[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 135 KB, 2562x800, sci girl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11568125 No.11568125 [Reply] [Original]

>I believe that space is discrete.

>> No.11568148

The universe is isomorphic (graph thereotically) to the metric graph [math] \mathbb{Z}^3 [/math], where every edge has a Planck length

>> No.11568156

>>11568148
based and redpilled

>> No.11568162

>>11568148
retard

>> No.11568165

>>11568148
Now THAT is a claim, I say R3

>> No.11568174

>>11568148
how is your hypothesis testable?

>> No.11568186

>>11568174
>how is your hypothesis testable?
Provide two vertices of the universal graph less than a Planck length apart.

>> No.11568215

>>11568186
B-but anon, I can't do that!

>> No.11568251

>>11568148
Quoted straight from wikipedia:
>It is the smallest distance about which current, experimentally corroborated, models of physics can make meaningful statements.
>...
>The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of Lorentz symmetry.

>> No.11568300

>>11568251
>wikipedia
Any non-popsci sources?

>> No.11568322

>>11568300
Scroll down to the citations portion, m8.

>> No.11568371

>>11568300
Wikipedia is not pop-sci nor is it pop-math

>> No.11568400

>>11568251
okay so then modify Lorentz symmetry, what's the problem mate?

>> No.11568406
File: 76 KB, 798x798, smilelaugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11568406

>>11568400

>> No.11568665

>>11568186
Just squeeze real hard. It's easy if you're not weak.

>> No.11569099

>>11568148
Pixelated space...

Was your mind designed on polygon system? I do not exist if your approach was inflicted over real analysis.

>> No.11569151

>>11568125
U r correct

>> No.11569407

>>11569151
ty

>> No.11569615

>>11568125
Prove that it is not.

>> No.11570549

>>11569615
Newfag
>take two points in space
>walk half the distance
>mark position
If I can do this once and then show that if I can do it once, I can do it a second time, then by induction we know there are infinite points between any two points and hence spacetime is continuous. Easy.

>> No.11570554

>>11568148
Contradicts rotational symmetry.

>> No.11570573

>>11570554
No it doesn't.

>> No.11570581

>>11568125
This stock picture sure is popular, I've seen it on both Coursera and Matlab's website.

>> No.11570607

>>11570549
I am not OP. But it seems that you are not quite sure what "continuous" means. Then again, I am not sure that the OP knows what "discrete" means.

>> No.11570621

>>11570549
>and then show that if I can do it once, I can do it a second time
please do it

>> No.11570624

If spacetime is not discrete, that would mean we're already infinitely big.

>> No.11570640

>>11570624
You are, anon, you are. And infinitely powerful as well. Enough to spout any kind of nonsense on 4chan that you desire. Enjoy your kissless sexless life.

>> No.11570642

define discrete (in the sense of the real world, not a topological space)

>> No.11570650

>>11570624
What if we started out infinitely big, and atoms are shrinking and getting exponentially heavier?

>> No.11570683

>>11570650
If everything shrinks at the same rate, we would not experience any difference.

>> No.11570690

>>11570683
We'd think the universe was expanding.

>> No.11571395

>>11570549
You can keep going forever and yet every measurement you make will be a discrete distance.

>> No.11571406

>>11568125
I believe 4chan isn't.

>> No.11571413

>>11568125
>I believe
retard

>> No.11572339

>>11571395
>discrete distance
What does that even mean? Distance is defined in continuous spaces. I wouldn't be able to measure distance if spacetime were discrete.

>>11570621
Okay. Since a measurement yields a distance, and the very notion of distance is one defined and only possible in measurable, connected spaces, that means if I can do one refinement (thereby proving we're living in a measurable connected space), then I can also do it a second time, as part the argument above.

>>11570607
If it seems so you must be an undergrad at most, since I have a masters degree in continuity equations.

>> No.11572359 [DELETED] 
File: 830 KB, 250x250, 1522173086549.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11572359

>>11568125

>> No.11572378
File: 1.60 MB, 350x197, 1481920495428.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11572378

but by the Zeno's paradox...

>> No.11572923

>>11570549
bigbrain
>>11570607
>>11570621
>>11571395
He's trolling, my friends.
>>11570624
hugebrain and unironically true
>>11570642
look up 'quantization'
>>11570690
What if the universe is shriking with us?
>>11571413
dumbfuck
>>11572339
>What does that even mean? Distance is defined in continuous spaces. I wouldn't be able to measure distance if spacetime were discrete.
Anon, you a dumb

>> No.11572925

>>11572339
you are actually pretty good at trolling, 8.37/10 my good friend

>> No.11573136

>>11568371
True, it’s worse than popsci

>> No.11573146

>>11572339
>what does discrete distance even mean?
5-3=2

>> No.11573193

>>11568148
fpbp

>> No.11573215

>>11573193
But surely, the uncertainty principle would play a role here. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say it's Z[i]^3

>> No.11573615

>>11573136
i dare you to go to any wikipedia page on math/physics with more than 1500 words and point out a single error that is not in the humanities (ie. spelling, date wrong...etc)

>> No.11573672

>>11570549
try to do it with your computer screen retard

>> No.11573686

>>11572923
>look up 'quantization'
>quantization means discrete
Anon, im expert on this. You don't know what you're talking about. Very different things.
>Anon, you a dumb
What is the distance between two disconnected points?

>> No.11573696

>>11572925
>>11573146
Guys, I'm serious, for defining distance you need to define a metric. To define a metric you need a connection (parallel transport). For all this you need a (at least pseudo-)Riemannian manifold. Even undergrads in my studies knew this.

>>11573672
There is definitely space between the pixels. I tried. I could point a needle pin between them. I've experimentally verified there's no discontinuities in space on my computer screen.

>> No.11573775

>>11573696
>There is definitely space between the pixels. I tried. I could point a needle pin between them. I've experimentally verified there's no discontinuities in space on my computer screen.

I have chosed the computer screen as a representation of something that is prototypically discrete -- its literally a 2D grid. I am not arguing that its physical manifestation as a piece of hardware is keeping this property, it's just a useful metaphor.
What actually is my argument is that that induction from >>11570549 can be executed even on a discrete surface, which means that the argument is a piece of shit

>> No.11573908

>>11573775
>What actually is my argument is that that induction from >>11570549 (You) can be executed even on a discrete surface
But no, it can't. How could you get between two disconnected points? It's impossible. Show how that would work.
It's like standing on a canyon and trying to cross it without a bridge. You can't just float in nothingness.

>> No.11574119

>>11573908
>How could you get between two disconnected points? It's impossible. Show how that would work.
>It's like standing on a canyon and trying to cross it without a bridge. You can't just float in nothingness.

The same way a black pixel travels across your blank computer screen?

>> No.11574152

>>11572339
>Okay. Since a measurement yields a distance, and the very notion of distance is one defined and only possible in measurable, connected spaces, that means if I can do one refinement (thereby proving we're living in a measurable connected space), then I can also do it a second time, as part the argument above.
I meant show the implication "if I can do it once, I can do it a second time"

>> No.11574484

>>11574119
Disappearing and appearing again? My fren, were doing physics here, not magic.

>>11574152
But I did. By showing that I am capable of the very act of measuring a distance, I showed that the space between the endpoint of my ruler must be continuous, since only a manifold has the properties necessary to define a (pseudo) Riemannian metric (note, metric comes from meter, which basically means measure). Hence, I can repeat the process ad infinitum showing that spacetime is certainly not discrete.

>> No.11574488

>>11568125
I believe life is a simulation and I bought one

>> No.11575041

>>11573696
>Guys, I'm serious
:^)

>> No.11575516

>>11574484
Not the anon you are replying to but.
I don't honestly understand your concerns, >>11568148 makes totally sense to me, you could see the "space" as a graph (or matrix, idk) of plank scale 3d entities.
Don't know if this is applicable to te time dimension (i should think about it), but definitely space given this definition is discrete, what's between a plank unit and the other one? Nothing, since you cannot even misure such distance.
It's like (maybe i am exaggerating) "what's between 0.999... and 1?".

>> No.11576689

>>11575516
>what's between a plank unit and the other one? Nothing, since you cannot even misure such distance.
What's between an inch and another one? Nothing, since you can't measure it.
Friend, space and time aren't disconnected entities. But just assume for a second space was discrete. Then we would observe momentum not to be conserved, as per Noether's elegant theorem. We do see it conserved though, so that buddy's post must necessarily be incorrect.

>>11575041
Well, I am. No metric = no distance. The process of defining distance is quite clear, since mathematicians took a closer look at Einstein's physical machinery of general relativity.

>> No.11576693

>>11568148
The universe is an infinitely dividable 5 dimensional torus.