena. The Wikipedia page for "Length contraction" also doesn't mention it. I tried to think about its implications, and immediately ran into intuition-defying contradictions. But that's not unusual whenever SR and/or QM get involved. I'd love to understand more.

[@Dranok1]

Planck length doesn't Contract because it is based on c (which of course is constant). It is one of so few fundamental universal concepts, based on those fundamental formulae. If it wasn't constant then those formulae would be meaningless and the structure of the universe would collapse into quantum foam...

[@lennierofthethirdfaneofchu7286]

I think his explanation there is a bit confused. You're going to say the Plank length is 1.6E-35 m. The person in the spaceship travelling 0.99c relative to you is going to say the Plank length is 1.6E-35 m. But if you had an object on Planck length long, the person in the spaceship would measure it as being ~2.3E-36m. If you could both measure things that small.

[@nHans]

​@@lennierofthethirdfaneofchu7286 The whole point of the Planck Length is that you cannot measure anything smaller-not even in theory. Let's take your example-an object that is Planck Length long in a stationary reference frame. Now, in a moving reference frame-as you said-according to Special Relativity, its length should be L' = γL, where γ = √(1-v²/c²). However, since that's smaller than the Planck Length, you'll NOT be able to measure it, no matter how sophisticated your instruments. I don't know what the results of measuring it will be. In any case, it'll either remain Planck lengths long, or its length will appear to have shrunk to zero units. You won't be able to measure anything in between. This means that the equations for Lorentz Contraction fail at Planck Length. New, more comprehensive equations are required. This shouldn't be totally shocking. After all, Special Relativity showed that Galilean Relativity fails at speeds approaching *c.* And now, Quantum Mechanics is telling us that Special Relativity fails at Planck Length.

[@lennierofthethirdfaneofchu7286]

@@nHans No. The Planck units are an artifact of setting all those fundamental constants to 1. (It takes one Planck time for light in a vacuums to go one Planck length. If the universe is quantized at both the Planck length and Planck time, everything would either move at the speed of light or not at all.)

[@nHans]

@@lennierofthethirdfaneofchu7286 Okay.

[@idegteke]

2:02 I’m fascinated by the quality of the thought that science’s best definition of “empty space” is something that some particles appear to just cross easily. It’s like saying that the best definition of swamp is a region where people can just barely cross while other animals cross it without too much difficulty. Bravo!

[@vanholloman9918]

That description of how small the plank length is at the end blew my mind. That is freaking smaaaallll.

[@palmer7203]

It’s amazing to be able to visualize the relative size of these things. Extremely well done thank you.

[@dommice]

Great video! Looking forward to watching more of your work. Thanks.

[@kingvinoda3896]

Without the plank length there could not be a universe for there would always be an infinite distance between two objects, so the universe requires a limit to how small something can be. Like pixels.

[@BrowniBreana]

The only correct video when I searched "how small we can measure" Great video

[@akbdawgo6396]

Zi has some serious morning wood. A real plank you could say.

[@ANDROLOMA]

Thus the mystery.

[@TrapperBV]

These videos are put together very well.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much. I'm glad you think so. I do put a lot of effort into all my videos.

[@thijmen2646]

as a teacher, i think you have a talent of explaining abstract topics

[@gipbwok2008]

The next time I'm captured by pirates and forced to walk the plank, I'll just take a teeny step and tell them that I just walked trillions of Planck lengths and maybe they'll set me free 🙂.

[@findystonerush9339]

Well arg! i'm the pirate! 🏴‍☠and if you don't move 1 plank i will capture! but 1 trillion planck lengths=1.6*10^-23 metres that's smaller than a quark! so it's impossible to walk only 1 quark! because you are made of undecillions of quarks! i think i could do only 62 nonillion planks! or 1 mm. And if you walk more then 62 Nonillion planks i will set you free!

[@casos-policiais]

we don't see plancks, we see photons. so, technically, photons are the resolution of the universe.

[@taker1292]

it's a shame the views are so low for such a great video!

[@LearningCurveScience]

I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I appreciate every view of every video and really enjoy making them. I've learned so much whilst making these videos. Thank you very much

[@jlwilder8436]

That's what I'm saying. I come back with some frequency to see... I don't know how some get numbers quick and others get there slowly. Either way, based on some of the similar (other) types of videos and the numbers they get, these will get there. Looking forward to it.

[@taker1292]

@@jlwilder8436 ill try posting this on reddit. might get some viewers.

[@aguy2896]

Yah man

[@fornax333]

at 04:38 Hmm.....Isn't ℏ actually the Diracs konstant? ιρ = √(ℏG/C^3) and ℏ = Diracs konstant = h/2π

[@LearningCurveScience]

You're quite correct. h bar is the reduced Planck constant, which is also Dirac's constant. I misnamed it sorry.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

In this theory, the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics as a geometrical process represents the characteristics of time. The geometrical aspect of this process is based on Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says: “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". Each point on the wave front represents a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π of this interaction. Light waves radiate out spherically 4πr² with their interior forming the characteristic of three-dimensional space with the spherical surface forming a probabilistic wave front. Each point ∆E=hf on the wave front forms the potential for a new spherical wave, a photon of energy, a new oscillation or vibration that forms our future. We have to square the radius r² because process is unfolding relative to the surface of the sphere. Therefore, we have the probability wave function Ψ² is squared. The speed of the process is squared c², the speed of light and the charge of the electron is squared e² representing different aspect of the same process. The light photon ∆E=hf and the electron are two sides of the same process in this theory. The centre of the sphere forms a constant of action relative to the radius square r² and the circumference 2πr. This forms the Planck constant h/2π in mathematics of Quantum Mechanics

[@noahglimcher5445]

0:38 this image is called "cat flower kitten" and I have been aware of it since 5th grade, I used it to make a website to get myself organized. I was using it because I wanted a cute background. It is so crazy that it ended up here.

[@MarshiiRose]

Still not as small as my brain

[@erikrichardgregory]

Question from an enthused subscriber (and we must up your view count -- it's criminally low given the quality of material)--why is the Planck length impossible to "halve?" Why is this the accepted "cannot get smaller " standard? Why can't it get smaller still? Thx for any info

[@barthvapour]

I would hazard a guess it's because of its relationship with the other universal constants. If the value of any one of them was different, the value of the Planck length would also be different. A bit like how if the permissivity/permeability of free space was different, so would the speed of light be.

[@erikrichardgregory]

@@barthvapour thx…a sort of “dependency impact” on the universe I’m guessing. Saw another educator who indicated it’s possible to get smaller still than the Planck length, but that’s the most small we can measure with physics. Anything smaller would break our math. Words to that effect. Thx for responding

[@Simple-EDU]

Thank you. Now im confident again!

[@larrygraham3377]

Thank You, Really enjoy your videos. It's really fun to learn Science this way. 🤗🤗🤗

[@LearningCurveScience]

Glad you like them!

[@Vivichannel3950]

The ending part is insane, its the most insane thing I've seen this year.

[@HEARDIFFERENT]

EXCELLENT WORK. CONGRATS MATE.😍😍😍

[@LearningCurveScience]

Again, thank you so much for the lovely comment!

[@joshlewis575]

The atom to proton with that marble reference was crazy. Insane we can study such things

[@seanmcdonough8815]

Just found this guy, great stuff, keep tweeking algorithm

[@maxcaysey2844]

1/1000 of a beach ball mean there are room for 1000 "things" inside it. There are room for millions of grains of sand inside a "normal" size beachball of around 40cm dialmeter!

[@findystonerush9339]

But there's nothing inside of a beach ball! if there was then i couldn't play beach ball :(

[@jlwilder8436]

How am I (one of) the first to comment? Wow/early stage of something new is cool!; ) You will eventually have thousands and thousands of views; I guess this channel is at its egg cell stage, and as it grows exponentially, so will its audience! 😉 Very well done; I love the size comparisons of those very big to very small scales. This did the Planck Length justice. I will watch more of your's.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Wow thank you so much for such a lovely comment. It is comments like this that make it all worthwhile. I'm glad you are enjoying my videos. Thanks again

[@Dubforlife.]

WOW, love that comparison, just in auh! 😄 Thank you!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Glad you liked it!

[@cedarbremner8750]

Still taller than the short friend.

[@unoftoaster]

planck length isnt the “absolute smallest” like most think, it goes infinitely smaller we just cant observe any smaller because of how everything we know breaks down at that scale, so theres no really resolution or pixelation of the universe

[@theblankchannel1752]

Great job! You deserve way more subscribers, sir!

[@ianwoolner354]

At 4:51 the value of Planks Contestant (h)is given using the symbol h with a bar across it which is the symbol of the reduced Planks Constant. The reduced Planks Constant is Planks Constant divided by 2π.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Yes, that's my error. Most of them use h bar. I mis-named it, apologies

[@xwhateverx666]

I'm wondering whether the units for Planck constant here should be m²•kg•s−¹ (instead of m²•kg-¹•s-² given in the video)? That's what I've seen elsewhere and also units would cancel properly. Great videos by the way, very interesting concepts!

[@MarcFromBerryland]

I hope you will make the same video for the Planck time unit.

[@edwardvangeel2763]

In 4:53 the dimensions do not match. Planck's constant should be in m² kg per second.

[@kevinmaguire1985]

Your videos are brilliant explanations of the most interesting aspects of our universe. It's just a shame that you aren't getting the same number of subscribers and likes as the Instagram crowd as you are much better at making people feel utterly insignificant and irrelevant. Cheers for the wisdom.

[@cursocuritiba]

Great work!!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[@adoggiedogg]

I googled how small are the smallest things and this is the mind blowing video i got. If a human egg cell was the size of the universe planck length would be the size of the human egg.

[@benj5889]

So pleased I've found this channel I primarily watch kurzegagt so pleased Ive another cool comparable channel to learn from

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you so much. I don't think I rank anywhere near Kurzgesagt, but it is lovely of you to say so.

[@benj5889]

@@LearningCurveScience it's pretty amazing to have the chance to watch your channel before the 'moment' arrives and suddenly thousands will be enjoying these videos every day

[@crawkn]

The Planck length doesn't tell us what is the minimum size anything can be, but rather the minimum size which is observable. But we routinely conjecture about things which we cannot observe, based on consistency with what is observable. When something is truly impossible to observe directly, such conjecture is untestable, but may still become accepted as probably true, at least until a more convincing conjecture comes along. This is a manifestation of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which holds that no consistent system can be fully proven from within itself.

[@johnnyvilas4003]

A quark has a finite size? See time 3.27. I thought a quark was a point like an electron with radius zero.

[@nHans]

You're correct. _All_ elementary particles of the Standard Model-quarks, neutrinos, electron etc.-are point-sized objects of zero size. Zero radius, zero volume. Literally. What he's talking about is their *_interaction cross-section,_* not their physical size. Of course, he should've mentioned that in order to avoid misinforming his users.

[@brown3394]

@@nHans Are you able explain this concept of 0 size to me in a way that makes more digestible sense, or is it just a product of the physics that is hard for anyone to make intuitive sense of? That's been something that hasn't ever seemed to make any logical sense to me-or feels like this number 0, and the number 0 as I've always understood it, are two completely different things-if you know what I mean. In other words: 0 is usually used to represent nothing, then you hear that 0 can also represent something, and that in fact the building blocks of the universe and everything we are made up with size and length of is actually build from 'nothing' in size and length-is sort my best way to describe the dilemma. Is everything just waves/particles of effects of the different forces, rather than being objects in physical space as we think of 'things'?

[@nHans]

​@@brown3394 Don't beat yourself up over it. _Nothing_ in the quantum realm makes intuitive sense to anybody. Not even to an engineer to me-and I have taken several physics courses in engineering college! Now I can do the math and derive results-at least in simple cases. For example, I can solve Schrödinger's Equation for one-electron systems. I can calculate the probability of an electron tunneling through an energy barrier. And yet, I cannot for the life of me grok what that means in the physical world that I live and work in. The fundamental particles and forces in the quantum world are nothing like anything we experience in our macroscopic, everyday world. First of all, in everyday life, we use real numbers to quantify states of matter. But in the quantum world, that's not enough-we have to use complex numbers. There's no physical interpretation for that. From there, it keeps getting progressively weirder: wave-particle duality, non-determinism (probabilistic behavior), uncertainty, entanglement and so on. Zero-sized particles with non-zero mass, charge, and spin is just part of that general madness. They aren't even 'particles' as we usually understand the word-they're 'vibration modes' of 'quantum fields.' That requires more math than I've ever studied. So, like almost everybody else here, I watch the 'creative visualizations' and listen to the simplistic explanations in these videos, and wonder if even the presenters know what they're talking about.

[@brown3394]

@@nHans oh k, yeah I've spent a good chunk of time digesting most the subjects on quantum mechanics, was just wondering if I was still in the dark when it comes to this specific concept, but that was what I suspected, thanks a lot for the response!

[@SongWhisperer]

Was energy & matter ever smaller than a Planck length? Like the atoms passing through the gold foil is it possible that energy & matter at one time passed through the barrier separating 1 dimension from another just like the atom passing through the gold foil? To the human eye gold foil looks solid but to an atom it looks like an object full of holes that the atom can pass right through, it is possible that the space we exist in can be seen by something small enough as something that it could pass right through? We can only move in 3 directions, up & down, side to side, and back & forth, and any combination of the 3. In order to leave this dimension we would have to be able to move “in” or “out” of the space we exist in, is it possible that if something was small enough it could move in or out of the space that surrounds everything (kind of like a barrier) just like the atom passing through what we see as a solid barrier? It’s just a thought experiment but maybe energy & matter came from another dimension where it was so small that it passed (either in or out) right through spacetime and expanded into the universe once under a much less force of gravity?

[@findystonerush9339]

Well it can't be smaller! because the planck length is the smallest thing possible!

[@SongWhisperer]

@@findystonerush9339 • No, that’s not entirely true. The Planck length is the smallest measurement known to scientists, it’s possible that new measurements could be infinitely smaller. Everything changes with time & technology, it probably won’t be very long (at the speed technology is growing) before something new is discovered and the Planck length is no longer the smallest thing known to scientists.

[@MaxMax-ox2dl]

Question can black hole reach the Planck length

[@findystonerush9339]

Well if a proton colapsed into a black hole then it would reach the Planck length! so yes!

[@wyattlive83]

Very well explained

[@drewbola]

So... I think I read someplace about cellular space... where was it... anyway, if there is nothing smaller than plank length nothing could travel from one end of the length to the other, because it could not be divided in such a way. Therefore it would have to skip along... I always found this to be interesting.

[@mosshark]

Thanks for putting that into perspective.

[@juxtor9539]

I've heard the Planck length essentially (in our understanding) is the resolution of reality. So pretty dang HD! Makes an 8K TV hang its head in shame :P

[@Oneiroclast]

Resolution is a bit misleading because it leads to the common misconception that all lengths are integer multiples of the Planck length, which they're not.

[@sgr5038]

Sorry correct me if wrong. At 4:56, isn't it the units of the Planck's constant suppose to be m^2 kg^1 s^-1, since the other SI units of Planck's constant relating the photon energy and it's frequency is J.s. Moreover with the above mentioned Planck's constant units in your video , the final derived unit will not add up to the units of length...thank you

[@eggman9271]

Ever since I figured out about the planck length I always wonder about how matter cannot be made up of nothing it has to be made of something so by that logic everything is infinitely small

[@Brommear]

Very interesting. Thank you.

[@brecknichols]

Mind blown. Thank you!!! I'm going to go lay down, now.

[@killesk]

Brilliant video. Keep up the good work

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thanks very much

[@Robo-xk4jm]

didnt think one could actually imagine planck length in any capacity, but that analogy of human egg cell in the center of the observable universe being the same thing as the center most cubic planck in the center of an egg cell blew my mind

[@troygeiges]

Still have a hard time grasping haha. Is Is it possible to have a 1/2 plank length

[@Emre-pr2iz]

No

[@RolandRhodes1]

Superb explanation

[@LunarSkittles]

3:02 "The up and down business is the flavor of the quark, and things are starting to get a little bit strange here." Strange? I don't see any hadrons, yet.

[@manofcultura]

Me on a first date: It’s really not that small, I’m just traveling at relativistic speeds!

[@drksideofthewal]

So what you’re saying is, traveling at the speed of light isn’t as sexy as Freddie Mercury made it sound? :p