/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10154593
>Is time discrete?
10E-44 sec

>>10154635
>>10154593
Fuck I don't need this right now. If time is discrete how the fuck does the arrow paradox thing work?

As it stands the distance between the arrow and its target gets infinitely smaller until it approaches 0. If time is discrete, then it approaches some number other than 0 and then jumps the last bit of space to reach its target. But not only that. It does this at every single point along its trajectory. The arrow cannot ever move at all if this is the case, only "jump" from one frame in time and space to the next. In other words, if time is discrete, then space also HAS to be discrete. Is it?

>>10154655
>if time is discrete, then space also HAS to be discrete. Is it?

Yes, the Planck length: 1.60E-35 m

>>10154655
I have no idea but, if space is quantized, is it quantized to a uniform cubic grid, hexagonal grid, or otherwise?

Continuity and discretion are not mutually exclusive.

>>10154665

>>10154661
>>10154635

Being quantum is not the same as discrete. Spacetime (there is no separate time and space) is quantum, but not discrete, otherwise we would see Lorentz symmetry violations everywhere.

Anyone who tells you that time is quantized by the Planck length is telling you speculative things as fact.

>>10154671
what is light?

both particle (discrete) and wave (continuous)

binary thinking has made us more dumb than smart

>>10154763
one is reality (or at least much closer to reality) the other is a useful model

>>10154635
>>10154661
popsci retards misunderstanding planck units

>>10154593
>Is time discrete?
We don't know, but probably not. Now stop being a popsci reading faggot and learn some actual science (this goes for basically every poster in this thread besides >>10154678 and >>10154684 )

>>10154593
Space is quantized.
Tiem is quantized.

deal with it

google “holometer”

>>10154593
We measured a bunch of shit and came up with measurements that are described by mathematical models that don’t translate between macroscopic and microscopic values unless you get lucky. That’s science and engineering for you. Time is just something to integrate over to predict the reaction, it’s an idea held by the cascade of observable reactions we are presented with in life.

>>10154635
>>10154661
Planck scale is not discretization. It is merely the lower bound of quantum uncertainty. Any attempts to measure anything to a precision beyond this scale would result in a black hole swallowing the information you sought to obtain. At least, that's what current models predict. A theory of quantum gravity may change this.

>>10154905
blah blah blah
yeah its quantized

>>10154767
i think this is not a good way to look at it, stupid light behaves "in reality" both ways thats the big problem with all this.

>>10154593
>>10154635
>>10154661
>>10154664
>>10154774
>>10154770
>>10154908
>>10154655
Time and space have no properties or attributes. To say they are "discrete" would require that is has a property, attribute that distinguishes it from something else. Since both time and space are arbitrary conceptions and are not a principle to anything in reality, they do not exist.

>>10154593
>Is there something generating them?
On the small scales, clocks, the larger scale, calendars.

>>10154958
Retard

>>10154958
What's your IQ? Be honest

>>10155095
>>10155108
Fallacy of reification. There is nothing "physical" about time or space you jackwagons. Would you feel better if I said; "Time and space are as real as the tooth fairy, because all of them are at least ideas instead of just nothing."?

>>10155154
What's your IQ? Be honest

>>10155158
Appeal to authority. Next

>>10155165
What are you even talking about, retard? I'm asking what's your IQ? Be honest

>>10155171
Non-sequitur

>>10155178
What is your intelligence quotient?

>>10155178
>there are "people" who think time or space is discrete

>there are "people" out there who think time or space is discrete

>>10155182
I'm basically saying that yes...
>>10155181
Non-sequitur

>>10155187
Pathetic

>>10155193
Ad hominem

>>10155215
Nigger

>>10154958

>>10155238
Ad hominem

>>10155240
Nigger

>>10155238
Not the same guy. What's your argument?

>>10155246
>Not the same guy
Sure, sweaty

>>10155217
That seems mildly inappropriate for a scientific discussion.

>>10155246
Argument for what?

>>10155165
Reddit poster

Next

>>10155272
Ad hominem

>>10155262
I don't know. I can't follow this autistic thread of a "conversation." What are you calling the other guy a nigger for? What's your position?

>>10155289
I didn't call anyone a nigger? I posted a brainlet wojack meme

>>10155289
>every anon that disagrees with me is the same person

>>10155324
>>10155353
Samefag. The posters count didnt go up

I can agree that space doesn't "exist", since it's the byproduct of particles distancing from each other,
But I'm not sure about time, there hasn't been any clear proof yet to clear the debate.

>>10155402
>space doesn't "exist", since it's the byproduct of particles distancing from each other
How does being the byproduct of something imply that it does not exist? Can you define what you mean by "exist"?

>>10155424
I used the quotes for a reason, I mean that there's no space outside the universe, because as I said, it's merely a byproduct of the bubble of matter expanding.

>>10155390
>Samefag. The posters count didnt go up
1/23 chance it's the same poster then. Why are you on a math and science board?

>>10155272
>>10155238
>>10155193
Listen up children, here in reality we are dealing with observable phenomena and experience. "Time" is what humans use to record events, it is in no way part of the actual event occurring. It by definition cannot be a "dimension", because it has no fucking "dimensional" properties to speak of! You can define it as a "dimension" and use it for thought experiments and theories, but that doesn't magically make it a principle of reality. Cars do not run on time, they run on gas. Planets do not rotate around time, they accelerate towards a self similar body with motion. Your clock and watch are nothing but an assemble of gears using centripetal/centrifugal force. To say "time exists" is the equivalent of saying "inches exist" or "descriptions exist". Yeah they "exist" as an arbitrary goalpost in our inept heads, but they aren't actually real.

>>10155445
Lol, you're so dumb. Don't even know what "dimension" means
>1/23 chance it's the same poster then
Assuming a uniform distribution like the retard you are

>>10155460
>Lol, you're so dumb. Don't even know what "dimension" means
Lol, define it. "Dimension" has lots of definitions, one of them being "an aspect or feature". Tell me what aspect or feature time has.

>Assuming a uniform distribution like the retard you are
At least I don't assume that every poster is the same like a paranoid keyboard warrior.

>>10154593
It is not known if time is discrete or continuous
>>10154661
That is quantized time (and that is not known either)

>>10155484
>Lol, define it. "Dimension" has lots of definitions, one of them being "an aspect or feature". Tell me what aspect or feature time has.
Wtf is "an aspect or feature"? What kind of vague definition is that? Your just replaced one word for another without defining the new word
>At least I don't assume that every poster is the same like a paranoid keyboard warrior.
That wasn't me, retard. So you're the one who just assumed that every poster is the same

>>10155484
>>10155497
Also, just to let you know, when people speak of time as a dimension. They're not using your definition of "an aspect or feature" whatever that means

>>10155497
>Wtf is "an aspect or feature"? What kind of vague definition is that?
Really? You don't know what an aspect or "feature" is?
Ex:
A "feature" humans have is furless skin.
Weather affects every "aspect" of our lives.

Obviously the universe has some "dimension" otherwise it would be nothing, no? If it has no dimensionality, then it has no aspects or features, then there is literally nothing to talk about. I'm not talking about Cartesian coordinates or math. I'm talking about the principle of having "dimension", aka having a "feature" or "aspect" that is "definable" in the first place. You can't even define something that has no features or aspects. just as you can't define something that has no properties or attributes. You are literally describing imaginary made up bullshit at that point.

Hence, "time" does not exist because it has no aspects or features, no properties nor attributes. The same goes for space.

>>10155509
>Also, just to let you know, when people speak of time as a dimension.
Just to let you know when people speak of "time" other than to keep track of other arbitrary made up shit (like business hours and whatnot), they are over complicating a completely imaginary measurement.

>They're not using your definition of "an aspect or feature" whatever that means
You're right, they're assuming that it actually exists and then they defineit in their own terms based on whatever mathmatical abstraction they come up with. Do you think I made up the "dimension of time" part? I'm not insane enough to believe that hogwash.

>>10155589
Complete and utter nonsense. Literally not even wrong

>this fucking thread
The absolute state of/sci/ holy shit it's WORSE than rebbit

>>10157103
Why did you bump it, retard?

>>10154678
>Spacetime (there is no separate time and space) is quantum, but not discrete, otherwise we would see Lorentz symmetry violations everywhere
This.
Plank length is the smallest meaningful distance(physics laws break down below it), but it doesn't mean the universe has some kind of voxel/grid structure or other discrete structure.

Bumping this thread because the autism is too good.

>>10155185
Xeno's paradox

>>10157163
What about it?

>>10157125
Learn to make a plot

Time is just movement. There has never been a lack of movement, time has always been. There was no beginning.

>>10157268
If time is connected to space and space had a beginning...

>>10157271
Nothing truly has a beginning. A beginning is just the result of a prior event. How can an event occur without a cause?

>>10157268
>Time is the change in position with respect to time
Well done, Anon

>>10157281
Hence the philosophical the theological issue behind the big bang.

>>10154763
clearly hasn't studied even intro quantum

Time, like space can have a begening, it's just we can't see "under" the begening of the space (and time), we can never see that because we can't see everything, that's all

>>10155589
A dimension is a fixed observation point that can observe 2 distinct END events/points without destabilizing the event of measurement/observation.

>>10158099
No?

>>10155725
>Literally not even wrong.
I'll take that as a "you win".

>>10158099
Oh my fucking god.
>>10155589
>I'm not talking about Cartesian coordinates or math. I'm talking about the principle of having "dimension", aka having a "feature" or "aspect" that is "definable" in the first place.

You use math to put placeholders and to measure things. One can say "this box has a dimension of 5inX5inX5in", that's fine and dandy and is simply the mathematical description of the box. However, the measurements can be removed when thinking about the object metaphysically and it can still be stated that the object has "dimensionality" of some kind. It is observed, can be manipulated and is tangible.

What "dimensionality" does "time" and "space" have? Saying time is "the fourth dimension" or whatever, doesn't actually mean that it exists as a force or modality that controls things in the universe nor does it give it actual dimensionality. Think about it hard enough and you'll realize that it's just a convenient imaginary measurement we can up with to record fequency. It is not a tangible thing, nor does it act like any of the supposed 4 fundamental forces.

>>10158170
I'm sure metaphysics is a frequent word in your vocabulary

>>10158119
Okay, you tell me how you isolate your dimensional quantity in order to observe/measure them effectively: Observer, event, object

>>10158170
Measuring a thing requires a spatial dimension inside a temporal one.

>>10158188
"I just got out of school so now I can shitpost", the (shit)post.

>>10158204
>Measuring a thing requires a spatial dimension
That's exactly what I just said.

>inside a temporal one.
And it's back to square one. A measurement is not a dimension, something has to be measurable to have dimension. Time is not a dimension because there are no dimensional properties that "time" (the measurement) has. It doesn't define itself.

>>10158204
Measuring energy doesn't require a spatial dimension. Spatial dimension inside a temporal one, they are not embedded within each other, they are two separate things

They are bonded, not embedded. A space can be devoid of energy but energy cannot be devoid of space.

There always needs to be a spatial aperture for temporal measurements to be recorded.

>>10158248
Measuring a thing is context-bound. Measurement itself is just a way of saying alignment and record.