Jerry, list,
It has to do with the uncertainty principle. Here's an excerpt from a
discussion "Planck length, minimal length?" by Don Lincoln, Friday, Nov.
1, 2013, at Fermilab Today:
[Quote]
Now that we understand what Planck length is, we can turn our
attention to the question of whether it is the smallest possible
length. For that, we need to turn to quantum mechanics and,
specifically, a thing called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
This general principle of the universe states that it is impossible
to measure position and momentum simultaneously with infinite
precision — measure one well and the other will be measured poorly.
Mead used the uncertainty principle and the gravitational effect of
the photon to show that it is impossible to determine the position
of an object to a precision smaller than the Planck length.
So why is the Planck length thought to be the smallest possible
length? The simple summary of Mead's answer is that it is
impossible, using the known laws of quantum mechanics and the known
behavior of gravity, to determine a position to a precision smaller
than the Planck length.
[End quote]
There's also discussion of why the Planck length is a natural unit, and
also various qualifications. "Smallest possible length" should be taken
in the sense of measurability of position. Beyond that, I know little,
I'm not a physicist and haven't authored any Wikipedia physics articles.
But I would imagine that electric field theory, if it contradicts
quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, is valid only in some
classical limit.
Best, Ben
On 12/11/2016 3:36 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
Ben, List:
On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com
<mailto:baud...@gmail.com> > wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within a
factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no theoretically
known improvement in measurement instruments could change that. But
some physicists have found that that's not quite as much of a barrier
as it may seem to be.
Is the mathematics of electric field theory constrained by the
physical principles that motivate this conclusion about this
measurement of Planck’s constant?
Perhaps others may be able to expand on the origin of this conjecture.
But, from my perspective, it is merely another example of the problems
of scientific epistemologies and Wikipedia’s style of informing public
opinion.
Historically, this issue has arise on this list serve with respect
controversial Wikipedia articles that appear to be authored by a
member of Peirce-L.
Cheers
Jerry
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
