>>16685570
>the Planck length is the smallest measurable distance, and the Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible black hole.
Evidence?
>To see that the Planck length is the smallest measurable distance, note that the smaller you want to zoom in, the more energy you need to provide, as per the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This is obviously why we build big particle accelerators to investigate fundamental physics. But at some point we smash things together with such energy that we create a black hole, and at that point adding more energy creates an even larger black hole, reducing, rather than increasing, our resolution. Hence the smallest measurable distance is the radius of the smallest black hole.
Not evidence.
>The Planck length is that radius, as can be seen by comparing the formula for the Compton wavelength (in terms of the mass of the object) with the formula for the radius of a black hole (again in terms of mass). If objects are arbitrarily localisable (up to the aforementioned limit) then there must be some smallest possible black hole, whose radius turns out to be the Planck length and whose mass is the Planck mass.
Not evidence.

You need experimental evidence that shows the limit isn't something else.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

I don't think there are any singularities in our universe.