/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12409951

15KiB, 300x291, froggy.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 02:38:55 2020 No.12409951 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12410130 >>12410475 >>12410716 >>12412673

Is the following a valid statement?
>I believe that space is quantized.
One stupid anon claimed that there is no 'belief' in science. That anon is a stupid fuck because sometimes we believe or disbelieve certain things in science. For example, some people believe that space is quantized, and other people believe that space is not quantized.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 03:42:04 No.12410130 Report

Quoted By: >>12410430 >>12410479

>>12409951
Science has beliefs. It just calls a belief a "hypothesis". Just use that for when you believe in something and you will sound smart.

Based on what I saw in physics classes and the internet, the hypothesis seems legit. The orbiting altitudes of electrons around atoms are also wuantized, this is proven, and causes light frequencies to be quantized. Other things could be too.

Find "planck length", smallest distance or the "pixel size" of the universe. Could be just the smallest distance we can measure. Not sure, you can look it up, it should satisfy your curiosity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 05:24:13 No.12410430 Report

Quoted By:

>>12410130
based

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 05:41:27 No.12410475 Report

Quoted By: >>12412105

>>12409951
sure it's a valid statement, so long as you don't present it as scientific fact

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 05:43:02 No.12410479 Report

Quoted By: >>12412105

>>12410130
t. undergrad
planck scale is not a fundamental limit of anything. current theories require space to be continuous

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 07:56:17 No.12410716 Report

Quoted By: >>12412105

>>12409951
Glad to see you're still butthurt and making useless threads about it to soothe your aching asshole.
You're twisting what was said. I told you that Planck units are just that - units of measurement like meters and you REEEEEd about that because it challenged your "beliefs". You explicitly said you don't assume discrete spacetime and then work yourself forward to some hypothesis, but instead just chose to believe out of nothing.
Fact is, Planck length is the scale at which our physical models break down, but it does not imply that spacetime is discrete. Every experiment ever confirmed the continuous nature of spacetime. Discrete spacetime implies broken conservation of momentum and energy (or energy-momentum tensor).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 18:54:58 No.12412105 Report

Quoted By: >>12412191

>>12410475
Well if it's true it is scientific fact, we just don't know whether or not it's scientific fact
>>12410479
>current theories
But they're wrong. We don't know all the answers yet and to think our current theories are flawless is naive as fuck.
>>12410716
Whether or not I am who you are addressing, I assume discrete space and discrete time, but I do not pretend to be 100% certain that I am correct.
>being too brainlet to understand LQG
kek ngmi

El Arcón

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TIMESAND___PNGhoiiue6t98t986ihfE (...).png, 31KiB, 400x486

El Arcón Wed 02 Dec 2020 19:16:03 No.12412172 Report

Quoted By:

The question of space quantization is often reduced by epistemology to a question of whether or not instruments have finite resolution. Instruments do have finite resolution, but this does not tell us whether or not space is quantized. However, due to epistemology in science, it is often *believed* that the question of whether or not space is quantized ontologically is unscientific, and that the question must be treated in science as an isomorphism of the question about the resolution of physical devices. This is not clever because it is simply a fact that a question about the fabric of the universe is a different question than one about devices' resolutions.

For instance, take the quantum position state |x> which generates the probability of finding the particle between x and x+dx. It is not possible to use a device to distinguish x from x+dx when dx is the Planck length, so some people will say that space is quantized. However, it is possible to introduce a new coordinate system x'=x+e where e is less than the Planck length, and then you can write the probability of finding the particle between x' and x'+dx'. Since this is possible for arbitrarily small e, this suggests that space is continuous. So, in essence, the question comes down to beliefs about whether or not what objective is should be never be considered or pondered pondered beyond what is conceivably measurable. IMO, space is continuous because you can always redefine x'=x+e. Some people disagree. Does my argument mean is is definitely not quantized? No! However, without regard for anyone's opinion at all, the question about space being quantized is not the same as the question of resolution. Anyone who says it is the same is wrong.

El Arcón

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TIMESAND___PNGhoiiue6t98t986ihfE (...).png, 31KiB, 400x486

El Arcón Wed 02 Dec 2020 19:18:36 No.12412179 Report

Quoted By: >>12412649

The question of space quantization is often reduced by epistemology to a question of whether or not instruments have finite resolution. Instruments do have finite resolution, but this does not tell us whether or not space is quantized. However, due to epistemology in science, it is often *believed* that the question of whether or not space is quantized ontologically is unscientific, and that the question must be treated in science as an isomorphism of the question about the resolution of physical devices. This is not clever because it is simply a fact that a question about the fabric of the universe is a different question than one about devices' resolutions.

For instance, take the quantum position state |x> which generates the probability of finding the particle between x and x+dx. It is not possible to use a device to distinguish x from x+dx when dx is the Planck length, so some people will say that space is quantized. However, it is possible to introduce a new coordinate system x'=x+e where e is less than the Planck length, and then you can write the probability of finding the particle between x' and x'+dx'. Since this is possible for arbitrarily small e, this suggests that space is continuous. So, in essence, the question comes down to beliefs about whether or not what is objective should ever be considered or pondered pondered beyond what is conceivably measurable. IMO, space is continuous because you can always redefine x'=x+e. Some people disagree. Does my argument mean is is definitely not quantized? No! However, without regard for anyone's opinion at all, the question about space being quantized is not the same as the question of resolution. Anyone who says it is the same is wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 19:21:14 No.12412191 Report

Quoted By: >>12412197 >>12412202

>>12412105
>Whether or not I am who you are addressing
Well, I'm the guy you're talking about in OP, so...
>>being too brainlet to understand LQG
Anon, I've worked with string hypothesis and loop quantum gravity and MOND in the past (albeit shortly), they're hypotheses and neither tells you anything about reality. You're a Dunning-Kruger victim and immune to learning. Why are you still cresting these threads after several months? Weren't the five you create directly back then enough?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 19:23:58 No.12412197 Report

Quoted By: >>12412649

>>12412191
Do you deny any of the following?
>You do not know whether space and/or time is/are quantized. You believe that they are not.
If yes, what do you deny and why?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO reddit.jpg, 83KiB, 1600x1200

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 19:25:51 No.12412202 Report

Quoted By: >>12412649

>>12412191
>string hypothesis
>Dunning-Kruger

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 21:38:07 No.12412649 Report

Quoted By: >>12412969

>>12412202
What makes a theory a theory?

>>12412197
>>You do not know whether space and/or time is/are quantized
Do you mean "you" in the sense of "science", or in the sense of me? Or yourself? You used greentext so it's hard to tell. And yeah, we don't know. I never denied that.
>You believe that they are not.
There's no belief in science. I think it isn't, because all experiments point towards it.

>>12412179
Tooker spittin' fax today.
>it is possible to introduce a new coordinate system x'=x+e where e is less than the Planck length
Well, those people will then say you can't find a transformation that does exactly that because the discrete nature of spacetime doesn't allow all kinds of transformations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 21:49:00 No.12412673 Report

Quoted By: >>12412982

>>12409951
Space cannot be quantized because its not anything but the absence of something.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 23:34:14 No.12412969 Report

Quoted By: >>12414221

>>12412649
>Do you mean "you" in the sense of "science", or in the sense of me? Or yourself?
"You" as in you, yourself.
>I think it isn't
So you believe it isn't. They are literally synonymous. You should go ask >>>/lit/ for a lesson in English, friend.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 23:36:32 No.12412982 Report

Quoted By: >>12413008

>>12412673
So space is the absence of dimensionality? :^)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2020 23:45:44 No.12413008 Report

Quoted By:

>>12412982
Its the absence of transdimensional hormone therapy

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Dec 2020 07:56:28 No.12414221 Report

Quoted By:

>>12412969
>So you believe it isn't
Nope, belief is something entirely different. We already talked about this. Maybe you need to create even more threads about it? Or look up the words in a dictionary.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches