What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[Kharakov]

What kind of particle?

Doesn't matter. Force carrying particle. Photon. Whatever. A quantum field that extends continuously from a point in space. Whatever.

From the following diagram, if you have a rudimentary understanding of actual physical measurements and our recent conversation, you'll be able to tell that the object that went NE 1 quantized length unit then NW 1 quantized length unit will never transmit information to (and thus from) the same location in space as the particle, field source, or whatever that traveled directly north if length of space travel is quantized. Information transmission will jump over the locations of the other particle, information, field, or whatever.


1 unit of quantized length = 2 units of graph length

when the object (physically existing information, field source, particle, unterfeld, or whatever) that follows the green path starts going north again, it is either .414 or 1-.414 quantized length units from an object (information, field source, particle, unterfeld, or whatever) that went directly north the whole time (the object that followed the red path).

The top green line and red line indicate the next quantized length gap that the objects (information, field source, particle, unterfeld, or whatever) jump. The object that follows the green path will always be in a different area of quantized space, and only transmit information to places that the object that follows the red path cannot transmit information to, because it can only transmit information to quantized length portions of space away from it.

View attachment 12071


Is that a (poorly worded) proof that space cannot contain quantized lengths?

Where did you see this?

It's logic.

If length (in space) is quantized, then fields are propagated over quantized length intervals, if a particle or field source point travels the path I described (ne then nw), it will be out of sync with a particle or field source point that traveled directly north.

By out of sync, I mean as described above. If length in space is quantized, the field source point traveling north will propagate its field out of sync with the field point source that is out of sync by .414 length units because it traveled diagonally.

View attachment 12074

Also. See Weyl's tile argument above.

No. You misunderstood.

Not really, it's just that you're ignoring what you're told. <-- that's a joke.

Basically, I've attempted to present an argument for the continuity of length in spacetime. If length in spacetime is not continuous, then particles with an electric charge that go off at an angle other than 0, pi/2, pi, 3pi/2 compared to a place that another particle traveled through will effectively disappear- their fields will no longer be detectable.

So in the case of non-continuous space (space that cannot be divided infinitely), we end up in a universe in which particles keep on effectively disappearing.

Where have you seen this happening?

I've never seen the moon above China, yet for some reason.... I've never seen an electron, but for some reason... I've never seen a Chlorine atom, but for some reason..... I, and a lot of the public, have never seen Windows 10 code, but for some reason....

Is this based on an observation of a particle moving in a perfectly straight line?

It is specifically based on the consequences of length quantization of spacetime. Either length is quantized or not. If length is quantized, the universe wouldn't exist as it is- charge would not be conserved.

 

[untermensche]

Is this based on an observation of a particle moving in a perfectly straight line?

It is specifically based on the consequences of length quantization of spacetime. Either length is quantized or not. If length is quantized, the universe wouldn't exist as it is- charge would not be conserved.

So it is speculation.

Not something that has ever been observed.

That's fine. it doesn't make it wrong.

But mere speculations are wrong all the time.

That's why experiments are done.

Not much I can say about this speculation except is not a refutation of the idea of breaking something apart infinitely and ending up with a "slice" of zero length. In other words nothing.

 

[Kharakov]

I suppose you don't understand that if spacetime is quantized in both direction and length, there would be virtually no interaction between particles.

If it is continuous in either, then all points could be reached, and all directions of travel simulated.


@beero1000- Can someone reach any point in Euclidean space if angles are continuous but length is quantized, or length is continuous but angles are quantized (with certain parameters of quantization so that one isn't simply rotating 2pi every time or something like that)?

So, even if both direction and distance are quantised, particles would still be able to interact if the physics of interaction in your space is primarily determined by the quantified locations rather than by the distance covered or the direction of travel.

Your chessboard scenarios make space super complicated. How does space know where to sneak in blocks for spacetime expansion, so that it doesn't create weird patterns? Spacetime expansion would require faster than light transmission of data, right? How does information know which block to propagate to if something is traveling 33 squares up and 1 block over?

 

[fromderinside]

Do any of the profs remember Barry? I lived near there on a hill facing downtown Glendale on Marion drive about 10 years before he attended school there. Quake shook us out.

Oh, wait ... yeah it fits.

 

[beero1000]

It is specifically based on the consequences of length quantization of spacetime. Either length is quantized or not. If length is quantized, the universe wouldn't exist as it is- charge would not be conserved.

So it is speculation.

Not something that has ever been observed.

That's fine. it doesn't make it wrong.

But mere speculations are wrong all the time.

That's why experiments are done.

Not much I can say about this speculation except is not a refutation of the idea of breaking something apart infinitely and ending up with a "slice" of zero length. In other words nothing.

The irony here is AMAZING.

Multiple experiments have looked into finding the anisotropy in the speed of light (as well as other effects) that would occur if space is discrete in the way you imply. Physicists are desperate to find some way to combine quantum mechanics and gravity, and a common approach is discretized spacetime. Guess what they've found? (Hint: It's that you're wrong)

As we have seen, over the last decade or two a tremendous amount of progress has been made in tests of Lorentz invariance. Currently, we have no experimental evidence that Lorentz symmetry is not an exact symmetry in nature.
...
The question that must be asked at this juncture in regards to Lorentz invariance is: When have we tested enough? We currently have bounds on Lorentz violation strong enough that there is no easy way to put Lorentz violating operators of dimension ≤ 6 coming solely from Planck scale physics into our field theories. It therefore seems hard to believe that Lorentz invariance could be violated in a simple way. If we are fortunate, the strong constraints we currently have will force us to restrict the classes of quantum gravity theories/spacetime models we should consider. Without a positive signal of Lorentz violation, this is all that can reasonably be hoped for.

They're so desperate to figure out some other way of discretizing spacetime that works without creating Lorentz violations that they're doing things like  Causal sets. No doubt untermensche would reject that too. It's just so... speculative.

 

[untermensche]

So it is speculation.

Not something that has ever been observed.

That's fine. it doesn't make it wrong.

But mere speculations are wrong all the time.

That's why experiments are done.

Not much I can say about this speculation except is not a refutation of the idea of breaking something apart infinitely and ending up with a "slice" of zero length. In other words nothing.

The irony here is AMAZING.

Multiple experiments have looked into finding the anisotropy in the speed of light (as well as other effects) that would occur if space is discrete in the way you imply. Physicists are desperate to find some way to combine quantum mechanics and gravity, and a common approach is discretized spacetime. Guess what they've found? (Hint: It's that you're wrong)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2005-5

They're so desperate to figure out some other way of discretizing spacetime that works without creating Lorentz violations that they're doing things like  Causal sets. No doubt untermensche would reject that too. It's just so... abstract.

What you are saying is I have not been proven wrong with evidence.

And you have no argument to dispute the idea that it is absurd to think something real can be broken apart infinitely.

There is no real word meaning to "being broken apart infinitely".

It is purely an imaginary idea like the Easter Bunny.

 

[beero1000]

The irony here is AMAZING.

Multiple experiments have looked into finding the anisotropy in the speed of light (as well as other effects) that would occur if space is discrete in the way you imply. Physicists are desperate to find some way to combine quantum mechanics and gravity, and a common approach is discretized spacetime. Guess what they've found? (Hint: It's that you're wrong)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2005-5

They're so desperate to figure out some other way of discretizing spacetime that works without creating Lorentz violations that they're doing things like  Causal sets. No doubt untermensche would reject that too. It's just so... abstract.

What you are saying is I have not been proven wrong with evidence.

And you have no argument to dispute the idea that it is absurd to think something real can be broken apart infinitely.

There is no real word meaning to "being broken apart infinitely".

It is purely an imaginary idea like the Easter Bunny.

What you are saying is I have not been proven wrong with evidence.

What you are saying is I have not been proven wrong with evidence.

What you are saying is I have not been proven wrong with evidence.

 

[untermensche]

And you have no argument to dispute the idea that it is absurd to think something real can be broken apart infinitely.

There is no real word meaning to "being broken apart infinitely".

It is purely an imaginary idea like the Easter Bunny.

And you have no argument to dispute the idea that it is absurd to think something real can be broken apart infinitely.

There is no real word meaning to "being broken apart infinitely".

It is purely an imaginary idea like the Easter Bunny.

And you have no argument to dispute the idea that it is absurd to think something real can be broken apart infinitely.

There is no real word meaning to "being broken apart infinitely".

It is purely an imaginary idea like the Easter Bunny.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, even if both direction and distance are quantised, particles would still be able to interact if the physics of interaction in your space is primarily determined by the quantified locations rather than by the distance covered or the direction of travel.

Your chessboard scenarios make space super complicated.

Do you feel that Quantum Physics is uncomplicated?

Anyway, no, not really. In this model, locations and the neighbouring relation are the only parameters.

How does space know where to sneak in blocks for spacetime expansion, so that it doesn't create weird patterns? Spacetime expansion would require faster than light transmission of data, right? How does information know which block to propagate to if something is traveling 33 squares up and 1 block over?

Locations only know their neighbours. The topology may have each location with much more than four and even eight neighbours (in a 2D model), as many as you might need. The larger the number of neighbours, the closer the topology will be to our default notion of continuous space.

Particle movement is quantified as a succession of elementary moves, from one location to any one of its neighbours and then just repeat. So movement is really propagation to neighbours. Direction and distance are just epiphenomena. A particle's moves may be determined by a set of probabilities that remain constant between interactions with other particles: in the case of four-neighbour spaces, you would have the probability to move Eastward, the probability to move Northward, etc. Propagation is local, like the wave function in QM. Directions and distance result from the particle's successive moves and so stay broadly in line with cumulative probabilities over a sufficiently large number of moves.

Expansion can be essentially a sort of probabilistic 'local growth', with organic reorganisation of the neighbouring relation to accommodate new locations. Growth of a new location could be the probabilistic flipping of an existing neighbouring relation into a new location, followed by a sort of homeostatic reorganisation of neighbouring relations propagating outwardly.

What?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

... you have no argument to dispute the idea that it is absurd to think something real can be broken apart infinitely.

I think he said the scientific community has, through experiment, determined the likelihood of Easter Bunny is so remote it is unlikely that sufficiently strong evidence will be found for there to be one so it's about time we forget about believing in Easter Bunnies.

Now if you want to be in the infinite denial camp you may reject this determination. You continue your denial that infinitely divisible exists against universal evidence you are wrong. Of course if you do that you'll be conceding infinite divisibility as extremely likely reality.

Dilemma/horns/you

 

[fromderinside]

That's a lot more than locations and their neighbors are the only parameters.

Just sayin'

 

[untermensche]

... you have no argument to dispute the idea that it is absurd to think something real can be broken apart infinitely.

I think he said the scientific community has, through experiment, determined the likelihood of Easter Bunny is so remote it is unlikely that sufficiently strong evidence will be found for there to be one so it's about time we forget about believing in Easter Bunnies.

Now if you want to be in the infinite denial camp you may reject this determination. You continue your denial that infinitely divisible exists against universal evidence you are wrong. Of course if you do that you'll be conceding infinite divisibility as extremely likely reality.

Dilemma/horns/you

There is no evidence infinite divisibility is real.

Show me an infinitesimal.

The thought experiment, not evidence, had claims within it that difficulties exist.

This does not rise to the level of evidence.

 

[beero1000]

... you have no argument to dispute the idea that it is absurd to think something real can be broken apart infinitely.

I think he said the scientific community has, through experiment, determined the likelihood of Easter Bunny is so remote it is unlikely that sufficiently strong evidence will be found for there to be one so it's about time we forget about believing in Easter Bunnies.

Now if you want to be in the infinite denial camp you may reject this determination. You continue your denial that infinitely divisible exists against universal evidence you are wrong. Of course if you do that you'll be conceding infinite divisibility as extremely likely reality.

Dilemma/horns/you

I linked to an 84-page paper that summarizes the results of hundreds of experiments - his response came 4 minutes later and was just the same old bald assertions (along with the turkey that I emphasized!). He's not even making the effort to pretend to understand or consider any other viewpoint. It's sad.

 

[untermensche]

I think he said the scientific community has, through experiment, determined the likelihood of Easter Bunny is so remote it is unlikely that sufficiently strong evidence will be found for there to be one so it's about time we forget about believing in Easter Bunnies.

Now if you want to be in the infinite denial camp you may reject this determination. You continue your denial that infinitely divisible exists against universal evidence you are wrong. Of course if you do that you'll be conceding infinite divisibility as extremely likely reality.

Dilemma/horns/you

I linked to an 84-page paper that summarizes the results of hundreds of experiments - his response came 4 minutes later and was just the same old bald assertions (along with the turkey that I emphasized!). He's not even making the effort to pretend to understand or consider any other viewpoint. It's sad.

You have 84 pages and no arguments.

This is the outer edge of current understandings.

It is not something decided.

But what is known is that the idea of dividing something infinitely is imaginary. In the real world it is absurd. It requires things with zero existence to exist.

There is no evidence it is something real a serious person should consider.

This is the philosophy section.

Try to make a rational argument.

Your mere claims you have these magic answers to philosophical difficulties are not persuasive.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's a lot more than locations and their neighbors are the only parameters.

Just sayin'

Fair enough.

In this model, locations and the neighbouring relation are the key concepts.

Other concepts, such as distance and direction of movement, follow from them.

Expansion and such may receive various solutions.
EB

 

[bilby]

What kind of particle?

Doesn't matter. Force carrying particle. Photon. Whatever. A quantum field that extends continuously from a point in space. Whatever.

From the following diagram, if you have a rudimentary understanding of actual physical measurements and our recent conversation, you'll be able to tell that the object that went NE 1 quantized length unit then NW 1 quantized length unit will never transmit information to (and thus from) the same location in space as the particle, field source, or whatever that traveled directly north if length of space travel is quantized. Information transmission will jump over the locations of the other particle, information, field, or whatever.


1 unit of quantized length = 2 units of graph length

when the object (physically existing information, field source, particle, unterfeld, or whatever) that follows the green path starts going north again, it is either .414 or 1-.414 quantized length units from an object (information, field source, particle, unterfeld, or whatever) that went directly north the whole time (the object that followed the red path).

The top green line and red line indicate the next quantized length gap that the objects (information, field source, particle, unterfeld, or whatever) jump. The object that follows the green path will always be in a different area of quantized space, and only transmit information to places that the object that follows the red path cannot transmit information to, because it can only transmit information to quantized length portions of space away from it.

View attachment 12071


Is that a (poorly worded) proof that space cannot contain quantized lengths?

Where did you see this?

It's logic.

If length (in space) is quantized, then fields are propagated over quantized length intervals, if a particle or field source point travels the path I described (ne then nw), it will be out of sync with a particle or field source point that traveled directly north.

By out of sync, I mean as described above. If length in space is quantized, the field source point traveling north will propagate its field out of sync with the field point source that is out of sync by .414 length units because it traveled diagonally.

View attachment 12074

Also. See Weyl's tile argument above.

No. You misunderstood.

Where have you seen this happening?

Is this based on an observation of a particle moving in a perfectly straight line?

Or is this speculation on top of speculation?

To be fair, his misunderstanding was based on the reasonable assumption that nobody could possibly be as stupid as you just demonstrated yourself to be.

 

[bilby]

I think he said the scientific community has, through experiment, determined the likelihood of Easter Bunny is so remote it is unlikely that sufficiently strong evidence will be found for there to be one so it's about time we forget about believing in Easter Bunnies.

Now if you want to be in the infinite denial camp you may reject this determination. You continue your denial that infinitely divisible exists against universal evidence you are wrong. Of course if you do that you'll be conceding infinite divisibility as extremely likely reality.

Dilemma/horns/you

I linked to an 84-page paper that summarizes the results of hundreds of experiments - his response came 4 minutes later and was just the same old bald assertions (along with the turkey that I emphasized!). He's not even making the effort to pretend to understand or consider any other viewpoint. It's sad.

 

[untermensche]

To be fair, his misunderstanding was based on the reasonable assumption that nobody could possibly be as stupid as you just demonstrated yourself to be.

You have nothing but worthless opinions. That sentence contains absolutely no information. It could be said in response to anything from anyone.

Why you waste time and effort to express it is amazing.

It shows a deep ignorance of what constitutes rational criticism.

 

[untermensche]

What would be hell would be forced to exist forever with children who think imaginary concepts like infinity and zero and infinitesimals could ever be something real.

 

[bilby]

To be fair, his misunderstanding was based on the reasonable assumption that nobody could possibly be as stupid as you just demonstrated yourself to be.

You have nothing but worthless opinions. That sentence contains absolutely no information. It could be said in response to anything from anyone.

Why you waste time and effort to express it is amazing.

It shows a deep ignorance of what constitutes rational criticism.

It's rather cute that you imagine that I might wish to continue banging my head against the brick wall of your impenetrable ignorance. But I gave up a while back - as you might have noticed, if you were actually reading the arguments others present, rather than simply rejecting anything that doesn't wholeheartedly agree with your inane preconceptions.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that any attempt at reason is wasted on you; that you imagine I would continue such attempts regardless is simply further evidence of your inability to understand reality.