IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th March 2022, 08:26 AM   #81
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,384
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
So has the Theory of Everything been solved yet?
I think we're still trying to verify the "physicist" portion of the thread title.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 09:19 AM   #82
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,543
To repeat:
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I suppose someone who doesn't understand Compton wavelengths, and doesn't understand what black holes and the Schwarzschild radius have to do with general relativity, might not understand how the Wikipedia excerpt confirmed Ziggurat's contention that the "true meaning" of the Planck length "is almost impossible to grasp without some understanding of both quantum mechanics and general relativity."

Sure enough:
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
But what part of GR suggests that Planck units are meaningful?

Mike Helland really, really wants us to know he doesn't understand how mass (represented by a reduced Compton wavelength), black holes, and the Schwarzschild radius could have anything to do with general relativity:
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Whether your scale is a billion light years, or a billionith of a Planck length, GR seems entirely unopinionated.

It's not like Planck's constant is n the Einstein field equations.
The Einstein field equations (1) do mention mass-energy and length, (2) do imply certain combinations of mass and length result in black holes, which (3) tells us of a collision between the theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity at the scale of a Planck length, as explained earlier this morning by a quotation from Wikipedia and also by Ziggurat.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 09:22 AM   #83
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
But what part of GR suggests that Planck units are meaningful?
Short answer: it's the Schwarzchild radius for the Planck mass.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 09:28 AM   #84
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Short answer: it's the Schwarzchild radius for the Planck mass.
Isn't that circular?

Where does the Planck mass come from?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 11:02 AM   #85
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Isn't that circular?
No. Why would you think that? As I said, that's the short answer. There are longer answers.

Quote:
Where does the Planck mass come from?
It's the mass at which the Schwarzschild radius and the reduced Compton wavelength for that mass are equal. At larger masses, the Schwarzschild radius is larger than the Compton wavelength. At smaller masses, the Compton wavelength is larger than the Schwarzschild radius.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 08:52 PM   #86
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,830
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I think you will find that W.D. Clinger is quite conversant with PhD level science and mathematics. I think you will also find that attempting to discuss PhD level science with either Nakani or Mike Helland is the scientific equivalent of pissing into the wind.

I got confused. I thought I was responding to Mike H.
__________________
? > !
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2022, 04:04 AM   #87
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,584
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I got confused. I thought I was responding to Mike H.
(although W.D. Clinger might not be too pleased about being confused with Mike Helland )
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 06:54 AM   #88
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,336
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
When you start sniffing that aether, you can think up some weird stuff, but these days it is just spelled "ether".
Not in English it isn't spelt ether. Next thing you'll be telling us there's no 'u' in colour.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 08:10 AM   #89
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Assuming 3 dimensions of space, if it were discrete or quantized, then its x, y, and z have to be integers, rather than arbitrary decimal points, so something like:

Code:
particle = {
   x: 1,
   y: 1,
   z: 1
}


OK, so you simply haven't "made a discrete model of matter, space, and time", as expected.

"have to be integers" of what?




Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If you want to rotate that around the origin, there's only so many places it can end up.
Only "so many places" what can end up? If you are talking about simply rotation then I ask again, what is your minimal permissible angle of rotation and why, please show your math?


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
But our planet is constantly spinning, so everyone here is spinning, and we have never seen any of the "funny" business you might expect if space were quantized.
You have confirmed any of this, how? You as yet haven't shown that anything might be expected if space were quantized, "funny" or otherwise.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 09:31 AM   #90
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
"have to be integers" of what?
Numbers.


Quote:
Only "so many places" what can end up? If you are talking about simply rotation then I ask again, what is your minimal permissible angle of rotation and why, please show your math?
You can be at 1, 1, 1, and move to -1,-1,-1, but you can't go to 0.5, 0.5, 0.5.

Because discrete means not continuous.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 09:50 AM   #91
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,979
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Numbers.




You can be at 1, 1, 1, and move to -1,-1,-1, but you can't go to 0.5, 0.5, 0.5.

Because discrete means not continuous.
The gradations on a micrometer that measures in 10 thousandths are still discrete and non-continuous. Same with millionths or micromillionths if you can detect them.

Of course if you count by the 10 thousandth it's the integer you start with and thousandths are 10 of those and so forth, and so down to whatever is the smallest increment you can detect and use as your starting point, but what have you really said about anything but mensuration?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 09:53 AM   #92
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Numbers.
As integers are numbers just as real numbers are, the assertion is meaningless without any units.

Again, numbers or what?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You can be at 1, 1, 1, and move to -1,-1,-1, but you can't go to 0.5, 0.5, 0.5.
1, -1 and/or 0.5 what? Numbers without units can by anything.

How many 0.5s in a 1?

In units of your "0.5" your coordinate numbers become 2, 2, 2 then -2, -2, -2 and 1, 1, 1. All integers

So I'll ask a third time, what is your minimal permissible angle of rotation and why, please show your math?


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Because discrete means not continuous.
Great, so it doesn't mean just numbers.

Not continuous what? You seem to be conflating rotation with distance while not actually asserting or relating any units of either.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 10:09 AM   #93
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
So I'll ask a third time, what is your minimal permissible angle of rotation and why, please show your math?
Given a discrete 3d grid, a particle at coordinate 1,0,0, rotated around the origin, it can end up at 0,1,0, but nowhere in between.

So in that case, 90 degrees.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 10:38 AM   #94
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Given a discrete 3d grid, a particle at coordinate 1,0,0, rotated around the origin, it can end up at 0,1,0, but nowhere in between.

So in that case, 90 degrees.
"in that case"? So there can be other cases?

Again, "Given a discrete 3d grid" of what?

Here is your unitless number from before "83.434322"

How many 0.000001s in that number? how many 0.0000005s?

What is "1" on some undefined scale is 1 x 1035 at another equally valid scale.

bruto laid it out quite eloquently.

Before you have asserted that we have observed continuous rotation. What is the limit of the accuracy on those observations? If you have none then you don't actually have observations, just conjecture.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 10:49 AM   #95
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
"in that case"? So there can be other cases?
Yes, the particle could be at a different starting point.

Quote:
Again, "Given a discrete 3d grid" of what?
What's confusing about it?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 11:05 AM   #96
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,926
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
What's confusing about it?
Apparently you're confused about the part where people are asking you to say what units you are using.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 11:17 AM   #97
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Apparently you're confused about the part where people are asking you to say what units you are using.
Even if space was quantized at a length of a billionith of a Planck length, it would seem to me that simply rotating a prism would probably reveal some artifact of the quantization.

Which we don't see.

I could be wrong.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 11:51 AM   #98
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Yes, the particle could be at a different starting point.
Or your "grid" could just be a different scale.


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
What's confusing about it?
Who mentioned confusion? What was mentioned, explicitly, is your lack of any defined scale and how that scale alters the minimal angle.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 12:04 PM   #99
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Even if space was quantized at a length of a billionith of a Planck length, it would seem to me that simply rotating a prism would probably reveal some artifact of the quantization.
Rotating it by how much?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Which we don't see.
How would you know? What experiment done to what level of precision are you basing that assertion upon? Then what are the limits it must be applicable to?

Heck, just what "artifact of the quantization" are you expecting to find? Even if the scale of the experiment and the limits of the quantization were compatible, without knowing what to look for you wouldn't know it if you saw it.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I could be wrong.
So far, with no scale of the observation and no limits of the quantization, wrong is all you can be.


ETA: Here's an article explaining how close we might be getting to detecting quantum fluctuation at the Planck scale. It needs to be pointed out that this article concerns quantum gravity more than any specific quantization of space time itself.


Can experiment access Planck-scale physics?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 26th March 2022 at 12:35 PM. Reason: typos
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 12:23 PM   #100
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
What was mentioned, explicitly, is your lack of any defined scale and how that scale alters the minimal angle.
Ok, I think you're being intentionally belligerent because this isn't all that hard to grasp or particularly important.

If space was quantized by Planck's length, or 1/60th of Planck's length, it doesn't change that an object at [1,0,0] can only rotate around the origin by 90 degrees or multiples of 90 degrees.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 12:32 PM   #101
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,926
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If space was quantized by Planck's length, or 1/60th of Planck's length, it doesn't change that an object at [1,0,0] can only rotate around the origin by 90 degrees or multiples of 90 degrees.
Can you explain why you think that's true?
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 12:44 PM   #102
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Can you explain why you think that's true?
If you rotate point [1,0,0] around the origin 90 degrees, it ends up at [0,1,0], which is a valid position on the discrete grid.

Any other angle (aside from multiples of 90 degrees) and you get non-integers, which are not valid positions on the discrete grid.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 12:47 PM   #103
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,926
Sorry, you need to go back to post 55 and start over. My question to you didn't really add anything to what "The Man" asked in post 55.

You can't make predictions or claim exceptions ("funny business") without a model.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 26th March 2022 at 12:51 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 12:51 PM   #104
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Sorry, you need to go back to post 55 and start over.
I don't have to do anything of the sort.

The original poster was going on about quantized space.

I'm not aware of any evidence of that.

Have a nice day.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 12:53 PM   #105
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,926
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I don't have to do anything of the sort.

The original poster was going on about quantized space.

I'm not aware of any evidence of that.

Have a nice day.
You didn't stop at saying there was no evidence. You've devoted several posts to saying there is counter evidence. That's different.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 12:55 PM   #106
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok, I think you're being intentionally belligerent because this isn't all that hard to grasp or particularly important.
While I think you are being intentionally ignorant because it's not that hard to grasp and is particularly important as it determines what angles of rotation are available in your "grid".

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If space was quantized by Planck's length, or 1/60th of Planck's length, it doesn't change that an object at [1,0,0] can only rotate around the origin by 90 degrees or multiples of 90 degrees.
What happened to your assertion about what we observe? When do we actually observe something rotating a "Planck's length, or 1/60th of Planck's length" from the center of rotation?

So what happens when your "grid" is of the scale of a ""Planck's length, or 1/60th of Planck's length" and the distance from the the center of rotation to the object is on the order of something we actually observe. You referred to us rotating with the Earth before.

Whether you realize it or not what you are trying to do is give an upper limit for the minimal permissible rotation that is only applicable when the grid scale equals the distance to center scale. As those scales diverge, the grid scale becomes smaller than the distance to center scale, the minimal permissible rotation will reduce to <90 degrees. 90 degrees is only an upper limit for the minimal rotation permitted by your grid and only when the grid scale is the distance to center scale are in 1 to 1 correspondence.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:03 PM   #107
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
You didn't stop at saying there was no evidence. You've devoted several posts to saying there is counter evidence. That's different.
You can rotate something large or small 360 degrees, and we never see artifacts of an underlying discrete grid.

If there were an underlying discrete grid, it would imply the universe has a kind of preferred orientation, that x, y, and z have some type of absolute significance, which we've never seen any evidence of.

Are you just lonely? Or a big fan of quantized space?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:07 PM   #108
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,926
And there you go again. Never mind.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:11 PM   #109
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Whether you realize it or not what you are trying to do is give an upper limit for the minimal permissible rotation that is only applicable when the grid scale equals the distance to center scale. As those scales diverge, the grid scale becomes smaller than the distance to center scale, the minimal permissible rotation will reduce to <90 degrees. 90 degrees is only an upper limit for the minimal rotation permitted by your grid and only when the grid scale is the distance to center scale are in 1 to 1 correspondence.
That's correct.

Take a tiny diamond and shine brilliant light on it.

Rotate it super slowly but continiously.

If the the light coming off the diamond were to "jump" in discrete steps while the diamond is rotated, then you might be able to make a case for quantized space.

But we've never seen anything like that.

It was a rather throw away comment. Glad you all enjoyed it so much.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:14 PM   #110
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,926
Left out step 4: Make a lot of unspecified assumptions about how wave reflection works. And that's not even the only set of unspecified assumptions.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:22 PM   #111
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You can rotate something large or small 360 degrees, and we never see artifacts of an underlying discrete grid.
What are the scale of the expected "artifacts" and what is the scale of the observational measurement? If your observations can't resolve to the scale of the expected "artifacts" you can't detect them.


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If there were an underlying discrete grid, it would imply the universe has a kind of preferred orientation, that x, y, and z have some type of absolute significance, which we've never seen any evidence of.
No, it would make no such implication.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Are you just lonely? Or a big fan of quantized space?
Neither. Are you just unable or unwilling to understand the significance of the grid scale to the observational scale?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:24 PM   #112
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Left out step 4: Make a lot of unspecified assumptions about how wave reflection works. And that's not even the only set of unspecified assumptions.
If you have any evidence of quantized space, or there being a preferred directions for the x,y,z dimensions, I bet the original poster would love to see it.

I would too, but I know there isn't any.

Take Conway's game of life.

Can you arbitrarily rotate objects in it to any degree and have it still work the same?

Try to rotate a glider by 13 degrees. Lemme know how that works.

Because in the real world, it works fine.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:30 PM   #113
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
If your observations can't resolve to the scale of the expected "artifacts" you can't detect them.
Sure.

Maybe space is quantized so finely we just can't resolve it.

There's no actual evidence that's true, though.

Quote:
No, it would make no such implication.
Sure it would.

If space was discrete, then x, y, and z have to absolute directions.

Otherwise, by just changing the coordinate system arbitrarily, you would be taking the indivisible, minimum lengths by which each point is separated, and dividing them, making them continuous.

If I were to rotate point [1,0,0] around the origin by 1 degree, your resulting point would be closer to the original point than the minimum of 1 unit.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:37 PM   #114
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,926
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If space was discrete, then x, y, and z have to absolute directions.
No, that is not a given. If you want to build a model based on that assumption though that would at least be a step towards a model that might actually be testable.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:47 PM   #115
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's correct.
Excellent, then 90 degrees can't be the minimal limit. So again what is the minimal angular limit? Keeping in mind the resolution of observational equipment.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Take a tiny diamond and shine brilliant light on it.

Rotate it super slowly but continiously.
Exactly how do you experimentally confirm that "continiously" requirement?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If the the light coming off the diamond were to "jump" in discrete steps while the diamond is rotated, then you might be able to make a case for quantized space.
The light "coming off the diamond" is in photons, it is always in "discrete steps". That such a fact in and of itself does not and can not "make a case for quantized space" (or against it) just shows how irrelevant your assertions on the subject are.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
But we've never seen anything like that.
Sure we do, the light coming off your screen now is in a discrete number of photons. While the rods in your eyes can reportedly be triggered by individual photons, under optimal conditions. However, that's not how we perceive the light we see. It is in fact how we see, it is just not how we perceive it.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
It was a rather throw away comment. Glad you all enjoyed it so much.
You might have done better if you went with your original instinct and just threw it away. Hopefully you've learned something, but I'm not counting my photons before they are perceived.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:49 PM   #116
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
No, that is not a given. If you want to build a model based on that assumption though that would at least be a step towards a model that might actually be testable.
discrete:

a : consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : noncontinuous
b : taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values

You don't choose an arbitrary coordinate system for each object.

In a discrete model, the values are defined. You could label x,y,z as a,b,c, or z,x,y, but the direction the axes are pointing doesn't change just because you want to move a certain distance in a certain direction that the discrete grid doesn't accommodate.

You can move a distance of 1 unit in the direction of an axis, but you can't go diagonally 1 unit.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 01:51 PM   #117
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Sure we do, the light coming off your screen now is in a discrete number of photons.
Yet when I move my head around, the screen moves continuously, rather than jumping around.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 02:19 PM   #118
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Sure.

Maybe space is quantized so finely we just can't resolve it.

There's no actual evidence that's true, though.
There's no actual evidence it is false either. While you claimed observation evidence against quantized space. Again this is why scale and units become so important.


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Sure it would.

If space was discrete, then x, y, and z have to absolute directions.
Nope, which one is what and how they a oriented depends on the selection of the coordinate system.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Otherwise, by just changing the coordinate system arbitrarily, you would be taking the indivisible, minimum lengths by which each point is separated, and dividing them, making them continuous.
No, changing the coordinate system does not require changing the scale or any "indivisible" minimum. What the heck does that have to do with "orientation" and "absolute direction", anyway?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If I were to rotate point [1,0,0] around the origin by 1 degree, your resulting point would be closer to the original point than the minimum of 1 unit.
Sure, which is again why scale and actual units are important. Again you mentioned rotating with the Earth before as one of your coulter observations. So is "the minimum of 1 unit" 1 Earth radius or is 1 Earth radius some multiple of "the minimum of 1 unit"?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 02:23 PM   #119
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,926
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You can move a distance of 1 unit in the direction of an axis, but you can't go diagonally 1 unit.
OK. Keep going until you have a fully fleshed out model.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2022, 02:31 PM   #120
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
There's no actual evidence it is false either.
Sure.

I said space could be quantized so finely we won't observe it.

I was curious how OP would handle motion in such a way that traveling along the grids axes vs other directions wouldn't be noticed.

There was no answer. And I don't think you even understand what my question was, so whatever.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.