Dear LizR,

   The paper (that I can't seem to find at the moment) that I am using as a
reference takes into account other sources of variation in arrival times,
for example that the gamma rays where not simultaneously emitted, and looks
also at the dispersal of the individual polarizations of the photons. If
there is a granularity to space-time, there will be an energy dependence in
both the arrival times and the polarization dispersal patterns. Both where
not found on that occasion within the sensitivity of the device discussed.
  The basic point here is that such an energy dependence is a violation of
the invariance of the speed of light for observers and makes space-time's
structure observer dependent. This concept can be taken in many
directions... but nevertheless, the idea that space-time is not smooth has
been looked at by many researchers and has severe consequences that need to
be carefully considered.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:36 PM, LizR <> wrote:

> On 11 January 2014 11:20, Stephen Paul King <>wrote:
>> Dear LizR,
>>   I am trying to get a somewhat complicate question out and understood.
>> Let me state it crudely: Given the infinite number of possible 1p content
>> that the UD can "run", how do we obtain from the UDA or UD or UD* the
>> situation that we believe to be true: that there exists a space-time that
>> *contains* some huge number of observer -each with its own 1p- *and* the
>> appearance of interactions among them *and* a set of physical laws, GR and
>> QM that have a mathematical structure that prohibits the assumption of an
>> absolute 1p that "could see everything all at once"?
>> BTW, there are empirical reasons to strongly doubt that space-time has
>> some form of granularity, as such would violate SR by making signal
>> propagation velocities dependent on the energy of the photons. Ultra high
>> energy and medium energy gamma rays have been observed to arrive
>> simultaneously (modulo small error bars) from sources that are millions of
>> light-years away. This makes the notion of "quantized" space-time dubious.
>> Apparently the jury is still out on this - see the 4/1/14 edition of New
> Scientist with the (typically non-sensationalist :) headline "BREAKING
> RELATIVITY - The celestial signals that defy Einstein", which claims the
> opposite - that BRB130427A (from a distance of some billions of light
> years, redshift 0.34) had a delay of 100s of second between low and high
> energy gamma rays. This is the most energetic event observed to date (on
> 27/4/13). Also, on 30/6/05, the MAGIC telescope in the Canary Islands
> detected a gamma ray burst from half a billion light years away with a 4
> minute delay between the low and high energy radiation. There is also some
> data from the Ice Cube neutrino observatory that indicates hints of an
> energy dependent time lag in neutrino bursts...
> But there are other observations that don't show these features, plus
> there are some assumptions involved that may change how we interpret them,
> and so on. What is needed of course is "more light!" - as observations
> continue it should become clearer whether there is some dispersion (maybe
> only at gamma ray energies that even GRBs struggle to reach very often,
> which would indicate that the granularity of space-time is quite small) -
> or not, in which case any granularity that exists would have to be very
> small, even compared to the Planck length,
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit


Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to