If the smallest length that makes physical sense is the Planck Length, and a string is one Planck Length, doesn't that mean the diameter of a closed string is 1/pi Planck Lengths, and thus we can't distinguish between two closed strings within the same Planck area?
It means that's a good album desu
>>7950585
>If the smallest length that makes physical sense is the Planck Length
>and a string is one Planck Length
I don't think string theory discretizes space.
>>7950614
from wiki:
>In string theory, the Planck length is the order of magnitude of the oscillating strings that form elementary particles
>>7950623
Nothing about discretizing space there.
>>7950623
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
>In string theory, the Planck length is the order of magnitude of the oscillating strings that form elementary particles, and shorter lengths do not make physical sense.[4]
>4. Cliff Burgess; Fernando Quevedo (November 2007). "The Great Cosmic Roller-Coaster Ride". Scientific American (print) (Scientific American, Inc.). p. 55.
This is garbage.
>>7950636
the paper, or that anon's post?
>>7951002
Paper? That's a popular science magazine article, and not even one about string theory.
>>7951021
My mistake. The article is about string theory. But citing a pop science article for a fact is iffy; you know the editor who put that in wasn't an expert, and now you have two layers of error, one from pop science simplification, and one from reader misinterpretation. The article is behind a paywall so I don't know how much of each of these it is.
I am pretty sure string theory is formulated in continuous spacetime. Without the article, I can only guess what "doesn't make physical sense" might have meant.
>>7951034
Found a copy. They cited a fucking "powers of ten" chart. Other than this the article doesn't even mention it.
giving a fuck about string theory AKA "this can never be tested AND it's non-falsifiable but DUDE it's so BEAUTIFUL"
>>7951633
>non-falsifiable
this is the wrong way to consider sting theory
it's probably better to think of it as a mathematical observation of physical phenomena
![8263f0f71c7e036a245d8384cff2052b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QycJMmd.jpg "8263f0f71c7e036a245d8384cff2052b[1].jpg")
> Actually believes there is "the smallest length"
>>7951652
There is, it's called the white penis.
>>7951633
Meme harder dank brev
>>7951696
I think you mean the yellow penis friend
>>7951021
That's how wikipedia works. They only accept secondary sources.
So you can't cite a scientific paper, but you can cite an article that somebody wrote about the scientific paper.
>>7952111
WHY
>>7952120
I think the idea is that if Joe the Wikipedian is going around interpreting primary sources, there's a good possibility that he'll get something wrong because he's a moron.
On the other hand, theoretically journalists and such who are paid to interpret things will have an incentive to get things correct, and also theoretically have the expertise to understand the subject.
That's the theory anyway. It makes sense on a certain level, but it can lead to some pretty fucked up retardery (see above, Gamergate).
Here's a journalist talking about when that happened to him.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.html
>>7952111
>you can't cite a scientific paper
Yes you can. They do it all the time. Although in this case, a textbook would be most appropriate.
>>7951696
mad ? smallest black dicked ebolafriend ? :^)
