Planck Length: How might we re-envision it in light of the 202 notations?

by Bruce Camber, February 2018PlanckLength

Background: In December 2011 we began asking everybody and anybody, “Can we multiply the Planck Length by 2?  Is the result a meaningful number?” Prior to that time, I knew Planck’s name, a little about his 1918 Nobel prize, but not much more. I had just begun to explore the question, “How far within can one go dividing each successive tetrahedron and octahedron cluster in half?” The answer seemed to be, “To the Planck Length.” That begged the question, “What is the Planck Length?”

Eventually we will analyze every element ion the equation above. For now, these resources are being used to learn more about the Planck Length:

  1. Our first expert, John Baez, The Planck Length John told us we were being idiosyncratic to multiply the Planck Length by 2 over and over again. We relied, “Yes, but is it wrong to do? Is logically flawed? If the Planck Length can be doubled, then what might cause it to double? Isn’t everything in nature and life sustained by doubling?”
  2. Laurence Eaves, University of Nottingham, helped us with a YouTube video in  2012.
  3. Frank Wilczek: Scaling Mt. Planck I, II & III encouraged us to continue exploring the definitions for the Planck Natural Units, base units, and fundamental units.
  4. Wikipedia: Scale of the universe, i.e. orders of magnitude,
  5. Sally Riordan, M.A., Management Consultant, London
  6. Roger Ellman: ArXiv article,Gravitational Equivalent Frequency and the Planck Length
  7. NIST, “Planck length“, NIST’s published CODATA
  8. “Quantum foam”. New Scientist. Retrieved 29 June 2008.


Also being considered: