Re: A question of discrete space-time, part 3

Igor Khavkine wrote:

> Altough, neither of these three statements is unreasonable, they are
> not new either. Moreover, their validity does not necessitate the
> presence of a space-time lattice. For example, both loop quantum gravity
> and string theory predict some sort of fundamental granularity of space
> on the Planck scale, although neither uses a lattice.
>
> Unfortunately, neither of these three effects has yet been observed. In
> absence of experimental evidence, they are hypotheses. A lattice is
> aother hypothesis that reproduces the other three. But as I mentioned
> above, it is not unique in that respect. To be distinguished from other
> proposals, a lattice theory must make more predictions.
>
> People have been thinking about lattices and cellular automata for a
> long time (think Stephen Wolfram, Ed Fredkin, etc.). There's even been a
> newsgroup created to discuss discrete physics models
> (sci.physics.discrete). If you hope to get some of your work published,
> you must first make sure that it is indeed original. For that, there is
> no substitute beside doing an extensive literature search.

Dear Igor,

Thank you for your advice.

The journal rejections so far seem to be on the basis of being too
speculative, rather than a lack of originality.

I am aware of, but not terribly familiar with Stephen Wolfram's work.
I also know of Ed Fredkin, and that he used to be a frequent newsgroup
contributor. However, I haven't seen any newsgroup postings by him
since 2003. Is he still active? I would like to have had his comments
on this thread.

I also know about sci.physics.discrete and have tried to post there,
but that newsgroup seems to have died out in January 2005, and is no
longer active.

It bears repeating that I'm not trying to convince anyone of the merits
of a discrete space-time over continuum physics, so much as trying to
study how a discrete space-time (if there were one) would behave, and
to develop a comprehensive and self-consistent model, if only to see if
it can be done. Any and all guidance or suggestions from the group
would be truly appreciated, especially regarding anything that seems to
be self-contradictory or contrary to nature.

Of course, nature is whatever it is, and it is up to us to try and
determine what that choice was. If nature did in fact choose a
continuum, then I am a crackpot and doomed to failure. If space-time
is in fact discrete, then, as has been said before - extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proofs.

In the meantime, I'd like to continue to focus squarely on the
hypothesis of a fixed lattice of space-time quanta (STQ), in order to
see how far this postulate can be taken, and what emergent properties
it might yield:

The three basic postulates of this thread (a discrete space-time,
contiguous world-lines with no dups or gaps, and a probability of
motion between 0 and 1 inclusive) may be just educated guesses, but
they are rather simple, and not very original.

Emergent property #1 - a maximum speed that cannot be exceeded. This
may be important, but it is certainly not original.

Emergent property #2 - the speed of a particle with 100% probability of
motion will not vary with the speed of its source, and consequently
this maximum speed is a constant from any frame of reference. This
relativistic property of discrete space-time, derived from textbook
probability, may be original or not - I'm not sure.

Emergent property #3 - the Lorentz equation for adding velocity, with
increased mass at increased velocity. This relativistic property of
discrete space-time, derived from textbook probability, I believe is an
original and novel derivation.

Emergent property #4 - an uncertainty principle, that is, a tradeoff
between measuring a particle's velocity and its position, where the
product of the two uncertainties is a constant. This quantum
mechanical property of discrete space-time, derived from textbook
probability, then linking discrete space-time to the Planck scale, also
using textbook probability, I believe is an original and novel
derivation.

Frankly, I'm surprised that one can (apparently) derive such
fundamental aspects of both relativity and quantum mechanics from a
model of discrete space-time, based on three rather simple postulates,
and using common textbook probability. This seems to provide hope of
finding a basis for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics, by
proposing a discrete space-time at the Planck scale.

Nevertheless, I am painfully aware that the validity of any of the
above does not, as you said, necessitate the presence of a space-time
lattice. I find myself in the somewhat awkward position of trying to
determine some emergent properties of a discrete space-time model to
see if they agree with existing continuum physics while at the same
time hoping to find one that is in agreement, but different enough to
be the basis of a concrete testable prediction.

Begging the group's indulgence, I have a couple more emergent
properties to propose, which may prove to be interesting.

Regards,
Ed Hanna

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A question of discrete space-time, part 3
    ... although neither uses a lattice. ... rather than a lack of originality. ... of a discrete space-time over continuum physics, ... Emergent property #1 - a maximum speed that cannot be exceeded. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: A question of discrete space-time, part 2
    ... >>discrete space-time. ... If the lattice ... Feynman checkerboard where a hypothetical playing piece has a ... Ed Hanna ...
    (sci.physics.research)