/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11817052
Yes.

Hinata is the worst shounen girl btw.

>>11817054

Okay thanks!
/thread.

>>11817052
no it's continuum

>>11817058
Worse than Sakura? That seems like a huge stretch.

>>11817054
What is the smallest unit distance then?

>Inb4 Planck length

I said smallest distance, not smallest measurable and meaningful distance.

>>11817070
Unironically the Planck length.

>>11817070
>not smallest measurable and meaningful distance.

That which cannot be measured, does not exist.

>>11817076
Ok, so a Planck length is roughly 6x(10)^-34 inches.

Therefore, there is a smaller distance, say, 6x(10)^-35 distance. What is incorrect in this statement?

>>11817089
Refer to
>>11817082

>>11817082
Interesting thought. Can you specifically define "measure?" Numbers can't be measured in any physical way but most people would claim they do exist in SOME sense.

>>11817082
I'd like to add that I do agree with you on some level. I'm a huge fan of reductionism in general and I agree with the statement in this comment. Even still, it's very hard to say that 6x(10)^-100 inches simply doesn't exist. How can it be possible to zoom in so far that the universe does not allow any further?

>>11817052
Up to current measurements, no.

>Planck length
As meaningful as meters for this question.

>>11817082
So if you take an inch tape for making measurements, and you measure your dick size. Your dick size is below the marks on the inch tape. So your dick doesn't exist, because this method doesn't allow for measuring smaller distances than inches. Okay.

>>11817701
>small dick joke
were you the guy from the last 'smallest distance' thread? your jokes are getting stale.
also I'm pretty sure there's a biggest distance and that's given by the circumference of your mother

>>11817840
No, and that was not a joke, I was just trying to get down to your level of argumentation.
>no rebuttal
Thought so.

we need a scientist with a smaller willy than planck, so they can find a way of measuring a smaller distamce

>>11817082
If a Planck length exists, then half of a Planck length exists.

>>11817052
Unless we can measure quantum interactions and go below Planck length, we won't know

>>11817082
yo mom doesn't exist because shes fat beyond measure lol

>>11817076
From Wikipedia:

The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as theminimum lengthof space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification ofLorentz symmetry.[9]

>>11818297
prove it

>>11818352

Let x be Planck length.

x/2.

Q.E.D.

>>11818341
As you can witness in this thread, people tend to trust fancy pop-sci documentaries more than sources listed at the bottom of a Wikipedia article.

>>11817052
of course, and so is time

>>11817052
No, since it's infinite.

>>11817082
sort of like your iq

>>11817052
If the universe constantly is expanding, then this potential discrete space would be continuously dilated (yes, like trannyfags), rendering the previously discreet space larger than it were a "timestep" prior to the expansion.

If time is stopped, then yes, space is discrete. But in all other cases, it's not. But it depends on the timestep.

What does /sci/ think of Laurent Nottale and space relativity? His theory assumes scale to behave just like speed in that it shouldn't have any effect on the laws of the universe. He then proposes a length (I think the planck length) as the smallest possible scale which cannot be reached, analogous to the speed of light. Afaik he managed to derive the equations of quantum mechanics from this.

>>11818456
I feel like it would've gotten a bit more traction academically if he were actually onto something, no? I don't know enough physics to actually question it myself... and his book is 100€

>>11817052
Not if it's hyperbolic.

>>11818359
hmm dont remember /2 being well defined on every abstract piece of the univers

particles move in discrete grid, but each particle has different grid, and when they interact, their grids change
so space is discrete untill interaction occurs,

>>11817052
Its quantized therefore discrete.

>>11818613
>space is discrete untill interaction occurs
So it's not discrete then, considering interaction literally always occurs

>>11817052
coffee is discrete for you.

>>11818584
>On every abstract piece of the universe

You're just putting academic words together into a phrase that doesn't actually mean anything. Be more specific.

>>11818636
>The number line is quantized, therefore discrete

This is how ignorant you sound.

>>11818613
What's the smallest unit of the discrete grid?

If you're going to say Planck length, please at least skim the Wikipedia article on Planck length first.

>>11818734
why is /2 defined on length irl when the original question concerns minimal length
hint: you can not assume smaller lengths exist s a given, you have to prove such lengths exist first

>>11818768

I disagree, I think it is you who are making the positive statement that at some arbitrary time it suddenly becomes impossible to continue to divide a given length by 2. You are making the claim that there is a barrier at some small length that inhibits further division. You must prove that this barrier exists.

As things stand, evidence suggests that any length can be divided by 2. For instance, an inch can be divided into two half-inches. A half-inch can be divided into two quarter-inches. You're making a positive claim that at some point it becomes impossible to do this. You must prove your claim, otherwise it is only reasonable to assume that the division does not suddenly become impossible arbitrarily.

>>11817052
>sigh, wolfram is doing research again

Go to bed stephen

>>11818781
>any length can be divided by 2
by what method and using what instruments?
how can we be sure that these work for all lengths?

>>11818783
But it's 3 in the afternoon

space made of many very smalls

>>11817058
She is very kawaii

>>11818820
is this pic from national history mueseum, I visited and saw this exact statue

>>11818741
the grid is deformed and the distance between its intersections is not constant across the space, so there is no such thing as smallest lenght, but the space is still discrete

>>11818799
>by what method?
Division

>Using what instrument?
Your brain. You don't use a physical instrument to divide a length, you use physical instruments to measure things to some meaningful accuracy. But I'm not talking about measuring anything to any accuracy. I'm talking about dividing lengths, which is evidently possible regardless of initial length.

>>11818800
The baby is you, Rogal.

>>11819089
If there is no such thing as a smallest length, then an object can be at one of two arbitrary points or anywhere between those points, correct? That is, the space in between those points is continuous?

>>11818799
>How can we be sure that these work for all lengths?
Induction, the same way we know that for all x there is some x+1.

>>11819124
didn't know we were in the platonic realm instead of the real world 2bh

>>11817052
No

>>11819523
Unfortunately I think you may be misunderstanding our conversation. I don't think that mentally separating one inch into two half-inches brings us out of our world and into any metaphysical world. In fact, any carpenter would need do perform such a mental maneuver before cutting a piece of wood.

>>11818341
Of course there would be modification of Lorentz symmetry at the level of the Planck length. That doesn't mean much. As a very close analogy, if you simulate a rotationally symmetric theory on a cubic lattice it is not rotationally symmetric at the level of the lattice spacing but quickly becomes symmetric at larger scales.

>>11819538
oh so it must be very easy for the carpenter to cut a planck plank into two half planck planks

>>11817070
>What is the smallest unit distance then?
Your dick.

>>11819695
Thats not wat ur mommy said 2 me.

>>11817052
It has to be discrete. if it was continuous it would take an infinite amount of time to move any distance greater than zero. you can't have movement through space with non discrete space.

There's no math or experiments needed. just think about it or a few minutes.

>>11820737
t. Zeno

>>11820737
>Lorentz invariance is wrong

>>11817058
Found the cuckold... Hinata is the perfect submissive wifu.

>>11820737
the famous "proof by just thinking about it"

It should be noted that anyone who has a problem with the Real number system, infinity, the idea of the continuum or quantum mechanics is either trolling or insane. I don't wish to pass judgement on their intelligence since even an idiot can see that space and time are obviously continuous

>>11817070
0

>>11817052
No. That's the whole idea of "plank length" getting butchered. Things still wiggle around below a plank meter, it's just that we can't really measure it below that range without QM having it jump around making any more precise measurement meaningless.

>>11820737
siiiiigh, but what if you don't need to move through all places between two distances and can simply jump to the target?

>>11817058
asuka is objectively the worst

>>11817058
Fuck off, faggot.

>>11817701
unironically thought provoking

>>11820868
proof by accusation, not very nice but it gets the job done

>>11818736
>implying
go read a book monkey

>>11817052
yes, it doesn't reveal its secrets

>>11820992
I do not think it is an accusation. it is no sin to be retarded or at least not being able to grasp deep thoughts. it's no accusation to say you cannot run 100 m below 10 s. they are just facts

>>11819124
>>11818781
Planck length is the measuring unit we derive all other units from. Halving an inch means you halve the amount of planck lengths in an inch.
Halving the planck length is meaningless as it doesn't produce you anything that is measurable.
Maybe there are some objects that are smaller that the planck length, but you cannot quantify their size meaningfully, therefore the only useful information you could have about them is that they are smaller than the planck length. So 1/n of a planck length is a useless unit of measurement.

>>11818087
that wasn't me though.

>>11820864
I lol'd

>>11818352
it seems to trivially follow from my naive concept of space. if there is length then it must be extended over a distance between two points. if it's not extended over a distance then there is no amount of space between the two points, so there is no distance between them (they're the same point)

if there is something between them then i can point at it. that new point has to be closer to the original two points.


you say this may not be done physically for sufficiently small distances but i'm not doing it physically(other than by thinking with the help of a brain). this all seems to follow from my concept of space. the recursion is built in to the thing.

>>11817058
blue-pilled
>>11820780
red-pilled

>>11817052
your face is discrete

>>11817058
just the wrong pairing. naruto x hinata is even worse than ron x hermione. pic related is the better pairing.

Not in quantum physics or general relativity.

>>11824302
Consider for instance the taxicab metric on Z^2. Such a metric induces a discrete topology (in the sense that each point has a neighborhood containing only itself)

Now to answer OP's question: first of all, to the physicist, these kinds of questions are not approachable. Physicists are much more concerned with questions such as, "Which kind of (mathematical) space admits a model best aligned with experiential results?"

It turns out that the answer to this new question is surprisingly rich. My physics isn't the best but I believe discrete space breaks CPT (i.e. universal symmetry) and relativity, but does not break QFT, and in fact gives rise to quantum gravity. So, as is often the case, the answer seems to lie in the relationship between QFT and relativity. Regardless it seems the hope is that space is continuous, since this is very intuitive and does not break special relativity outright.

>>11824654
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spacetime
seems QFT is not necessarily broken?

>>11817052
No.

>>11817052
I'd say yes it is. Especially as we know everything else comes in discrete quanta and how information and bits are interconnected fundamentally with the planck size. I honestly believe the universe is nothing more than the game of life program being run on a massive scale, in either 4, 11 or 26 dimensional spacetime. We are more than likely holograms inside a simulation inside a black hole inside a multiverse. Nothing we ever accomplish will have any meaning and we probably don't even have free will.

>>11817058
I hate Naruto overall. It had to chance to be good but it was just another garbage shonen.

>>11817058

>>11817052
Only when it feels like it.

>go to space
>don't hear anything
yes space is discreet

>>11818341
>From Wikipedia:
Into le trash