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 26th March 2022, 02:33 PM   #121
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
OK. Keep going until you have a fully fleshed out model.
I was asking OP how their quantized space would work.

If they care to follow up, ask them.
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, 02:36 PM   #122
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
Yet when I move my head around, the screen moves continuously, rather than jumping around.

How do you know? As I recall just the blood vessels in your retinas means the image jumps around even when you don't move your head. Again the threshold of you perception is such that it is sufficiently below that, not to be noticed. Moving relative to a light source can overcome that adaptive threshold.

Part of the reason people make poor scientific instruments.
__________________
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, 02:39 PM   #123
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
How do you know?
So what is the point of your argument here?

That space doesn't appear to continuous to you?
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, 02:53 PM   #124
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.

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.
Which you just answered yourself above.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
There was no answer. And I don't think you even understand what my question was, so whatever.
I wasn't addressing your question I was addressing your assertions of having made models of quantized space, time and matter and your assertion that such must be incongruent with observations. What we have found is that you have no such models nor counter-indicative observations.
__________________
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, 03:03 PM   #125
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
So what is the point of your argument here?
That was the parts you didn't quote. Even just how your eyesight works isn't continuous. You receive discrete packets of light in a haphazard patchwork fashion. The construction of a singular continuous image happens in ones brain.


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post

That space doesn't appear to continuous to you?
No, that simply how it may appear to you is little to no evidence of how it actually is


Well, another point I made and you ignored...

"Part of the reason people make poor scientific instruments."
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 26th March 2022 at 03:04 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, 03:11 PM   #126
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
I wasn't addressing your question I was addressing your assertions of having made models of quantized space, time and matter and your assertion that such must be incongruent with observations. What we have found is that you have no such models nor counter-indicative observations.
Here is my assertion:

"If you're imagining three dimensions of quantized space, like lego bricks, and the laws of physics acting on those chunks of space, there seems to be no mathematical way I can think of where the orientation of those discrete chunks can be continuous (as we observe in nature) and the results of the function applied are equal. "

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=53

Use Game of Life as an example.



Can the glider gun be rotated any arbitrary amount and still work?

Or does it only work when rotated 90 degrees?

It does seem possible you could build something much much larger, that will shoot mega gliders in any arbitrary direction with any arbitrary amount of decimals points, but even in that case it seems like the glider would travel faster in some directions relative to the underlying grid than other directions.

Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical anyone could make a glider-type thing that travels along every possible angle at the same consistent speed.

If someone does do that, we could say that space might be quantized, and even have an idea of what units it might be quantized at. But I remain skeptical.
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, 03:17 PM   #127
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
No, that simply how it may appear to you is little to no evidence of how it actually is
Well, duh.

All I said is I don't know how to make a model of discrete space without noticeable artifacts when you try to rotate things arbitrary amounts or travel in a slightly different direction.

I hope I brightened up your weekend.
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, 03:33 PM   #128
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
Here is my assertion:

"If you're imagining three dimensions of quantized space, like lego bricks, and the laws of physics acting on those chunks of space, there seems to be no mathematical way I can think of where the orientation of those discrete chunks can be continuous (as we observe in nature) and the results of the function applied are equal. "
Sure one of your assertion, and you have more recently asserted that "(as we observe in nature)" may not be detailed enough to assert space as continuous or discrete.


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=53

Use Game of Life as an example.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...glider_gun.gif

Can the glider gun be rotated any arbitrary amount and still work?

Or does it only work when rotated 90 degrees?

It does seem possible you could build something much much larger, that will shoot mega gliders in any arbitrary direction with any arbitrary amount of decimals points, but even in that case it seems like the glider would travel faster in some directions relative to the underlying grid than other directions.

Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical anyone could make a glider-type thing that travels along every possible angle at the same consistent speed.

If someone does do that, we could say that space might be quantized, and even have an idea of what units it might be quantized at. But I remain skeptical.
Well, I certainly will forgive for evidently not understanding that the glider gun is not a model of quantized space-time nor have any relation to such.
__________________
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, 03:39 PM   #129
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
Well, duh.

All I said is I don't know how to make a model of discrete space without noticeable artifacts when you try to rotate things arbitrary amounts or travel in a slightly different direction.

I hope I brightened up your weekend.
While you have more recently asserted that even with such "artifacts" they may not be noticeable due to limits of accuracy and scaling. So even if you knew how to make a model with such artifacts it wouldn't, at least observationally, matter. If the scaling and accuracy required were beyond our current instrumentality.


I hope I've educated all your weekends.
__________________
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, 03:46 PM   #130
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Well, I certainly will forgive for evidently not understanding that the glider gun is not a model of quantized space-time nor have any relation to such.
OP was talking about, and I asked about quantized space. Not quantized space-time.

If there are models of noncontinuous space that don't have noticeable artifacts, I'd love to see them.

But I don't think you're even really interested in that. You just want to argue with someone on the internet.
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, 04:03 PM   #131
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
While you have more recently asserted that even with such "artifacts" they may not be noticeable due to limits of accuracy and scaling. So even if you knew how to make a model with such artifacts it wouldn't, at least observationally, matter. If the scaling and accuracy required were beyond our current instrumentality.
In the case of rotating bodies, I've made some CA's that have atom-like things in them, but they're only stable in particular orientations. So the artifact is pretty noticeable since the atoms in the model just disintegrated.

But more importantly, how would diagonal motion work?

Here's CA rule 2.



And rule 4:



Moving straight down, the black cell moves 1 unit of length per 1 time step.

But moving diagonally, it'll be one down and one over, which means it goes faster. And the larger the distances traveled, the more noticeable this artifact actually is.

How would you get around something like this. Something moving diagonally to the underlying grid would somehow have to know by the model, and accommodated for. It would have somehow throttle itself, sit out a step here and there.
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 27th March 2022, 05:33 AM   #132
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,493
All Mike is saying is, if we model space as a rectilinear array of discrete digital cubes filling space in the manner of a cellular automaton, following some type of cellular automaton rules, we would expect to see aliasing effects related to whether or not an extended object or a direction of motion aligned with the underlying "grid" even when the scale of the phenomena being observed was many orders of magnitude greater than the grid unit (as it would have to be, if that unit were the Planck length).

For what it's worth that's actually a valid point, which is why as far as I know no one has made any serious attempt to model space (or spacetime) that way.* Wolfram briefly pauses to consider it, in NKS, before moving on to more promising models based on dynamic causal graphs.

*That is, as an actual theory of fundamental physics. Modeling 3D space that way for convenience when modeling macro phenomena like weather is a different story.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 27th March 2022, 05:45 AM   #133
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
OP was talking about, and I asked about quantized space. Not quantized space-time.
Actually what you referred to was "a discrete model of matter, space, and time". So yeah, quantized time was in there as well.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If there are models of noncontinuous space that don't have noticeable artifacts, I'd love to see them.
Noticeable to what or who and how, at what scales? We don't even notice the noncontinuous artifacts of our own visual perception systems (eyes and brain) or visual display systems (TVs, monitors and film).

You continue to ignore the very prospect even you asserted before "I said space could be quantized so finely we won't observe it."


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
But I don't think you're even really interested in that. You just want to argue with someone on the internet.
You aren't arguing, you are just making easily refutable claims, then finding them refuted even just by you, then ignoring even your own refutations.

All I'm interested in is educating you
__________________
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 27th March 2022, 05:59 AM   #134
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
All Mike is saying is, if we model space as a rectilinear array of discrete digital cubes filling space in the manner of a cellular automaton, following some type of cellular automaton rules, we would expect to see aliasing effects related to whether or not an extended object or a direction of motion aligned with the underlying "grid" even when the scale of the phenomena being observed was many orders of magnitude greater than the grid unit (as it would have to be, if that unit were the Planck length).

For what it's worth that's actually a valid point, which is why as far as I know no one has made any serious attempt to model space (or spacetime) that way.* Wolfram briefly pauses to consider it, in NKS, before moving on to more promising models based on dynamic causal graphs.

*That is, as an actual theory of fundamental physics. Modeling 3D space that way for convenience when modeling macro phenomena like weather is a different story.
Sure but what is the scale of that effect and the accuracy of the measuring devices used. Mike Helland often refers to our or your observations however the threshold for eliminating such effects in human perception is rather low comparatively. As anyone who has dealt with film, TV or monitor visual quality would know.

Also Mike Helland has ask for models that aren't structured in such a way which I have already given as (just off the top of my head) Loop quantum gravity.
__________________
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 27th March 2022, 06:20 AM   #135
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
In the case of rotating bodies, I've made some CA's that have atom-like things in them, but they're only stable in particular orientations. So the artifact is pretty noticeable since the atoms in the model just disintegrated.

But more importantly, how would diagonal motion work?

Here's CA rule 2.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lframRule2.png

And rule 4:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lframRule4.png

Moving straight down, the black cell moves 1 unit of length per 1 time step.

But moving diagonally, it'll be one down and one over, which means it goes faster. And the larger the distances traveled, the more noticeable this artifact actually is.

How would you get around something like this. Something moving diagonally to the underlying grid would somehow have to know by the model, and accommodated for. It would have somehow throttle itself, sit out a step here and there.

The problem is you are trying to use a discontinuous space but maintain continuous motion along some preferred grid lines. Hence your diagonal example has to move one up and one over in the same period the other just moves one up. However, if space and/or time are discontinuous then so too must be motion. You find the object at one location at one time then find it at another location at some other time. What happens in-between we can't say. Thus, both move 1 unit length in one unit time with one direction being vertical and the other diagonal. Which direction is which depends on how you select your coordinate system. Heck, you can even select it such that neither direction aligns with any of your axes.

In fact that is all we can do observationally, even with instrumentality, observe something somewhere at some time then perhaps observe it somewhere else at some other time. Again that can just be a result of the discontinuous nature of our ability to observe things, even with instrumentality, or the result of an underlying discontinuous nature of space-time.

ETA: Oh I should point out that the concept that we can speak meaningfully about objects or systems between our measurements of them is called Counterfactual definitenessWP.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 27th March 2022 at 07:10 AM.
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 27th March 2022, 11:33 AM   #136
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
All Mike is saying is, if we model space as a rectilinear array of discrete digital cubes filling space in the manner of a cellular automaton, following some type of cellular automaton rules
That's an accurate recapp, although, just for clarity, the rules don't even need to be CA based (next cell is calculated by previous cell and its neighbors).

You could model objects individually, with intrinsic properties, that still have the same issues navigating the 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 27th March 2022, 11:37 AM   #137
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Actually what you referred to was "a discrete model of matter, space, and time". So yeah, quantized time was in there as well.
Yeah, time is quantized in discrete models.

That's what the time step is.

Your desperate attempts to change what we're talking about are desperate.
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 27th March 2022, 01:17 PM   #138
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
Yeah, time is quantized in discrete models.

That's what the time step is.
Great, so you were referring to quantized space-time. So shy deny that?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Your desperate attempts to change what we're talking about are desperate.
Since I'm not the one changing, denying and ignoring what's been said by anyone, the desperation you perceive can only be yours.
__________________
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 27th March 2022, 02:16 PM   #139
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Great, so you were referring to quantized space-time. So shy deny that?
That refers to something different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spacetime

quantized space and quantized time != quantized spacetime
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 27th March 2022, 02:21 PM   #140
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,493
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's an accurate recapp, although, just for clarity, the rules don't even need to be CA based (next cell is calculated by previous cell and its neighbors).

You could model objects individually, with intrinsic properties, that still have the same issues navigating the grid.

Which, again, is among the reasons why no serious physics theory posits any such grid. So who cares?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 27th March 2022, 02:34 PM   #141
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Which, again, is among the reasons why no serious physics theory posits any such grid. So who cares?
Right. OP posited it, and I asked how it could possibly work?

For a 1 dimensional problem, maybe there could be some interesting uses of discrete models. But in 3D it's.... just... notgonnahappen. AFAICT.
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 27th March 2022, 02:35 PM   #142
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 refers to something different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spacetime

quantized space and quantized time != quantized spacetime
How is it deferent? Please be specific.

We've already established that it is "quantized space and quantized time" in such a consideration. The only other way to assert a difference would be to claim that space and time are independent from each other (hence not space-time) and that would go against the observational evidence for general and special relativity.

Are independent space and time what you are trying to claim here?
__________________
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 27th March 2022, 02:38 PM   #143
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
How is it deferent?
You been partying a little bit today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantu...etime#Criteria

Does Conway's game of life, which has discrete space and discrete time, fit the criteria for quantized spacetime?
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 27th March 2022, 02:52 PM   #144
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 been partying a little bit today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantu...etime#Criteria


You've not answered the question, so again...

How is it deferent? Please be specific.

We've already established that it is "quantized space and quantized time" in such a consideration. The only other way to assert a difference would be to claim that space and time are independent from each other (hence not space-time) and that would go against the observational evidence for general and special relativity.

Are independent space and time what you are trying to claim here?


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Does Conway's game of life, which has discrete space and discrete time, fit the criteria for quantized spacetime?
Again Conway's game of life isn't a physical space and time model and doesn't proport to be.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 27th March 2022 at 02:56 PM.
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 27th March 2022, 03:09 PM   #145
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
We've already established that it is "quantized space and quantized time" in such a consideration. The only other way to assert a difference would be to claim that space and time are independent from each other (hence not space-time) and that would go against the observational evidence for general and special relativity.

Are independent space and time what you are trying to claim here?
I'm not making any sort of claims.

OP was talking about quantized space, and had mentioned aether, so, yes, they were talking about space and time separately.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=53

You tossed in a reference to spacetime much further down the road.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=128
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 27th March 2022, 03:33 PM   #146
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
I'm not making any sort of claims.

OP was talking about quantized space, and had mentioned aether, so, yes, they were talking about space and time separately.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=53

You tossed in a reference to spacetime much further down the road.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=128

Yep, and even further down the road you tossed in your 'Lego' space, time, matter "model" claiming it exemplifies why quantized space can't work and can't be consistent with observations.

So does your 'Lego' model consider space and time to be independent of each other?
__________________
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 27th March 2022, 03:38 PM   #147
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Yep, and even further down the road you tossed in your 'Lego' space, time, matter "model" claiming it exemplifies why quantized space can't work and can't be consistent with observations.
I mentioned lego bricks at the beginning.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=53

Quote:
So does your 'Lego' model consider space and time to be independent of each other?
"My Lego" model? Of course space and time are independent in that model.

OP was not presenting a relativistic theory. I can still ask them questions.

Had a few drinks today?
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 27th March 2022, 04:19 PM   #148
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
I mentioned lego bricks at the beginning.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=53
Right your first post here, your beginning. I motioned and linked an actual model of quantized space-time some 15 posts before.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
"My Lego" model? Of course space and time are independent in that model.
So just say that, instead of denying it and asserting "I'm not making any sort of claims" then trying give some poor chorology of the thread, where you even cite your first post here that was nothing but claims.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
OP was not presenting a relativistic theory. I can still ask them questions.
No one claimed they were presenting a relativistic theory or that you can't ask them questions. You weren't just asking questions though, you were making a broad statement about quantized space models. That there's no way quantized space can fit together. Heck, there isn't even one question in your first post here, cited, again, above. People get to ask you questions about your assertions as well. Particularly when you claim observational evidence must refute a particular class of models and not just your own.

So what we find is that it is just your purported model that is inconsistent with observational evidence, by just your own assertions, and at least incompatible with the observed interdependence of space with time.


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Had a few drinks today?
Nope.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 27th March 2022 at 04:21 PM. Reason: corrected "were" to "weren't"
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 27th March 2022, 04:29 PM   #149
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
No one claimed they were presenting a relativistic theory or that you can't ask them questions. You weren't just asking questions though, you were making a broad statement about quantized space models. That there's no way quantized space can fit together. Heck, there isn't even one question in your first post here, cited, again, above. People get to ask you questions about your assertions as well. Particularly when you claim observational evidence must refute a particular class of models and not just your own.
My claim was of personal ignorance.

I don't see how you can move freely in all directions in discrete space like we do in nature.

You've made a mountain out of a molehill.

Peace out.
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 27th March 2022, 05:00 PM   #150
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
My claim was of personal ignorance.
That's fine, we've all been there, but at least try to shed the ignorance instead of holding fast to it.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I don't see how you can move freely in all directions in discrete space like we do in nature.
While I don't see why it should be a limiting factor. Which is why I asked you to try to explain your model.

Heck, in mechanics we learned that just as you can deconstruct a single vector into sub-vectors you can combine a multitude of co-acting vectors into one. It all depends on what you are trying to look at.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You've made a mountain out of a molehill.

Peace out.
Don't blame me, you made it and kept piling on it.
__________________
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 27th March 2022, 10:17 PM   #151
Thorkil2
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
But more importantly, how would diagonal motion work?
OK, I realize I'm setting myself up here because I have read part of this conversation, but not all of it, so perhaps I missed something important, but the quoted question really makes no sense. Diagonal in relation to what? Motion--or even just a line--can be diagonal only within some artificially defined coordinate system, so any rules about diagonal motion are dependent on the specified framework. I'm not sure why the question would be an issue in quantized space or space-time, but as I say, perhaps I missed something.

That said, i will now attempt to stumble--uh, bow out gracefully.
__________________
All of human knowledge, traced far enough down, has an underlying assumption at its foundation. That said, proceed with caution.
Thorkil2 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 27th March 2022, 11:10 PM   #152
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Thorkil2 View Post
OK, I realize I'm setting myself up here because I have read part of this conversation, but not all of it, so perhaps I missed something important, but the quoted question really makes no sense. Diagonal in relation to what? Motion--or even just a line--can be diagonal only within some artificially defined coordinate system, so any rules about diagonal motion are dependent on the specified framework.
Let's say you make space a discrete 3D grid of points.

Space, only exists as those sets of points.

If you rotate the coordinate system anything but a multiple of 90 degrees, or move it anything but by whole numbers, the resulting coordinate system will have points on it that aren't in the original set. Meaning you longer have your discrete grid. You can derive any arbitrary point, making it a continuous space.

Consider the following:

Code:
particle1 = {
    x: 0, y: 1, direction: 0, speed: 1 
}

particle2 = {
    x: 0, y: -1, direction: 45, speed: 1 
}
2 particles, one at y=1 and one at y=-1. They both have the same speed, 1 unit of length per time step. Their direction is an angle in degrees around the origin.

The rules of the code update the particles' positions according to their speed and direction.

After one time step, particle1, which is traveling along the x-axis will have an x=1, and y=1 (it just moved 1 unit to the right).

Now what do we do for particle2?

It has to go a length of 1 at 45 degrees from the origin. x=sqrt(2)/2 and y=sqrt(2)/2 - 1.

That's not a valid point in the discrete space. So what do you do? Round it?

In that case it seems anything traveling along an axis of this quantized aether proposed by the OP would act differently from anything traveling at a different angle to the axis.
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 28th March 2022, 06:32 AM   #153
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,926
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's not a valid point in the discrete space. So what do you do? Round it?
You have to tell us. To analyze a model the model has to cover the points being analyzed. This is the point I was trying to make to you earlier.

For example, in what appears to be the real world where the degree of quantization is tiny if it exists then you could have a rule that simply distributes any conserved quantity across the newly occupied cells such that macroscopically it's the same net distribution.

And you can't get a way with "assume all others things are equal". You can't do that because that would completely obscure the fact that our observationally based laws already have quantization or continuity baked in to them.
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 28th March 2022, 07:22 AM   #154
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by Thorkil2 View Post
OK, I realize I'm setting myself up here because I have read part of this conversation, but not all of it, so perhaps I missed something important, but the quoted question really makes no sense. Diagonal in relation to what? Motion--or even just a line--can be diagonal only within some artificially defined coordinate system, so any rules about diagonal motion are dependent on the specified framework. I'm not sure why the question would be an issue in quantized space or space-time, but as I say, perhaps I missed something.

That said, i will now attempt to stumble--uh, bow out gracefully.
As I mentioned before vectors can be deconstructed to sub-vectors or combined into a singular vector. That's why your defined coordinate system doesn't matter it can always be broken down and/or rebuilt into some other coordinate system. That's what coordinate transformation is all about. Even in just basic calculation in a single coordinate system you put things in terms of your selected axes X(n), Y(n) & Z(n). As such, diagonal motion is just the combinations of motions along your defined axes. Mike Helland's problem was two fold, what was being considered wasn't a discrete space but a continuous space that only allowed motion along its grid lines. Kind of like if you could only move along the grid lines of a piece of graph paper. That's why he claimed diagonal motion had to be faster than motion along an axis. That's the second problem, summing linearly as opposed to vectorially. So a 1m/s velocity at 45 degrees relative to the X and Y axes breaks down to 0.707 m/s in X and 0.707 m/s in Y. It's just a bit slower in both axes because it has moved in both of them over the interval of time.

Better yet just think of it in terms of spherical coordinates (r, θ, φ). r being a distance that is multiples of your base length while θ and φ are any angle you want. As such the concept of any angular limitation simply and more apparently vanishes.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 28th March 2022 at 07:25 AM. Reason: added sub brackets & 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 28th March 2022, 07:41 AM   #155
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,384
Originally Posted by Thorkil2 View Post
OK, I realize I'm setting myself up here because I have read part of this conversation, but not all of it, so perhaps I missed something important, but the quoted question really makes no sense. Diagonal in relation to what? Motion--or even just a line--can be diagonal only within some artificially defined coordinate system, so any rules about diagonal motion are dependent on the specified framework. I'm not sure why the question would be an issue in quantized space or space-time, but as I say, perhaps I missed something.

That said, i will now attempt to stumble--uh, bow out gracefully.
Mike is postulating a quantized space made up of packed polyhedra - hexahedra, specifically. This necessarily means that traversing between any two quanta of space will requiring traveling a different distance depending on the axis of travel. At a constant velocity, we should expect some trips to take longer than others, in an axis-dependent way. But we do not observe this.

The reasonable conclusion is that space is not quantized as packed polyhedra. But Mike seems to have something else in mind for his idea. It should really have its own thread, though, since this one is about Nakani's idea. Such as it is.
__________________
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 28th March 2022, 07:48 AM   #156
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,590
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Mike is postulating a quantized space made up of packed polyhedra - hexahedra, specifically. This necessarily means that traversing between any two quanta of space will requiring traveling a different distance depending on the axis of travel. At a constant velocity, we should expect some trips to take longer than others, in an axis-dependent way. But we do not observe this.

The reasonable conclusion is that space is not quantized as packed polyhedra. But Mike seems to have something else in mind for his idea. It should really have its own thread, though, since this one is about Nakani's idea. Such as it is.
Also there is the consideration of it having a rigid structure. With space-time seething with quantum fluctuations as you approach the Planck scale any notion of rigidity vanishes. Coordinate values change as the geometry of space-time changes though the object itself doesn't move. Least as I recall from LQG.
__________________
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 28th March 2022, 11:22 AM   #157
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
For example, in what appears to be the real world where the degree of quantization is tiny if it exists then you could have a rule that simply distributes any conserved quantity across the newly occupied cells such that macroscopically it's the same net distribution.
How would you code that rule?

Does it only handle 45 degree angles, or every angle within our measurable precision?
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 28th March 2022, 11:29 AM   #158
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,926
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
How would you code that rule?

Does it only handle 45 degree angles, or every angle within our measurable precision?
The rule I just cited doesn't have anything to do with angles.
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 28th March 2022, 11:35 AM   #159
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
The rule I just cited doesn't have anything to do with angles.
Ok. So how would you code that rule?
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 28th March 2022, 11:37 AM   #160
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But Mike seems to have something else in mind for his idea.
Wut? No.

This isn't my idea.

I just said I didn't understand how the OP's idea would work.

Ya'll acting like the Fresh Prince.
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 09:44 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.