On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 3:04:38 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 12:17:11 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 11:31:06 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 5:04:15 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 10:47:57 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 3:23:02 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:14:39 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 5:42:12 AM UTC-6, >>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since it seems conceptually impossible to model a theory with >>>>>>>> DISJOINT discrete spatial units, thus requiring the units to be >>>>>>>> juxtaposed, >>>>>>>> do such theories acknowledge difficulty of motion between the units, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> might or might not have boundaries? TIA, AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure how to impress people with how bad this thinking is. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *In retrospect, I don't think you were being rude. You were just >>>>>> reinforcing my conclusion, offering additional technical reasons, why >>>>>> the >>>>>> idea of discrete space is an unintelligible concept. AG* >>>>>> >>>>>> These slice and diced chunks of spacetime, whether voxels, plaquettes >>>>>>> and so forth have violations of Lorentz symmetry of spacetime. This >>>>>>> means >>>>>>> that curiously the symmetry of gravitation would be violated at higher >>>>>>> energy, and in fact where it is quantized. These ideas have further >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> falsified by the lack of dispersion from distant sources. These ideas >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> bad interpretations of the Planck length. The Planck length is just the >>>>>>> smallest length beyond which you can isolate a quantum bit. Remember, >>>>>>> it is >>>>>>> the length at which the Compton wavelength of a black hole equals its >>>>>>> Schwarzschild radius. It is a bit similar to the Nyquist frequency in >>>>>>> engineering. In order to measure the frequency of a rotating system you >>>>>>> must take pictures that are at least double that frequency. Similarly >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> measure the frequency of an EM wave you need to have a wave with >>>>>>> Fourier >>>>>>> modes that are 2 or more times the frequency you want to measure. The >>>>>>> black >>>>>>> hole is in a sense a fundamental cut-off in the time scale, or in a >>>>>>> reciprocal manner the energy, one can sample space to find qubits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The levels of confusion over this are enormous. It does not tell us >>>>>>> that spacetime is somehow sliced and diced into briquets or pieces. It >>>>>>> does >>>>>>> not tell us that quantum energy of some fields can't be far larger than >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Planck energy, or equivalently the wavelength much smaller. This would >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> analogous to a resonance state, and there is no reason there can't be >>>>>>> such >>>>>>> a thing in quantum gravity. The Planck scale would suggest this sort of >>>>>>> state may decay into a sub-Planckian energy. Further, it is plausible >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> quantum gravity beyond what appears as a linearized weak field >>>>>>> approximation similar to the QED of photon bunched pairs may only exist >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> most an order of magnitude larger than the Planck scale anyway. A >>>>>>> holographic screen is then a sort of beam splitter at the >>>>>>> quantum-classical >>>>>>> divide. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LC >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But you have to admit that a truly continuous space in reality is *more >>>>> unintelligible* than a discrete space. >>>>> >>>>> Where do you observe a true (spacetime) continuum in nature? >>>>> >>>>> A true continuum in reality is more problematic in many ways than a >>>>> "quantum" spacetime. >>>>> >>>>> - pt >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Calculus is essentially based on continuity and seems to model the >>>> real world. But for me discrete space seems to make motion problematic, so >>>> my inclination is to reject it. AG* >>>> >>> >>> >>> What about Zeno's paradox? >>> >> > >> *I brought this issue up myself a few months ago. Seems to show space is >> not infinitely divisible. OTOH, GR is hugely successful and assumes >> space-time continuity. AG* >> > > > *What version of Zeno's paradox do you subscribe to which suggests space > is not infinitely divisible? TIA, AG * > > >> And don't let that *brainwashing* from calculus math teachers fool you. >>> :) >>> >>> - pt >>> >>
All three paradoxes of motion [ listed in Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Paradoxes_of_motion ] 1Paradoxes of motion <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Paradoxes_of_motion> - 1.1Achilles and the tortoise <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise> - 1.2Dichotomy paradox <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Dichotomy_paradox> - 1.3Arrow paradox <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Arrow_paradox> "contradict" continuous spacetime (space in 1, 2 and time in 3). - pt -- 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.
