Does the planck length exist?

[Maddogkull1]

By this I mean is there something as small as the planck length, or is it a made up mathematical idea? We can never see that small, so how can we know that is exists?

[StevenJay]

Oh, for crying out loud! Is your browser just PAINTED ON?? Besides, why do you have such a burning desire to know? Will it impact some sort of deep research you're in the midst of? Do you read anything anywhere, EVER?

You keep posting topics that are either unanswerable, irrelevant or completely over your head, and then you don't bother to participate in whatever discussions that may result. And you NEVER participate in any topic you haven't originated.

Can you not see why there are those here who are convinced you're just another troll?

[seasmith]

Maddogkill,

Never mind the ad hominim, just answere the damn question.

cheers,
seasmith

[bboyer]

Just so there's no unnecessary mystery; at his own request, the OP's (Original Poster's) user account has been deleted.

[seasmith]

Darn.
I was expecting to see an EU Weakypedia appear online,
just another hundred questions or so down the road...

?

[Birkeland]

The troll is dead? Nice kill, and just for the record, Stephen J. Crothers weighs in on the subject:

Planck Particles and Quantum Gravity

There can be little doubt that Planck “particles” originated purely out of mathematical manipulations and there seems no reason to suppose that they exist or ever have existed as genuine physical particles. It is for that reason that it is worrying to see these objects being assigned an actual physical role in models of the early universe. Most books on this subject seem to regard Planck “particles” as genuine particles — mini black holes — which existed in large numbers during the very early stages of the formation of the universe but are now thought to be extremely rare, if not actually extinct. The grounds for this belief seem very shaky and it is claimed, for example, that the decay of a single Planck “particle” could lead to the production of 5×1018 baryons. It is also claimed that theory as presently available doesn’t allow examination back beyond a time of approximately 10−43 seconds, the Planck “time” because, beyond that time, a theory of quantum gravity would be necessary. Hence, this time is effectively regarded as an actual barrier between the quantum and non-quantum world. Why? The relevance of this question lies in the fact that it is a purely arbitrary figure. The fact that it and the other Planck quantities depend on the reduced Planck constant, which is regarded as being a quantity associated with quantum mechanics, and the speed of light and the universal constant of gravitation, which are associated with relativistic and gravitational phenomena, is something which comes out of human choice not something which occurs naturally. It is interesting that quantities which have the dimensions of mass, length and time may be constructed from these three constants which appear so frequently in so many areas of theoretical science but that is all it is — interesting! It is not, at least as far as current scientific knowledge is concerned, any more significant than that. Playing around with numbers and combinations of numbers can be very fascinating but, if attempts are made to assign physical reality to the outcomes of such mathematical diversions, scientific chaos could, and probably will, ensue!

[StevenJay]

Perfect summation. Thanks, Birke!

[webolife]

Yeah, I have used the "Planck length" as a conceptualization of some smallest finite description to distinguish that from the word infinitesmal, or point-sized. A more interesting question might be: Why, aside from creatively throwing some physical [alleged] constants into a pot and stirring it, did Max feel the need to describe such a quantity? And did his itch get scratched? I don't subscribe to string theory, so I'll probably not use the word any more myself...