OrionWorks wrote: > Terry sez: > >>> What are the prevailing arguments in regards to determining the >>> smallest "slice" of time? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time >> >> Terry > > Exerpt: > > ************************************************ > Analyses of Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field images in 2003 led to a > debate about the physical implications of the Planck time as a > physical minimum time interval. According to Lieu and Hillman,[5] > speculative theories of quantum gravity "foam" where there are > space-time fluctuations on the Planck scale predict that images of > very distant objects should be blurry. However, blurring was not seen > in the Hubble images, which was claimed to be problematic for such > theories.[6] Other authors have disputed this, in particular Ng et > al.[7], who state that the blurring effect was overestimated by Lieu > and Hillman by factors of between 1015 and 1030,
A minor inaccuracy of a factor of 10^15 to 10^30 .... hmmm. I'd hazard to guess that the predicted magnitude of this effect, as given by current theory, is still not known to "high precision", eh? > thus the observations > are very much less effective in constraining theory: "the cumulative > effects of spacetime fluctuations on the phase coherence of light [in > certain theories of "foamy" spacetime] are too small to be > observable." > ************************************************* > > I think I prefer Sagan's conclusion, "There's a Dragon in my Garage", > but I suspect he was not referring to Mr. Planck. > > http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > >
