One day I was talking with my colleagues about the necessity of Quantized space-time. One of them said that I didn't know what I was talking about and another agreed with me. What do yall think?
if space time was really Quantized it would be impossible to move at any rate except the speed of light.
the problem is the smallest unit of time that makes scense is a planc second
the smallest unit of space is a planc length...
so the slowestand fastest you could move is one planc length per planc second..
if space and time is bound by units...
one planc length per planc second just happens to be the speed of light in a vacuum.
so quantization of space/time is impossible
the problem is the smallest unit of time that makes scense is a planc second
the smallest unit of space is a planc length...
so the slowestand fastest you could move is one planc length per planc second..
if space and time is bound by units...
one planc length per planc second just happens to be the speed of light in a vacuum.
so quantization of space/time is impossible
QUOTE (JoulesBeef+Dec 11 2005, 07:13 AM)
...if space time was really Quantized it would be impossible to move at any rate except the speed of light...
Why do you mean? The particles are moving by jumps along space time fabric, but the movement is indeterministic, during this the particle spends a lot of time "at place"...
Why do you mean? The particles are moving by jumps along space time fabric, but the movement is indeterministic, during this the particle spends a lot of time "at place"...
What the hell Are you talking about?
It certainly would make things simpler, and quantized space-time does make sense.
so constant unaccelerated motion.. would actually be small jumps followed by long rest periods followed by small jumps again?.. to move as slow as we do you would have to rest in a Planck unit for quite a while relative to Planck time.? And still breifly the jumps would be luminal. 1 planck jump in 1 planck second even if just traveling as slow as we do normally. You would end up resting more than moving and when you moved.. you jumped at light speed.
100km per hour translates to about
1 planck meter per 444,444 planck seconds (something like that.. big numbers hard late at night)
so if space is quantized.. does a car moving at 100km/h.. sit there at 0 for 444,443 plack seconds.. and then in 1 planck second it jumps forward 1 planck length(or c) and then sit there for 444,443 Ps again?
units used planck second 1x10^-43seconds.
planck length 1.6x10^-35 meters
edit corrected my numbers a bit
100km per hour translates to about
1 planck meter per 444,444 planck seconds (something like that.. big numbers hard late at night)
so if space is quantized.. does a car moving at 100km/h.. sit there at 0 for 444,443 plack seconds.. and then in 1 planck second it jumps forward 1 planck length(or c) and then sit there for 444,443 Ps again?
units used planck second 1x10^-43seconds.
planck length 1.6x10^-35 meters
edit corrected my numbers a bit
I think it's probably easiest to simply treat it as if it were quantized, though it could be combinations of being indeterministic, inadequate detection sensitivity, misinterpreted observations, recursive and possibly even non-discrete values. It's interesting how science is unavoidably often a democratic process with confidence levels etc. I guess when you push the boundaries in areas most people can't explore first hand there's always some level of religious faith involved. Of course those making the discoveries and finding models for them would have more confidence in the results but I'm certain it's a bit lonely waiting for democracy to catch up. 
JoulesBeef Posted on Feb 24 2006, 03:39 AM
Quantized or not, the important point is what is happening during 444,443 Ps.
Any ideas?
Big differences between time and space that has to be accounted for.
The answer might give an insight into new physic.
QUOTE (JoulesBeef+)
so constant unaccelerated motion.. would actually be small jumps followed by long rest periods followed by small jumps again?.. to move as slow as we do you would have to rest in a Planck unit for quite a while relative to Planck time.? And still breifly the jumps would be luminal. 1 planck jump in 1 planck second even if just traveling as slow as we do normally. You would end up resting more than moving and when you moved.. you jumped at light speed.
100km per hour translates to about
1 planck meter per 444,444 planck seconds (something like that.. big numbers hard late at night)
so if space is quantized.. does a car moving at 100km/h.. sit there at 0 for 444,443 plack seconds.. and then in 1 planck second it jumps forward 1 planck length(or c) and then sit there for 444,443 Ps again?
units used planck second 1x10^-43seconds.
planck length 1.6x10^-35 meters
edit corrected my numbers a bit
I don't think it's exactly a grid but motion could occur, or at least be detectable in relatively discrete intervals. Individual subatomc particles don't necessarily all have to move together either, so you could have ~ 1/444,444th of the car move forward 1.6*10^-35 meters every 10^-43 seconds. From my view only a part of the car is visible at any one moment in "current" spacetime anyway, even if it's stationary (though I don't know how well that agrees with other observations but considering that we view atoms as mostly empty space this could agree with elements of the atom moving in an out of "current" spacetime).
100km per hour translates to about
1 planck meter per 444,444 planck seconds (something like that.. big numbers hard late at night)
so if space is quantized.. does a car moving at 100km/h.. sit there at 0 for 444,443 plack seconds.. and then in 1 planck second it jumps forward 1 planck length(or c) and then sit there for 444,443 Ps again?
units used planck second 1x10^-43seconds.
planck length 1.6x10^-35 meters
edit corrected my numbers a bit
I don't think it's exactly a grid but motion could occur, or at least be detectable in relatively discrete intervals. Individual subatomc particles don't necessarily all have to move together either, so you could have ~ 1/444,444th of the car move forward 1.6*10^-35 meters every 10^-43 seconds. From my view only a part of the car is visible at any one moment in "current" spacetime anyway, even if it's stationary (though I don't know how well that agrees with other observations but considering that we view atoms as mostly empty space this could agree with elements of the atom moving in an out of "current" spacetime).
so the slower you move the less your electrons stay in this universe?
i do understand Heisenberg makes the grid fuzzy
i do understand Heisenberg makes the grid fuzzy
the question is not precise, maybe would be batter to ask:
is space quantized ?
space-time exists only as a math model with which we describe motion into space
I would say yes, space is quantized, gravitation is a non propagating force, existing between QS of cosmic space, GW are a math speculation only, they do not exist as a physical reality
see more:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4943
is space quantized ?
space-time exists only as a math model with which we describe motion into space
I would say yes, space is quantized, gravitation is a non propagating force, existing between QS of cosmic space, GW are a math speculation only, they do not exist as a physical reality
see more:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4943
JoulesBeef Posted on Feb 24 2006, 03:39 AM
QUOTE
1 planck meter per 444,444 planck seconds (something like that.. big numbers hard late at night)
so if space is quantized.. does a car moving at 100km/h.. sit there at 0 for 444,443 plack seconds.. and then in 1 planck second it jumps forward 1 planck length(or c) and then sit there for 444,443 Ps again?
so if space is quantized.. does a car moving at 100km/h.. sit there at 0 for 444,443 plack seconds.. and then in 1 planck second it jumps forward 1 planck length(or c) and then sit there for 444,443 Ps again?
Quantized or not, the important point is what is happening during 444,443 Ps.
Any ideas?
Big differences between time and space that has to be accounted for.
The answer might give an insight into new physic.
car is moving into space only, not in time
Have a read at this:
Are space and time infinitely divisible?
Given the above analyses, a rather straightforward solution to some of the paradoxes is to deny that space and time are infinitely divisible. Just because our number system enables us to give a number between any two numbers, it does not necessarily follow that there is a point in space between any two different points in space, and the same goes for time.
Indeed, physicists talk about Planck length and Planck time as the smallest meaningful, measurable units of space and of time, thus making measurements of both time and space discrete rather than continuous.
Of course, whether or not space and time are measurable with infinite precision is ultimately irrelevant to the paradoxes and their resolution: what we as humans can know about the world is a different matter from what is or is not true or possible in the world.
That is, quantum mechanics may prevent us from making infinitely precise measurements, but if time and space are continuous, the paradoxes still apply. However, if time and space are discrete, one avoids obtaining the infinite series that underlies most of the paradoxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
Space-Time is an analogue system, that is, it is a continuous system...measurement or quantization is entirely conceptual...
I agree with with Zeno Paradoxes:
1. "You can never catch up." (Special relativity)
2. "You cannot even start." (Quantum computer solves problem without running, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/23/quantum_computing/)
3. "You cannot even move." (Energy-level routing, Schrodinger wave equation, matrix mechanics)
QUOTE
Are space and time infinitely divisible?
Given the above analyses, a rather straightforward solution to some of the paradoxes is to deny that space and time are infinitely divisible. Just because our number system enables us to give a number between any two numbers, it does not necessarily follow that there is a point in space between any two different points in space, and the same goes for time.
Indeed, physicists talk about Planck length and Planck time as the smallest meaningful, measurable units of space and of time, thus making measurements of both time and space discrete rather than continuous.
Of course, whether or not space and time are measurable with infinite precision is ultimately irrelevant to the paradoxes and their resolution: what we as humans can know about the world is a different matter from what is or is not true or possible in the world.
That is, quantum mechanics may prevent us from making infinitely precise measurements, but if time and space are continuous, the paradoxes still apply. However, if time and space are discrete, one avoids obtaining the infinite series that underlies most of the paradoxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
Space-Time is an analogue system, that is, it is a continuous system...measurement or quantization is entirely conceptual...
I agree with with Zeno Paradoxes:
1. "You can never catch up." (Special relativity)
2. "You cannot even start." (Quantum computer solves problem without running, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/23/quantum_computing/)
3. "You cannot even move." (Energy-level routing, Schrodinger wave equation, matrix mechanics)
planck distance belongs to the physical reality
planck time to the mind
planck time is a measure for duration of the photon passing planck distance
in the physical universe only motion exist, no time
time is a construct of the mind for describing motion
planck time to the mind
planck time is a measure for duration of the photon passing planck distance
in the physical universe only motion exist, no time
time is a construct of the mind for describing motion
"motion" defines the physical universe
a ratio of space and time (duality) can define components of this motion
the primary characteristic of space is merely "that which is discrete" and time is "that which is continuous", however time and space are never intrinsically independent entities, they are conjugates and have the same geometry
planck time is just as physical as planck space
measurement of the spatial or temporal components of motion is subjective/relative (of mind)
duration is a subjective measurement of one aspect of time suitable for describing the limited type of physics which assumes a background (i.e. newton)
however, time and space inherently exist on the same ontological level with equal dimensionality. (i.e. time is not actually the same as duration any more than space is the same as length)
a ratio of space and time (duality) can define components of this motion
the primary characteristic of space is merely "that which is discrete" and time is "that which is continuous", however time and space are never intrinsically independent entities, they are conjugates and have the same geometry
planck time is just as physical as planck space
measurement of the spatial or temporal components of motion is subjective/relative (of mind)
duration is a subjective measurement of one aspect of time suitable for describing the limited type of physics which assumes a background (i.e. newton)
however, time and space inherently exist on the same ontological level with equal dimensionality. (i.e. time is not actually the same as duration any more than space is the same as length)
QUOTE (JoulesBeef+Feb 24 2006, 06:35 AM)
so the slower you move the less your electrons stay in this universe?
i do understand Heisenberg makes the grid fuzzy
That might actually be something to consider. I never looked at it exactly that way but I wonder if it might be possible. When we accelerate an object close to light speed, the mass supposedly appears to increase. I wonder if that could somehow correlate to having a "stack" of discrete electrons travelling through space together but most of their time they aren't static in real space but moving through time.
Then when this "particle" hits an object in accelerator, we see it split up into a wide variety of "other particles" where as it could be a stack of rather indentical particles colliding in different ways with some patterns only being visible when you have an adequate number of them follow some specific trajectory after the collision, or their phase pattern as they were rotated in and out of real space. It does seem obvious that these particles interact cohesively.
Though, that's likely an unorthodox view.
A more orthodox version I believe would be that a particle, stationary in space, could be viewed as oscillating through time. With both a real and imaginary component alternating between each other but a relatively fixed percent of this component remaining stationary in "real space", though this motion can still be treated as traveling at light velocity but through a time dimension (the particle remains at that position 'through time' but didn't travel through space). As it begins to move through space, it can be viewed as moving at an angle through space and time now, so it trades off some velocity through time (which slows its oscillation rate in time) and increases the distance it travels in space instead (which could also have an oscillatory component like an orbit? This might be the unintuitive part for me).
The way I envision it is that effectively everything is moving at a constant rate (or alternately everything is stationary and communicates at a fixed velocity - these models seem to be equivalent). Imagine a ball bouncing between two walls. The location of this bouncing on the walls indicates spacial position, and we detect discrete time events when it taps, (though truly to measure time we'd need a second ball tapping to compare the original one with which complicates our view of time as we can only measure ratios of time and not some absolute independent time reference for all space). If the ball begins to travel sideways along the wall, but still moves at the same velocity, then the rate of oscillation between the two walls slows as it begins to move at an angle instead, but it could still be viewed as being half the time closer to one wall than other but that simply the rate of change between these states gets slower. So it could still be viewed as having a constant density of representation in "real space". Just a note, this oscillation is likely more sinusoidal than the wall/ball analogy.
Just to cover my backside though, these are simply my interpretations of the general characteristics of phenomenon claimed to have been witnessed and I don't have a formal education in these so my views likely aren't "industry standard" (though diffraction patterns are easy to see first hand if you shine a laser pointer on a wall and I even did a pinhole experiment to verify the spreading - sure enough light can bend around corners ... or alternately, our intuitive understanding of corners and space isn't very accurate in reality).
i do understand Heisenberg makes the grid fuzzy
That might actually be something to consider. I never looked at it exactly that way but I wonder if it might be possible. When we accelerate an object close to light speed, the mass supposedly appears to increase. I wonder if that could somehow correlate to having a "stack" of discrete electrons travelling through space together but most of their time they aren't static in real space but moving through time.
Then when this "particle" hits an object in accelerator, we see it split up into a wide variety of "other particles" where as it could be a stack of rather indentical particles colliding in different ways with some patterns only being visible when you have an adequate number of them follow some specific trajectory after the collision, or their phase pattern as they were rotated in and out of real space. It does seem obvious that these particles interact cohesively.
Though, that's likely an unorthodox view.
A more orthodox version I believe would be that a particle, stationary in space, could be viewed as oscillating through time. With both a real and imaginary component alternating between each other but a relatively fixed percent of this component remaining stationary in "real space", though this motion can still be treated as traveling at light velocity but through a time dimension (the particle remains at that position 'through time' but didn't travel through space). As it begins to move through space, it can be viewed as moving at an angle through space and time now, so it trades off some velocity through time (which slows its oscillation rate in time) and increases the distance it travels in space instead (which could also have an oscillatory component like an orbit? This might be the unintuitive part for me).
The way I envision it is that effectively everything is moving at a constant rate (or alternately everything is stationary and communicates at a fixed velocity - these models seem to be equivalent). Imagine a ball bouncing between two walls. The location of this bouncing on the walls indicates spacial position, and we detect discrete time events when it taps, (though truly to measure time we'd need a second ball tapping to compare the original one with which complicates our view of time as we can only measure ratios of time and not some absolute independent time reference for all space). If the ball begins to travel sideways along the wall, but still moves at the same velocity, then the rate of oscillation between the two walls slows as it begins to move at an angle instead, but it could still be viewed as being half the time closer to one wall than other but that simply the rate of change between these states gets slower. So it could still be viewed as having a constant density of representation in "real space". Just a note, this oscillation is likely more sinusoidal than the wall/ball analogy.
Just to cover my backside though
, these are simply my interpretations of the general characteristics of phenomenon claimed to have been witnessed and I don't have a formal education in these so my views likely aren't "industry standard" (though diffraction patterns are easy to see first hand if you shine a laser pointer on a wall and I even did a pinhole experiment to verify the spreading - sure enough light can bend around corners ... or alternately, our intuitive understanding of corners and space isn't very accurate in reality).QUOTE (Zenmaster+)
"motion" defines the physical universe
a ratio of space and time (duality) can define components of this motion
the primary characteristic of space is merely "that which is discrete" and time is "that which is continuous", however time and space are never intrinsically independent entities, they are conjugates and have the same geometry
planck time is just as physical as planck space
measurement of the spatial or temporal components of motion is subjective/relative (of mind)
duration is a subjective measurement of one aspect of time suitable for describing the limited type of physics which assumes a background (i.e. newton)
however, time and space inherently exist on the same ontological level with equal dimensionality. (i.e. time is not actually the same as duration any more than space is the same as length)
Yes, this one of the things that makes time difficult to understand. We can only measure things relative to something else that has a contrast (night doesn't create day, nor does day create night - they only exist together as contrasts). If the universe was a black void or entirely white without contrast, we'd be blind (even being blind requires a body) and would have no contrast in which to sense anything - not motion or time.
Time would seem to be more accurately portrayed as a chronology of events instead of some immeasurable rate which incorrectly implies time has meaning independent of any way to measure it. A chronology of "nothing, nothing, nothing, ..." is indistinguishable from nothings happening very quickly or just one big slow nothing
Space is identical. There could be an infinite amount of it, but with nothing to distinguish one location from another, it would be meaningless. Again you need contrast. "Here" might always exist but one thing without contrast has no meaning. You need to not only have something "there" to make "here" useful, but you need a way to detect "there" also.
Sense/force/energy is the way in which time and space is communicated and it requires a contrast also. You could truly model the universe as a 1-D bitstream of binary numbers (0110010..), light/dark, plus/minus or apples/non-apples etc. anything with a contrast and then correlate this serial information into a representation of a 3-D space with time or a 25 dimensional universe with a massive variety of funky properties. Luckily we have bodies that do a lot of the "preprocessing" for us, but that has a contrasting drawback of making alternate interpretations difficult. (Bees see flowers more instinctively than any human but they don't understand electronics or spaceflight ... it's a different "dimension" that appears chaotic, unpredictable and without purpose from their view)
One guess is that existance only needed the possibility of a single contrast and from there a universe of possibilities was created, and if that possibility existed once, why wouldn't it continue to exist forever? Spacetime serves as a memory to keep things from repeating "nothing, nothing, nothing...". (Set theory might be the most accurate way to model things)
a ratio of space and time (duality) can define components of this motion
the primary characteristic of space is merely "that which is discrete" and time is "that which is continuous", however time and space are never intrinsically independent entities, they are conjugates and have the same geometry
planck time is just as physical as planck space
measurement of the spatial or temporal components of motion is subjective/relative (of mind)
duration is a subjective measurement of one aspect of time suitable for describing the limited type of physics which assumes a background (i.e. newton)
however, time and space inherently exist on the same ontological level with equal dimensionality. (i.e. time is not actually the same as duration any more than space is the same as length)
Yes, this one of the things that makes time difficult to understand. We can only measure things relative to something else that has a contrast (night doesn't create day, nor does day create night - they only exist together as contrasts). If the universe was a black void or entirely white without contrast, we'd be blind (even being blind requires a body) and would have no contrast in which to sense anything - not motion or time.
Time would seem to be more accurately portrayed as a chronology of events instead of some immeasurable rate which incorrectly implies time has meaning independent of any way to measure it. A chronology of "nothing, nothing, nothing, ..." is indistinguishable from nothings happening very quickly or just one big slow nothing
Space is identical. There could be an infinite amount of it, but with nothing to distinguish one location from another, it would be meaningless. Again you need contrast. "Here" might always exist but one thing without contrast has no meaning. You need to not only have something "there" to make "here" useful, but you need a way to detect "there" also.
Sense/force/energy is the way in which time and space is communicated and it requires a contrast also. You could truly model the universe as a 1-D bitstream of binary numbers (0110010..), light/dark, plus/minus or apples/non-apples etc. anything with a contrast and then correlate this serial information into a representation of a 3-D space with time or a 25 dimensional universe with a massive variety of funky properties. Luckily we have bodies that do a lot of the "preprocessing" for us, but that has a contrasting drawback of making alternate interpretations difficult. (Bees see flowers more instinctively than any human but they don't understand electronics or spaceflight ... it's a different "dimension" that appears chaotic, unpredictable and without purpose from their view)
One guess is that existance only needed the possibility of a single contrast and from there a universe of possibilities was created, and if that possibility existed once, why wouldn't it continue to exist forever? Spacetime serves as a memory to keep things from repeating "nothing, nothing, nothing...". (Set theory might be the most accurate way to model things)
You can retain the space-time continuum by quantizing by a non-zero infinitesimal. It's the closest thing to zero without actually being. They are infinitely small but are not a completely absent of quantity.
This preserves continuum yet it could be quantized by this smallest quantity.
What if space is quantized by something larger? And what if this space quantum overlaps?
This preserves continuum yet it could be quantized by this smallest quantity.
What if space is quantized by something larger? And what if this space quantum overlaps?
Quantization is conceptual...space itself is continuous...its analogue.
ZenMaster: "motion" defines the physical universe
a ratio of space and time (duality) can define components of this motion
the primary characteristic of space is merely "that which is discrete" and time is "that which is continuous", however time and space are never intrinsically independent entities, they are conjugates and have the same geometry
planck time is just as physical as planck space
measurement of the spatial or temporal components of motion is subjective/relative (of mind)
duration is a subjective measurement of one aspect of time suitable for describing the limited type of physics which assumes a background (i.e. newton)
however, time and space inherently exist on the same ontological level with equal dimensionality. (i.e. time is not actually the same as duration any more than space is the same as length)
Amrit: did planck time existed before man appeared on this planet ??!!.
Planck time is a unit to measure the duration of motion in a same way as meter is: man invention, with clock we measure duration of motion, with meter we measure the length of motion, this is what Mach and Einsten say about time:
Ernst Mach about time:
It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of things.
Albert Einstein about time:
Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." Time--the time that we know through clocks and calendars--was invented. http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html
Roger Penrose about time:
The temporal ordering that we 'appear' to perceive is, I am claiming, something that we impose upon our perceptions in order to make sense of them in relation to the uniform forward time-progression of an external physical reality. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ics/Time_2.html
Author about time:
In the universe one can observe only motion and not time. Time is a construction of the mind into which humans experience motion.
see more my post here: The End of Time......
a ratio of space and time (duality) can define components of this motion
the primary characteristic of space is merely "that which is discrete" and time is "that which is continuous", however time and space are never intrinsically independent entities, they are conjugates and have the same geometry
planck time is just as physical as planck space
measurement of the spatial or temporal components of motion is subjective/relative (of mind)
duration is a subjective measurement of one aspect of time suitable for describing the limited type of physics which assumes a background (i.e. newton)
however, time and space inherently exist on the same ontological level with equal dimensionality. (i.e. time is not actually the same as duration any more than space is the same as length)
Amrit: did planck time existed before man appeared on this planet ??!!.
Planck time is a unit to measure the duration of motion in a same way as meter is: man invention, with clock we measure duration of motion, with meter we measure the length of motion, this is what Mach and Einsten say about time:
Ernst Mach about time:
It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of things.
Albert Einstein about time:
Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." Time--the time that we know through clocks and calendars--was invented. http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html
Roger Penrose about time:
The temporal ordering that we 'appear' to perceive is, I am claiming, something that we impose upon our perceptions in order to make sense of them in relation to the uniform forward time-progression of an external physical reality. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ics/Time_2.html
Author about time:
In the universe one can observe only motion and not time. Time is a construction of the mind into which humans experience motion.
see more my post here: The End of Time......
All other things being equal, the simplest explanation is most often the correct one. The simplest explanation is that General Relativity completely explains space and time as a continuous background upon which all the particles and forces play out. This then means that gravity is not a fundamental force at all and there is no graviton boson. Rather, gravity is an apparent force that results from the warping of space-time by the presence of mass. Just how this happens may depend on the discovery of the Higgs boson that endows matter with mass. If the Higgs does not exist, then some other better mechanism must be proposed.
In any case, there has never been any experiment anywhere that proves that space is quantized. In fact, all the theoretical experimental evidence indicates that space cannot be quantized and that there is no graviton. Gravity is just exactly what Einstein said it is, a warping of space-time, nothing more and nothing less. Einstein's theories have been tested to an almost infinite degree for decades and have always passed the test. Einstein did not use the graviton to explain gravity, space and time and had no need for it. I see no reason to waste time questioning GR.
Of course, the assumption that gravity is not a fundamental force at all is very "out of the box" and means all the efforts to unite gravity with the other three fundamental is a waste of time. Very few people could accept that they have wasted the last 30 years of their life chasing a ghost, so don't expect this idea to become mainstream until there is no other possible option, no matter how convoluted it might be.
In any case, there has never been any experiment anywhere that proves that space is quantized. In fact, all the theoretical experimental evidence indicates that space cannot be quantized and that there is no graviton. Gravity is just exactly what Einstein said it is, a warping of space-time, nothing more and nothing less. Einstein's theories have been tested to an almost infinite degree for decades and have always passed the test. Einstein did not use the graviton to explain gravity, space and time and had no need for it. I see no reason to waste time questioning GR.
Of course, the assumption that gravity is not a fundamental force at all is very "out of the box" and means all the efforts to unite gravity with the other three fundamental is a waste of time. Very few people could accept that they have wasted the last 30 years of their life chasing a ghost, so don't expect this idea to become mainstream until there is no other possible option, no matter how convoluted it might be.
QUOTE (Gphillip+Dec 12 2009, 06:58 PM)
All other things being equal, the simplest explanation is most often the correct one. The simplest explanation is that General Relativity completely explains space and time as a continuous background upon which all the particles and forces play out. This then means that gravity is not a fundamental force at all and there is no graviton boson. Rather, gravity is an apparent force that results from the warping of space-time by the presence of mass. Just how this happens may depend on the discovery of the Higgs boson that endows matter with mass. If the Higgs does not exist, then some other better mechanism must be proposed.
In any case, there has never been any experiment anywhere that proves that space is quantized. In fact, all the theoretical experimental evidence indicates that space cannot be quantized and that there is no graviton. Gravity is just exactly what Einstein said it is, a warping of space-time, nothing more and nothing less. Einstein's theories have been tested to an almost infinite degree for decades and have always passed the test. Einstein did not use the graviton to explain gravity, space and time and had no need for it. I see no reason to waste time questioning GR.
Of course, the assumption that gravity is not a fundamental force at all is very "out of the box" and means all the efforts to unite gravity with the other three fundamental is a waste of time. Very few people could accept that they have wasted the last 30 years of their life chasing a ghost, so don't expect this idea to become mainstream until there is no other possible option, no matter how convoluted it might be.
I assume, the space-time is quantized because the information is quantized as said professor Zeilinger.
The problem with an experimental confirmation is that the medium of the space-time is build of the virtual particles which due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle are not obervable directly.
We have indirectly prooves that zero point energy exists but we can't measure it.
There are some Interpretation of the Quantum Mechanics showing that quantized background (Cramer, LQG ect.).
Such background space-time will explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy effect.
In any case, there has never been any experiment anywhere that proves that space is quantized. In fact, all the theoretical experimental evidence indicates that space cannot be quantized and that there is no graviton. Gravity is just exactly what Einstein said it is, a warping of space-time, nothing more and nothing less. Einstein's theories have been tested to an almost infinite degree for decades and have always passed the test. Einstein did not use the graviton to explain gravity, space and time and had no need for it. I see no reason to waste time questioning GR.
Of course, the assumption that gravity is not a fundamental force at all is very "out of the box" and means all the efforts to unite gravity with the other three fundamental is a waste of time. Very few people could accept that they have wasted the last 30 years of their life chasing a ghost, so don't expect this idea to become mainstream until there is no other possible option, no matter how convoluted it might be.
I assume, the space-time is quantized because the information is quantized as said professor Zeilinger.
The problem with an experimental confirmation is that the medium of the space-time is build of the virtual particles which due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle are not obervable directly.
We have indirectly prooves that zero point energy exists but we can't measure it.
There are some Interpretation of the Quantum Mechanics showing that quantized background (Cramer, LQG ect.).
Such background space-time will explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy effect.
Well, as I interpret your reply, there are assumptions and conjectures that might lead to quantized space, but no proof. No proof, no quantization. So everything I said stands. GR is our best model of space and it is continuous.
QUOTE (Gphillip+Dec 27 2009, 04:03 AM)
Well, as I interpret your reply, there are assumptions and conjectures that might lead to quantized space, but no proof. No proof, no quantization. So everything I said stands. GR is our best model of space and it is continuous.
For quantum computation GR is not enough. We need quantum gravity and it shows space is build of the foam network which explains the behaviour of the particles on quantum level.
Even String Theory evolves to M-branes which fill the space.
For quantum computation GR is not enough. We need quantum gravity and it shows space is build of the foam network which explains the behaviour of the particles on quantum level.
Even String Theory evolves to M-branes which fill the space.
Is space time-quantized ? -
Time-quantization would implicate the existence of smallest -
The first question to consider is existence - ontologically. One may propose that non-physical (non-existence) is omnipresence and that physical (existence) is non-omnipresence.
I see space as something being into physical existence - and space consequently must be quantized.
As I see it we are dealing with the unfolding - when duality is born - when the continuum unfolds into discreteness. A true continuum cannot be into existence - existence is the flux - the re-arrangement of smallest in ever changing appearances - and where smallest is not into existence
To me this is a deep paradox - and it is the same paradox that is behind the Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno's paradoxes has no mathematical explanations - because mathematics by its very definition is a discrete science - and the dichotomy of continuous - discrete cannot be explained by a discrete science like mathematics. And space cannot be accurately defined by mathematics. And it is the same paradox that is behind the Navier Stokes existence smoothness problem. It cannot be explained out from mathematics.
Discreteness cannot exist without nothingness - and nothingness is being diluted into continuity - no end point.
In the words of Robert F. Thurman; "... voidness does not mean nothingness, but rather that all things lack intrinsic reality, intrinsic objectivity, intrinsic identity or intrinsic referentiality. Lacking such static essence or substance does not make them not exist - it makes them thoroughly relative.
In relation to mathematics this implicate that there exist no such thing as absolute accuracy - infinity is not into existence - so-called infinity is being founded on finite concepts. The closest we come to infinity is transfinite - which is a good concept in applied sciences.
Time-quantization would implicate the existence of smallest -
The first question to consider is existence - ontologically. One may propose that non-physical (non-existence) is omnipresence and that physical (existence) is non-omnipresence.
I see space as something being into physical existence - and space consequently must be quantized.
As I see it we are dealing with the unfolding - when duality is born - when the continuum unfolds into discreteness. A true continuum cannot be into existence - existence is the flux - the re-arrangement of smallest in ever changing appearances - and where smallest is not into existence
To me this is a deep paradox - and it is the same paradox that is behind the Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno's paradoxes has no mathematical explanations - because mathematics by its very definition is a discrete science - and the dichotomy of continuous - discrete cannot be explained by a discrete science like mathematics. And space cannot be accurately defined by mathematics. And it is the same paradox that is behind the Navier Stokes existence smoothness problem. It cannot be explained out from mathematics.
Discreteness cannot exist without nothingness - and nothingness is being diluted into continuity - no end point.
In the words of Robert F. Thurman; "... voidness does not mean nothingness, but rather that all things lack intrinsic reality, intrinsic objectivity, intrinsic identity or intrinsic referentiality. Lacking such static essence or substance does not make them not exist - it makes them thoroughly relative.
In relation to mathematics this implicate that there exist no such thing as absolute accuracy - infinity is not into existence - so-called infinity is being founded on finite concepts. The closest we come to infinity is transfinite - which is a good concept in applied sciences.
Quantum gravity does not exist. Prove me wrong.
QUOTE (Gphillip+Jan 16 2010, 06:08 AM)
Quantum gravity does not exist.
Hey, perhaps it does .... but to state "does not" is excessively stupid, as clearly quantum field theory/standard model stuff is rather triumphant ..... and this stuff predicts gravitons. Now please dash off and be a good little mindfuck.
Hey, perhaps it does .... but to state "does not" is excessively stupid, as clearly quantum field theory/standard model stuff is rather triumphant ..... and this stuff predicts gravitons. Now please dash off and be a good little mindfuck.
I don't think space is however time seems like it would have to be.
But honestly the idea of quanti time does not sit well with me.
But honestly the idea of quanti time does not sit well with me.
Is that what you consider a proof? Let me clarify since you and I have different concepts of "proof". Show me one single example of experimental evidence, anywhere, that quantized space exists. This whole concept of quantized space and for that mater quantum gravity is without any observational foundation. It is a waste of time and it's a shame young minds are being lead astray from scientific method by those whose only motivation is to be famous.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.