Like if there's a minimum unit of distance at a Planck length, then could space time not be bent less than that? I mean intuitively space has other limits like that and light speed so its not a bad guess no?If you deleted the rest of the universe and put two basketballs in space say (really really really really) far away, does it ever become absolute 0, not just effectively zero?
>>16825359>minimum unit of distance at a Planck lengthThat's a meme.
>>16825359>minimum unit of distance at a Planck lengththis is not true btwphysics explained has a pretty good video dissecting thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kuRatz2rj0
>>16825359Not in GR as far as I know. You could have two masses arbitrarily far apart to have an arbitrarily force on each other (which isn't really a force I'm GR). Gravity propagates at the speed of light though, so this is looking in the long term.
>>16825359I still don't understand how light can have a speed that is not infinity, and how the speed of light is actually "slow" considering how big the universe is. Light literally cannot travel from one end of the universe to the other end because it's too big. And it takes light four years to get from our star to the nearest star system lol.
Quantum gravity has not been figured out yet. In the current theories it is continuous. Space is also continuous in QM.
>>16825378>>16825628I agree it's a meme. Thought I just had. Gravitational waves are from orbiting bodies. Theoretically shouldn't they exist from electrons orbiting protons, and couldn't we say the minimum size of gravity should be the characteristic wavelength of these "rotations"? I propose the Anon Length.
>>16825359>Is there a minimum unit of gravity?1 grav.
We don't know.>is there a minimum unit of gravityThe possibility of gravitational force being discrete is an open question in physics. No experiment has found good evidence for it.Bad news, it's going to be very hard to prove either way. Relativity as you know does not play nice with quantum mechanics, and to answer this question you'd need to rectify the two, likely also creating the grand unified theory of everything (so, grand unified theory plus gravity for theory of everything) in the process.
>>16825628great videothanks for posting
>>16826091yw anon, i think his channel is super underrated especially with the level of math detail he goes into
>>16825628>Plank units schizo babble His argument completely falls apart from step one lol. Electrons squeezed together to form mass at atomic scales... This means the electrons are annihilated! Then he says squeeze them closer. THEY DONT FUCKING EXIST ANYMORE
>>16825359Length quantization violates Lorentz invariance.Weirdly, area and volume quantization seem theoretically possible.In general, quantization emerges from field symmetries and boundary conditions. Not cause things are inherently chunky.
>>16826616>Length quantization violates Lorentz invariance.Can you say more about this?
>>16826616>Length quantization violates Lorentz invariance.makes me wonder why so many phd-level and professor-level theoretical physicists assert the planck length is a quantized length of the universe. surely they must know it breaks lorentz variance? i want to believe they know this and just don't care. since the alternative being ignorance of this level is.... scary. perhaps sabine was right.
>>16826032you have to quantize gravity otherwise you'd get something similar to the ultraviolet catastrophe but with gravitational wavesbtw we can expect new physics at high energies/frequencies of gravity, just like the photoelectric effect cannot be detected when you're using infrared lightcreating very high frequency gravitational waves is left as an exercise to the reader
>>16825878This would predict the smallest length of gravity is about 100 nm.
>>16826646how do you figure?
>>16826641>you have to quantize gravityStopped reading. Kys schizo.
There are no limits in the fundamentals of science. No speed of light max, no minimum or maximum length, no max density. It's a infinite fractalAlso even something appears constant it will change, all things vibrate/changeEven recorded data constantly changes
>>16826654Gravitational waves of electrons orbiting nuclei.
>>16827189"orbits" are held to be around 300 angstrom, how do you get from that all the way to 100 nm?
>>16827172I don't make the rules, there's just too much room at the bottom, if you don't discretizeParmenide was, apparently, first to raise this objection seriously and he hasn't been refuted yet to my knowledge, in fact Heisenberg´s uncertainty principle is the only serious attempt at a solution to Zeno's arrow paradox, and it points at how Parmenides was actually right - you cannot separate the world into smaller pieces and treat them as if they were independent of each other, locality isn't real, realism is a spook, p = ħk
>>16827343Orbits in this context mean jumping energy levels
>>16827394orbitals, surestill, they are normally way smaller than 100nmso where do you get this frequency from?
>>16827401Energy from jumping energy levels. >GRAVY
