If I'm totally honest, I don't think the Planck length will be any sort of respected value in like 1000 years (if we survive with a high-tech/knowledge society for that long). It's just derived with a unit analysis using Gravity constant, the speed of light, and PLancks certainty constant. Like it's literally just multiplying and dividing the values until their units simplify to distance and naming that distance. It's a super useful analysis assuming that these values have REAL meaning in the most base sense of the word. But trust that these values are ALL perfectly real and at the base of existence is a big step to then base any worldview on, especially considering gravity and speed of light are not really at all reconciled outside of this equation.
Long rant, but it COULD be evidence of simulation if it were absolutely true, but I just doubt it's truth will hold up to future advancements
I think the argument is based on the quantization of various phenomena? like you derive the value and then show that it pops up in quanta. the assumption is that because it does so, no smaller lengths can be measured, since you can't use anything like light to do it.
I guess I might have claimed too strongly about it, but I just mean: the perspective that this length is some limit meaningfully will not be respected if we eventually resolve the differences between quantum-sized physics and macro-physics. The increase of length through the planck-length barrier will be understood as a qualitative change inflection point, just like the distance where the strong and weak force become entirely irrelevant is. The quanta will also become understood by the same underlying principle as the length and therefore interdependent and provding the explanation of its existence.
yeah that makes sense. people take physics theory a bit far in proposing various metaphysical theories. pop science leads people to think they understand physics, but the explanations don't always follow from the math. Feynman's "shut up and calculate" makes more and more sense to me the older I get.
The Planck length isn't really the grand slam for simulation theory it sounds like, position isn't actually quantized because of a thing called rotational invariance - basically, quantum mechanical systems (and really classical systems too) behave the same way if you rotate them x degrees and try again. If you did some kind of particle experiment, rotated your apparatus 10°, then did it again, you'd expect to see repeatably different results due to grid jank/snapping if everything truly operated on a square grid, but things act the same. Things can move around in distances smaller than the Planck length.
i'm a dumbass and don't know physics but I can use my noodle to reason with ideas. the alternative to the universe being "pixelated" at the planck length, if you will permit a crude analogy, is just things being allowed to be infinitely small or infinitely big, right? I don't see how things couldn't also be a simulation under those circumstances, as well. But if reality itself is a simulation, then the word simulation essentially loses its meaning, since its meaning is derived from its contrast with reality.
The Planck Length is the single greatest piece of evidence that we could be living in a simulation.
If I'm totally honest, I don't think the Planck length will be any sort of respected value in like 1000 years (if we survive with a high-tech/knowledge society for that long). It's just derived with a unit analysis using Gravity constant, the speed of light, and PLancks certainty constant. Like it's literally just multiplying and dividing the values until their units simplify to distance and naming that distance. It's a super useful analysis assuming that these values have REAL meaning in the most base sense of the word. But trust that these values are ALL perfectly real and at the base of existence is a big step to then base any worldview on, especially considering gravity and speed of light are not really at all reconciled outside of this equation.
Long rant, but it COULD be evidence of simulation if it were absolutely true, but I just doubt it's truth will hold up to future advancements
I think the argument is based on the quantization of various phenomena? like you derive the value and then show that it pops up in quanta. the assumption is that because it does so, no smaller lengths can be measured, since you can't use anything like light to do it.
I guess I might have claimed too strongly about it, but I just mean: the perspective that this length is some limit meaningfully will not be respected if we eventually resolve the differences between quantum-sized physics and macro-physics. The increase of length through the planck-length barrier will be understood as a qualitative change inflection point, just like the distance where the strong and weak force become entirely irrelevant is. The quanta will also become understood by the same underlying principle as the length and therefore interdependent and provding the explanation of its existence.
yeah that makes sense. people take physics theory a bit far in proposing various metaphysical theories. pop science leads people to think they understand physics, but the explanations don't always follow from the math. Feynman's "shut up and calculate" makes more and more sense to me the older I get.
The Planck length isn't really the grand slam for simulation theory it sounds like, position isn't actually quantized because of a thing called rotational invariance - basically, quantum mechanical systems (and really classical systems too) behave the same way if you rotate them x degrees and try again. If you did some kind of particle experiment, rotated your apparatus 10°, then did it again, you'd expect to see repeatably different results due to grid jank/snapping if everything truly operated on a square grid, but things act the same. Things can move around in distances smaller than the Planck length.
i'm a dumbass and don't know physics but I can use my noodle to reason with ideas. the alternative to the universe being "pixelated" at the planck length, if you will permit a crude analogy, is just things being allowed to be infinitely small or infinitely big, right? I don't see how things couldn't also be a simulation under those circumstances, as well. But if reality itself is a simulation, then the word simulation essentially loses its meaning, since its meaning is derived from its contrast with reality.
ℓ P/2
Simulationcels seething
Speed of light too, also time dilation is just the server taking time to process the increased load.