h a l f b a k e r y
What was the question again?

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# smaller than a planck length

A photon "traverses" a planck length, if it is quantum linked to 100 other photons then something can change at 1/100th of a planck unit.
 (-1) [vote for, against]

Consider a photon quantum linked to 100 other photons. If the main photon travels a Planck length, yet the 100 other photons it is linked to are in a modulatable environment. These could then be capable of causing fractional spin at the main photon. You could change spin at less than a planck unit.

Also, unrelated and epistomologically dense of me, but i am wondering that 1) if there has to be something that is there and 2) blue shift occurs between two things could 3) the planck length be blueshifted to make an eentsier planck length?

 — beanangel, Aug 10 2017

If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.

Annotation:

 // the planck length be blueshifted to make an eentsier planck length? //

 No, because blue shift is a function of the observer's frame of reference. The Planck length is only valid if the observer and the thing observed have a common (isosynchronous) frame of reference.

 You can't apply Bell's theorem of quantum entanglement because (again) that relies on a common frame of reference. As soon as you move one of the entangled objects at relativistic velocities, you decouple it.

[suggested-for-deletion] blatant and wilful misunderstanding of Quantum physics.
 — 8th of 7, Aug 10 2017

No, because it's at both points simultaneously; it just depends where the wave function is collapsed, which then fixes its position (destroying the photon in the process).
 — 8th of 7, Aug 10 2017

 [8th] What do you think of the 100 quantum linked photons nudging the spin of the photon? As a technology I imagine this might be "sub planck length" tweezers, just a little like AFM.

Also, it isn't actually "wilful" just regular old ignorant
 — beanangel, Aug 10 2017

If you took a Planck length and stuck it inside a black hole... does a tree fall in the forest?
 — RayfordSteele, Aug 10 2017

 //When you say 'traverse', do you mean 'walk'?//

Yar, he do indeed mean walking the Planck.
 — 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Aug 10 2017

I think you will find that if a photon's wavelength was smaller than a Planck length, such that it could possibly traverse that length, the energy content of the photon would be so high that it would collapse into a black hole. There is a reason why the Planck length is the MINIMUM THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE length in physics!
 — Vernon, Aug 15 2017

I love the word "eentsier" which is the best part of this idea.
 — nineteenthly, Aug 15 2017

 //the Planck length is the MINIMUM THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE length in physics!

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum." You never know, it might be little and littler Plancks all the way down..
 — not_morrison_rm, Aug 15 2017

 //As soon as you move one of the entangled objects at relativistic velocities, you decouple it.//

If that were true, that might make it a little bit impossible to entangle photons at all.
 — Loris, Aug 15 2017

 Since mathematics doesn't know when to stop, it knows smaller than the reality of the Planck length, a computer could model a grain smaller than said length. A fraction of a photon.

 The problem, though, is what attributes are supposed to be given to this "eentsier'" thing. Get it right and the object's action would scale/recurse up to the physics we all have a love/hate relationship with.

Something squishy but very slippery. A tiny oiled breast implant like object.
 — wjt, Aug 16 2017

back: main index