On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:07 AM Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> *3D networks are combinatorial-algebraic in their definition. They are >>> not defined in the language of continuos manifolds of general relativity or >>> fields. A network "space" (spinfoam or other discrete structure) is not the >>> space of general relativity. It is a different concept of space, which is >>> Rovelli's point. Hence the term "quantum space" in Jim Baggott's book. >>> Quantum space is not space in the traditional sense as taught in physics.* >>> >> >> >> That's all very nice but what experiment can be performed to >> determine if the idea is correct or not? If there isn't one then it's >> philosophy not physics. >> > > > *> There is no experiment that shows any theory of physics to be > "correct".* > Agreed, but is there any experiment that shows this theory is less wrong than countless other ideas? If it can make a testable prediction or if it can make a good postdiction (for example explain why the electron has the particular mass and charge that it does) then its elevated into the realm of science, if it can't do that then it's stuck in the philosophy ghetto with 6.02*10^23 other theories. I don't want to dump on Loop Quantum Gravity or String Theory, they're just getting started and maybe someday they will become physics, but there not there yet. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
