[paulrouget]

If you consider the observable universe as the upper limit and the plank length as the lower limit, we're much closer to the observable universe (10^-35 meters -> 10^27).

One could argue that Plank length is not the most best lower limit.

[fsckboy]

Planck the scientist? The Planck length is 10 to the −20 times the diameter of a proton. Why are we using something so small to talk about galactic distances?

[eagle2com]

We are using it as another point in the comparison between our everyday lives scale, and the extremes of our universe.

It turns out, as beings living in the 10^0m scale, we are much closer to the size of the universe 10^27, than to the smallest possible distance, 10^-35.

Which boggles my mind, I did not imagine the Planck length to be this small, if it even makes sense to use the word "imagine".

[brummm]

Just a note, the Planck lenght is not the smallest possible distance. The plank length is where quantum and graviational effects are of the same "size" and as such, both our theory for gravity and our theory for quantum physics are guaranteed to break down.

It has nothing to do with smallest possible length or something like that and it's just a common mistake in non-scientific physics articles that has sadly spread.

[eagle2com]

Would it be more correct to say it is the smallest _measurable_ length, just like the "size" of the universe is just the limit of what we can observe (measure) ?

[seanw444]

That is actually fascinating.

[fsckboy]

"yes! thus," i suggest, "my comment asking the question that led to this should not be at -4! i feel like my comment got crushed in the collapse of a star!"