|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity
Now, Relativity never mentions what the microscopic form of spacetime
is, but most Relativity purists think of it as one continuous fabric, extending down to infinity. Quantum Mechanics also doesn't mention the form of spacetime, though it considers everything else to be in the form of wave-particles, it has nothing to say about spacetime itself. But both Relativity and QM should be able to work equally well with discrete spacetime, as well as they do with continuous spacetime. I look at an analogy, the laws of Thermodynamics were discovered before the discovery of atoms. When atoms were discovered, you could describe the motion of gas and liquids by looking at it microscopically, but you didn't need to look at it microscopically, as the Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics already existed at a higher level, macroscopically. Possibly Relativity is the same way, it's a high-level macroscopic view of spacetime, and that there is a microscopic view that exists below that, which we don't normally need to consider. Another thing that I think proves spacetime is discrete is that for there to be a "fabric" of spacetime, there needs to be "atoms" of spacetime. Fabrics don't move, stretch, compress, wave, or flutter, etc., if they weren't made of many microscopic pieces. That was the same argument the ancient Greeks used to prove that matter was made from atoms, many millennia before atoms were actually discovered. Yousuf Khan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity
"Yousuf Khan" wrote:
snip kike Khan's outdated and useless brain farts about space-time he has never seen, & relativity which does not affect neither his life nor career hanson wrote: Khan, invest your time and efforts in inventing and producing improved tools and equipment to MEASURE what you fantasize and pontificate about. If you are obsessed and fixated with "theoretical" issues then at least bring on some NEW and enticing stuff, not your warmed over regurgitations of echoes from Heisenberg's and Einstein's days, which are long gone... ... except for unemployed losers and palavering parrots who are still digging around what is in the garbage heap of history. Watch the current TV series of "Space-Odyssey" with Neil deGrasse Tyson's "ships of the imagination" or the "Wormhole" series narrated by actor Morgan Freeman and then come back with comments on that. Thanks for the laughs though, you retarded Dreidel ahahahaha... ahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 7:24:59 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: .... Now, Relativity never mentions what the microscopic form of spacetime is, Actually yes it does. As a classical theory, in a differential form, it is assumed to be infinitely differentiable, so that the methods of infinite sums can be applied. but most Relativity purists think of it as one continuous fabric, extending down to infinity. Yes. Quantum Mechanics also doesn't mention the form of spacetime, though it considers everything else to be in the form of wave-particles, it has nothing to say about spacetime itself. Not strictly true, I think. It must be integrable, but is not required to be infinitely differentiable. Path integration, for example... But both Relativity and QM should be able to work equally well with discrete spacetime, QM yes, GR, no. .... Possibly Relativity is the same way, it's a high-level macroscopic view of spacetime, and that there is a microscopic view that exists below that, which we don't normally need to consider. Or better still, spacetime is just a population measure, like "population mean", and has no contextual meaning without the system Universe. Another thing that I think proves spacetime is discrete is that for there to be a "fabric" of spacetime, there needs to be "atoms" of spacetime. Nope. Fabrics don't move, stretch, compress, wave, or flutter, etc., if they weren't made of many microscopic pieces. False. Spacetime could be the linear superposition of all the matter / energy in the Universe, and need no further "atomization". David A. Smith |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity
Dne 13.6.2014 16:24, Yousuf Khan napsal(a):
Now, Relativity never mentions what the microscopic form of spacetime is, but most Relativity purists think of it as one continuous fabric, extending down to infinity. Quantum Mechanics also doesn't mention the form of spacetime, though it considers everything else to be in the form of wave-particles, it has nothing to say about spacetime itself. But both Relativity and QM should be able to work equally well with discrete spacetime, as well as they do with continuous spacetime. I look at an analogy, the laws of Thermodynamics were discovered before the discovery of atoms. When atoms were discovered, you could describe the motion of gas and liquids by looking at it microscopically, but you didn't need to look at it microscopically, as the Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics already existed at a higher level, macroscopically. Possibly Relativity is the same way, it's a high-level macroscopic view of spacetime, and that there is a microscopic view that exists below that, which we don't normally need to consider. Another thing that I think proves spacetime is discrete is that for there to be a "fabric" of spacetime, there needs to be "atoms" of spacetime. Fabrics don't move, stretch, compress, wave, or flutter, etc., if they weren't made of many microscopic pieces. That was the same argument the ancient Greeks used to prove that matter was made from atoms, many millennia before atoms were actually discovered. Yousuf Khan Idea of marriage of GR and QM is very old, wished to be realized by many. As you may guess, the mass will be very complicated, as math of GR and SR aware QM are such even alone. -- Poutnik Wise man guards the words he says, as they may speak about him more, than about the subject. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity
On 13/06/2014 6:41 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan: On Friday, June 13, 2014 7:24:59 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: ... Now, Relativity never mentions what the microscopic form of spacetime is, Actually yes it does. As a classical theory, in a differential form, it is assumed to be infinitely differentiable, so that the methods of infinite sums can be applied. but most Relativity purists think of it as one continuous fabric, extending down to infinity. Yes. Quantum Mechanics also doesn't mention the form of spacetime, though it considers everything else to be in the form of wave-particles, it has nothing to say about spacetime itself. Not strictly true, I think. It must be integrable, but is not required to be infinitely differentiable. Path integration, for example... But both Relativity and QM should be able to work equally well with discrete spacetime, QM yes, GR, no. Why does QM not need to be infinitely differentiable, like Relativity? Anyways, even if space is discrete, and won't make infinite sums, wouldn't it having a lowest level of sums actually make life easier for calculations? Instead of infinite sums, you'll have finite sums. Possibly Relativity is the same way, it's a high-level macroscopic view of spacetime, and that there is a microscopic view that exists below that, which we don't normally need to consider. Or better still, spacetime is just a population measure, like "population mean", and has no contextual meaning without the system Universe. Which would mean the exact same thing as what I just said. That is, it's a macroscopic view. Another thing that I think proves spacetime is discrete is that for there to be a "fabric" of spacetime, there needs to be "atoms" of spacetime. Nope. Fabrics don't move, stretch, compress, wave, or flutter, etc., if they weren't made of many microscopic pieces. False. Spacetime could be the linear superposition of all the matter / energy in the Universe, and need no further "atomization". All of the matter & energy of the universe is discrete. Yousuf Khan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity
On 14/06/2014 1:06 PM, Poutnik wrote:
Idea of marriage of GR and QM is very old, wished to be realized by many. As you may guess, the mass will be very complicated, as math of GR and SR aware QM are such even alone. Sure, but it's going to be complicated no matter what. I'm just saying take a definite stance, say that spacetime is discrete, and work your next-gen theories around that. Yousuf Khan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity
Dear Yousuf Kahn:
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 9:43:46 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: On 13/06/2014 6:41 PM, dlzc wrote: Dear Yousuf Khan: .... But both Relativity and QM should be able to work equally well with discrete spacetime, QM yes, GR, no. Why does QM not need to be infinitely differentiable, like Relativity? QM sums all possible paths, to arrive at an interaction. GR sums all "differential elements" of spacetime. Anyways, even if space is discrete, and won't make infinite sums, wouldn't it having a lowest level of sums actually make life easier for calculations? Instead of infinite sums, you'll have finite sums. Of course that is not true, as you should recall from when you were introduced to calculus. The infinities were combed out by integration. Possibly Relativity is the same way, it's a high-level macroscopic view of spacetime, and that there is a microscopic view that exists below that, which we don't normally need to consider. Or better still, spacetime is just a population measure, like "population mean", and has no contextual meaning without the system Universe. Which would mean the exact same thing as what I just said. That is, it's a macroscopic view. It *isn't* the same thing at all. There is no "quanta of spacetime", from which spacetime is made. Spacetime is what all the bits of mass belomging to it "vote" it to be. .... Fabrics don't move, stretch, compress, wave, or flutter, etc., if they weren't made of many microscopic pieces. False. Spacetime could be the linear superposition of all the matter / energy in the Universe, and need no further "atomization". All of the matter & energy of the universe is discrete. But the "final vote" (aka. spacetime) is not. David A. Smith |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity
BTW, why do you keep deleting sci.physics from newsgroups list?
On 15/06/2014 11:09 AM, dlzc wrote: On Saturday, June 14, 2014 9:43:46 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: Anyways, even if space is discrete, and won't make infinite sums, wouldn't it having a lowest level of sums actually make life easier for calculations? Instead of infinite sums, you'll have finite sums. Of course that is not true, as you should recall from when you were introduced to calculus. The infinities were combed out by integration. If spacetime is discrete then where will not be any infinities to "comb out", as a natural consequence. Or better still, spacetime is just a population measure, like "population mean", and has no contextual meaning without the system Universe. Which would mean the exact same thing as what I just said. That is, it's a macroscopic view. It *isn't* the same thing at all. There is no "quanta of spacetime", from which spacetime is made. Spacetime is what all the bits of mass belomging to it "vote" it to be. Or perhaps spacetime is "voting" to be bits of mass and energy? Fabrics don't move, stretch, compress, wave, or flutter, etc., if they weren't made of many microscopic pieces. False. Spacetime could be the linear superposition of all the matter / energy in the Universe, and need no further "atomization". All of the matter & energy of the universe is discrete. But the "final vote" (aka. spacetime) is not. As far as I'm concerned energy and spacetime go hand-in-hand, and sometimes the energy turns itself into matter, but not always. Yousuf Khan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:58:53 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: BTW, why do you keep deleting sci.physics from newsgroups list? No choice. Google.Groups lets me post to only one newsgroup. On 15/06/2014 11:09 AM, dlzc wrote: On Saturday, June 14, 2014 9:43:46 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: Anyways, even if space is discrete, and won't make infinite sums, wouldn't it having a lowest level of sums actually make life easier for calculations? Instead of infinite sums, you'll have finite sums. Of course that is not true, as you should recall from when you were introduced to calculus. The infinities were combed out by integration. If spacetime is discrete then where will not be any infinities to "comb out", as a natural consequence. Oh, yes, there are. In order to integrate, you have to have infinite differentiability. So you'd have multiples of infinities, at every "unit space" boundary. Or better still, spacetime is just a population measure, like "population mean", and has no contextual meaning without the system Universe. Which would mean the exact same thing as what I just said. That is, it's a macroscopic view. It *isn't* the same thing at all. There is no "quanta of spacetime", from which spacetime is made. Spacetime is what all the bits of mass belomging to it "vote" it to be. Or perhaps spacetime is "voting" to be bits of mass and energy? Only time will tell. All I am "sure" of is mass and spacetime appear at the same instant. Fabrics don't move, stretch, compress, wave, or flutter, etc., if they weren't made of many microscopic pieces. False. Spacetime could be the linear superposition of all the matter / energy in the Universe, and need no further "atomization". All of the matter & energy of the universe is discrete. But the "final vote" (aka. spacetime) is not. As far as I'm concerned energy and spacetime go hand-in-hand, and sometimes the energy turns itself into matter, but not always. But spacetime does not exist in the quantum realm, whereas quanta of charge, magnetic moment (proportional to mass), and the like do. Which came first, the chicken, or the egg carton? Spacetime is the egg carton... a product of a system... David A. Smith |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity
On 17/06/2014 7:20 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan: On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:58:53 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: BTW, why do you keep deleting sci.physics from newsgroups list? No choice. Google.Groups lets me post to only one newsgroup. I don't use Google Groups anymore, but last time I used it, it had a "reply to all" feature. Has it been removed? On 15/06/2014 11:09 AM, dlzc wrote: On Saturday, June 14, 2014 9:43:46 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: Anyways, even if space is discrete, and won't make infinite sums, wouldn't it having a lowest level of sums actually make life easier for calculations? Instead of infinite sums, you'll have finite sums. Of course that is not true, as you should recall from when you were introduced to calculus. The infinities were combed out by integration. If spacetime is discrete then where will not be any infinities to "comb out", as a natural consequence. Oh, yes, there are. In order to integrate, you have to have infinite differentiability. So you'd have multiples of infinities, at every "unit space" boundary. Calculus is just an approximation of reality, not the reality itself. In the end, with a discrete spacetime, the entire reality can be done with good old sums and subtractions, rather than integrals and differentials. It *isn't* the same thing at all. There is no "quanta of spacetime", from which spacetime is made. Spacetime is what all the bits of mass belomging to it "vote" it to be. Or perhaps spacetime is "voting" to be bits of mass and energy? Only time will tell. All I am "sure" of is mass and spacetime appear at the same instant. Not really. Mass didn't appear right away, it appeared during the Baryogenesis epoch after the Big Bang, which was either just before or just around the same time as the Inflationary epoch. However, spacetime did appear at the same instant as energy. Which suggests to me that energy and spacetime are linked. Mass being a form of energy links to spacetime as a cousin in that case. All of the matter & energy of the universe is discrete. But the "final vote" (aka. spacetime) is not. As far as I'm concerned energy and spacetime go hand-in-hand, and sometimes the energy turns itself into matter, but not always. But spacetime does not exist in the quantum realm, whereas quanta of charge, magnetic moment (proportional to mass), and the like do. Which came first, the chicken, or the egg carton? Spacetime is the egg carton... a product of a system... Or it could be one of the properties of the system, just like energy. Two basic properties of the universe: energy and dimensions. Yousuf Khan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Continuous disappearance of spacetime in black holes. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 5 | January 23rd 09 03:48 PM |
Fallacious Notion of Spacetime Continuum in Relativity | GSS | Astronomy Misc | 65 | February 6th 08 01:43 AM |
Fallacious Notion of Spacetime Continuum in Relativity | GSS | Astronomy Misc | 46 | February 5th 08 05:49 AM |
Fallacious Notion of Spacetime Continuum in Relativity | JanPB | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 14th 07 07:30 PM |
Fallacious Notion of Spacetime Continuum in Relativity | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 3rd 07 06:25 PM |