• @perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    02 years ago
    • The render distance (observable universe)
    • The pixel size (Planck units)
    • And the update rate (‘speed of light’ = speed of information being updated)
    • @bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      Calling Planck units “pixels” is extremely reductive. This is just naively applying video game concepts to physics with a poor understanding of both.

      • BrerChicken
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        I took an entire graduate course in QM and a quantized Universe does, in fact, seem pixelated. That’s exactly how I explain it to people. There’s simply a finite level to how closely you can zoom in. Space, time, and energy are all quantized, and maybe even gravity though we haven’t figured that one out yet.

        • @bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          02 years ago

          A finite level to how close you can zoom in is very different from pixels. Pixels (or voxels in this case) are indivisible elements of a larger whole that exist along an evenly spaced grid. The universe doesn’t have a Cartesian coordinate system measured in Planck lengths

          • BrerChicken
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            Pixels (or voxels in this case) are indivisible elements of a larger whole that exist along an evenly spaced grid.

            That’s exactly what a Planck unit of spacetime is. And yes, the Universe–like a screen–is divided into an evenly-spaced grid any time you choose a coordinate system.

      • BrerChicken
        link
        fedilink
        02 years ago

        I took an entire graduate course in QM and a quantized Universe does, in fact, seem pixelated. That’s exactly how I explain it to people. There’s simply a finite level to how closely you can zoom in.

        • Matte
          link
          fedilink
          02 years ago

          isn’t the most recent explanation on planck’s length saying that we simply can’t observe further down, but it is hypothesised that smaller lengths actually exist?

          • @Djeikup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            Just searched a bit, looking into how the length came to be and found this from wikipedia. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length “The Planck length does not have any precise physical significance, and it is a common misconception that it is the inherent pixel size of the universe.” What I found elsewhere was that it’s the only length one can get out of the universal constans of G, c and h. So as far as I know with my limited know how is that the planck length is useful or more convenient than other lengths in quantum physics.