[ 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: 786 KB, 765x765, Calabi-Yau-alternate.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6028269 No.6028269 [Reply] [Original]

Space has to be continuous, it cannot be discrete.

Imagine that space is made of discrete points, with there being some smallest distance between two of this points. Imagine an object that takes up the theoretical minimum volume that moves between two points. How does it accomplish this? The two points are clearly separate, yet the object cannot simply traverse the distance between the two points. Thus, to move, it must pop out of existence and back into existence at the other point. Another explanation is that since there are no points in between these two points, they are actually the same point. Extrapolating outward, the whole universe is contained within one point. How is movement possible then?

Clearly, space is continuous, with no theoretical minimum distance.

>> No.6028271 [DELETED] 

>>>/b/

>> No.6028278

If space is continuous, you can continue to divide into smaller parts.

Eventually, however, you must reach a point when you can divide it no more.

Just like any 1 dimensional line can be divided into smaller and smaller line segments until you reach a single point, which has 0 dimensions, so too can space be divided until you reach an indivisible entity, which must be metaphysical, since it can't take up space. (if it took up space, it could be divided again, and that contradicts the hypothesis that this entity can't be divided).

Therefore the universe is composed of metaphysical entities called Monads.

-Leibniz

>> No.6028281

quantum leap

>> No.6028350

>>6028269
Some scientists are attempting to disprove you op.

"the theory holds that the four-dimensional geometry of space-time discovered by Albert Einstein is not fundamental; instead, space-time is more like a lattice constructed of discrete space-time building blocks"

http://www.space.com/17217-big-bang-phase-change-theory.html

"there ought to be a cut off in the spectrum of high energy particles. And it just happens that there is exactly this kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic rays, a limit known as the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin (GZK) cut off."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2216189/Do-live-Matrix-researchers-say-way-prove-do.html#ixzz2ev59TNhm

>> No.6028357

>>6028278

A line is continuous, and you can divide indefinitely without reaching a single point.

>> No.6028363

>>6028357
Hypothetically. You can't do it manually with pencil and paper, and we don't have devices that can do it ad infinitum. The Universe and everything you know and love is SORRY finite unless you can prove otherwise without using hypotheticals.

>> No.6028403

>>6028269

Apparently, you argue for a continuous space which somehow still exists in a cartesian system. However, space is not cartesian, only our representation of it is. Space itself is at times continuous and at times discontinous. At least if you're not simply playing some mathematical game.

>> No.6028417

>>6028269
Clearly you are an asshat, because you made such an idiotic post.

>> No.6028480

I've read recently that even time is actually discrete.

We live in a time when it's hard to say when a physicist is being serious or is simply joking.

>> No.6028506

>>6028350
>And it just happens that there is exactly this kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic rays, a limit known as the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin (GZK) cut off."

Should be noted that limit is theoretical (based on totally different principles) not empirical and really isn't well established in observation.

>> No.6028561

OP, you're wrong, and here's why:

Mathematicians proved long ago that numbers can either be discrete or continuous based on a proof written which states that for any positive integer n, the number of points on n labeled vertices is n^2+n. This is why when we look at things on a quantum level, we see both waves and points, depending on what we're looking for.

>> No.6028569

>>6028269
> cannot simply traverse the distance between the two points

Firstly, the 'distance between two points' is not just the distance in the continuous completion of that space. Secondly, your argument mostly just boils down "things wouldn't work as my intuition tells me it should", which is basically true for any theory at very high or very low energies (see:QM, GR)..

>> No.6029094

>>6028569
>things wouldn't work as my intuition tells me it should", which is basically true for any theory at very high or very low energies (see:QM, GR)..

How are GR and QM not intuitive?

>> No.6030504

>>6029094
They are very intuitive. That anon was either trolling or he failed his high school QM and GR courses.

>> No.6031406

Continuous is not the opposite of discrete. lrn2math

>> No.6031969

OP is vague, but has a point:

What if the entire universe was contained in a singularity and the appearance of space arose from a decelerating passage of quantum time? Essentially, the speed of light in an empty space is a constant, and at relativistic speeds time appears to pass differently, yet space and time are one construct, thus wouldn't space also appear altered? While the velocity of a light remains the same, that doesn't preclude the changing of distance or time, and honestly, if time changes then distance would also have to change in order to keep a speed constant.

Essentially, if time appeared to be passing slower, then wouldn't distance appear to be getting larger in order for the speed of light to remain the same? As if the universe were expanding?

As in: 60meters/min is 60m/60s =1m/s, but if say, 1 current second was as long as 2 previous seconds, then 60m/120s = 0.5m/s, in order to make 1m/s a constant (for example), space would also have to double, becoming 120m/120s = 1m/s.

It's an extreme case, but if time was appearing to pass slower (as in a second taking more time than a second did previously), then space would also appear to be increasing in order for the speed of light to remain a constant.

In any case, if time was 'slowing down' I don't think there'd really be a way to prove it, I mean really, how could you measure if your units of measurement were changing along with the things that they're measuring?

>> No.6033312

>>6031969
>What if the entire universe was contained in a singularity and the appearance of space arose from a decelerating passage of quantum time?

This idea isn't new. It's known as the big bang theory.

>> No.6033349

>>6028269
>Space has to be continuous, it cannot be discrete.
Space, time and energy are intertwined. Energy has already been proven to be discrete by quantum theory, your assumption only leads to ignorance.

>>6028357
If we assume a line is continuous, a section of that line can be described as all possible points on the line in a set interval. This is a set {a, ... ,n} with infinite amount of points in between a and n. Now if we divide the set, the subset will always have less elements than it's superset. This can only be false if the set has one point or is a null set, in which case the set is already discrete.

Now we know that we can continuously divide the set describing a line and get smaller subsets ( and thus smaller sections of the line which the set describes ), we can take Cantor's theorem to prove that the set will converge towards a singular point.

Thus yes, you can indeed theoretically divide a line continuous line infinitely and converge towards a single point.

>> No.6034162

Space is constantly expanding on the energy released from the big bang.

>> No.6034179

In this thread: Trolling level maximal.

>> No.6035104

In the beginning space was continuous but then it was torn apart by black holes and became discrete.