SciNoodle

Is there really 100 tredicillion Planck Time seconds each second?

Recommended Posts

SciNoodle    0

In the link below:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bender    132

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 [math]1.9 \cdot 10^{43}[/math] Planck Times in one second.

Edited by Bender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2432

In the link below:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(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.org/wiki/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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imatfaal    2477
...

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.org/wiki/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SciNoodle    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2432

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SciNoodle    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2432

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SciNoodle    0

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2432

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2432

Is this suggesting a real limit !?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margolus%E2%80%93Levitin_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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2432

But is 10 trillion per second by 1 transistor possible?

 

 

Not with any technology we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bender    132

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uncool    150

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bender    132

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.

[math]2\pi=\tau[/math] obviously makes the most sense as it appears most often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imatfaal    2477

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2432

There was a discussion on the radio a while ago about whether math is invented or discovered. One of the guests proposed the idea of an alien intelligence based on fluid forms rather than solid bodies - to them, the ideas related to real numbers and even calculus might be intuitively obvious but then one of their greatest minds comes up with the shocking and difficult-to-grasp concept of "integers" ...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imatfaal    2477

There was a discussion on the radio a while ago about whether math is invented or discovered. One of the guests proposed the idea of an alien intelligence based on fluid forms rather than solid bodies - to them, the ideas related to real numbers and even calculus might be intuitively obvious but then one of their greatest minds comes up with the shocking and difficult-to-grasp concept of "integers" ...

 

Yes that's the sort of thing I meant exactly. And that radio programme sounds like "in our time" - or something equally as good; do you have a link? or name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2432

 

Yes that's the sort of thing I meant exactly. And that radio programme sounds like "in our time" - or something equally as good; do you have a link? or name?

 

 

I think you are probably right. It might have been this one (haven't had a chance to listen again to check):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0054799

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SciNoodle    0

Let's do a thought experiment here:

 

If we speed-up an atom to 99-percent light-speed, it would at least travel a distance that could fit around Earth 2 times in 1 second, agree?

 

And can we agree that, when we "shoot" the atom out, at the Starting line, and when it reaches the Finish line (after 1 second), that it will have passed trillions of atoms? 400 million hydrogen atoms an fit in an inch, a ruler is like billions. Our atom went far, indeed.

 

And can we agree that atoms have been seen under microscopes where they aren't perfectly aligned with each-other like a atomic-grid? For example, if you make an L made of 3 atoms, and push the top atom over so it's a triangle, that is un-alignment, even over a crack.

 

--- This means our fired atom not only passes trillions of atoms, but also manyyyy many protons. So instead of saying it passes trillions (of atoms), we should say it passes like quintillions. That right there means there is quintillions of instances/moments/computational-ness each second for a computing transistor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Endy0816    338

How are you envisioning this atom interacting with other atoms?

 

They are looking at using wave phenomenon for computing. Probably along the lines of what you are imagining in terms of what it will be capable of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now