ronthepon Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 The concepts of non-continuousness has come up recently. I am contemplating the possiblity of our dimentions having quantanised values. By this I mean that we can tranverse distance in certain definite 'quanta' of lengths. I have come refences quoting about gravity showing this. But eventually, there are factors that cancel the possibility of this. Take the uncertainity principle.But I am not sure of that either. Likewise, this may be extended to time also. I need educated and knowledgeable opinions on this, so that I can clear this for myself. Won't you please help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebbysteiny Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Erm, quantised length. Perhaps you meant to start this thread in the 'philosophy' secion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 I dont think it belongs in the philosophy, maybe strange claims.. It can stay here for the the moment, but if it doesnt suit the forum it can be moved at any time :) How can you have a quanta of length when our current model has point particles? In string theory there is a limit to how small things get, but that doesnt also imply that there is a limit to how small increments in space are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted June 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Erm, no. Its not a claim. Its for a bundle of results we shall get if we have a space like that. Now if there is a continuous space(as it most probably is like,) there will be infinite number of possible positions for an object to be between points A and B.Is that clear, or must I add something to this? As I said, it's eduacted opinions I was hoping for. Not depressing ones. Give me a few minutes. I'll post the rest of my thoughts on this after now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted June 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 The majority of my thoughts are based on my use of a special program called 'force', in which we have a cartesian 2D environment. We are able to place particles, give then difinte charges, masses, and all those charecters. In it, when I tried to make a particle move and pi got involved in it (you guessed it right, I tried to make it go in a perfect circle), my computer with about 640MB of RAM hung for the first time in its operative life. The reason, as I found out, was that the program did not have the capability to give approximations when needed. It ended trying to find the complete value of pi. Of course, our space is just not the same. But can two objects be spaced with exactly with the distance = pi?Yes, you say. Though we won't be able to say for sure if it is fully = pi, we will be able to say it until a greater and greater degree of accuracy, until we reach some measurement technique limit. Or till uncertainity principle makes it impossible for us to map it to a greater presicion. Perfect! Thats our limit of mapping distance! And for simplifying our calculations, we can have that limit as our imaginary quantum distance! Again, I want to assert that I am not claiming. I need your opinions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 The majority of my thoughts are based on my use of a special program called 'force', in which we have a cartesian 2D environment. We are able to place particles, give then difinte charges, masses, and all those charecters.. That explains it! Computers are based on digits (they are digital) and any digital device has limits for its digits. On the philosophical ground, I really have no thoughts at present!:( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 The reason, as I found out, was that the program did not have the capability to give approximations when needed. It ended trying to find the complete value of pi.Gosh :( I thought you were getting at the Planck length!!! :( Discreet space and time would run into serious trouble with coordinate transformations, even just simple euclidean rotations (spatial isotropy), it would require something quite zany to be concocted instead. There's no need for it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Do mathematicians have a solution for Democritus' cone paradox, that doesn't rely on limits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 By this I mean that we can tranverse distance in certain definite 'quanta' of lengths. I have come refences quoting about gravity showing this. I think I understand what you mean. It is like relatavistic quantum space-time. You might find this interesting. An article here on hypo.. about a new unified theory that looks promising. Quantum Aether. http://hypography.com/forums/general-science-news/6960-new-unified-force-theory-predicts-measured.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebbysteiny Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Oh no.... not aether ...... AGAIN!!!! I thought we had got rid of that about 90 years ago :(. Having said that, it was an interesting article and if it succeeds, it would be great. Fluid Aether?? what a concept. Back to the original feed. I think having a continuous coordination system with a minimum error (from uncertainty) is not the same as having discrete quantised distance. For starters, a continuous system with minimum errors can still have a distance value of any number, while a discrete system can't. Further, your example about distance 'pi' could just as easily apply to 1 or 2 or whatever. Hope my negative thoughts help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 I've long thought space and time was kind of granular when you get down to the real small stuff. Like you can't get anything smaller than the bubbles in quantum foam. I don't know where I got it from, some book I guess. Maybe the same book that told me point particles are phooey. And maybe this wikepedia mention of Planck Length is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length "This thought experiment draws on both general relativity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. These two theories combined imply that it is impossible to measure position to a precision less than the Planck length. Hence in any theory of quantum gravity combining general relativity and quantum mechanics, traditional notions of space and time will break down at distances shorter than the Planck length or times shorter than the Planck time..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted June 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Oh no.... not aether ...... AGAIN!!!! I thought we had got rid of that about 90 years ago :(. Having said that, it was an interesting article and if it succeeds, it would be great. Fluid Aether?? what a concept. Back to the original feed. I think having a continuous coordination system with a minimum error (from uncertainty) is not the same as having discrete quantised distance. For starters, a continuous system with minimum errors can still have a distance value of any number, while a discrete system can't. Further, your example about distance 'pi' could just as easily apply to 1 or 2 or whatever. Hope my negative thoughts help.Okay, already, I understand by now that this is not very conventional in nature. OK, it is correct that having discrete space displacements is different from measuring it so. Now the new question is: what if? To Qfwfq: Tell me something about plank length if it is relevant, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 The wiki that Popular linked to says the essential, although you might find more by looking it up, but avoid the usual stumbling block. There's a difference between saying: "it's impossible to measure the quantity more precisely than [math]\norm\Delta q[/math]" and "the quantity comes in discreet units of [math]\norm\Delta q[/math]". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Along same lines, I've (as a result of some discussions here on Hypo) found myself thinking more and more about units of Plank time... pretty much same concept, different dimension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Alright as I understand it. Planck's length arises from the Quanta of Light. A photon travels a constant distance, which is a whole integer, non-negative number. From this the Quanta of Length can arise. Am I missing something here? Energy is Quatitized. As is Spin, and a multitude of properties. Why then could not Space-time be Quatitized? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIENVN Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 The concepts of non-continuousness has come up recently. I am contemplating the possiblity of our dimentions having quantanised values. By this I mean that we can tranverse distance in certain definite 'quanta' of lengths. I have come refences quoting about gravity showing this. But eventually, there are factors that cancel the possibility of this. Take the uncertainity principle.But I am not sure of that either. Likewise, this may be extended to time also. I need educated and knowledgeable opinions on this, so that I can clear this for myself. Won't you please help?In Einstein’s opinion, the space is not in quanta! The space should be in continuoussness.“Quanta” disclosed a lack of quantum mechanics to the universe that Einstein disclaimed this “quanta”; because this “quanta” shows an interruption of interaction in the universe that Einstein cannot think so. The interaction of the universe must be continuous in order to obey a single law of universe that Einstein proposed in his last life.Quantum theory may be accepted in the scope of atoms and this theory will false in the scope of universe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.