scumble

Are you sure you're not confusing geometry and reality?

xorbie

I am not so sure that space is continuous... perhaps I am mis-interpreting quanum theory, but isn't it meaningless to speak of distances smaller than a certain distance?

paul30

Albert Cipriani is right.

Neither time nor cause can be shown to exist.

They are merely mental constructs to explain perceived changes.

Time is much like the old "ether." In the 19th Century it was thought that since light behaved like a wave, there must be some "substance" that carried the wave--the putative "ether."

Experiment after experiment showed there was no such thing.

Time is similar. It is not a thing "out there" that behaves independently of perception, but a way of organizing perceptions "inside" us.

The fact that we tend to agree on it makes it seem more concrete than it is; but that is an accident of our similar brain-structures.

Ditto cause.

Nowhere357

Interesting discussion. If we see time as a measurement of change - matter moving through space - then the question reduces to whether matter moving through space is continuous or discrete.

I don't know the answer to that, but I note that there is no intermediate between the energy levels in an atom, that is a subatomic "particle" moves to a higher "orbit" apparently without actually crossing the space between the orbits. I'm not sure if this is the basis for the Planck constant?

Anyway, this would seem to suggest that space is ultimately discrete. Granular, so to speak.

Quantum Ninja

As scumble pointed out already, how do you know geometry is 100% accurate description of reality? Space could be "pixelated", like the monitor on which you're reading this.


That's a good point. I never really thought about comparing the cardinality of space and time, but I think you're right. But I still don't think there's any solid proof that either of them is continous or discrete at this point.

sophie

Have a look at these diagrams and let me know of any realistic responses.

• http://www.notrich.org/TIME/tdtdraw.bmp
• http://www.notrich.org/TIME/tdtdraw2.bmp
• http://www.notrich.org/TIME/tdtdraw3.bmp

To prelude your understanding of these diagrams, one must understand the fabric of space time. One must understand the differences between classical physics, atomic physics and quantum mechanics.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Ninja,
You say:A continuum cannot exist because space is not infinitely divisible. Tho infinite progression through space is conceivable, infinite division of space is not.

At some "point" in the supposed continuum, the subatomic particle is either here or there and cannot be inbetween here and there. There is no there inbetween here or there that is possible. Ergo, the particle does not "move" from here to there but is recreated there while eternally remaining right where it was. Ditto for us. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Quantum Ninja

And how, may I ask, do you know all of this?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Ninja,
As Shaltz in "Hogan's Heros" was fond of saying, "I knnnow Nuthing!"

But the first law of opposition in logic states: "Contradictories cannot be at the same time true and at the same time false." This truth in the relm of logic seems applicable to the relm of physics: Our universe should not be in contradiction with itself. It should not be able to both exist and not exist at the same time. But every instance of our universe seems to involve its existence AND its anihilation. The entire universe ceases to exist at the same femtosecond that it is ascertained to exist.

If you feel comfortable with this paradox, continue to believe that the mere convention we call "time" is actually a metaphysical reality. And continue to apply its intellectual bandaids of "past," "present," and "future" to the open wound that is creation. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Nowhere357

I wonder what realistic response you get from the diagrams? Personally, I didn't get anything from them, but I didn't know what I was looking for.

Also, what in your view is the difference between "atomic physics" and "quantum mechanics"?