Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[viole]

It appeared to be as nothing. Moses did not know "quantum physics," but his description was apt. Not good for nothing. It's just like the description of the earth before God started to make it habitable for men. Barren. Void. But it WAS filled with rocks, kind of like the moon, there WAS a sphere with something. So if you want to quibble over words, go for it. I'm not going to play too much in that game because it seems very clear to me (even though I wear glasses) that what Moses wrote about the earth hanging on nothing is a very good description. You want to fight about it? Not me, count me out if there are numbers for that. God was always there. Before anything.

The earth is not hanging on nothing. In the same way a stone in a slingshot does not hang on nothing.

ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

Not meaningful without specific citation and quotes..

1. Pick any book or article on quantum mechanics.

2. Do the equations in that book or article use derivatives and integrals (continuous) or differences and sums (discontinuous)?

Most of the theories that propose quantized space and/or time actually assume a continuous background spacetime. It is just the measurements that are quantized. The only proposals I know of where this is not the case is quantum loop gravity. But, again, that is pure speculation at this point. It is certainly NOT accepted science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Except it doesn't say a single thing about any difference between time at the 'quantum scale' and time on a large scale. Did you even read it? If you read it, did you understand it at all?

It's an interesting enough article about some (untested) theoretical work that suggests that gravity can contribute to decoherence but it doesn't say anything at all about quantised space-time.

What part of it specifically do you think supports your idea?


In that case you are talking about something that standard quantum mechanics simply does not cover. As I said, quantum mechanics always uses continuous space and time - as any textbook and any (reputable) introduction to the subject you can find anywhere will confirm.

So we're again back to asking for a single, solitary reference from you that supports your view as current, accepted science.

Stonewalling out of ignorance and ignoring references, and providing references that are not relevant gets you nowhere. More to follow.

 

[shunyadragon]

1. Pick any book or article on quantum mechanics.

2. Do the equations in that book or article use derivatives and integrals (continuous) or differences and sums (discontinuous)?

Most of the theories that propose quantized space and/or time actually assume a continuous background spacetime. It is just the measurements that are quantized. The only proposals I know of where this is not the case is quantum loop gravity. But, again, that is pure speculation at this point. It is certainly NOT accepted science.

No reliable reference provided for any proposal of a continuous space time in the Quantum smallest scale. Just word salad referring to books.

 

[shunyadragon]

!!!! OK, you have just shown that you know nothing AT ALL about the subject. The hydrogen atom is one of the first actual applications of quantum mechanics. In sense, it defines what the quantum level is.

The reference provided concerning the Hydrogen atom only referred to Quantum behavior on the large scale of atoms and electrons and NOT Quantum behavior on the smallest scale of Quantum particles

 

[exchemist]

Not meaningful without specific citation and quotes..

On the basis of your logic, you can claim quantum theory relies on egg sandwiches. After all, neither I nor @Polymath257 can give you a citation explicitly denying it.

 

[viole]

No reliable reference provided for any proposal of a continuous space time in the Quantum smallest scale. Just word salad referring to books.

The most successful theory we have, and ever had, which is quantum field theory, is a synthesis of QM with special relativity, and classical fields. If spacetime in QM were not continuous, then that synthesis would have been impossible, since special relativity definitely assumes a continuous spacetime.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The most successful theory we have, and ever had, which is quantum field theory, is a synthesis of QM with special relativity, and classical fields. If spacetime in QM were not continuous, then that synthesis would have been impossible, since special relativity definitely assumes a continuous spacetime.

ciao

- viole

Evidence as evidence that is successful?
I mean I took out my text book on the scientific natural theory of successful and calibrated my successful meter and measured you. I got the result back of nonsense and thus it is with evidence I conclude that successful is nonsense. Just as you know that I am drinking, right?
Now I suggest that you learn to differentiate between objective and subjective.

Now I get how as an emotion it is successful, but so is a lot of human behavior.

 

[viole]

I conclude that successful is nonsense.

successful means that it become science. No matter what you think of science, and its epistemic value, the claim is analytically true, because the definition of science includes matching of the theory with observations.

and since the debate here is whether established science assumes a continuous spacetime or not, this observation of yours is irrelevant.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

successful means that it become science. No matter what you think of science, and its epistemic value, the claim is analytically true, because the definition of science includes matching of the theory with observations.

and since the debate here is whether established science assumes a continuous spacetime or not, this observation of yours is irrelevant.

ciao

- viole

There are other definitions of science than yours. You are subjective for your culture. I am also subjective for my culture for which definitions I use for science.
Remember this. The moment you go subjective and claim a subjective definition of a human behavior. I.e. humans do science, I can catch you.
Yes, natural science is useful, but that is a subjective evaluation.
The bold one tells it all. It is in part culture.

 

[ratiocinator]

Stonewalling out of ignorance and ignoring references, and providing references that are not relevant gets you nowhere.

This is getting comical. "Stonewalling out of ignorance" seems to sum up your entire attitude here. I asked a very specific question: what part of the article specifically do you think supports your idea? You ignored it.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you actually did know something of the subject and had just got a bit confused between speculation and current, accepted theory, but after you posted that article supposedly in support of your ideas when it didn't say anything remotely relevant, has led me to believe that you really don't understand it at all.

The reference provided concerning the Hydrogen atom only referred to Quantum behavior on the large scale of atoms and electrons and NOT Quantum behavior on the smallest scale of Quantum particles

That's exactly what quantum mechanics deals with in terms of scale. You get quantised energy levels because the wavelengths of the wavefunctions are significant at the scale of atoms. You start with a 'particle in a box' because its easy to visualise and the mathematics is relatively simple, but the principle is the same in an atom, it's just you have to use spherical harmonics, instead of a simple picture like this:

Particle in a box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you're talking about smaller scales, down to the Planck length, for example, you simply run out of theories. It all becomes speculation.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evidence as evidence that is successful?
I mean I took out my text book on the scientific natural theory of successful and calibrated my successful meter and measured you. I got the result back of nonsense and thus it is with evidence I conclude that successful is nonsense.

Here we go again...

Successful means that it successfully predicts the outcome of experiments and observations. That's it. There is no subjectivity in that. It either works at making predictions or it doesn't.

 

[Polymath257]

Stonewalling out of ignorance and ignoring references, and providing references that are not relevant gets you nowhere. More to follow.

No, the article you gave has nothing at all to do with your claims about discontinuous spacetime in quantum theory. if you think otherwise, please point out where the article supports your contention.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here we go again...

Successful means that it successfully predicts the outcome of experiments and observations. That's it. There is no subjectivity in that. It either works at making predictions or it doesn't.

Well @viole knows that I am drunk and knows that over the Internet, so stay out of that one.
So if she can use negative projections on me, I will just taunt her.

 

[Polymath257]

No reliable reference provided for any proposal of a continuous space time in the Quantum smallest scale. Just word salad referring to books.

Sorry, but books are a good way to learn what quantum theory actually says. As opposed, of course, to popular articles for the lay person.

 

[Audie]

!!!! OK, you have just shown that you know nothing AT ALL about the subject. The hydrogen atom is one of the first actual applications of quantum mechanics. In sense, it defines what the quantum level is.



It is literally all through the book. They don't mention it because it is simply assumed.

Your friend misoverestimates himself

 

[Polymath257]

No reliable reference provided for any proposal of a continuous space time in the Quantum smallest scale. Just word salad referring to books.

OK, give a reference for an *accepted* theory proposing discontinuous space/time at the smallest scale.

Not just a hypothesis that has not been tested, but something genrally accepted as valid by those doing research in the subject.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your friend misoverestimates himself

Yeah, that is an old one and has nothing to do with religion or not.

 

[Polymath257]

The reference provided concerning the Hydrogen atom only referred to Quantum behavior on the large scale of atoms and electrons and NOT Quantum behavior on the smallest scale of Quantum particles

The smallest *accepted* theory is the Standard model of particle physics. And it assumes a continuous spacetime background. A good reference for that is Peskin&Schroder. Another is Weinberg's books on Quantum Field Theory.

Of course, these books don't specifically comment on the fact that they assume spacetime is continuous. Why not? because it is clear from the first things they write. They have, for example, quadruple integrals over regions of spacetime. And that alone says they assume spacetime is continuous.

You have rejected standard texts on the subject. Exactly what do you want?

 

[Polymath257]

No reliable reference provided for any proposal of a continuous space time in the Quantum smallest scale. Just word salad referring to books.

And precisely why is the book by Peskin&Schroder not reliable?