• aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    No, by our current understanding there is no length smaller than a Planck length, and any distance must therefore be divisible by an integer. That is, the length is made up of discrete quanta. Pi, or any other irrational number, is by definition not divisible by an integer, or it would be a ratio, making it rational. This has nothing to do with the accuracy or precision of our measures.

    • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Planck length isn’t the smallest possible distance. It’s simply the smallest distance at which our current understanding of physics still holds up. Beyond that, our current models break down, but our current models are very incomplete

    • wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Mmmmmm don’t know about that.

      The Planck length is the minimum resolvable accuracy of the universe. That doesn’t mean it’s a building block like the electron is.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      I believe you’re mistaken. A Planck length is the minimum length we can extrapolate down before physics gets weird, but that doesn’t mean it is the smallest possible length anything can be.

      And an irrational number does exist as a discrete unit, it simply cannot be described as a fraction. Case in point, if you could create a spherical particle that was exactly 1 Planck length across, it would have a circumference of exactly π Planck lengths.

      By your logic, such a theoretical particle could not exist because the circumference includes an irrational number in the size of the body.