Planck was such a shortsighted man, he could never go very far thinking so small.

@gandalf_thegrey

Жыл бұрын

lmao

@6armslollolol

Жыл бұрын

Yeah and his middle name is length and his last one is tiny

@chickey333

Жыл бұрын

But when he's operating at Planck temperature he can get pretty hot under the collar.

@timelessperspective

Жыл бұрын

Holy crap, that's a great joke!

@marcux83

Жыл бұрын

hahahaha

One Planck time: roughly the time between starting a new job and realising it's not all it's cracked up to be.

@joostdriesens3984

Жыл бұрын

My new job only allows two femtoseconds break time, and that includes going to the toilet.

@senorpepper3405

Жыл бұрын

I have a Planck length weenis😔

@janes_dick5843

Жыл бұрын

@@senorpepper3405 still bigger then bidens loololololol

@winstonsmith9533

Жыл бұрын

Oh, Nyuk!

@imacmill

Жыл бұрын

Or put another way, one Planck time is the time between when the signal light you're stopped at turns green and the cab driver behind you honks his horn.

Minor correction, kinda off the main topic. Each cone in the eye updates around 40-50 times per second. Each rod updates almost twice as often. But not all rods and cones update at the same time which means that as a whole the eye is much faster. Most people can perceive an improvement in a screen's refresh rate up to 100Hz. About 20% of people can perceive an improvement up to 144Hz. But people can generally react to screen refreshes faster than they can perceive. Elite gamers perform better with screen refreshes up to 300Hz. This is different than a game or video having 300fps, it's about how soon you are shown a change rather than how frequently you are shown changes.

@troll_486

Жыл бұрын

agreed my dad bought a 120Hz phone recently, and I managed to spot it with no major problems even tho he didn't tell me this was 120Hz and I never seen 120Hz before sure, it took some seconds but definitly human eye can see more than 30-60 fps + I think for gamers, higher Hz aren't better because of "I see better" but "I feel better"

@eire0945

Жыл бұрын

@@troll_486 same reason we get motion sick in vr at frame rates lower than 90hz

@boldCactuslad

Жыл бұрын

off topic from this comment but for everyone here: if i claimed the limit for human perception was half a standard candle of light two miles away for 1/20,000th of a second i'd be giving figures from the 1980s. the eye is not a digital sensor. it is biological. please stop comparing these two disparate concepts. it does not operate with a shutter. rods and cones are not magical ideal 1st year electrical engineering student circuit diagrams. they exist in the real world: at the macro scale, events are never discrete phenomena. energy which reaches the eye and is absorbed impacts the system regardless of its magnitude or duration, any alternative to this idea quite obviously violates conservation of energy. the photon was absorbed, it doesn't get to disappear into nothing at all. the rest is up to the brain. this is why most nation's air forces routinely find new records for what people can detect, we're just getting better at taking the measurement. the eye has not changed, it's just really difficult to sit a person an exact distance away from a light which is shown to the person for an exact, tiny amount of time, emitting a very specific amount of energy at the desired wavelength, and measuring what effect that has on the brain.

@A._Meroy

Жыл бұрын

It's still more or less in the same region of the scale. The whole point is to show how short 1/100 of a second is, and that's roughly how long it takes for our eyes to update. It doesn't really matter if it is 1/60 or 1/150 exactly, as long as it is way shorter than 1/10 and much longer than 1/1000 of a second it is still a good example for showing how short 1/100 of a second is.

@A._Meroy

Жыл бұрын

@@boldCactuslad It's not about perceiving singnals, it is about distinguishing multiple signals. While most people can easily percieve flashes that are vastly shorter than 1/1000 of a second, you cannot really tell if it was one flash or two.

“Avoiding the obvious jokes” was not expecting that gold in a physics video🤣🤣🤣

The Zeptosecond should be followed by the: Harposecond, Chicosecond, and the Grouchosecond! That’s because it’s all ridiculously small.

@mikethunman436

Жыл бұрын

😅😅😅

@franciswalsh8416

Жыл бұрын

Brilliant!!

@anic1716

Жыл бұрын

There's the yoctosecond after the zeptosecond, which is in fact the smallest prefix of SI, which is 10^-24 s

@scottbilger9294

Жыл бұрын

Also the Yakkosecond, Wakkosecond, and the Dottosecond.

@anic1716

Жыл бұрын

@@scottbilger9294 this one's aren't standard

3:09 Luckily we discovered that people who use monitors with much higher frames per second (165-240Hz), can actually see the frames in between. Some really can't see a difference between two monitors of 30Hz and 60Hz, but that same person will notice it if you let them compare monitors with 60Hz to 165Hz. (a difference of 105 instead of 30) We're not just apes, we're complicated inventors and learners, capable of nullifying our own intelligence or boosting it with school, "trains of thought" and experiments, or just "because we're told". The researchers that decided 30-60Hz was the max did not actually use monitors with higher capabilities and just drew a line there. (-edit: they might've used lamps instead of screens in some cases?)

@satyris410

Жыл бұрын

Yeah my dad got a massive HD TV and continued to watch sd content thru his old TV tuner. It looked absolute potato but he was happy.

@KitsuneNoNatsu

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, this bit kinda annoyed me, we can see a hell of a lot more than 60 hz, likely in the millions to be honest

@tortordenful

Жыл бұрын

There was no real science done for this, but people trying to save a buck, 50-60hz was simply the lowest frequency of electricity you could push into an early lightbulb and most wouldn't perceive flickering. Not only relying on the eyes image retention but also the fact that the filament needs almost a full second to cool down to stop giving off light. 30hz is from old hollywood where similiarily most people would accept it as continuous motion to save money on film. Its not the peak of what we can perceive, which is closer to 600hz than anything, but the very lowest we are able to trick our brains to perceive as video vs a sequence of pictures.

@nekotranslates

Жыл бұрын

@@tortordenful Would films, movies, games be in Frames Per Second? I know there are 2 types: 25 FPS and 30FPS - one's European, other is American. Yet nowadays, things would be better Does hertz and FPS go hand in hand?

@bobfleischmann5208

Жыл бұрын

@@nekotranslates - In the early days of cinema, the movie was show with whole pictures (frames) at once. Think of those old reel-to-reel projectors. A "frame" consisted of a single picture being flashed on the screen in its entirety. (There was also a brief period on "blackout" in between frames while the shutter closes as the film advanced.) This is where FPS was a big deal. it determined how much film was needed and how smooth the motion would look. When the first televisions came out (CRT), a single electron beam would scan the image on the screen line by line. They did not show an entire frame at once. (There are cool slow-mo videos on this!) We still used "frame rates" as the standard speed to observe smooth motion, but the images were progressively scanned and even overlapped each other. Hence, there was no blackout between frames. It was kinda like drawing a picture with an Etch-A-Sketch about 25 times per second! Today's flat panel TVs are a mixed bag of progressive scan tech and single frame images. The frame-rates (FPS) can fluctuate depending on the brand and TV style, but we all agree that today's TVs are clear and smooth with no motion blurring. The term "Hertz" used to refer to the electricity swap for AC power. In America, this +/- fluctuation is 60 Hz. In Europe, it's only 50 Hz. Initially, this was a huge factor in TV technology (along with many other early electronics). Today, the frequency of AC power coming from your outlet has little to do with anything else in the circuits (once you get past the DC rectifiers). The term "Hertz" is now interchangeable with "frame rate" for TVs, but this can be misleading. A sticker on the back of your TV that says 60 Hz might only be referring to the AC power that it runs on from the wall outlet! You really have to look for the actual frame rate capabilities of the screen (plasma, LED, DLP, LCD, etc.). On a side note: I run laser shows that are also measured in FPS. A laser image is exactly like the Etch-A-Sketch analogy. A single laser beam draws the entire image about 20-45 times per second. The higher this number gets, the smoother the image will be. A complicated image (lots of text or details) can only be scanned between 11-19 FPS. These images will appear choppy and glitchy. I try to stay above 20 FPS as much as possible to give the audience a smooth image. :)

We could truthfully say that our arms actually never stop moving. In fact, nothing ever stops moving. Another super interesting presentation, thanks.

Such great visualization! I'm one of the original subscribers and viewers and can't believe this channel hasn't hit hundreds of thousands of views yet. Come on, people!

@LearningCurveScience

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much for your continued support. I don't get to make videos as much as I would like to as I work full time. I appreciate everyone who comes and watches my videos and I hope they get as much joy out of watching them as I do in making them.

@benj5889

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningCurveScience if you want to your videos full time I'm sure once the channel hits 100k subscribers you'll have no trouble crowdfunding a career shift

@CrakenFlux

Жыл бұрын

he may not want/need one.

@enigmag9538

Жыл бұрын

This is the first video I've watched from this channel and I'm doing the "like, comment , subscribe" thing! I don't know why it hasn't been in my recommendations before now.

@benj5889

Жыл бұрын

@@CrakenFlux yes good point...but wow the world needs more of these videos. His students very fortunate indeed

The first video of yours I watched and I'm getting "gonna enjoy this channel a lot" vibes. Interesting topic, really good communication of the science, and a very likable and professional style. Looking forward to seeing you grow!

Man's found the framerate, the pixel density and all the game parameters

I think the quantum model of the universe does a good job of describing a moving object traveling less than the speed of light. There is a certain probability that a particle will jump a Plank Length during any given Plank Time. With a photon that probability is near 1. With "normal" objects that probability is near 0, but not 0. I propose a new fundamental aspect of the universe. The Plank Probability. That is the smallest possible probability that a particle will jump a Plank Lenght in any given Plank Time. It would describe the slowest possible motion.

@ElectronFieldPulse

Жыл бұрын

Do you really need that? If you imagine that all fundamental particles travel at roughly the speed of light, the slower you move as a massive object, the more of that speed will be dedicated to advancing the massive object through time. Local interactions in a massive object traveling at close to the speed of light are why molecules look like they are vibrating in animations. So, as you move closer to the speed of light as a massive object, less of that speed is spent locally. The speed is used in translational motion, so the massive objects appears to slow down in time

@cougar2013

Жыл бұрын

Who says that the Planck length is the smallest distance? It’s just a fairytale that sounds nice. Kind of like string theory.

@cougar2013

Жыл бұрын

@@ElectronFieldPulse pretty much none of what you said makes any sense. If you don’t have a physics PhD, best not to try and tell others what you think about relativity. ✌️❤️

@BlackBull.

Жыл бұрын

but planck lenght is not a pixel

@cougar2013

Жыл бұрын

@@BlackBull. people want it to be lol

I am really enamoured with the way you say thank you for watching! I feel that you appreciate each and every viewer as I deeply appreciate the way you present these borderline science topics! You are a great person with an awesome talent and I am happy to follow you through te wonders of our universe ❤️

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you, and yes I do appreciate every view. It is my belief that science should be for everyone. I try to make my videos as understandable as possible, I'm not saying I get it right every time, but I try.

@spx730

Жыл бұрын

yea there's something about it haha, esp with that music in background

This video is exactly what I am looking for! I need to keep pausing though because of the jam-packed information. This is exemplary! Thank you so much for the effort! Subscribed!

@LearningCurveScience

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much. I'm glad you enjoyed it (and thanks for your subscription)

@everythingisalllies2141

Жыл бұрын

This video is about pure nonsense, why don't you study real physics instead of pseudoscience?

@satyris410

Жыл бұрын

@@everythingisalllies2141 lol small brain

@billlawson3467

Жыл бұрын

@@everythingisalllies2141 better to stay quiet than to show your ignorance

@everythingisalllies2141

Жыл бұрын

@@billlawson3467 so you wont be wanting to discuss Einstein's errors with me then? Because you are ignorant?

Amazing video, awesome channel, I'm watching all the videos, pure science, straight to the point, no clickbait... we need more channels like this! Thanks for your amazing work! Subbed and liked!

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Great explanations and examples, that ending has really made me consider the uncertainty of spacetime differently!

Explained and illustrated beautifully, mind blown. Thank you 👍

You blew my mind sir! Very well presented…

"That body part moved a certain distance during 1 Plank time. That distance must have been less than the plank length. To travel 1 plank length in one plank time, you must be traveling at the speed of light." I find that to be very interesting. To travel at a fewer Plank length, you would have to be traveling at fewer plank times, which means that you would have to be traveling faster than light. It is a conundrum, because not only is the Plank length an aggregate for the other fundamental forces, it also brings about the resolution of space, time, and velocity as well, where everything is in equilibrium, everything is the same, everything is the one. The plank length is beautiful. We should have a day, dedicated to the birth of our Universe.

@djs2006

Жыл бұрын

I don't agree with that statement. I believe that at Plank time and length, there is no smaller increment. So, the universe is digital. Fastest is light at 1 Plank length / Plank time unit. At that speed, the photon will exist at a position, then, exist at the next Plank length. For slower things, like a finger, it will exist for n Plank time units, then exist at the next Plank length. There is nothing in between.

@justanotherguy469

Жыл бұрын

@@djs2006 That is exactly what I said. The first paragraph is in quotations, it is what he said in the video. I think that the world is pixelated at one plank length and one plank time. The plank time is the ultimate refresh rate and that is what gives the illusion of the fluidity of time. Did you read my whole comment?

@justanotherguy469

Жыл бұрын

@@djs2006 Forgive please., your statement is exactly what I said in another comment. I went back and read the comment that you are responding to and I did not say what you said in this one. I disagreed with what he said in the video about moving your body fewer than one plank length because that there is no fewer than one plank length. I agree 100% with what you said.

@djs2006

Жыл бұрын

@@justanotherguy469 Sorry. I must have missed the 'More' button. I read it now. Since particles can blink in and out of existence, we must be doing the same thing. Apparently, the 'More' must have blinked out while I was looking at your comment. Either that or my brain cells blinked out and I blanked out.

@Ziplock9000

Жыл бұрын

In a PBS Spacetime video he mentions that there's nothing in physics that says things can get smaller than plank length, just that we don't have any formula as to how they would work.

now that is a video that just blew my mind.. i barly was able to visualise the planck times in a second and was amazed by how small this truly is~ VERY well done video! earned a sub and like

You have an amazing and beautiful mind. Thanks for teaching me!

How am I just now discovering this gem of a channel? Well done. Subscribed.

"avoiding the obvious jokes" I was actually so into your explanation, that didn't cross my mind until you said it LOL

Thanks for a really wonderful.video. This is truly a very different way of visualizing the universe we live in. Hope you get the opportunity to enjoy all the plank times that life has to offer !!!

Beginning at @9:20 This analogy is stupefying! And the following comparison is impossible to get my mind around. 11:26 You're a wonderful narrator. Clear, simple and dignified. And congratulations on all of the research you did to produce this fine video. Best Regards and wishes for many more subscribers!, Art

1:26 this is why i love this channel, little jokes but the info is explained well and in an amusing effort to learn. Perfect delivery of education

God this is an enjoyable series. Thank you for your work on this. I know it can't have been an easy project.

Those numbers exist between awe-inspiring and downright scary. I'd have to be in a completely rested state to even begin to comprehend them. I'll know where to come to when I feel like putting a hole in my head, subbed.

This is REALLY well explained, thank you so much!

i always wondered the fps of the universe. thank you for making this video i may be able to glitch reality to dupe some cool stuff with this knowledge

Amazing. Mr Planck was a true genius. The real mind blowing aspect is where all these planck units come together and connect. It's simply exhilarating!

@LyubomirIko

Жыл бұрын

Where?

@dudono1744

Жыл бұрын

nah he was just lazy to remember all constants so he created a unit system where all constants are 1

Sooo good. Luv it. Perfect analogies. Keep on!

Sooo good. Luv it. Perfect analogies. Keep on.

Here's something that's more unbelievable. A deck of cards being shuffled and how many different combinations those 52 cards can get into is so large. If you got one Plank Time for every combination, you could go from The Big Bang to our time over 10 million times. (Universe is a little over 13 billion years old)

@isabelaatenska

Жыл бұрын

Well my mind is fucked now and nothing can unfuck it, thanks.

@shiftyjim4138

Жыл бұрын

🧢

@JanezMLGucek

Жыл бұрын

@@shiftyjim4138 It's true

@NaomiLi-iz6my

Жыл бұрын

18 million times over, actualy.

@spaceman081447

Жыл бұрын

@Joe Wollick Do you mean every combination or every permutation?

Thank you for the great video, very well illustrated and dictated.

Amazing. Especially the move you body part at the end. Leaves me breathless

So good. Luv it. Perfect analogies.

...our eyes are not limited to 60fps. There is an entire market for "high refresh rate" displays - even a cheap gaming monitor can do upwards of 120hz, with top-tier esport monitors able to do _triple_ that. The tech is also making its way into more mainstream gadgets, including phones and TVs, because the only way you can't tell the difference between 60 and 120 hz refresh rates is if you're looking at a static image.

Although you explain the concept very well, it is totally beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend Planck sizes! You could go insane trying!

Already hooked during the introduction. Great content ‼️‼️‼️

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much. I'm glad you enjoyed the video.

Great content. Subscribed. I'm sure you're about to blow up. Keep making great videos.

If the speed of light is going at 1 planck length / planck time and you can't measure anything less, than technically it's impossible to measure any speed BUT the speed of light. A real Achilles paradox here innit.

@Furyswipes

Жыл бұрын

I do think there is an implicit paradox here. Planck distance is the smallest incremental distance. You can't "move a distance less than the planck distance". At all.

@dudono1744

Жыл бұрын

so you either go at 0 or c ?

@Furyswipes

Жыл бұрын

@@dudono1744 Yeah, this seems really paradoxical.

@mordet2

Жыл бұрын

@@Furyswipes I don't think this is a paradox at all. Imagine a particle that moves at .5c, half the speed of light. the thing this means is that every other planck time, the particle moves 1 planck length and the other it does not.

@Furyswipes

Жыл бұрын

@@mordet2 Ah! I didn't think of that at all. Good point.

Pretty sad to see a so underrated channel have this amazing quality videos. Keep going!

@tncorgi92

Жыл бұрын

I just ran across this channel, watched 3 videos and I'm now subscribed.

@ahklys1321

Жыл бұрын

Same

Such a great content! Thanks for sharing.

I like your descriptions of events.

Another interesting topic and great video. No matter how hard I try, I still can't properly visualized the dynamic range of the tick of a clock and the Planck time. Can't imagine that range for anytime. Distance, size, temperature, etc. My head hurts just putting it into words!

@LearningCurveScience

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much. Sorry I haven't been active here for a while, my job has kept me very busy recently.

@ReflectiveLayerFilm

2 жыл бұрын

@@LearningCurveScience No problems. I haven't uploaded either since Oct last year. Got tied up also. But I'm working on finishing my latest hopefully in the next 2 weeks.

"Where the Universe breaks!" - The Universe does not break. This is only a model. The model breaks. A newer one will be discovered in due time and all will be fine.

This video series on Planck is GREAT! and totally up my alley. Subscribed. *insert clapping animation here*

Nice! I love these number games...! Good luck further with your channel. As of today, I'm in and looking forward ofr what's to come... 😉

"...avoiding the obvious jokes". I love it! Thanks. ALso, there was a very interesting question at the end (many interesting things thruout the vid), but the shortest time and shortest distance. Reminds me of the Zeno (?) paradox and the ancient Greeks and the arrow. Also, is space and time a continuum or discrete at the smallest level. Very cool video and thoughtfully put together.

Seeing that the speed of light, the planck length, and the planck time are all related as just the fastest units of distance, time, and speed, why is the speed of light not called "planck speed?" I think it would make more sense, since light isn't the only thing that travels at the speed of light. Gravitational waves, false vacuum decay, and more all travel at the same speed.

@onlyguitar1001

Жыл бұрын

Physicists will refer to it as the speed of information when they're being pedantic. It's definitely easier to teach people about this speed in reference to light because they experience it, and historically it was the first thing to be measured that travels at this speed.

@MidnightSt

Жыл бұрын

yes, I remember when I realized that speed of light is planck length per planck time, it was a magical moment :)

@Resomius

Жыл бұрын

for the same reason americans still use unites like Eagle per freedom square and europeans are not meassuring temperature in Kelvin. Because changing it would be very hard, the people are used to it and in day to day live it works. When needed the correct thing gets used. Untill then the easy thing gets used. And we always called it Lightspeed and till now it worked, why should we Change it?

@whirl3690

Жыл бұрын

@@Resomius In this case, it's not switching to a new system. This theoretical "planck speed" is literally just the same as the speed of light. It is still c, it is still 299,792,458 meters per second. All I proposed was simply changing its name to "the planck speed."

@hotpawsmathsandscience3124

Жыл бұрын

if you divide planck length by planck time, "planck" is reduced because it's both in numerator and denominator

Totally mind blowing man! I love it!

The frame rate of the simulation

@dudono1744

Жыл бұрын

it's pretty damn high

Planck length and time (and weight, if it exists) could be the basis of our measuring systems when scaled up. What we use today, whether it’s based on the length of a king’s thumb, a fraction of the earth’s circumference, or even defining a meter as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second, is completely arbitrary.

@PrivateEyeYiYi

Жыл бұрын

@@MrHurricaneFloyd There’s no need to measure anything. The precise mathematical calculation is known. From that we dimply scale up by many orders of magnitude

@PrivateEyeYiYi

Жыл бұрын

@Queeb Borda The Third These are all based on arbitrary measures.

@PrivateEyeYiYi

Жыл бұрын

@Queeb Borda The Third A ten millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole is arbitrary. So is a random fraction of light speed. Whereas Planck length has a formal mathematical definition: 1.62×10-35m There’s nothing arbitrary about it.

@PrivateEyeYiYi

Жыл бұрын

@Queeb Borda The Third An exact definition of the shortest measurable length isn’t arbitrary, it’s a benchmark of physics. It’s like the speed of light, which isn’t arbitrary either.

@PrivateEyeYiYi

Жыл бұрын

@Queeb Borda The Third If the speed of light is arbitrary then you have a point, otherwise…

Not a second wasted by watching this video, thank you

Excellent video, expertly narrated. Thank you 🙂

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

So does this mean that time is discrete instead of continuous? My understanding is that we just don't know, but I think that it is. It seems to be the only way to resolve some classical paradoxes.

@mryellow6918

Жыл бұрын

Its just more that the speed of causality is the limit

I would really like to know how the development of the final analogy actually went. Like did you start with grains of sand? Or did you start with a universe of time? Or did you start somewhere else like numbers of atoms within something?

@satyris410

Жыл бұрын

Number of chess moves x number of pokemon x number of embarrassing incidents you remember from when you were 8.

Gloriously Mind-bending!

These Planck videos are beautiful.

0:05 and its you

Terrific! I see the Plank Length used to describe the Universe to be rather like using triangles to describe a circle. No matter how many you use, there is still more accuracy to be gleaned as one approaches Infinity.

i woke up this morning wondering just how much far can we get to record reality ...i couldn't find a best teacher then you on this subject,thank you very much.

That's just excellent, I'm thoroughly impressed.., but mostly by the Planck'- just to be clear 👌🏻✨️

The strong force doesn’t keep atoms together, it binds quarks into baryons and baryons into atomic nuclei. Atoms, the combination of nuclei with electrons, are held together by electromagnetic force.

@JonahRoyes

Жыл бұрын

Protons in a nucleus is bound by the strong force

@JonahRoyes

Жыл бұрын

As well as neutrons , although electrons orbit via electromagnetic force and that also holds molecules together

@nmarbletoe8210

Жыл бұрын

@@JonahRoyes True. Taking it further, Quarks are bound by the strong force, protons and neutrons are bound by "the residual strong force" Strong force is carried by gluons, residual strong force is carried by mesons (which contain gluons and quarks). Atoms are bonded together into molecules by the electromagnetic force. And matter is gathered into planets by gravity. And universes are held together by... puppies.

Your comment at the end reminded me of explaining Zeno's paradox. It's like when you mentioned the amount of time we moved our arms- say; you-were-like, - well of course your arm 'moved' - 'some' distance in 1 single unit of plank(c) time - because if it didn't your arm wouldn't move - 'at-all' ! It's just interesting (and very difficult) using the concept of 'distance' when trying to imagine the Plank constant (length) - which begs a question - can-you-imagine one WITHOUT the other ? Plank length must be entirely conceptual, it must always be conceptual because it is simply not possible to ever have any 'perceptual' experience of it. You can pinch your fore-finger and thumb together to pretty-tiny measurable lengths, - say, one inch, one centimeter, even a single millimeter ! But now imagine squeezing them together to even smaller and smaller lengths ! ! AT SOME POINT Plank-length (or 'distance') ties-in together with

@Furyswipes

Жыл бұрын

You can't move a distance less than the planck distance, by definition. Do you not agree?

@jackiereynolds2888

Жыл бұрын

@@Furyswipes Yes, but I think that perhaps most of us need to remove the 'idea of distance' from our minds, because to approach an understanding of a 'Plank' anything, the common and conventional ideas of temperature, length, or distance - or the Plank reference to anything else - the 'common' understanding of these familiar units must be abandoned. The commonly held idea about space itself rather comes apart at the quantum level. It's because I suppose, none of us have had an actual 'experience' of this rather hidden (but nonetheless there) reality. 'Theoretical' reality is another variety of understanding entirely as opposed to experienced reality.

Fantastic explanation thank you!

thanks. great work. keep living.

Great to know the processor CPU speed of our universe as a multiverse VM if it was a simulation 😂

@user-cy1rm5vb7i

Жыл бұрын

it's just the simulated speed, you can spend a lot more units of time on simulating just one unit of time

"An Attosecond ...is seriously brief" You have a remarkable skill for understatement😊

@LearningCurveScience

4 ай бұрын

I'm British, it's what we do.

I love the subtle reference to the soundtrack of Interstellar in the piano part of the background music in this video! You can hear it really well between 7:22 and 8:00

Cool you already made it. On your Planck length video I left a comment asking you to make a video on Planck time not knowing that you already had then next in my KZread recommendations this video shows up.

lol those facts are so awesome that when I hear them I just laugh, like my brain can only deal with how insane those numbers are by just categorizing it in the "that's ridiculous, shut up" list. I also got a kick out of this, when my friends and I would have like our little pretend scientist 'look how cool the universe is' type of discussions, I would throw out my little fact of "hey guys did you know, there are more planck time in 1 second, than there are seconds in the age of the universe WWOOOAAHHH" and while I guess I wasn't technically wrong, I think I missed the true gravity by a couple orders of magnitude. Great video man.

Great video. Thanks!

loved the vid. So interesting. Still trying to get my head around Planck time, but still.....

The video was good but the narration made it great - I love this guy's voice! Plus he sounds like Holly from Red Drwaf so that's even better!

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Aww thank you very much.

“So let’s think about some things that last for one second..” That would be m- “Avoiding the obvious joke” Damn it.

This is key information in regards to its application towards meta material.

Plank Time, also referred as how much time passes between you close Clash of Clans and your village gets attacked again

this is a better explaining then i once found on the internet: the planck time is the time it takes for light to travel the planck length so i searched plank length: the plank length is the distance light travels in a planck time... thanks for nothing google...

My teacher was so strict at school, that if we was one plank time too late; we would be forced to experience eternity in detention. We would be forced into a cube one plank length across in all three directions! That was what child discipline was like back in 1986!

To respond to the "micrometer length" of "move some part of My body": there is a finite amount of mass in My body, therefore, there is not an infinite accuracy taking place at any given unit of time. The computation of all things over time does not need infinite accuracy, everytime, so We're not "living through" an abundance of extra accuracy in any direction, usually. I don't need femtoseconds to calculate all the mass-collisions of chemistry in My body, therefore, time skips over in a discrete way, without modeling "useless" accuracy. That being said, there is a definite infinite precision possible, so no discrete bottom limit exists, nor upper limit, nor any limit at all except an imaginary one. Great video! Addendum: here is an experiment for "faster than microsecond-length time" ("Planck" is a specific Person, and is not the only way to refer to "extreme heated conduct measurement"). Place one object that will roll, but is currently not. The object will not roll unless it is pushed, and all pushes are for scientific purposes (so are monitored). Create a specific length that will ordain "one meter", such as the Metric System's. All pushes for the object can now be judged by "one meter", if the object will roll that exact distance. Conduct the experiment to push in greater and greater amounts in more than one direction-- this is unusual. Push the object from "both sides", so it doesn't want to move, then advantage one side to move it along the length. Using more force must occupy an increased amount of distance, since a specific amount of force does move the object minimally! This is a way to include an increased discretion of time, and so you can use about 20 million pounds-force * 1.2 (a Newton conversion) of entangled, bi-directional force and accurately mimic a very, very small amount of time, in fact, 10e-15 or so, quite accurately. To use the experiment, you'll need a watch that is both inside the experiment and outside (which is a special type of watch that can ignore relativity-- just interestingly, not deceptively!), and you'll notice time has slowed to a tiny, tiny rate of it's normal speed! You can perform additional experiments such as "increasing computation accuracy", "computation speed, or method accuracy", or "allotting increased allocatory space" such as a hard-drive memory. Long read, luck! Take care.

Fascinating.

There’s a natural progression to this line of thinking: that the plank time is actually the period of transition where the future becomes the past. The “moment” or the “now”. The time is takes for “will happen” to become “happened”.

that you for a great explanation

"Time is an Illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect

Mind fairly and well Boggled.

underrated channel

This is a cool video Love it 😊

Double comment. At 10:00 you talk about the number of galaxies we think there might be. With the new images of the James Webb Space Telescope, we believe there may be 10x more galaxies than previously thought!

My new guilty pleasure.

Enjoyed that.

That last thought is cool.

Oh, I actually learned something new from this video.

Wonderful video! Subscribed!

awesome video, awesome quality

Amazing summary

finally, the refresh rate of the universe

thanks for the trip 😀

I showed this to my TV, I showed this to my TV,

Very good