whups. plank length. PLANK. damn spell check.

As far as I know they say "it just doesn't make sense". I don't know why they say so.

planck length. god damn. and it's not the smallest length. it's the smallest observable length below which it's impossible to tell if 2 things are separate

It's pretty much the size of one pixel in the resolution of the universe.

>>14304
pretty much this.

>>14296

okay, is this length an intrinsic part of the universe, and there really isnt anything smaller then it. or is it just a limit of our current technology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length#Physical_significance

File 135147112586.gif - (16.17KB , 223x300 , Plank_300.gif )

>>14304
But what if you take a higher quality photo and up the display resolution. What stops Future-Tech. increasing the resolution?

>>14321
The resolution is a function of the structure of spacetime. You can't alter it any more than you can hack the gain on gravity. So you can increase the resolution on your recording devices, but that doesn't change the resolution on reality.

You can take pictures of your computer's monitor with higher and higher resolution cameras, but no matter how good your cameras are, the smallest unit of information you'll get is defined by a pixel on your monitor.

>>14322
so its an intrensic property of the universe, as far as we know.

how did we discover this? according to wikipedea a planck is far, far smaller then any current instrument is capable of measuring. so how did we figure out that the planck is the smallest you can get?

because quantum mechanics. and math. i don't know the equations, but they're all on wikipedia. just follow the links to all the different constants and what not.

>>14323

The same way we predicted the existence of singularities before actually detecting one. The mathematics describing behaviors of the universe we have already observed can be extrapolated from.

So what happens if energy were to be added to a wavelength that is as short as a planck length?

>>14330

Think about what a wave on your screen with the length of a pixel is. It isn't a wave at all. A vibration must be greater than a Planck length to even be said to occur.

>>14328
Except the ratio of singularities we failed to find before we actually found one is huge.

The planck length is just a hypothetical. There is nothing that prevents the possibility of a smaller measurable unit except our current understanding of theoretical physics. And that can change at any time.

>>14334
>the ratio of singularities we failed to find before we actually found one is huge

How does that have any bearing on them having been predicted and found?

>The planck length is just a hypothetical.

So were singularities. And the Higgs boson, as well as a whole corral of other particles. You seem to be under the impression that theoretical understanding is not, in fact, understanding. Considering modern theoretical physics' track record, that is a silly assumption to have.

There are areas of theoretical physics that are currently in dispute, but the Planck length is not one of them. The Planck length is based on the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. If the Planck length turns out not to exist, then at least one of these three well-observed, corroborated, and mathematically understood phenomena is somehow acting differently than we have ever observed it to act.

>>14335
>How does that have any bearing on them having been predicted and found?
The mathematics was only 'finalised' after they successfully found one. Give enough monkeys enough calculators and one of them will eventually plug in a universal constant. Working backwards is not the same as working forwards.

>So were singularities. And the Higgs boson, as well as a whole corral of other particles. You seem to be under the impression that theoretical understanding is not, in fact, understanding.
The fabled Higgs-Boson hasn't been discovered. CERN are effectively (and literally) shooting in the dark hoping to find something that fits the model. It by no ways means the models are right. It's like religion and god, just because he fits into the Christian model of the universe doesn't mean he exists.

>>14337
> It by no ways means the models are right

Of course not. But it does mean that the models are A: reliable and B: not yet wrong.

Comparing a testable predictive model to blind faith is the definition of scientific illiteracy. I mean this with all due respect, but perhaps /x/ is a better board for you.

i was going to post this but the hurricane took out the internet. i'm pretty sure wavelength doesn't matter. wavelength is a description of trajectory, not a measurement of any intrinsic physical property or size. according to de broglie's formula any object with momentum greater than 41 kg m/s has a wavelength lower than planck length

Imagine hypothetically that we could measure plank lengths between objects, would 6.5 lengths be an invalid measurement? Would the object arbitrarily move to 7 lengths?

can you like actually spell right?

your question is like asking what if the center of the earth wasn't the center of the earth. obviously there would be something lower and the previous center would just be some random meaningless point in the mantle.

>>14387

No, he's asking a perfectly valid question. What he wants to know is, "given that the Planck length is the smallest measurable distance, is the universe digital with everything existing in increments of Planck lengths, or does it make spatial sense to have a longer measurement that is not evenly divisible by the Planck length?"

It is a fascinating issue, actually. I'm not quite sure what the current state of research on this is.

but that's not what he wants to know. that's what you want to know. the immeasurability of the planck length is not a physical consequence, but a statistical one born from the effects of quantum superposition and the uncertainty principle. the answer to your question would be the proposed causes of these effects, which are currently only hypothetical.

>>14400
>but that's not what he wants to know.

So he wants to know something other than the thing his question was asking? You must tell me the secrets of your clairvoyance.

OP here

actually, i think i wanted both. how is it that a planck can be the smallest unit? is 'half a planck" not a thing? why? i just didnt understand the material enough to ask the right question.

>>14406
It's simply got to do with how space, time, matter, and energy behave at extremely small scales in ways that they don't behave at scales you encounter first hand.

>>14404

lolwut? that's literally what i just said to you. i answered the question he asked. you're the one who projected your own questions on to what he said.

and before you get confused,

ID: 6f1470
ID: e16336

>>14410

Protip: if you want people to be aware that your post is not a direct response to the post immediately above yours, linking to the post you are actually responding to is not only advisable, but necessary.

but i was responding to the posts immediately above. what the hell is going on? i feel like i'm taking crazy pills

>>14412

In that case, you're simply illiterate. The question directly above your post was asking specifically what I identified through a practice called "reading comprehension", that you might do well to exercise.

what. that post was clearly about sig figs. don't get offended just because you got called out for butting in. it's not your duty to speak for others and it's not my duty to look for subtext in a science question. if he thought i interpreted his question inadequately, he can followup himself or better yet, ask the right question in the first place.

>>14415
> that post was clearly about sig figs.

This post? >>14386

This post is not asking about significant figures. It is asking whether or not you can have distances that are not even multiples of the Planck length. To say that's what's being asked is not reading into the question, it is just plain reading the question.

>it's not my duty to look for subtext
What subtext? This is the text. You are generally expected to actually read questions you're trying to discuss.

bro, he asked if additional decimal digits of planck lengths had any real meaning. that's literally the definition of sig fig. it's certainly less of a stretch than whether or not space is quantized, especially since he prefaced this with "if we could measure lower than planck length."

the only significance of the planck length and the only reason why you or anyone thinks that it's the so called "pixel size" of the universe is that it's theoretically the lowest measurable distance. if you negate that, then it has no special significance, which is exactly what i said. you're the one ignoring/not reading parts of the post here.

>>14418
>since he prefaced this with "if we could measure lower than planck length."

That would be a valid point if he'd said that anywhere in that post, but he didn't. The question began:

>Imagine hypothetically that we could measure plank(sic) lengths between objects

Which is a different premise entirely. Bro.

I will state again that if you're going to discuss a question, it is generally held to be not too much to ask that you actually read it.

well that would make his post entirely about sig figs wouldn't it?

and when are you actually going to try to prove your own claim? i don't see him mention space quantization anywhere. there's a big difference (one might even call it a superlative difference) between "too small to measure" and "smallest thing in existence." seems to me you're still the one jumping to conclusions, unless there are some invisible words in his post you can greentext for me

also, there's theoretically no reason why we wouldn't be able to measure planck length. it's what's under planck length that we can't measure. so the only reason he would say "hypothetically" would be if he meant we could measure lower than planck length.

>>14426
What proof does face value need? Guy asked, "What if we had a hypothetical ruler that could measure in increments of the Planck length? Could we measure 6.5 units between objects, or would their location snap to 7 units even?"

yea? and how does any of that imply that he was asking about space quantization? and what about my other points? i'd like to add that being able to precisely measure multiples of an increment implies being able to tell whether a measurement is a whole increment or a fraction.

>>14432
>how does any of that imply

It doesn't imply. It outright states.

no, it doesn't. nowhere in his post does he say anything about planck lengths being the smallest unit of space.

you're the one who first started responding like a sarcastic faggot and calling people illiterate. well, if you're so much more literate than me, maybe you can give me an explanation instead of a third "no u" answer

>>14434
>nowhere in his post does he say anything about planck lengths being the smallest unit of space

Because it goes without saying, considering the operating definition established in the thread.

>illiterate

Not reading and not being able to read have the same net result. It was not a random insult, it was a literal diagnosis.

>>It outright states
>>it goes without saying

okay

>>the operating definition established in the thread

established? are you talking about this pixel metaphor you keep jamming down our throats? did you miss every single one of my posts? i already said it's an observational consequence, not a intrinsic physical one. the image on the monitor isn't the universe itself, but our observation of it.

and i'm still waiting to hear how you think we can measure an exact number of planck lengths without being able to tell the difference between a whole length and a fraction

File 135338105211.png - (27.32KB , 622x575 , copycat.png )

adasdasf

>>14440
>i already said it's an observational consequence, not a intrinsic physical one.

So in other words, a pair of objects that are not an even number of Planck lengths apart will not, in fact, snap to an even number. I'm sure the fellow above will appreciate that you've finally answered his question.

I just find it fascinating that you're arguing so earnestly that somebody who asked if two objects will automatically assume a distance an exact number of Planck lengths or not, was not in fact asking that.

>>I just find it fascinating that you're arguing so earnestly

that's what happens when you take a sarcastic patronizing tone and start insulting people for no reason.

>>somebody who asked if two objects will automatically assume a distance an exact number of Planck lengths or not, was not in fact asking that

nice try, but i said he wasn't asking about the quantization of space. i then proceeded to explain exactly why it wasn't about the quantization of space. then you objected and refused to fully explain yourself for the next 17 posts and made me guess your meaning when in reality i had already addressed your objection before it was even made.

>>14444

You're demanding that I "prove" face value. Let's say I insisted that someone talking about a "dozen" of something was referring to an olfactory quality of an object instead of a numerical one. How would you respond to my calls for proof that someone was using the word "dozen" to refer to how many of something there is and not how it smells?

But if you really want a breakdown, sure, let's analyze this.

>Imagine hypothetically that we could measure plank lengths between objects,

Just face value here, not twisting the words in any way, he's asking about the distance between objects. It isn't ambiguous. It is what the words mean.

>would 6.5 lengths be an invalid measurement? Would the object arbitrarily move to 7 lengths?

Now, he's asking if there can be 6.5 Planck lengths between objects, or if they would actually literally move to be a distance of 7 lengths apart. Again, this is not ambiguous. It is exactly what he is saying, at face value. He is asking about the quantization of distance between objects.

I'm sorry you misread the question, but the fact is, you misread the question, and getting upset with me will not change the fact that you misread the question.

>>14386
I believe you've proposed a paradox, my good sir. See, I thought about this myself, and this is what I came up with.

In the hypothetical situation you propose, we would be able to measure a Planck length as easily as we could measure a centimeter or a half inch, correct? Well, if you place a Planck length of 6 next to a length of 7, there would be a difference between the two of magnitude 1. However, if you place a length of 6.5 between them, it should be obvious that it is neither a full 6 or a full 7, but somewhere in between. It is more than a Planck length of 1, and therefore retains its observability.

On the other hand, in this scenario, it shouldn't be measurable because the difference between the proposed length and its comparisons (the full 6 and 7) is one half of the smallest measurable unit. In larger units we would look at it and say "Not quite 6, not quite 7". But this is the smallest unit of measurement, smaller than an a nano-angstrom. Nothing below it can be considered to exist. When you take half of the smallest unit of known measurement, it has to fall between 6 and 7 but it can't because the .5 doesn't exist. But, in your scenario, it does exist, and therefore must show up. It is because of this that I believe a Planck length of 6.5 would display as a Planck length of 6 and 7 at the same time. If it didn't, then the Planck length wouldn't be the smallest unit of measurement.

I may be wrong, so is anyone willing to do sort of a peer review on this?

>>14448

A good interpretation, but there's a difference between a thing being the smallest DISTANCE measurable, and being the smallest UNIT.

If it is only the smallest distance measurable and not the smallest unit, then our hypothetical Planck ruler could have subdivisions on any unit after the first.

>>14449
That makes sense. However, I was under the impression (and still am) that the Planck length is a unit of measurement rather than a distance. Perhaps this is incorrect as well? If so, then I will have to re-evaluate my grasp of this hypothetical scenario.

>>14450
To clarify, I mean to say that while it makes sense that a distance larger than one unit of the Planck length could be subdivided, it is prudent to consider that this is the smallest unit of measurement. It is, in itself, already the smallest subdivision which can exist.

>>14450

If it is an indivisible unit of measurement, we run into some problems, I think. For example, let's say we have a cubic formation of things that measures a Planck length on each edge. It works just fine if you're measuring between two objects on any one edge, but the objects that are diagonal from each other across faces or at opposite corners of the cube are going to be more than one length but less than two.

>>14445
>>14447

it's too late bro, you already said that your face value interpretation was based on "the established definition" drawn from the context of the thread. i have already shown that i was contesting that definition, thereby making said definition not "the established definition." at this point in the argument it no longer matters what the actual definition was. you've pretty much admitted that you're ignoring posts and projecting your own thoughts on to others.

>>14448

yea that's what i was getting at. >>14432

>>14449

i'm going to let this one slide.

>>14452

that's not the only problem. you can also get quantum zeno's arrow, where no motion can occur because you're constantly observing the object.

>>14452
I suppose that must be why particles of matter are larger than the Planck length, then. Any object as small as the Planck length creates a paradox and all sorts of problems arise. >>14386 proposed a nice thought experiment, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny because it is inherently a paradox when you divide the smallest subdivision possible. The cube you propose does not exist in real life, so please don't act like it does. It is merely a three dimensional alteration on his original proposition.

>>14457
>you already said that your face value interpretation on "the established definition" drawn from the context of the thread

No, the concept of Planck length is based on the established definition of "the smallest measurable distance". The pixel metaphor you object to so much is not "the established definition" I was referring to. Thought it is as scientifically inaccurate as the "orbital shells" model of chemistry, and just as useful for visualizing how things behave at those scales.

The face value interpretation of the question is based on the face value of the question. You could replace any measurement in there for "Planck length" and still have a question that asks about quantization of distance. As "proven" when I quoted the question, and then repeated it pretty much word for word.

What you're arguing has no bearing on what the question is asking, only what the answer to the question is, and I had begun with stating that I didn't know that.

>>14458

The specific cube doesn't exist, but it does demonstrate the problem inherent in things that do.

For example, a helium atom. Let's imagine for a moment that the electrons of a helium atom could be said to exist at discrete measurable locations, instead of just probability fields. When their positions measured from the nucleus are at right angles to each other, it would create a similar situation to the side of our hypothetical cube.

Of course, we cannot measure the exact location of an electron in its orbit, but even so, such an effect would produce a "pixelization" in the probability field that describes the location of the electron.

The situation becomes even more complicated when we consider two helium atoms next to each other and try to envision a way in which both nuclei and all four electrons are always a multiple of the Planck length in distance from each other, and prohibitively complicated when we note that each nucleus has four particles, each of which by the hypothetical must always be a multiple of that length from every other particle in the two atoms we're considering.

>>14458
>>14459

and i've already said just because it's the smallest measurable doesn't mean there's nothing smaller. saying it's the indivisible smallest unit of space just because it is the smallest measurable is as lazy and irresponsible as believing in the anthropic principle.

>>14464

Which is an answer to the question in question. Again, thank you.

>>14460
>>14464
But the reason it's the smallest is because anything below it cannot be differentiated from another point in space. Quantum physics take over and funky shit happens. Because of this lack of differentiation, I continue to believe that our hypothetical .5 would appear to be multiple lengths at once.

>>14466

so you admit i already went over this and you were just ignoring my post when you made your objection

>>14468

I admit you already went over this, and I admit that I ignored your interpretation of the question in the same way that you would ignore someone who was arguing that a stop sign means you should accelerate on your way through an intersection.

But despite you arguing that words don't mean things, you still managed to answer the actual question at least twice. Congratulations.

>>14473

no bro, what you ignored wasn't the interpretation of the question, but my refinement of the "established definition." >>14342

how could i have interpreted the question wrong before it was even asked?

>>14474

While not incorrect, how does that change the definition of Planck length from "the smallest measurable distance"?

>>14476

space quantization at planck length means that planck length is the absolute smallest indivisible unit of space bro, not smallest measurable.

>>14477

The smallest indivisible unit would necessarily be the smallest measurable, so regardless of whether space is so quantized or not, the definition holds, doesn't it?

if a then b is not equivalent to if b then a. the smallest measurable is not necessarily the absolute smallest. haven't i said this already? and shown posts of me saying this before and during the start of this argument? if the "established definition you were talking about was

>>14476
>>"the smallest measurable distance"

then at best you've got quantization of perception

>>14480

You don't necessarily have quantization of anything. Neither case is, in itself, necessary to define Planck length as the smallest measurable distance.

Is this really all because you've assumed I've been trying to push a specific argument in favor of quantization, and reacting against it?

aren't you saying he was asking about space quantization?

>>14482

Yes, because that's what he's asking about. However, I didn't venture an answer to the question either way.

how is he asking about space quantization if he's talking about the smallest measurable and not the absolute smallest?

>>14484
He specifies the question is about distance between objects, and then asks if objects will necessarily measure an indivisible integer of units apart or not. He is asking whether or not the definition implies that space is quantized.

>>14486

he asked the first part of that, but not the second. his question was about measurement, not distance. he never even said the word distance or space

How can asking about the properties of a measurement between objects not be referring to a distance, and the space between the objects?

If I say "How many miles are between New York and Los Angeles?", I don't need to say the words "space" or "distance" for me to be explictly referring to a distance and a spatial relationship.

And then the part you seem to be misunderstanding most, he asks not just if the measurement will follow to fit an integer of Planck lengths, but asks if the objects will literally physically assume positions in space that are an integer of Planck lengths.

>>How can asking about the properties of a measurement between objects not be referring to a distance

when the question is about accuracy and precision. some parts of a measurement don't actually represent a physical quantity, but rather the error.

>>asks if the objects will literally physically assume positions in space that are an integer of Planck lengths

things can be measured as whole planck lengths apart even if they're not exactly. that's what it means to be the smallest measurable, ie, maximum precision possible. it has no bearing on whether or not the object is actually in that location or whether space is quantized. not to mention, i already said beforehand that space isn't quantized, or more specifically, that there are widely accepted models that describe lengths smaller than planck length.

>>14504

> when the question is about accuracy and precision.
But the question is not about accuracy.

> that's what it means to be the smallest measurable, ie, maximum precision possible

Not true. If space is, as you say, not quantized, then any fraction of a Planck length above one will be measurable. Any two points closer to each other than the Planck length cannot be measured as separate points, but any two points farther apart can theoretically be accurately measured with a fine enough instrument.

And that is the whole point of the question, to ask whether or not space is quantized and thus whether or not fractions of Planck above the first literally spatially exist. Thank you for answering it a third time.

>>then any fraction of a Planck length above one will be measurable

no, it wouldn't. sig figs bro, like literally the first day of high school chemistry. precision only depends on the last digit, ie, the smallest interval. if the smallest you can measure is 1 cm it doesn't matter if you're measuring 1 cm or 100 cm. you can't go any lower than the ones place.

>>Thank you for answering it a third time

why do you keep saying i'm answering his question when clearly i'm answering your mistaken notions about basic scientific concepts

>>14509
> if the smallest you can measure is 1 cm it doesn't matter if you're measuring 1 cm or 100 cm. you can't go any lower than the ones place.

You're confusing "the smallest unit measurable" with "the smallest distance measurable", which are two separate concepts.

The limit formulated by Planck is the smallest distance one can physically measure, no matter how accurate a tool one might have, but any distance greater than that can be measured to the accuracy of the tool.

The concept you are talking about is "the smallest unit measurable", which is a function of the measuring tool, and is what Planck stated could theoretically be increased to more accurate than the Planck length, but still in a given measurement could not measure a smaller distance than the Planck length.

And all of this has zero bearing on the unambiguous and definite meaning of the person's original question, which is a third subject that is a function of words meaning things. However, it does have a bearing on the answer to that specific question.

>>14510

wow. you don't know how to measure things. wow.

so you're saying you can break the laws of physics by measuring with the middle of the ruler instead of the end? do you even think about what you type? how does the universe know if the fraction of planck length you're trying to measure is alone or tacked on to the end of some larger length?

i can only assume you're going to say something else ridiculous like having a ruler that's 1.5 planck lengths long or intervals that are 1.5 planck lengths, so let me save you some time. how are you going to make such a ruler or verify its accuracy? at some point you're going to have to measure .5 planck lengths.

>>a third subject that is a function of words meaning things

yes, words that have nothing to do with space or distance and therefore space quantization. you've already implicitly agreed to this. >>14507

>when the question is about accuracy and precision.
>>But the question is not about accuracy.

>>14511
>how does the universe know if the fraction of planck length you're trying to measure is alone or tacked on to the end of some larger length?

Our fractions are meaningless to the universe. The Planck length is simply the bottom limit of distance we can accurately measure. Anything above that, by Planck's formulation, is fair game if we can build a tool accurate enough.

>yes, words that have nothing to do with space or distance

You are quite adamant about having misread a question about measurement between two objects, which quite explicitly and necessarily refers to a spatial relationship. Let me ask you this. If the question has nothing to do with "space" or "distance", what is being measured in the hypothetical? Time? Temperature, perhaps? Or maybe velocity?

>you've already implicitly agreed to this.
Yes. I agree that the question is not about the accuracy of a measurement, but whether objects will actually physically assume certain spatial positions in relation to each other based on Planck length and affect said measurement. Because it is what the question is asking. Explicitly, literally, word-for-word, et cetera.

>>14513

accuracy and precision are different concepts. any middle schooler knows this. you should do some reading before you continue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

>>The Planck length is simply the bottom limit of distance we can accurately measure. Anything above that, by Planck's formulation, is fair game if we can build a tool accurate enough.

that is not what it means at all, as i tried to illustrate to you with the question you just ignored. so i'll ask it again. how can you build an instrument that measures 1.5 planck lengths without measuring .5 planck lengths?

>>If the question has nothing to do with "space" or "distance", what is being measured in the hypothetical

i already said the question is about error and precision. you can tell because you can change planck length for any other unit and it would still be the same question.

>>I agree that the question is not about the accuracy of a measurement

here's a test to see if you learned anything from the reading. can you tell me why that quote has no bearing on the argument?

>>14516
>accuracy and precision are different concepts

Neither of which are what said question is asking about.

>how can you build an instrument that measures 1.5 planck lengths without measuring .5 planck lengths

Build an instrument that measures 3 Planck lengths and then make it exactly twice as effective.

>i already said the question is about error and precision
And I already said you were wrong about that.

>any other unit and it would still be the same question.

And that question would be asking if two objects would literally move to an even number of units apart. If we take a mile as the Planck length, the question would be asking if Tucson and Phoenix could be x-and-a-fraction miles apart, or if they would literally move to be x miles apart exactly.

You can tell he's asking if the object would literally move its position, because he asks "would the object move?" That's words meaning things for you.

>can you tell me why that quote has no bearing on the argument

The only thing that has a bearing on the argument of what the question is asking is the text of the question.

He asks about measuring between objects. Then he asks if two objects can be x-plus-a-fraction of Planck apart, or if the objects will actually literally physically move to occupy points an integer of Planck lengths apart.

All these other things were an enjoyable read, but they have zero bearing on the meaning of the question. I find it amusing that you began immediately by accusing me of reading into the question, and yet to support your misinterpretation you are going to great lengths to use every resource on the internet except the text of the actual question at hand. If it were any clearer a case of projecting, we could hire you out to a theater and play films on you.

No, OP.

But what I have wondered, is how can there be no square root of 2. I can build a square with an area of 1. It exists, and has sides at 1". Now with that very same square I built in my left hand, I pick up a ruler with my right hand, count the half-inch marks, and decide my 12" ruler is 24 half inch units.

But obviously there cannot be, because I have a square in my left hand whose root would be two of those units, and since there is no square root of two, one of these things must cease to exist.

But this is not the same as your question.

>>You can tell he's asking if the object would literally move its position, because he asks "would the object move?" That's words meaning things for you.

no, he's asking if the measurement would change. i'm sure you've heard the expression "jump" used to describe fluctuations in instrument readings.

it seems you're under the impression that we live in some sort of ideal world of forms where things are absolute and one correct answer to everything exists, just waiting for us to find it. well, we don't. everything we know is averaged from different measurements and observations, all spanning a range of values.

>>Build an instrument that measures 3 Planck lengths and then make it exactly twice as effective.

and how do you make it twice as effective? here's a thought experiment for you. (although not really much of an experiment) if you want to fold a piece of paper in half, how do you do it? you compare the edges to see if they're even, right? but what happens if one edge is sticking out by a few micrometers more than the other? you obviously can't see that small with the naked eye. it's beyond the precision with which you can see. is it then right to declare that the piece of paper is exactly in half?

>>If we take a mile as the Planck length, the question would be asking if Tucson and Phoenix could be x-and-a-fraction miles apart, or if they would literally move to be x miles apart exactly

nice straw man, but you forgot to include the part where he says a mile is the smallest measurement you can make

>>14520
>no, he's asking if the measurement would change. i'm sure you've heard the expression "jump" used to describe fluctuations in instrument readings.

If he was asking if the measurement would change, he would have asked if the measurement would change. Instead, he asks if the object would move, meaning he is asking if the object would move.

>and how do you make it twice as effective?
That's a problem for the engineers.

>is it then right to declare that the piece of paper is exactly in half?
Depends entirely on what you need to use the folded paper for.

>straw man

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

>you forgot to include the part where he says a mile is the smallest measurement you can make

Given:

The fact that he's asking about a given unit,

The fact that he's asking about objects physically moving to assume spatial relationships in indivisible integers of that unit,

And the fact that said unit had recently been described as such in this (at the time) very short thread,

I find it highly likely that you not only didn't read the question, but hadn't read the thread either.

>>If he was asking if the measurement would change, he would have asked if the measurement would change. Instead, he asks if the object would move, meaning he is asking if the object would move.

lol. so you're saying he's asking if an object can accelerate itself for no reason. ok, let's say he was. but how is that evidence for space quantization? if space was quantized the object would already be at either 6 or 7 and wouldn't have to move. that's literally the definition of space quantization. if he was asking about space quantization, why did he do it by asking about something that has nothing to do with space quantization? in fact, his question implies pretty strongly that the objects in this scenario are objectively exactly 6.5 planck lengths apart, which is literally the opposite of quantized space. and the two resulting scenarios he proposed were division of planck length (not quantized space) and apparent movement/variation in measured distance (also not quantized space).

>>That's a problem for the engineers.

engineers can't do the impossible bro

>>Depends entirely on what you need to use the folded paper for.

from how hard you avoided answering i can tell you know you're fucked. well, let me drive the point home then. the folded paper is for measuring. and the size of the paper is 10 x 10 micrometers. this is basically what you're proposing with your "make it twice as effective" idea. yes. you can try to do it, but you'll have no way of verifying exactly how big the end result is. all you'll know is you've folded it somewhere. you also know that since the size of the paper is almost the same as your precision limit, the % error is going to be huge, which means your new measuring device is totally useless.

i'm going to preemptively explain what % error means now. i think you need it. if you're folding printer paper (8.5" x 11"), a mistake of one micron is .000001 m / (5.5 in x .0254 m/in) = .0007% but if you're folding 10 microns, that's a 1 um / 5 um or 20% difference, which is too big even for sociologists.

i feel like this is all going over your head. i mean, i'm pretty sure preschoolers know that measurements can be added and subtracted. if you can precisely measure 1 planck length and 1.5, that means you can measure .5.

>>The Planck length is simply the bottom limit of distance we can accurately measure. Anything above that, by Planck's formulation, is fair game if we can build a tool accurate enough.

this is just so wrong i feel i must point out how wrong it is again. any measurement you take must be an integer multiple of your smallest measurable interval. the same quantum gravity that prevents you from distinguishing between .5 and 1 will prevent you from distinguishing between 1 and 1.5.


>>14518

there is a square root of 2.

>>14518
Wow, never expected to see this level of stupidity on /sci/
From Google: square root(2) = 1.41421356
>>14517
>Build an instrument that measures 3 Planck lengths and then make it exactly twice as effective.
If this instrument were to exist, it would output 2 or 1, when asked to measure 1.5 Planck lengths.
Understand that a planck length isn't a settled length. It can't be expressed as a fraction of an inch, nobody knows how long a planck is, only that smaller lengths do not make sense. Even 1.5 equals 1 + .5, which contains a length smaller than a planck, and thus will not be recognised.
>inb4 hurr durr 1 equals .5 + .5
.5 + .5 equals an integer. 1 + .5 does not.

>>14524
>so you're saying he's asking if an object can accelerate itself for no reason.

That is the language he's using, yes. Awkward, I know, but that's literally what he's asking.

>but how is that evidence for space quantization?

It isn't evidence for or against anything, it's what he's asking about.

> if space was quantized the object would already be at either 6 or 7 and wouldn't have to move.

From the point of view of switching back and forth between scenarios of quantized versus non-quantized, it does "move".

>i can tell you know you're fucked

No, I'm simply not bothering to give any attention to what has no bearing on the meaning of the question, which is what we were originally discussing.

>i feel like this is all going over your head

It very well may be. But that's a completely different discussion from what the question at hand means, and no amount of jumping out of bushes yelling "HA! I'VE GOT YOU NOW!" will change the meaning of the question. They're very pretty circles you're running, yes, but the question is over here.

>>14527
>1.5 equals 1 + .5

You do realize that spacetime doesn't recognize these numbers, right? It doesn't recognize a Planck length as a "one".

>nobody knows how long a planck is

www.google.com/search?q=How+long+is+the+planck+length

>1 planck length = 1.616199 × 10^-35 meters

>>14527
>>If this instrument were to exist, it would output 2 or 1, when asked to measure 1.5 Planck lengths.

this part is right

>>14528
>>It isn't evidence for or against anything, it's what he's asking about.

i meant evidence that he's asking about space quantization, since, you know, that's the topic of discussion. please split more hairs instead of actually saying anything substantial.

>>From the point of view of switching back and forth between scenarios of quantized versus non-quantized, it does "move".

first of all, as i've already said, both result scenarios involve premises that directly contradict the very definition of space quantization.

second, the motion comes from switching back and forth? what? since when does the act of talking about two alternatives constitute a third? either he's talking about fraction planck length fluctuation in one scenario (in which case it's not space quantization) or he's comparing only the measurements from the two scenarios (in which case see above about smallest measurement not necessarily being smallest space). by the way, i hope i don't have to remind you how hard you argued that it wasn't the latter case. i notice you used quotation marks around the word move, when just a few posts ago you were proclaiming far and wide about how literal the word move in that question was

>>a completely different discussion from what the question at hand means

yes, thanks for noticing it's two discussions now. one about your dubious claim of him asking about space quantization. and the other about your flat out wrong claim that you can measure fractions of planck length by tacking them on to the end of a longer length.

>both result scenarios involve premises that directly contradict the very definition of space quantization.

No, if space is not quantized, premise one, then the distance between two objects can be any distance apart, and we would measure most of those distances as fractional. If objects can only ever physically occupy an integer of units apart, which is premise two, that is the very definition of spatial quantization.

>comparing only the measurements from the two scenarios

So close there, you've almost grasped it, he's comparing two spatial scenarios and referring to the different measurements that would result as a way of differentiating between them. By asking 'would we see X measurement or would we see Y measurement', he is asking which scenario describes the actual behavior of space.

>thanks for noticing it's two discussions now

I've known this since the beginning. One discussion I've been paying attention to because it is what we're actually discussing, the other I've only barely been paying attention to because it is irrelevant to the interpretation of the question.

>>If objects can only ever physically occupy an integer of units apart, which is premise two, that is the very definition of spatial quantization.

he never said this. he asked if the particle would move or appear to fluctuate in position, which is literally the opposite of space quantization. WORDS AND MEANINGS LOLOLOO

>>By asking would we see X measurement or would we see Y measurement

you mean comparing the measurements like i said

>>the other I've only barely been paying attention to

that isn't an excuse for being wrong

>>14537

>he asked if the particle would move or appear to fluctuate in position,which is literally the opposite of space quantization

Not at all. The behavior he describes is called a "quantum leap", and would be characteristic of a quantized spacetime.

>you mean comparing the measurements like i said

No, I mean using the measurements as identifiers to compare two different possible structural arrangements of space.

> that isn't an excuse for being wrong

And yet you are insisting on being wrong by not reading the question. You have fascinating double standards.

>>Not at all. The behavior he describes is called a "quantum leap", and would be characteristic of a quantized spacetime.

first, "the behavior he describes" (i still don't see how the act of comparing two scenarios counts as an actual third scenario with "behaviors") is not an energy level change or "quantum leap." he is clearly talking about a change from 6.5 to 7 planck lengths. see above about words, meanings, &c.

second, you might want to actually read about what you're talking about instead of just name dropping and hoping for the best. energy level changes only occur when electrons absorb or emit photons while in an atomic or molecular orbit. disregarding the fact that energy level distances are on the scale of tens of picometers, which is 10^24 times bigger than planck length, i still don't see any mention of electrons, photons, or energy. in fact the guy says arbitrarily, which means with no outside influence. oh, and let me add "in this case." you know, just so you don't feel compelled to go NO YOU'RE STUPID THE DEFINITION OF ARBITRARY IS BLAH BLAH BLAH

third, energy levels are a waveform property. if you're going to measure the location of a particle you're going to collapse the waveform, ie, no energy levels.

>>No, I mean using the measurements as identifiers to compare two different possible structural arrangements of space.

this distinction doesn't change my original point. if measurements are your identifiers your comparison of the scenarios is still dependent on measurements and the properties thereof.

>>And yet you are insisting on being wrong by not reading the question. You have fascinating double standards.

you're counting chickens, but all you've got are supermarket eggs.

also, i defend my claims. your excuse is literally "brain fart."

>>14541
>he is clearly talking about a change from 6.5 to 7 planck(sic) lengths.

Yes, a change between scenarios. The first scenario is a non-quantized distance of 6.5 Planck. The second scenario is a quantized distance of 7.

In a quantized spacetime, every single motion of any particle would exhibit the behavior of a quantum leap, not from one orbital level of an atom to the next, but from one quantized coordinate to the next. This is the type of motion he describes.

>your comparison of the scenarios is still dependent on measurements and the properties thereof.

As much as calling one scenario "Bob" and the other "Larry" would be dependent on names and the properties thereof if the question had begun, 'let's assume distances have names' instead of 'let's assume we can measure distances exactly', yes.

>i(sic) defend my claims

No, you switch discussions. Else the second superfluous discussion would never have begun in the first place.

>>Yes, a change between scenarios. The first scenario is a non-quantized distance of 6.5 Planck. The second scenario is a quantized distance of 7.
>>This is the type of motion he describes.

what motion? i thought he was comparing two different scenarios? can you stop flip flopping and choose one?

>>In a quantized spacetime, every single motion of any particle would exhibit the behavior of a quantum leap, not from one orbital level of an atom to the next, but from one quantized coordinate to the next.

that's not how quantum leaps work. i told you to read up on orbitals. i already told you energy levels are a wave property, not a particle property. orbitals are where the probability waves are exactly in phase and interact constructively. the spaces between orbitals are where probability waves are out of phase and interfere destructively. when you change orbitals you change the wavelength of the wave by adding or removing energy. but you're not actually changing the location of anything. the wave is already everywhere. all you've changed is the interference pattern.

but none of this has any bearing on the actual location of any particles or objects because once you measure the location (which is what he's asking about) the waves lose coherence and collapse, ie, no more interference. and let me remind you that probability waves never reach 0 or 1 anywhere until they collapse.

also, i'm going to repeat these since you ignored them last time.

1. energy levels are only in electrons and only when they are confined, ie, their waveforms are cyclical standing waves, which only occur in atoms or molecules

2. like i explained above, the only way to transition between energy levels is to add or remove energy. none of these things are mentioned in the guy's question.

>>As much as calling one scenario "Bob" and the other "Larry" would be dependent on names and the properties thereof if the question had begun, 'let's assume distances have names' instead of 'let's assume we can measure distances exactly', yes.

i'm sure you think this is a good attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but it's not. the absurd part is the part furnished entirely by you, which is the proposal to assign names to distances. given that, there's nothing wrong with the rest. if you want to do it right you're going to have to start with the actual claim. otherwise it's just a straw man.

>>No, you switch discussions. Else the second superfluous discussion would never have begun in the first place.

no, switching would mean i dropped the original. but i didn't. i just added another topic. and what's wrong with that? that's the point of this board.

>>14548
>what motion?

Apparent motion.

>a wave property, not a particle property

And particles never behave like waves at the scales we're talking about?

>since you ignored them last time

And will continue to.

>the proposal to assign names to distances

The proposal is to assign identifiers to scenarios characterized by distances.

"6.5" is not a measurement, it is an example by which to characterize one spatial relationship. Likewise "7" is not a measurement, it is an example to characterize the opposite spatial relationship.

>i(sic) dropped the original
Of course you wouldn't have dropped the original, you're just carrying it along to pay lip service to it.

>>Apparent motion.

nice vague response. let me clarify. if that means you're choosing apparent motion within one scenario, then you're wrong because he's talking about moving from 6.5 to 7 planck lengths. if you're talking about apparent motion from comparing two scenarios, then you're insane because that doesn't actually exist. it's just a semantic artifact. it doesn't describe any real motion.

>>And particles never behave like waves at the scales we're talking about?

not when you measure them exactly, as i've said. good job ignoring that.

>>since you ignored them last time
>>And will continue to.

LOL. but i suppose i'd find it hard to admit i was wrong too if i was a faggot and immediately lashed back with sarcasm and insults upon being challenged. maybe you've learned something? just because you're on the internet doesn't mean it's about penis size.

>>The proposal is to assign identifiers to scenarios characterized by distances.

that's still something you've proposed. my claim is that if you're going to use those identifiers to compare, then the comparison is subject to the properties and limitations of the identifiers, just like if your comparison was based on the actual characteristics of each scenario.

>>"6.5" is not a measurement, it is an example by which to characterize one spatial relationship. Likewise "7" is not a measurement, it is an example to characterize the opposite spatial relationship.

a hypothetical measurement is real in a hypothetical situation bro.

>>Of course you wouldn't have dropped the original, you're just carrying it along to pay lip service to it.

and yet the stuff you say in response to my "lip service" just make less and less sense. i guess that means i win?

>>14552
>it doesn't describe any real motion

No. It describes apparent motion.

> good job ignoring that.

Thank you.

>but i(sic) suppose i'd(sic) find it hard to admit i(sic) was wrong too

Which is why you're finding it hard to admit you were wrong.

>that's still something you've proposed.

No, it is what the question proposes.

>i(sic) guess that means i(sic) win?

Would that make you happy? Really?

So, consider the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction phenomenon: because of special relativity, lengths are foreshortened for an observer that is moving at an approaching velocity. (The effect manifests itself significantly at speeds that are a substantial fraction of light speed).

So then what happens to the observed Planck length? Many who are highly supportive of the status of the Planck length would quickly patch up that hole by awarding it the distinction of "Lorentz invariant".

And I don't really know how to react to that.

>>14553
>>No. It describes apparent motion.

yes. apparent motion isn't always real motion. and it's definitely not real motion when it's the result of switching between two mutually exclusive and distinct scenarios. so how can he be describing a type of real motion? the only way would be if you're trying to say an object moves out of one hypothetical scenario and into another hypothetical scenario, which is ridiculous.

>>Which is why you're finding it hard to admit you were wrong.

i knew you were going to say that. but i have no problem admitting when i'm wrong. i thought he was asking about measuring smaller than planck length. i admitted i was wrong about that. i'll admit i was wrong about space quantization too if you convince me. but what have you been doing? ignoring points, changing your meaning, and derp brain fart.

>>No, it is what the question proposes.

no, the question proposes we use identifiers related to the characteristics you're comparing, not any identifier you want. we agreed that length measurements had an intrinsic relation to distances didn't we? or did you flip flop on that too? you're the one who proposed we use names instead, which have no such relation to distances. that's why it's absurd. but if you'd like to add that in your scenario names are proportional to distances or something like that, then yes, your scenario would be accurate.

also, as i recall, your original claim was that only being able to measure the object at whole numbers implies there is nothing smaller and space is quantized at that interval. i suppose i have a habit of trying to explain things axiomatically when i could have just easily finished it off by asking you how you think you can distinguish whether he's talking about a quantized universe or a non quantized one where you can't measure smaller than planck length, especially with your established definition of planck length.

>>Would that make you happy? Really?

yes.


>>14556

isn't it derived from 3 other invariant constants

>>14557
>apparent motion isn't always real motion

But it generally described with the same general layman's terms, and as the questioner stressed, he is a layman.

>i thought he was asking about measuring smaller than planck length. i admitted i was wrong about that.

This is the first I've noticed you mention it, but duly noted. You were, in fact, wrong. Thank you.

>no, the question proposes we use identifiers related to the characteristics you're comparing

True, because those are the most logical identifiers, but other could have been used as well. And what are the characteristics being compared?

>i could have just easily finished it off by asking you how you think you can distinguish whether he's talking about a quantized universe or a non quantized one where you can't measure smaller than planck length

Because his first scenario is a distance that is not an integer multiple of Planck length, his second scenario is an integer multiple, and he stresses not just the measurement but the actual position and physical relationship of the two objects.

>yes.

You must be quite bored, or easily pleased.

>>But it generally described with the same general layman's terms

so it's not real motion then. he wasn't implying space quantization by describing quantized movement.

>>True, because those are the most logical identifiers, but other could have been used as well.

yes. logical. now that you mention it, you've inadvertently proven my point. if the identifiers have no meaningful relation to the comparison, you can't draw any conclusions from comparing them. having no meaningful relation to the subject at hand is also a property of the identifier or criterion.

like how not containing any information about distance is a property of units of time. and not containing any information about intervals that are smaller than themselves is a property of units of length, or actually pretty much any measurement.

>>And what are the characteristics being compared?

the observable appearance of the smallest measurable distance, given that we can measure it exactly, but not one bit lower.

>>Because his first scenario is a distance that is not an integer multiple of Planck length, his second scenario is an integer multiple, and he stresses not just the measurement but the actual position and physical relationship of the two objects

no, his second scenario is an integer multiple measurement. the object is clearly in the same location as the first scenario. he has one starting arrangement and two possible scenarios. not two completely separate arrangements and scenarios.

>>14559

>he wasn't implying space quantization by describing quantized movement.

Correct. He was implying spatial quantization by contrasting it with a non-quantized example.

>if the identifiers have no meaningful relation to the comparison, you can't draw any conclusions from comparing them.

Again, correct. He is not comparing the identifiers, i.e. "6.5" and "7". He is comparing the scenarios they represent. That they are partially descriptive of those scenarios makes sense and avoids the need to more clearly link them to each scenario, but they could have just been arbitrary identifiers and meant as much.

>the object is clearly in the same location as the first scenario.

Incorrect. He indicates its changed physical position between scenarios by describing an apparent motion.

>>He is not comparing the identifiers, i.e. "6.5" and "7". He is comparing the scenarios they represent. That they are partially descriptive of those scenarios makes sense and avoids the need to more clearly link them to each scenario, but they could have just been arbitrary identifiers and meant as much.

except if they were arbitrary identifiers he would have to separately outline the scenarios he was talking about. but like you even said, since he didn't, that means the identifiers are descriptive and therefore serve as the scenarios themselves

>>He indicates its changed physical position between scenarios by describing an apparent motion.

no, he indicates different possible results of a measurement. he's clearly talking about measurements in the first two sentences. therefore you must assume that in the third, he's also talking about the measurement that would result.

>>14562
>except if they were arbitrary identifiers he would have to separately outline the scenarios he was talking about

That is what I just said, yes.

>the identifiers are descriptive

Yes.

>therefore serve as the scenarios themselves

No. They serve as descriptors of the scenarios. Does the map serve as the road?

>he indicates different possible results of a measurement

...that would result in the cases of two different scenarios. One measurement with two different results must have two different situations of some sort, unless we are talking about quantum superposition, which is another subject entirely.

So, let's say the two scenarios could just be the result of some quirk of measurement between them, instead of an actual change in position. In order to make this assumption, one would have to ignore his specific reference to an actual change in position.

>>Does the map serve as the road?

yes, when you're comparing the characteristics of roads that can be found on a map. obviously you can't drive on a map, but that's also my point. if he says measurement, you can't assume he's asking about structure.

>>One measurement with two different results must have two different situations of some sort

yea, but the difference isn't necessarily in the placement of objects. and in this one it clearly isn't. for meaningful answers, all variables must be constant other than the one you want to know about.

>>In order to make this assumption, one would have to ignore his specific reference to an actual change in position.

>No. It describes apparent motion.

>>14566

>if he says measurement, you can't assume he's asking about structure

But when he begins talking about physical behaviors, you can.

>but the difference isn't necessarily in the placement of objects.

It is when he specifically notes that the placement of objects has changed.

As for the two quotes, I assume you read them as conflicting. In fact, they are perfectly complementary. An actual change in position, say between two scenarios, that does not involve a kinetic movement, is describable as an apparent motion. A change in physical location, not over time, but across examples.

>>An actual change in position is describable as an apparent motion

so is a change in measured location. and since he was talking about measurements...

>>14570

In that case, what two scenarios would be being compared? A difference between measurements based on different properties of the Planck length is still fundamentally
a question of different physical properties of space.

The Planck Length isn't the smallest unit of measure possible, it's simply the smallest unit of measure that means something. Anything smaller than a Planck Length, you'd just be measuring empty space.

Upon reading a little further into this, I believe what OP is positing would qualify as one of Zeno's Paradoxes known as the Dichotomy Paradox.

It basically goes like this. "Before you can reach your destination, you must get halfway there. However, if you keep dividing distance left to travel in halves, you will never mathematically reach the end."

This is why there's a separation between philosophy and science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#The_dichotomy_paradox

>>14571

in the first one, you have 2 objects 6.5 plancks apart and they measure as 6.5 apart. in the second, you have 2 objects 6.5 apart and the distance appears to fluctuate or just gets rounded, depending on whether the device allows you to directly measure or just does it for you. although technically the first scenario could also involve fluctuations, and the measurement is an average of different results and comes with an error statement of +/- some amount

>appears to fluctuate

Except that he indicates a change in physical position.

>>14527
>Wow, never expected to see this level of stupidity on /sci/ From Google: square root(2) = 1.41421356

Oh for fucks sake, if you're going to call people stupid, at very least look up what they're talking about beyond the first google result, which in your case was a calculator simply rounding the irrational number to 8 places. Thanks, your brilliance.

Since I'm so fucking stupid I won't bother to explain it to your genius ass, but just point you in the direction of a primer on this sliver of basic 7th grade arithmetic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2

>>14582

>so is a change in measured location. and since he was talking about measurements...

>>14584

Except he stresses it is an actual change in location, and not simply a change in measurement.

>But it generally described with the same general layman's terms, and as the questioner stressed, he is a layman.

also he says arbitrarily. if he was asking about the reason behind it, he wouldn't have said that since it then wouldn't be arbitrary. but he did so he's clearly only interested in what would be observed.

>>14589

But he asks not simply if the measurement would change, he asks if the object's position would change to align with said measurement.

>>But he asks not simply if the measurement would change

how can you tell he's not talking about the measurement? both alternatives appear the same and are described with the same words. they're equally plausible, except that he was talking about measurements in every other sentence so it's more likely that he was also talking about measurement in this one.

>>14593
>it's more likely that he was also talking about measurement in this one.

Except he changes the focus of his terminology. He was not describing measurements in physical terms throughout. He speaks of measurements, and then after that he uses the terminology of physicality.

>>He was not describing measurements in physical terms throughout

what is that supposed to mean

>>14600

It means he was consistent in his treatment of measurements as measurements, until he mentioned physicality in contrast to that treatment.

he's emphasizing the fact that the object appears to be somewhere it's not. you can't assume there are new premises for one specific question unless it's explicitly stated. and it's definitely not here. his questions are clearly from the point of view of an experimenter, ie, someone who doesn't actually know the location of the objects.

>>14603
>from the point of view of an experimenter

This is reading into the question. His question is from the point of view of someone asking the question.

The switch to physical terms is explicit. If we were to say that he was not referring to an actual change in physical position when he speaks of an actual change in physical position, that would be misinterpreting that explicit meaning.

>>His question is from the point of view of someone asking the question.

no dude, questions are always in the point of view of the person being asked.

>> If we were to say that he was not referring to an actual change in physical position when he speaks of an actual change in physical position

we already went over this. just because you see something move doesn't mean it actually moved. a physical observation doesn't equal a physical phenomenon.

>>14611

We're talking about what the questioner has written. He did not ask "would we see it change positions", he asked "would it change positions".

If you're interpreting it as the first, you are speaking about a question that was never asked.

>>He did not ask "would we see it change positions", he asked "would it change positions".

except he didn't say either of those. he said "arbitrarily move," which is most likely referring to random variation due to inadequate precision given the context.

>>14615

The adverb "arbitrarily" is an attempt by the questioner to show that he is aware that the motion he describes is apparent and not actual. I doubt he knows exactly what the word's specific meanings are.

so he doesn't understand the words he's using and what he wrote isn't what he means. who's being clairvoyant now?

>>14618

I am interpreting it from the context of surrounding words. Mostly the ones that say "would it move" instead of "would we observe a change in position" or "would our measurement change".

did you forget? there's also a difference between "move" and just plain "change position." there's nothing wrong with a literal interpretation of "move" as actual change within the same scenario

>>14621
>as actual change

So now you're agreeing that it conveys an actual spatial change and not merely a change in the measurement?

i've only been going along with your train of thought because i thought you had something, but apparently it all hinges upon some imaginary distinction gleaned by selectively filtering the text of the question. my interpretation was always that the word "move" very plainly referred to and only to the scenario and sentence in which it appeared.

his meaning is very clear if you write out the two possible answers as complete if-then statements.

1. IF we could measure plank lengths between objects, THEN 6.5 lengths would be a valid measurement [for objects 6.5 lengths apart].

i'm pretty sure we both agree on this one. but the next one allegedly has 2 interpretations.

2a. IF we could measure plank lengths between objects [but not lower], THEN objects [6.5 lengths apart] would [appear to be 7 lengths apart].

this is mine and it makes perfect sense.

2b. IF we could measure plank lengths between objects [but not lower], THEN objects would [have to be whole lengths apart because space is quantized].

this is yours and it makes no sense. space quantization is not the only possible reason for not being able to measure lower than planck length. plus, we've agreed that below planck length isn't the main focus of the question; thus, the "but not lower" part is only a circumstantial detail, in which case your interpretation would make even less sense since it would be absurd to think our ability to measure has any effect on the actual structure of space. therefore, mine is right.

>>14628

But those aren't the correct if/then statements.

The correct dichotomy is thus:

IF we could measure finely enough, THEN we would verify that objects were capable of being [6.5 Planck lengths] distance apart.

versus:

IF we could measure finely enough, THEN we would verify that objects which would otherwise be [6.5 Planck lengths] distance apart would instead actually be [7 Planck lengths] distance apart.


Let's look at the fundamental question, which is "would it move (or would it not move)?".

This is a yes or no question. There are, by definition, two scenarios described explicitly by this question.

The first is a scenario in which, yes, the object will physically change location to occupy a position that is describable (by us) by equally spaced increments of [distance x].

The second is a scenario in which the answer to the question is no, and the object is free to occupy any position.

Are you with me so far?

dude, your if-then statements have nothing to do with the original post. mine use all the original text except for the part in question. you're clearly just making up your own question.

and, in addition to not actually following the original post, your statements also contradict your own points. if the antecedent were really "if we could measure finely enough," then we would have to be looking at at least half planck length precision. but as you've said yourself, he's not asking about measuring lower than planck length. he's asking about the results of measuring below the level of precision.

>>we would verify that objects which would otherwise be [6.5 Planck lengths] distance apart would instead actually be [7 Planck lengths] distance apart

this reveals a lack of understanding that i had suspected in you all along. i already told you anyone trying to answer this question within the bounds of the hypothetical won't be able to tell the difference between 6.5 and 7. how are you supposed to know things "would otherwise be" 6.5 apart when you can't even measure 6.5?

>>14640
>he's asking about the results of measuring below the level of precision

No, he's asking "will it change location". If you assert that he is asking solely about the consequences of a measurement, then you are asserting that he is asking whether or not the measurement will cause the new position.

>how are you supposed to know things "would otherwise be" 6.5 apart

Because otherwise we would have to ignore the inclusion of an actual change in location. The single question asked, "would it move", would be made into a non-sequitur.

To repeat what you are avoiding:

Let's look at the fundamental question, which is "would it move (or would it not move)?".

This is a yes or no question. There are, by definition, two scenarios described explicitly by this question.

The first is a scenario in which, yes, the object will physically change location to occupy a position that is describable (by us) by equally spaced increments of [distance x].

The second is a scenario in which the answer to the question is no, and the object is free to occupy any position.

Are you with me so far?

let me say it again: dude, your if-then statements have nothing to do with the original post. mine use all the original text except for the part in question. you're clearly just making up your own question.

>>No, he's asking "will it change location".

let me say this again too: how does the ability to measure change the actual location of an object? the antecedent must be both necessary AND sufficient.

>>If you assert that he is asking solely about the consequences of a measurement, then you are asserting that he is asking whether or not the measurement will cause the new position.

i'm asserting that the measurement will cause a measured value.

>>Because otherwise we would have to ignore the inclusion of an actual change in location. The single question asked, "would it move", would be made into a non-sequitur.

that's not what i said to you. i said if space quantization is proved by being able to "verify that objects which would otherwise be [6.5 Planck lengths] distance apart would instead actually be [7 Planck lengths] distance apart," how can you actually do that if you can't even measure 6.5 or even have objects at 6.5.

let me say this again too just in case: seeing something move doesn't actually mean it moved. measuring a different value doesn't mean the value changed. especially if it's for no apparent reason, ie, arbitrarily.

>>To repeat what you are avoiding: Let's look at the fundamental question, which is "would it move (or would it not move)?".

i already told you that's wrong. the question is would the measurement be estimated or rounded.

>>14644
>seeing something move doesn't actually mean it moved.

Which would be a valid point if the question was "would we see it move", but the question is "would it move".

>how does the ability to measure change the actual location of an object?
That is something I am waiting for you to tell me. There is an actual (not merely observed) change in location described, so either the measurement causes the change, or simply allows it to be verified. Which makes more sense to you?

>the question is would the measurement be estimated or rounded.

Which I already told you, turns the only stated question into a non-sequitur, making the whole thing no longer a question into a string of gibberish.

You are talking about a question that was never asked. I am talking about the one and only explicitly asked question in the entire source.

So the only explicitly asked question is "would it move (or would it not move)?".

This is a yes or no question. There are, by definition, two scenarios described explicitly by this question.

The first is a scenario in which, yes, the object will physically change location to occupy a position that is describable (by us) by equally spaced increments of [distance x].

The second is a scenario in which the answer to the question is no, and the object is free to occupy any position.

Are you with me so far?

>>Which would be a valid point if the question was "would we see it move", but the question is "would it move".

how do you know something moved other than to observe it? apparent change and actual change are described the same way by laymen.

also the most you can do with this line of argument is prove that mine is inconsistent, but it isn't. i said he's talking in context of measurements and observations, which means the movement referred to is an observed movement.

>>That is something I am waiting for you to tell me.

you're the one claiming it does. necessary and sufficient bro. maybe you should try rewriting your if-then statements. this time use some actual text and see if it makes any sense instead of raping a thesaurus.

>>There is an actual (not merely observed) change in location described, so either the measurement causes the change, or simply allows it to be verified. Which makes more sense to you?

neither of them makes sense. the former for obvious reasons and the latter because you can't verify something you can only detect half of. i'm sure you've heard the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. you can't prove there are no lower distances just by measuring. you have to work out the theory and implications and make a testable hypothesis. there is emphasis on testable.

>>Which I already told you, turns the only stated question into a non-sequitur, making the whole thing no longer a question into a string of gibberish.

see above

>>14652
>apparent change and actual change

I like how you're trying to throw words back at me when you haven't read them.

It's apparent movement, and actual change. The description of apparent movement (because actual movement would be change over time and there is no time aspect involved) describes a change in physical position which depends on the answer to the question.

> the movement referred to is an observed movement

But not solely observed. Observed not incorrectly through a quirk of measurement, but correctly in actuality.

>you're the one claiming it does.

No, I'm specifically claiming that it doesn't. In light of the actual change in position referred to, the reference to hypothetical measurement is to permit hypothetical verification of actual position. As I said, there is an actual (not merely observed) change in location described, so either the measurement causes the change, or simply allows it to be verified. Which makes more sense to you? You seem to agree with me that the first is not sensible. The second, then, is the logical conclusion based on what is actually written.

>neither of them makes sense.

Then in light of the actual explicit question, specifically "does it change position?", what bearing does the reference to measurement have? I'm willing to entertain other suggestions as to what relationship the measurement has to the difference in position.

>>I like how you're trying to throw words back at me when you haven't read them.

where did i say those were your words? you jumping to conclusions again?

>>But not solely observed

one predicate can't have 2 subjects bro, unless they're conjoined. i don't see any conjunctions in that sentence. if he's talking about observations, then he's not talking about actual position.

>>No, I'm specifically claiming that it doesn't.

you did. i told you your if then statements didn't make sense. if you're not saying that you can measure 6.5 (which is the only way you could verify that something should be at 6.5 through pure measurement), then you're saying
>IF we could measure finely enough, THEN [space would be quantized]

>>The second, then, is the logical conclusion based on what is actually written.

no, it's based on the assumption that he's talking about actual positions rather than just observations. i already told you that you can't prove something doesn't exist by looking for it. also see above about your if-then statements and 6.5

>>Then in light of the actual explicit question, specifically "does it change position?", what bearing does the reference to measurement have?

i already told you, it's "is there an observed difference in position from actual." and before you go "herp derp how does the experimenter know the actual position," he doesn't. but my if-then statement doesn't claim that you can verify anything to that degree like yours does.

>>14657

>if he's talking about observations, then he's not talking about actual position.

Unless he's talking about observing the actual position.

If he isn't talking about actual position, then the single explictly asked question, "will it move?" becomes null, and the source no longer a question. It becomes the equivalent of something like, "If the answer must be no, is the answer yes or no?".

If the intent of the premise necessitates that "6.5 Planck lengths" is an impossible measurement, the subsequent question of whether or not it is possible becomes instantly null.

>the assumption that he is talking about actual positions

Which is based on the single explicit question asked. All modifiers and qualifiers must be interpreted in light of the actual question asked, or the interpretation has no foundation.

>>Unless he's talking about observing the actual position.

which is an observation and therefore subject to the properties of observations.

>>If he isn't talking about actual position, then the single explictly asked question, "will it move?" becomes null, and the source no longer a question. It becomes the equivalent of something like, "If the answer must be no, is the answer yes or no?". If the intent of the premise necessitates that "6.5 Planck lengths" is an impossible measurement, the subsequent question of whether or not it is possible becomes instantly null.

what does this have to do with my argument? if that's what he said then that's what he said. maybe he couldn't work out the implications himself. triviality aside, there's nothing grammatically or structurally wrong with that question.

and you're the one who said that his premise "necessitates" that 6.5 is impossible in the first place. i honestly don't even know why you brought this up when clearly the triviality arises not from the movement question, but from the first question, which isn't even in dispute. or are you actually going to tell me it would make sense if he was talking about space quantization? even if he were talking about space quantization the premise and first question would still be the same.

>>Which is based on the single explicit question asked. All modifiers and qualifiers must be interpreted in light of the actual question asked, or the interpretation has no foundation.

lol what are you even saying? the questions are subject to the premise. do you not know what the words necessary and sufficient mean? the premise is the fucking foundation.

and the premise is subject to the context of the discussion. wasn't this your exact justification for why he wasn't asking about lower than planck length? you were right then and that's why i conceded that point. but now you're in the same situation and instead of admitting it you're just spewing bullshit?

>>14660
>maybe he couldn't work out the implications himself.

Agreed. Having established this, the question which is explicitly about certain of these implications means that in terms of the question these are not foregone conclusions.

>you're the one who said that his premise "necessitates" that 6.5 is impossible in the first place

No, I'm the one who said that the question is about whether or not 6.5 is physically possible. If the premise necessitated that, there would be no question.

>even if he were talking about space quantization the premise and first question would still be the same.

And that premise would still be "imagine we could measure distances between objects in macguffin units." A premise involving both measurements and physical relationships.

And that question would still be "would we find that objects are capable of being (integer).5 macguffin units apart OR would we find that objects must assume distances (integer) macguffin units apart.

The question is explicitly about physical position, the premise explicitly mentions physical position, and you admit the asker as a layman is unaware of the specific implications of mentioning measuring Planck length.

>>Having established this, the question which is explicitly about certain of these implications means that in terms of the question these are not foregone conclusions.

i don't know what this means, but i'll assume you're saying the same as your last paragraph

>>whether or not 6.5 is physically possible

which requires types of information not mentioned anywhere in his post, therefore has nothing to do with his question.

>>If the premise necessitated that, there would be no question.

the premise necessitates neither the existence nor the non-existence of smaller intervals, but only our inability to measure them, which is something you said first.

>>And that premise would still be "imagine we could measure distances between objects in macguffin units." A premise involving both measurements and physical relationships.

no, that's just measurements. it says nothing about physical locations other than that they exist, ie, the focus is on measurements like i said.

>>And that question would still be "would we find that objects are capable of being (integer).5 macguffin units apart OR would we find that objects must assume distances (integer) macguffin units apart.

i was talking about the first question moron, which is what you brought up. did you forget already? you should try scrolling up once in a while since you clearly have no sense of consistency.

anyway, the first question would be asking about .5 units when clearly the premise states no information can be determined on that subject no matter what your interpretation is. this has nothing to do with my argument, yet you brought it up anyway, which shows how hard you're grasping at straws.

and just because a question is trivial, does that mean that the question was never asked? that it doesn't exist? if i'm breaking into a house and i say "If the answer must be no, is the answer yes or no?" nobody will hear me?

>>The question is explicitly about physical position the premise explicitly mentions physical position,

lol no. see above

>>and you admit the asker as a layman is unaware of the specific implications of mentioning measuring Planck length.

i said maybe. and even if he is unaware, how does that mean he's suddenly asking about even deeper implications? how can he be asking something he isn't even aware of? don't use this as an excuse to ignore everything in his post just because you're running out of ideas. or are you trying your hand at being a clairvoyant?

>>14670
>types of information not mentioned
Except in the premise which explicitly mentions spatial relationship, and in the question which explicitly refers to it.

>the focus is on measurements
The focus is on neither until focus is specifically placed. The question explicitly referring to spatial position places the focus.

>the first question[,] moron
There is only one question. If you ask "Would it be A? Or would it instead be B?", you are asking one question, "Would it be A or B?"

The one single explicitly asked question we are discussing is, "Would the object be capable of occupying the position described previously, or would it instead occupy the latter described position?"

>clearly the premise states no information can be determined
We already established that this is an inference on your part that cannot be "clearly" attributed to the questioner or the question. The premise is not "imagine no information of type x could be determined", the premise is "imagine we could measure units between objects".

>nobody will hear me?
They will hear you, but what they hear will not be a question. It will be a statement followed by a request to repeat the stated information.

>suddenly asking about even deeper implications
He is asking what the question explicitly asks, no more, no less.

>don't ... ignore everything in his post
This is a redundant request, because I have consistently been ignoring everything that is NOT explicitly in his post.

>>Except in the premise which explicitly mentions spatial relationship, and in the question which explicitly refers to it

measurements are spatial relationships. derp. and that's not even my point. i said you can't prove or even observe space quantization, even if it exists, by analyzing spatial relationships. which makes the premise pointless, which means you're ignoring the premise.

>>The focus is on neither until focus is specifically placed

the focus was placed moron. is the sentence "we can measure meters" about meters or things that are a meter?

>>There is only one question

a question that has nothing to do with the premise apparently. also two propositions means two sentences. conjunction junction, what's your function?

>>Would the object be capable of occupying the position described previously, or would it instead occupy the latter described position?

there is no position described previously because he's talking about a measurement. you like to throw around the word explicit a lot, but the fact of the matter is, there is no explicit mention of any locations anywhere, or even what exactly is being measured if you look at just the premise and first part of the question. he's obviously interested in the measurements and not the underlying physical arrangements.

>>We already established that this is an inference on your part

no, it's an inference on your part that i agree with because of the text and the "operating definition" established in the thread. yes, this time i actually am throwing your words back at you.

>>a request to repeat the stated information

which is a question. herp derp. if your science teacher lets you have a formula sheet does it make the questions on the test not questions? does that mean nobody ever gets questions wrong that they have the formula for?

>>He is asking what the question explicitly asks, no more, no less. This is a redundant request, because I have consistently been ignoring everything that is NOT explicitly in his post.

see above. if it's so explicit, then why is it my restatements use all the original text while you adamantly refuse to do any sort of restatement without paraphrasing it to shit?

>>14683
>measurements are spatial relationships

False. They are observations of spatial relationships.

>is the sentence "we can measure meters" about meters or things that are a meter?

The sentence "we can measure meters between objects" is about ONE: the distance between objects, TWO: about measuring that distance, and THREE: about expressing it in multiples of a given distance.

>two sentences
Which comprise one question. The second sentence here does not establish a new question, it expands on the first.

The second sentence says "will it move to this position ?".

Will what move? The object in question.

Where would it be moving from? A position previously described.

What is the only position previously described? A set of positions defined as decimal fractions.

So the question is, "is this object capable of occupying non-integer locations, or will it instead be required to occupy unit integer positions."

>there is no position described previously

See above. He is asking about a change in position. This requires a prior position and a new position. The new position is described by example as any integer amount of the given unit.

The only other possible set of positions described is that of the previous sentence. Since this set of positions is defined specifically by the nature of including non-integer amounts of the given unit, this fits in logically in the either-or contrast presented by the question.

>science teacher gives you the formula sheet
If a teacher gave you the ANSWER sheet, the task in front of you would no longer be a test.

>without paraphrasing

How many entries in the dictionary use the exact word it intends to define in the description of what that word means? If paraphrasing was "reading into" a definition, the dictionary would be a pile of gibberish.

>>False. They are observations of spatial relationships.

then that's what he's talking about and not whatever you said before. i'm discussing this elsewhere. the important part here is still your interpretation ignores the premise.

>>The sentence "we can measure meters between objects" is about ONE: the distance between objects, TWO: about measuring that distance, and THREE: about expressing it in multiples of a given distance.

dude that sentence is about distances as much as it is about the objects or the "we." i've said this already. the only thing that the premise says about distances is that they exist. it goes into far more detail about the measurement, which means the focus is on the measurement.

also, #2 and #3 are the same thing.

>>The second sentence says "will it move to this position ?".

it only says that if that's the sentence you start with. if you read from the beginning like the way it was actually written, it's clearly asking about measurements rather than positions.

>>Will what move? The object in question. Where would it be moving from? A position previously described. What is the only position previously described? A set of positions defined as decimal fractions.

so you admit these are all inferences (ie, not explicit) from working backwards (ie, ignoring the premise and the text and context of the entire post up until the part you decided to fixate on).

anyway, like i already said, if you actually read the text, there is no specific position or object previously described. why? because the arrangement isn't the important part.

>>If a teacher gave you the ANSWER sheet, the task in front of you would no longer be a test.

that's not what i said, is it? and the premise here wasn't "it can't be the first choice," was it?

>>How many entries in the dictionary use the exact word it intends to define in the description of what that word means? If paraphrasing was "reading into" a definition, the dictionary would be a pile of gibberish.

except i'm not asking you to define anything. i'm asking you to write out the answers in a if-then statement and see if it makes sense. why do you need to paraphrase for that? the fact that you won't do it without paraphrasing can only mean you can't think of one that fits your interpretation and makes sense.

>>14694
> ignores the premise

It includes all aspects of the premise.

>dude that sentence is about distances as much as it is about the objects

Exactly. It is equally about the objects, the distance between them, and the measurement of that distance. Taking the sentence containing the premise on its own, to say that it is only about measurement data is ignoring equally pertinent parts of a sentence which contains more than the word "measure".

>it only says that if that's the sentence you start with

It says that if you include the sentence. To read it another way, one must ignore the sentence entirely.

>so you admit these are all inferences

I admit that these are necessary to the question asked. If the second sentence of the question did not exist, then there would be no specific focus on spatial relationships. But that second sentence does exist, it does expand on and clarify the question begun in the prior sentence, and it does indicate the focus of the premise.

Your objection stems from a misconception that words and phrases in a sentence or paragraph written in English cannot clarify, modify, or otherwise affect the meaning of words or phrases written previously. If you, or anyone, were capable of demonstrating this misconception to be true, I would happily concede my position.

>that's not what i said, is it?

Of course it isn't, because you were referring to "The answer is A. Is the answer A or B?". We were talking about a premise in which the answer is specifically included outright.

>i'm not asking you to define anything

So you admit that you are not considering the explicit meanings of the words in the question, and the assembly thereof?

>i'm asking you to write out the answers
Arriving at the answers before parsing the question is doing it in reverse.

> the fact that you won't do it without paraphrasing can only mean

that I'm explaining the meanings of the words in a way that does not include the words themselves, because that would be circular and explain nothing.

>>It includes all aspects of the premise. It is equally about the objects, the distance between them, and the measurement of that distance. Taking the sentence containing the premise on its own, to say that it is only about measurement data is ignoring equally pertinent parts of a sentence which contains more than the word "measure".

are you serious? a single-predicate sentence can only have one topic bro.

>>It says that if you include the sentence. To read it another way, one must ignore the sentence entirely.

false on both counts, especially the second. i'm pretty sure we've already gone over in length how movement and/or change in position can be either observed or actual. or did you forget again?

>>Your objection stems from a misconception that words and phrases in a sentence or paragraph written in English cannot clarify, modify, or otherwise affect the meaning of words or phrases written previously. If you, or anyone, were capable of demonstrating this misconception to be true, I would happily concede my position.

words modify or clarify previous statements if there is text saying that that's what they're doing. i don't see any such text in this post, do you?

>>We were talking about a premise in which the answer is specifically included outright.

variables and a formula is a set of information that also specifically contains the answer, but it's still a question and some people still don't get it.

>>So you admit that you are not considering the explicit meanings of the words in the question, and the assembly thereof?

not in this line of argument moron. i already talked about those things in another one literally 4 lines above that quote. or have you degenerated to the point of forgetting things you read in the same post now?

>>Arriving at the answers before parsing the question is doing it in reverse.

like i said, this isn't about positive proof, but negative proof. you can prove what the question isn't asking by seeing if the answer makes sense.

>>that I'm explaining the meanings of the words in a way that does not include the words themselves, because that would be circular and explain nothing.

like i said, i'm not looking for a definition here. maybe you should just do it? or is it that you can't?

>>14706
>a single-predicate sentence can only have one topic

"Imagine we could measure units between objects."

This sentence explicitly includes a reference to the act of measuring.

This sentence explicitly includes a reference to a constant distance "units" to be used in that act.

This sentence explicitly includes a reference to the spatial relationship between objects.

The subject is no more and no less important than the predicate.

>if there is text saying that that's what they're doing

The English language requires no such caveat. It is helpful, but not necessary.

>variables and a formula is a set of information that also specifically contains the answer

They do not contain the answer, they contain the resources for deriving it. A recipe and set of ingredients do not specifically comprise a cake.

>not in this line of argument

The argument is about the meaning of the question. Formulating a line of argument concerning the meaning of the question which does not concern the meaning of the question is absurdity.

>seeing if the answer makes sense

And the criteria you are using to make this check are not explicitly expressed in the question.

>i'm not looking for a definition here

Agreed. You have been consistent in avoiding it.

We need fractions of a planck length to measure the relevance of this discussion.

>>14583
I still don't see where this implies that the square root of 2 DOES NOT EXIST.

>>14707
Wait, when did this discussion become about language? OP has probably been waiting for ages to know the answer to his question, and now you tards are talking about proverbs and predicates.
It's science, but not what this discussion needs.

>>14718
Oh, i stopped caring a looooong time ago. This is kinda amusing actualy. Like watching a dog chase its tail.

>>14726

Indeed. Why do you think I've stuck around so long? It's all about the entertainment value.