Ben: The foundation of electrical field theory preceded W. Heisenberg by several decades.
Cheers Jerry > On Dec 11, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 [email protected] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
