The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of Lorentz symmetry.[1]
Isn't it usually assumed spacetime is not discrete. At the very least there is no proof to say everything is discrete. Just because the universe can do computations doesn't mean it is a state machine.
state machine: you have a state that you can describe. you get input, you transform the state, you maybe output something. state transition can also be viewed as input.
so i believe that everything is a state machine. everything
nobody is "doing" quantum mechanics per se. they are applying predictions from a theory that has been around for a while and those predictions work well enough in narrow domains to be useful.
i know enough to understand some of the fancy math behind it, but one thing to keep in mind is that what people think of when they say quantum mechanics is the mathematical model we're working with, not the real thing.
Comments
i know it to be truth. if you go down deep enough (talking elementary particle deep) everything is discrete.
So, what do you know that physicists don't? Planck time & length is just the limit of what we can measure.
Can something exist at 0.5 Planck lengths from another thing?
Isn't the answer yes, but we wouldn't be able to measure it?
Why would guess the answer is yes then?
The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of Lorentz symmetry.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
That is currently unknown. We suspect that the answer is "no", but we don't know.
Isn't it usually assumed spacetime is not discrete. At the very least there is no proof to say everything is discrete. Just because the universe can do computations doesn't mean it is a state machine.
state machine: you have a state that you can describe. you get input, you transform the state, you maybe output something. state transition can also be viewed as input.
so i believe that everything is a state machine. everything
nope. if you want to have your mind blown away look into Wolfram’s cellular automata and more recently his physics project
Wolfram isn't a crank but his graph idea is interesting and not much else at the moment.
IMHO the man is a genius and the idea is brilliant. it’s the only place i’ve seem a reasonable interpretation of the uncertainty principle.
How so? Have you done enough quantum mechanics to comment? I don't think I have
nobody is "doing" quantum mechanics per se. they are applying predictions from a theory that has been around for a while and those predictions work well enough in narrow domains to be useful.
i know enough to understand some of the fancy math behind it, but one thing to keep in mind is that what people think of when they say quantum mechanics is the mathematical model we're working with, not the real thing.
here, take a look for yourself: https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/so...
Genuine question: how do we know that elementary particles are in fact discrete (as opposed to modes on a space continuum)?
That is precisely what quantum fields are, continuous distributions. Coupling is the only reason quanta exist. But propagation is continuous.
I suspect you don't mean mode in the same sense but quantum field theory does model particles as vibrations in a field.
But, those particles have, as good as we can measure, infinitesimal volume
AFAIK they are treated as discrete, ie you cannot break it down more. that may change, but they are viewed as discrete