Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is there really 100 tredicillion Planck Time seconds each second?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 SciNoodle

SciNoodle

    Quark

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 18 January 2017 - 07:11 AM

In the link below:

 

https://en.wikipedia...agnitude_(time)

 

You can click on the word "Planck Time" in the top row, and it says that 1 Planck time is the the time it takes for a photon to travel 1 step forward.

 

 

 

What I want to know though, is, is this a "made up" time like ex. there is a centrillion centrillion "mini" seconds per second, or is this really suggesting that a photon travels 100 tredicillion steps each second?

 

Because I want to know how many real seconds or "moments" are in 1 second. 100 tredicillion?


  • 0

#2 Bender

Bender

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 620 posts

Posted 18 January 2017 - 08:24 AM

I don't think there is a consensus about the quantisation of time or space (although there are hypotheses that introduce such quantisation). If space is not quantised, photons do not take "steps". Even if it is, a photon would be spread out over multiple "steps" and it would be hard to pinpoint it to a specific "step". Moreover, if there are steps, we don't know whether they are indeed a Planck length long.

 

If time is continuous, which as far as I know is still the main view, talking about "real seconds" in the meaning you imply, is pointless.

 

I am no expert however, so someone else might step in and correct me.

 

I can answer the question in the title: there are 1.9 \cdot 10^{43} Planck Times in one second.


Edited by Bender, 18 January 2017 - 08:25 AM.

  • 0

#3 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,425 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 18 January 2017 - 09:33 AM

In the link below:

 

https://en.wikipedia...agnitude_(time)

 

You can click on the word "Planck Time" in the top row, and it says that 1 Planck time is the the time it takes for a photon to travel 1 step forward.

 

 

Actually, it doesn't say "one step", it says "one Planck length". There is, as far as we know, no "step" involved.

 

 

 

What I want to know though, is, is this a "made up" time like ex. there is a centrillion centrillion "mini" seconds per second, or is this really suggesting that a photon travels 100 tredicillion steps each second?

 

It is a unit of time chosen to make various constants, such as the speed of light and G, come out to equal 1. (Whether that makes it "made up" or not is open to debate, I guess.)

https://en.wikipedia...i/Natural_units

 

 

Because I want to know how many real seconds or "moments" are in 1 second. 100 tredicillion?

 

No one knows. An infinite number, maybe (if time is continuous, as it appears to be).


  • 0

#4 imatfaal

imatfaal

    lazy do-nothing mudslinger

  • Moderators
  • 7,478 posts
  • LocationSt James's Park

Posted 18 January 2017 - 01:11 PM

...

It is a unit of time chosen to make various constants, such as the speed of light and G, come out to equal 1. (Whether that makes it "made up" or not is open to debate, I guess.)

https://en.wikipedia...i/Natural_units

...

 

I think it is arguable that it is the only system of units that could, arguably, be paralleled by alien civilizations (if any) - there is nothing anthropocentric about the Planck 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  ---->

 


#5 SciNoodle

SciNoodle

    Quark

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 18 January 2017 - 11:42 PM

Because only a certain amount of computation or "state changes" i.e. on/offs per second by a single transistor can be done each second. There's a limit. Also, the reason there's a limit is because a particle can't have infinite instances between point A to B.

 

Can anyone please help me figure out how many instances are in 1 second? It'll help me add to my artificial intelligence project not only how many instances happen each second, but also the amount of possible computation 1 transistor could do.


  • 0

#6 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,425 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 19 January 2017 - 12:30 AM

Because only a certain amount of computation or "state changes" i.e. on/offs per second by a single transistor can be done each second. 

 

 

A technological limit doesn't say anything about the nature of reality (whatever "reality" means...)

 

 

 

Can anyone please help me figure out how many instances are in 1 second?

 

No one knows. In GR time is (must be) continuous. There is no theory or evidence currently that says it is quantised.


  • 0

#7 SciNoodle

SciNoodle

    Quark

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 19 January 2017 - 01:02 AM

Quantised GR is continuous - because each step is the next set of instances for all particles. It's more "there cannot be infinite instances per second". As said that would allow infinite computation (for us) little own universe.

 

"A technological limit doesn't say anything about the nature of reality (whatever "reality" means...)"

Yes it does, as said above, that [that] is the reality of our universe.


  • 0

#8 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,425 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 19 January 2017 - 01:03 AM

Quantised GR is continuous 

 

 

There is no such thing as quantised GR.

 

And in GR time is not quantised, it is continuous so there are infinite "instances" per second. Like it or not.


  • 0

#9 SciNoodle

SciNoodle

    Quark

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 19 January 2017 - 02:07 AM

Is there any way we at least get a good estimate, of how many (theoretical) on/offs a advanced quantum transistor could do? Make up it didn't have to wait for optical light to enter itself - rather it used quantum entanglement to achieve an "every beat just after the last" ex. you don't have to wait for your tapping finger to go up and then back down. On that idea, how many could we compute with it in 1 second theoretically? Or in other words how many instances occur each second dependless of being an electron/graviton/etc?


  • 0

#10 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,425 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 19 January 2017 - 09:39 AM

Is there any way we at least get a good estimate, of how many (theoretical) on/offs a advanced quantum transistor could do? 

 

 

I guess that depends on the technology. The ultimate limit will be set by the size of the device and the fact that changes can only propagate at light speed.


  • 0

#11 Bender

Bender

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 620 posts

Posted 19 January 2017 - 11:36 AM

Wikipedia has a list of computer limits.


  • 1

#12 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,425 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 19 January 2017 - 12:56 PM

 

 

Fascinating. Thanks.


  • 0

#13 SciNoodle

SciNoodle

    Quark

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 19 January 2017 - 09:50 PM

Is this suggesting a real limit !?

https://en.wikipedia...Levitin_theorem

Or do they not even know if that much frequency is even possible to carry out?


  • 0

#14 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,425 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 19 January 2017 - 10:19 PM

Is this suggesting a real limit !?

https://en.wikipedia...Levitin_theorem

Or do they not even know if that much frequency is even possible to carry out?

 

 

Note that it is not a limit on frequency, but on the frequency achievable for a given energy. So, use more energy and get a higher processing rate.

 

Until some other limit applies ...

 

We are nowhere near that sort of processing speed, however. 


  • 0

#15 SciNoodle

SciNoodle

    Quark

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 01:17 AM

But is 10 trillion per second by 1 transistor possible? What about higher?


  • 0

#16 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,425 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:23 AM

But is 10 trillion per second by 1 transistor possible? 

 

 

Not with any technology we have now.


  • 0

#17 Bender

Bender

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 620 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:35 AM

Assuming a conventional silicon transistor, and assuming the US "trillion" so 10 trillion is 10^13
 

I guess such a transistor can get down to at best 10 nm, and then it takes a signal at least 10^-16 s to get through at light speed. At least one electron still needs to jump from one atom to the next, so that might take longer. You can't make a transistor too small because tunnelling will start to kick in. I would say: perhaps.

 

10^13 electrons flowing in 100 nm² is a current of 10^13 x 10^-19 or about 0.01 µA/nm² or 10^4 A/mm². 0.7 V over each transistor means 10^10 W/mm^2

The density of silicon is 2x10^-6 kg/mm². Converting that to energy by multiplying with c² gives about 10^11 J. In short, the transistor would dissipate the same energy every 10 seconds or so than could be generated by converting its entire mass to energy.

I would say: not likely ;)

 

With future technology: who knows?


  • 0

#18 uncool

uncool

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 881 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 09:20 AM

 

I think it is arguable that it is the only system of units that could, arguably, be paralleled by alien civilizations (if any) - there is nothing anthropocentric about the Planck units.

Perhaps up to some dimensionless constants, e.g. 2 pi or 4 pi or e or ln(2). 2 pi for angular frequency vs frequency, 4 pi if someone focuses on flux per unit area rather than total flux (as the area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2), e or ln(2) in case they decide to deal with exponentiation slightly differently than we do. 


  • 0

#19 Bender

Bender

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 620 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 09:51 AM

Perhaps up to some dimensionless constants, e.g. 2 pi or 4 pi or e or ln(2). 2 pi for angular frequency vs frequency, 4 pi if someone focuses on flux per unit area rather than total flux (as the area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2), e or ln(2) in case they decide to deal with exponentiation slightly differently than we do. 

2\pi=\tau obviously makes the most sense as it appears most often.


  • 0

#20 imatfaal

imatfaal

    lazy do-nothing mudslinger

  • Moderators
  • 7,478 posts
  • LocationSt James's Park

Posted 20 January 2017 - 10:05 AM

Perhaps up to some dimensionless constants, e.g. 2 pi or 4 pi or e or ln(2). 2 pi for angular frequency vs frequency, 4 pi if someone focuses on flux per unit area rather than total flux (as the area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2), e or ln(2) in case they decide to deal with exponentiation slightly differently than we do. 

 

Yep - I would guess all dimensionless constants; alpha ~1/137 etc.  I did read an article that these might be the limit as it is possible we do not understand how human-based things like Peano axiomata are - ie even what we consider basic maths might not be universal; but the arguments given were over my head and I did think the whole paper was fairly tendentious.


  • 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