Conversation started Nov 16, 2018 at 14:54.
AndyD273
AndyD273
Nov 16, 2018 14:54
So give those two variables being constants everywhere, can 1 tick in Planck time be considered a constant in every reference frame?
HDE 226868
HDE 226868
@AndyD273 I want to say no insofar as an observer measuring a clock ticking at that rate in one frame may observe a different rate than an observer measuring the same clock in a different frame.
But I'm not 100% sure.
AndyD273
AndyD273
Nov 16, 2018 15:09
To my thinking (and if it's wrong I hope someone can explain how), since planck time is a measure of distance as much as it is a measure of time: light in a vacuum travels at a set speed no matter what reference frame the observer is in. The Planck length is set, so light traveling that distance will take the same amount of time no matter what reference frame the observer is in. The observer might see it taking longer or shorter based on their reference frame, but the observer isn't important.
Hosch250
Hosch250
> All their diverse products and services are a sham
You don't need to steal money if you have that many products and services.
And the banking system would catch money theft fast enough and just shut everything down until they figured out what was going on.
AndyD273
AndyD273
Like say Observer A on Earth measures 1 tick of planck time as 1.2 picoseconds*, and Observer B on JeeJorp in Andromeda measures 1 tick as 1.7 picoseconds*, the actual length of 1 tick is the same in both places. (* Not based on real data, just pulling time sounding words out of my butt)
Or another example; I measure a quarter, and you measure a quarter. I say "this quarter is 1 unit wide." You say "this quarter is 2.5 units wide." Even though our rulers (reference frames) are different, the width of a quarter is a constant in both.
So my hypothesis is that if we could build a clock based on ticks in planck time, it could be a universal clock, even if it appears to run faster or slower depending on how much relativity you are dealing with on a local level, and it could be a way to measure local relativity levels, which could be interesting.
I'd love it if someone could help me see any flaws that I'm missing that would be great
 
Conversation ended Nov 16, 2018 at 15:27.