I'm not a scientist man!

[hobbsyoyo]

So what are you saying? That time and space are both discontinuous?

I think it is in special cases like black holes and may also be discontinuous in very ordinary circumstances like teeny tiny spaces.

 

[peter grimes]

So what are you saying? That time and space are both discontinuous?

Yes.

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to think of space as being a lattice, but it does indeed appear to have a sort of pixelation. And apparently this granularity carries over to time as well.

Isn't it utterly bizarre that space and time and the rate at which point light propagates are all interrelated?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Isn't it utterly bizarre that space and time and the rate at which point light propagates are all interrelated?

It is. And why does light have to set the universal speed limit?

Actually, it's hard to even fathom the answer to the question I just asked because to do so you really have to consider a universe that works fundamentally different from ours and this is pretty much impossible to do. You can describe it with mathematics, maybe, but try and put it into coherent words and either your brain asplodes or God has an aneurysm and the Universe winks out of existence.

 

[Borachio]

Yes.

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to think of space as being a lattice, but it does indeed appear to have a sort of pixelation. And apparently this granularity carries over to time as well.

Isn't it utterly bizarre that space and time and the rate at which point light propagates are all interrelated?

But if it's not continuous, how does anything get from one point to another? It must wink out at position A and wink back in at position B.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But if it's not continuous, how does anything get from one point to another? It must wink out at position A and wink back in at position B.

Yes.

Your particles could be doing this every single instant. Or not. We really don't know yet.

 

[El_Machinae]

If the theories of the pixelation of reality are true, then that would be the actual answer to Zeno's paradox.

 

[uppi]

But if it's not continuous, how does anything get from one point to another? It must wink out at position A and wink back in at position B.

Because of the uncertainty relation, it is at both positions anyway. Just the probability of being at point A decreases and the one being at point B increases.

But anything that happens at the Planck scale is speculative anyway. Our theories might break down well before that.

 

[peter grimes]

Because of the uncertainty relation, it is at both positions anyway. Just the probability of being at point A decreases and the one being at point B increases.

But anything that happens at the Planck scale is speculative anyway. Our theories might break down well before that.

So, to apply some actual number here, isn't the Planck scale something around -5 orders of magnitude in relation to quark size - which is, itself, around -4 order of magnitude in relation to proton or neutron size?

I suppose I could look it up, but I'm supposed to be putting strings of lights on trees right now....

 

[Borachio]

Because of the uncertainty relation, it is at both positions anyway. Just the probability of being at point A decreases and the one being at point B increases.

But anything that happens at the Planck scale is speculative anyway. Our theories might break down well before that.

Link to video.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh good, it's not just me then.

 

[Borachio]

If your brain doesn't hurt, you really haven't understood it.

 

[Leoreth]

I'm hoping Uppi or Leoreth jump in here....

I'm honored, but I'm just an amateur. Uppi is the guy to ask

If your brain doesn't hurt, you really haven't understood it.

Nah, you just become accustomed to the brain pains until you don't notice them anymore.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, I tell myself that as well every Sunday.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, to apply some actual number here, isn't the Planck scale something around -5 orders of magnitude in relation to quark size - which is, itself, around -4 order of magnitude in relation to proton or neutron size?

I suppose I could look it up, but I'm supposed to be putting strings of lights on trees right now....

No, the Planck scale is vastly lower than that. The quark or electron is about E-15 m. The Planck scale is like E-27 m. The difference between the pixelation of the universe to a quark is somewhat akin to the difference between a quark and a dime.

 

[Borachio]

It's very strange, if true, that the universe is pixellated. I haven't, yet, understood why this is necessarily so.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's very strange, if true, that the universe is pixellated. I haven't, yet, understood why this is necessarily so.

You're not alone, no one does man.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sure, plenty do. It's a theory generated by humans. I recommend the book Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin. He goes through the theory quite nicely.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sure, plenty do. It's a theory generated by humans. I recommend the book Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin. He goes through the theory quite nicely.

That's a remarkably eloquent example of puff puff pass.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's very strange, if true, that the universe is pixellated. I haven't, yet, understood why this is necessarily so.

I think the theory goes: the deeper you look into matter, you find 'pixels' which make up that matter. I'm fuzzy about what the smallest ones are called, smarter people will know. The theory is at some point you have found the smallest elements making up matter. These smallest elements can be likened to pixels.

I remember a program which tried to figure out what the Universe is. One of the options was a computer simulation. When I heard it I rejected it right away. But as they explained, I found it more plausible and solid than I thought possible at the start.

 

[Borachio]

I think the theory goes: the deeper you look into matter, you find 'pixels' which make up that matter. I'm fuzzy about what the smallest ones are called, smarter people will know. The theory is at some point you have found the smallest elements making up matter. These smallest elements can be likened to pixels.

I remember a program which tried to figure out what the Universe is. One of the options was a computer simulation. When I heard it I rejected it right away. But as they explained, I found it more plausible and solid than I thought possible at the start.

Well, now you seem to be talking about matter, for some reason.

I thought we were talking about the basic structure of space (i.e. matter-less) being necessarily pixellated.

The computer simulation may be plausible, but I suspect unfalsifiable. And in any case would only defer the issue to another remove, i.e. this universe would have to be a computer simulation running somewhere. It just doesn't help me in my perplexity at all.