Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime
zzbunker_at_netscape.net
Date: 03/20/05
- Next message: Schoenfeld: "Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime"
- Previous message: FrediFizzx: "Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime"
- In reply to: Jack Martinelli: "Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime"
- Next in thread: GR_GR: "Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 19 Mar 2005 21:38:36 -0800
Jack Martinelli wrote:
> I prefer discrete space over Minkowski's 4-D space-time.
>
> Discrete space pros:
>
> 1. Time emerges naturally as an observable (as does mass). (I.e.,
neither
> are meta-physical)
> 2. There is a natural 1:1 correspondence of "frame" / "space-object"
and
> quantum. (Particles are compact topologies.)
> 3. The laws of physics (Newton's anyway & conservation of Boson #)
are
> easily derived from an n-frame theory and include discrete phenomena
as well
> as continuous.
> 4. There are not two kinds of fundamental existents (space &
particles).
> There is only one. The unbounded frame. But there are n of them.
> 5. It is clearly "background" free. (see Loop Quantum Gravity. Lee
> Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" will help.)
> 6. Its simplicity leads to some very elegant Math.
> 7. Gravity is simple to derive.
> 8. Special relativity is simple to explain -- especially the twin
paradox.
> 9. Explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe is trivial.
> 10. The natural unit of a frame is identical to Compton's wavelength
and or
> a unit of proper length.
> 11. No hand waving.
> 12. No point clocks.
> 13. No singularities. (there are black holes though -- they just
don't have
> singularities.)
>
>
> Discrete space cons:
>
> 1. Its a new idea. People resist change.
> 2. The mathematical topology of n-frame-space is under-developed (a
point is
> not unique in n-frame space).
> 3. It is counter to one of the main ideas of Einstein. That of a
space-time
> continuum. (Einstein reversed his opinion on this one though. See
his intro
> to Max Jammer's "Concepts of Space". But too many don't get what
Einstein
> said. -- "There is no space without field.".
> 4. It is counter intuitive. We see space as a container for
particles. We
> see them as two fundamentally different existents.
> 6. It just sounds weird -- Its heresy to some.
> 7. Its poorly developed compared to QM or String Theory.
> 8. Cosmologists don't like it. (The big bang goes away. Is that a
con or a
> pro? )
> 9. Nobody will talk to you if you discuss it.
> 10. Its hard to think of more cons.
> 11. Imagine how arrogant you'll sound trying to tackle such a
problem!
>
> Can anyone add other pro's or con's? Or how about pros & cons for
> Minkowski's space-time?
Con: For every space X in mathematics,
discrete(X) implies X is a
suck-up theory to Goedel's Theorem,
just like the Internet is.
Pro: Minskowski space-time is not only wrong,
it's dead wrong.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jack Martinelli
>
> http://www.martinelli.org
- Next message: Schoenfeld: "Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime"
- Previous message: FrediFizzx: "Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime"
- In reply to: Jack Martinelli: "Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime"
- Next in thread: GR_GR: "Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|