Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

time question


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 hoola

hoola

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 592 posts
  • Locationcolorado, usa

Posted 19 December 2016 - 02:06 AM

is there a plank-time corrected "scientific second", with a multiple of the plank-time minimum as standard?
  • 0

#2 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 5,528 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 19 December 2016 - 02:38 AM

 

 It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length, approximately 5.39 × 10-44 s.[1].....      

 

....there is no reason to believe that exactly one unit of Planck time has any special physical significance. Rather, the Planck time represents a rough time scale at which quantum gravitational effects are likely to become important.[clarification needed] The nature of those effects, and the exact time scale at which they would occur, would need to be derived from an actual theory of quantum gravity. However, the reciprocal of the Planck time can be interpreted as an upper bound on the frequency of a wave. This follows from the interpretation of the Planck length as a minimal length, and hence a lower bound on the wavelength. All scientific experiments and human experiences occur over time scales that are dozens of orders of magnitude longer than the Planck time,[3] making any events happening at the Planck scale hard to detect. As of November 2016, the smallest time interval uncertainty in direct measurements is on the order of 850 zeptoseconds (850 × 10−21 seconds)[4]

 

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Planck_time


  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#3 _Rick_

_Rick_

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 19 December 2016 - 02:49 AM

is there a plank-time corrected "scientific second", with a multiple of the plank-time minimum as standard?


If you're asking for a standard time period derived from the planc time, the planc time is sort of in a way derived from the second.
  • 0

Mathematics knows no races or geographic boundaries; for mathematics, the cultural world is one country. - David Hilbert


#4 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 35,252 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 19 December 2016 - 12:37 PM

If you're asking for a standard time period derived from the planc time, the planc time is sort of in a way derived from the second.

 

 

Good point. It's given in seconds, so it's based on the SI unit, which is the "scientific second". Or just the second, to most people.


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#5 Sensei

Sensei

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,964 posts

Posted 19 December 2016 - 01:03 PM

Planck length = Speed of Light multiplied by Planck Time

Reverse equation:
Planck Time = Planck Length divided by Speed Of Light.

Where Speed of Light is c=299792458 m/s

Planck Length = 1.61622837*10^-35 meters
1.61622837*10^-35 m / 299792458 m/s = 5.39115753872634*10^-44 s
  • 1

#6 imatfaal

imatfaal

    lazy do-nothing mudslinger

  • Moderators
  • 7,174 posts
  • LocationSt James's Park

Posted 21 December 2016 - 10:23 PM

Planck length = Speed of Light multiplied by Planck Time

Reverse equation:
Planck Time = Planck Length divided by Speed Of Light.

Where Speed of Light is c=299792458 m/s

Planck Length = 1.61622837*10^-35 meters
1.61622837*10^-35 m / 299792458 m/s = 5.39115753872634*10^-44 s

 

There is a lot of spurious detail there.  We only know those figures to 3 or 4 decimal places when you convert to Systeme International - mainly due to the uncertainty in the gravitational constant which we could even be wrong about the third decimal place in SI units


  • 0

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope

 

feel free to click the green arrow  ---->

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users