On 23 Apr., 10:33, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 22 Apr., 23:43, netzweltler <reinhard_fisc...@arcor.de> wrote: > > > > > If I am travelling to target T and I am as close as one shortest > > possible wavelength w to target T, is this the same as reaching T in > > reality? So, T - w = T? > > How would you measure that? You have no sharp surface limit. You are a > wave-packet.
Why surface limit? Take the center of gravity of each object (me and the target), and the distance between these centers.
> (And as long as you and the target exist, the shortest possible wave > does not exist, because some energy is missing.) > > > Or is w still a real distance to travel > > (without having to travel halfway this distance, because halfway > > doesn't exist)? > > > Whatever wavelength w is, it must have the same properties as 0 has in > > mathematics. Only for w = 0 it is valid, that T - w = T. > > > > In reality there is not a d/2 for every d. > > > Even in mathematics there is not a d/2 for every d. If d = 0. > > Of course there is d/2, but is does not differ from d.
Just like the shortest possible wavelength w doesn't differ from w/2, w/4, ...
If it is Planck length what is meant by shortest possible wavelength Wikipedia says "... it would become impossible to determine the difference between two locations less than one Planck length apart." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length It doesn't read like there is no difference, it just cannot be determined.