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

"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snip kike Khan's outdated and useless brain farts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: ---

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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