Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, asks whether anything in nature can be smaller than the Planck length?:
What’s so special about the Planck length? The Planck length seems to be setting a limit to how small a structure can be so that we can still measure it. That’s because to measure small structures, we need to compress more energy into small volumes of space. That’s basically what we do with particle accelerators. Higher energy allows us to find out what happens on shorter distances. But if you stuff too much energy into a small volume, you will make a black hole …
What does this all mean? Well, it means that we might be close to finding a final theory, one that describes nature at its most fundamental level and there is nothing more beyond that. That is possible, but. Remember that the arguments for the existence of a minimal length rest on extrapolating 16 orders magnitude below the distances what we have tested so far. That’s a lot. That extrapolation might just be wrong. Even though we do not currently have any reason to think that there should be something new on distances even shorter than the Planck length, that situation might change in the future.
Sabine Hossenfelder, “Does nature have a minimal length?” at BackRe(Action)
Well, hey, if it’s Hossenfelder, you know there won’t be any absolute goofiness involved with this…
See also: Let Us Now Praise Normal Science: Chad Orzel Responds To Sabine Hossenfelder