On 1 August 2014 11:25, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/31/2014 3:52 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 1 August 2014 09:05, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 7/31/2014 11:27 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > if space-time isn't an infinitely divisible continuum, it presumably >>> has some sort of granularity, >>> >> >> Our quantum theories may need work. Quantum theories of Physics insist >> that space is quantized just like everything else, >> >> >> I don't think that's true. In fact all quantum field theories assume a >> continous spacetime. >> > > I would think that at the very least they assume a continuous Hilbert > space. > > That too. But the spacetime is a kind of background to the Hilbert > space. The vectors in Hilbert space are square-integrable functions of > positions or momenta in a continuous spacetime. Of course it's impossible > empirically to prove the spacetime is continuous; computationalist can just > say they need more digits and hypothesize as many digits as they need. >
Yes, it's awlays possible to claim a granularity smaller than our best measurements. How does this connect with QM and it being impossible to measure anything smaller than the Planck length? (Or does it?) > Similarly the complex field for Hilbert space could be just the rational > complex field; but that would imply a smallest non-zero probability which > in turn would undermine unitarity, Everett, and time-reversibiity. > I can see that unitarity would be undermined, and hence Everett (I think), but how come time-reversibility? -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
