On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 7:53:52 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > To measure small things you need comparably short wavelengths. If you > make a photon with a wavelength so short it can measure the Planck > length it will have so much mass-energy that it will fold spacetime > around it and become a black hole...so you won't be able to use it to > measure anything. > > Brent >
TY. That's clear enough. But there's a related question I was unable to explain to a friend recently. Suppose we have a small spherical cork floating on a lake, and we introduce a wave disturbance. If the wave length is much larger than the diameter of the sphere, it will just bob up and down as the wave passes. But if the wave length is comparable to the diameter, the wave will be partially reflected. What is a good *physical* argument for the existence of the reflected wave, tantamount to a detection of the cork? I am at loss to offer a physical explanation. TIA, AG > > On 1/5/2019 11:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > What is the argument for the claim that we cannot, in principle, > > measure any length smaller than Planck length? TIA, AG > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
