| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Des" |
| Date: |
29 Jul 2007 09:15:53 AM |
| Object: |
Reality blinks on and off, why not? |
Hi,
How do you refute this hypothesis that reality blinks on and off
every planck time.. alternatively.. one cycle spacetime is
there, the next cycle spacetime changes to its non-manifold
nature, then another cycle spacetime exists, etc.?
des
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Reality blinks on and off, why not? |
29 Jul 2007 09:40:29 AM |
|
|
Des wrote:
How do you refute this hypothesis that reality blinks on and off
every planck time.. alternatively.. one cycle spacetime is
there, the next cycle spacetime changes to its non-manifold
nature, then another cycle spacetime exists, etc.?
The same way one confirms or refutes string theory.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Reality blinks on and off, why not? |
29 Jul 2007 10:02:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:15:53 -0700, Des wrote:
Hi,
How do you refute this hypothesis that reality blinks on and off
every planck time.. alternatively.. one cycle spacetime is
there, the next cycle spacetime changes to its non-manifold
nature, then another cycle spacetime exists, etc.?
des
If you mean that space blinks in and out of existence, then the hypothesis
would conflict with special relativity. That's because according to
special relativity, simultaneity is relative, so the events in one blink
would be simultaneous in one frame but not in others. Thus you'd get a
preferred reference frame, contradicting relativity.
It is possible that special relativity is only approximately true, and that
more sensitive experiments will be able to detect a preferred frame. In
order to test the hypothesis, you'd need a more detailed model so you could
predict how large the deviations from special relativity would be.
But there are a lot of experiments underway with the goal of testing
special relativity more accurately (often called tests of Lorentz
invariance), and much of it has been inspired by theories that discretize
spacetime.
--
Jim E. Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "Des" |
|
| Title: Re: Reality blinks on and off, why not? |
29 Jul 2007 10:33:23 PM |
|
|
On Jul 30, 11:02 am, Jim Black <trams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:15:53 -0700, Des wrote:
Hi,
How do you refute this hypothesis that reality blinks on and off
every planck time.. alternatively.. one cycle spacetime is
there, the next cycle spacetime changes to its non-manifold
nature, then another cycle spacetime exists, etc.?
des
If you mean that space blinks in and out of existence, then the hypothesis
would conflict with special relativity. That's because according to
special relativity, simultaneity is relative, so the events in one blink
would be simultaneous in one frame but not in others. Thus you'd get a
preferred reference frame, contradicting relativity.
Of course, why didn't I think of that.
It is possible that special relativity is only approximately true, and that
more sensitive experiments will be able to detect a preferred frame. In
order to test the hypothesis, you'd need a more detailed model so you could
predict how large the deviations from special relativity would be.
If special relativity holds and accurate up to planck length with no
deviations. Then there seems to be only one possibility left.. time
symmetry....
1. Wheeler has advanced and retarded waves in EM
2. Cramer has similar interpretation in QM
3. Feynman suggests positrons could be electrons moving
from the past...
4. etc.
The above are all valid physics concepts. Hence it may all boil down
to time symmetries and this means the past can still be changed...
in case Mind is a fundamental reality or God's frame has any
validity (anyway, we can just treat God as order of the universe
responsible for the extreme fine tuning of the forces of nature...
without God, one has to invoke multiple universes to explain the
anthropic principle... so Razor Occam's says Intelligent Design may
be more plausible than Multiple Universes... come on, I still
can't imagine that there are other universes close to ours with
the constants of nature slightly diffferent... this is excess
Baggage as Wheeler said so Intelligent Design may be more
plausible and simpler concept).
But there are a lot of experiments underway with the goal of testing
special relativity more accurately (often called tests of Lorentz
invariance), and much of it has been inspired by theories that discretize
spacetime.
Will look forward to the above tests. I still prefer lorentz violation
than time symmetry in macroscopic sense.
des
--
Jim E. Black
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
