Can you move an object a fraction of a plank length?

can you move an object a fraction of a plank length?
if not and i apply force to an object which in theory would cause that object to move some fraction of a plank length, how is it decided if that final distance gets rounded up/down? does the force just evaporate into nothingness?

if the force is greater than zero, it will move at least a plank length.

You couldn't apply precise enough force to move it fractions of plank length. It is one or none.

...

It's not possible to apply such a force.
The smallest (quanta as it is referred to) of energy is the photon, which was assumed to have some frequency which describes it's energy (this was considered to be certain in the 1890s-1900s) However, if this were the case, we'd expect radiation to be info infinitely emitting infinite energy, which arises from the "black-body problem" if you're interested.
Max Planck found the solution in a "smallest-factor" of energy. A photon has some frequency AND an integer multiple of this factor to describe it's energy.

Ergo, if you wanted to move something half a planck length, you'd need energy less than this planck factor. However we can only have an electromagnetic field at rest (multiplied by a factor of 0) or a single, lowest energy photon, (multiplied by a factor of 1)
It is physically impossible to generate any less energy.

You may think you're nudging an object but you're really not. Your hand doesn't fall through the table because electromagnetic forces repel your fingers.
The force-carrying particles (photons, mesons, etc). are quantized too. So "force to move an object a fraction of a Planck length" doesn't exist. If you only have integers to work with, "rounding" is meaningless.

It matter not, you would not be able to measure it. You know how the song goes physishits says if you cannot measure it, it s irrelevant

Take a cube of mass m and put it between two laserguns, which shoot each a single photon simultaneously at the cube. The catch is: the cube is slightly nearer to the left gun, so the left photon hits the cube first, so it will travel to the right side, until the second photon hits. After absorbing both photons, it comes to a halt. If the cube's mass is big enough, it will move only a fraction of a planck length. You can repeat this experiment until the cube is ded in the center of the guns.

Would this not require the cube to be a fraction of a planck length closer initially? It would be impossible to position the cube in that way for the aforementioned reason

Can a force exist that would move something, say, 9.3 Planck lengths? Maybe you can't move in an increment of < 1 but maybe you could move something a multiple of Planck length, plus some arbitrary fractional component?

You just shoot it until it's at the right spot.
Come to think of it, it's a bit like Achilles and the turtle.

Or just increase the cube's mass until it moves a planck length or so, then triple it's mass.

See, you can only fire in integer multiples of this planck factor though. I don't know how it translates but that could only ever move the box integer multiples of the planck length.

Alternatively, I know it is possible for distances shorter to exist - so barring real life - let's say the problem of the integer planck factor was irrelevant and you could simply move the block a fraction of the planck length.
Theory tells us that in this distance quantum mechanics doesn't specify. Visually nothing happens, but we could not explain what is going on, likely because it is undefined.

I don't believe its that simple. Formal mechanics breaks down at this point, and quantum mechanics and general relativity take over. The equations required are beyond my knowledge. I'm sorry, all I can provide now is a flimsy "it shouldn't work" but if you're interested, I can point you in the direction of people and information that you might be more capable of understanding than I

What if you rotate a disc so that the boundary moves one plank length? Wouldn't an object close to the centre move much less than one?

Disks aren't really disks anymore at that scale

Do they become solid state storage media instead?

> (You)
>See, you can only fire in integer multiples of this planck factor though.
What is that supposed to mean?
>Alternatively, I know it is possible for distances shorter to exist - so barring real life - let's say the problem of the integer planck factor was irrelevant and you could simply move the block a fraction of the planck length.
>Theory tells us that in this distance quantum mechanics doesn't specify. Visually nothing happens, but we could not explain what is going on, likely because it is undefined.
So shoot the box n times until you can measure a difference, whch you divide by n.

> (You)
>I don't believe its that simple.
I don't either.
>Formal mechanics breaks down at this point, and quantum mechanics and general relativity take over. The equations required are beyond my knowledge. I'm sorry, all I can provide now is a flimsy "it shouldn't work" but if you're interested, I can point you in the direction of people and information that you might be more capable of understanding than I
No, thank you.

Shit, I just read up on the definition.

>10^-20 proton widths

Stupendously small. What's that in terms of electron or photon widths?

>No, thank you.
>I want to fling shit, but not actually learn, PLEASE DEBATE ME

For some reason I had this strange idea that the guy in the GIF was gonna pull out a gun and shoot himself in the head.

there's a very famous suicide gif with a similar colour scheme and grain quality

That must be it.

1)
It means the photons will only be of energy n-planck where n is an integer, multiplied by the frequency of the wave

2) It simply doesn't work like that. I don't have any proof mathematically rigorous enough to answer the question, but please believe me when I say that using classical mechanics to solve a quantum or relativistic problem is nonsensical.

3)
It seems we've reached an impass

4)
That's fine, but understand then that you will have to be satisfied with the answer that it doesn't work for reasons far beyond the both of us.

I don't know if it's possible for humans to achieve it as directly as you're asking, but I do know that fractions of plank length exist, despite that there might not be any pragmatic reason to care. Just philosophical ones. And even then, the only utility I see in it is just an understanding that between any two distinct points are infinitely many distinct points. But I'm not the person that would know what practical utilities there would be, so yea.

>That's fine, but understand then that you will have to be satisfied with the answer that it doesn't work for reasons far beyond the both of us.
I am satisfied :) But if perhaps another user has some thoughts or explanations, I'd still appreciate that.

Posting a rare :think: for general enjoyment and bumping the thread.