Jerry, you said that you knew of no mathematical or physical or chemical
reasons for the unmeasurability of lengths smaller than the Planck
length; you asked whether the maths of electric field theory are
constrained by the physical principles (i.e., quantum mechanics and the
uncertainty principle) that motivate the conclusion about the Planck
length; and you blamed scientific epistemologies and Wikipedia for the
impression that there are such reasons. So I quoted from a Fermilab
article for the general public about the measurement limit, and said
that I imagined that, if electrical field theory contradicts quantum
mechanics and the uncertainty principle, then it is valid (at most) only
in a classical limit. You replied that the foundation of electrical
field theory preceded W. Heisenberg by several decades. That's to say
that the foundation remains valid only in the classical limit, if at
all. Or do you reject the uncertainty principle either in general or in
more-specific terms of its leading to the unmeasurability of positional
separations smaller than the Planck length?
Best, Ben
On 12/11/2016 6:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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 [/here's the link that I belatedly
included in a subsequent message:/
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html
]:
[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.
Your post is unclear. I know of no mathematical nor physical nor
chemical reason for such a conclusion about measurements
commensurabilities.
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 .
