Thick as two Plancks huh!
Thank you for putting it there if you did, Jerry. Lorentz symmetry is mere theoretical baloney, just like the Planck length.Jerry Russell said:As of today, the article includes this statement: "The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_symmetry
Lorentz symmetry." There's been no recent edit warring about this, and the talk page makes it clear that the consensus of editors agree with you. So I'm mystified why you're complaining about this article.
The theoretical (mathematical) physicist concocted this mathematical BS, now they try to give it a physical meaning. This is the reason the talk page allows latitude on the subject - because it is a secondary issue. The primary issue is the BS of Relativity Theory itself, because it leads to logical paradoxes when applied physically.Jerry Russell said:On the other hand, it's obvious that a significant amount of thought is going into the search for the physical meaning, if any, of this constant. The article is drawn from 16 peer reviewed sources written by esteemed physicists. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia article, perhaps you have a problem with those esteemed physicists as well?