Can We Talk of Points of Space?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter misster y
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Points Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of points in space, questioning whether they exist as physical entities or are merely conceptual tools. Participants explore implications for physics and mathematics, including the uncertainty of positions and the relationship between space and matter-energy. The scope includes conceptual and philosophical considerations rather than strict mathematical or physical conclusions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that points are not physical objects but rather concepts, raising questions about the implications for defining positions in space.
  • Others argue that if points are merely tools for bookkeeping, then the concept of a precise position for a particle may also be questioned.
  • A participant suggests that the absence of points in noncommutative geometry indicates that a functional framework can exist without them.
  • There is a discussion about whether space itself is a concept, with some asserting that it is perceived through relationships with other objects, while others challenge this view.
  • One participant highlights that physics and mathematics often use the same terms with different definitions, prompting a need for clarity on what is meant by "point" or "space."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of points and space, with no consensus reached on whether points exist as physical entities or are purely conceptual. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of definitions and the potential for confusion between mathematical and physical interpretations of terms like "point" and "space." There is also an emphasis on the dependence of arguments on specific frameworks, such as noncommutative geometry.

misster y
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello, I'm new here, excuse my english...
Are there points in our space?
If there are not, as it seems obviously if space was (is) created since big-bang (can points be created?), the consecuences are strong.
For example, we deduce inmediately the uncertainty of positions --if there are not points, there are not (x,y,z)--, every function f(x,y,z) is approximate, the space is not continuos, we are not in R^3 but in Q^n, etc...
What do you think?

Llorenç Balsach
http://www.webcom.com/musics/escrits.htm

"The matter-energy is not inside a space-time, but the space-time is a manifestation of the matter-energy"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
"Points" are not physical objects- they are concepts.

As far as saying "every function f(x,y,z) is approximate", well of course that's true.

You seem to be confusing physics with mathematics!
 
misster y said:
the consecuences are strong...

Meh...

Math are tools, models, you use the ones that serve your purpose. In my case, f(x,y,z) is just fine.
 
HallsofIvy said:
"Points" are not physical objects- they are concepts.
Is space also a concept?
We see the matter but also feel the space!
I points are a concept then the position (x,y,z) of matter is another concept not a reality.
But I can do the question with other words: Can we talk of points of space? Can we apply this absolute concept in physics?
This is an axioma that never appears in the books of physics!
 
Last edited:
Points are basically a tool for our bookkeeping. They do not correspond to any physical structure. The fact that laws of nature seem to be diffeomorphism invariant strongly supports this position.
 
ahrkron said:
Points are basically a tool for our bookkeeping. They do not correspond to any physical structure.
Yes, I agree.
But, let me insist: if points are a tool for our bookkeeping, what is a punctual position of a particle? It is also a tool?, have a particle a position?, my idea is that there is not an exact-punctual position but not due to the uncertainly principle nor to our medition instruments but because there are not points, there are not a point to assign a position --nor instants--. There are not (conceptual) points in our space as in maths. In the fundaments of physics, what is the definition of the position of matter?
For me all this is due that the matter-energy is not inside a space-time, but is the space-time that is a manifestation of a matter-energy!
 
There are no points in noncommutative geometry and it still works quite good.
 
misster y said:
Is space also a concept?
We see the matter but also feel the space!

A "space" is a geometric concept. It is usually considered a plenum (which should answer your original question).

You say we can "feel the space"...I disagree. I know that we can conceive of space -- indeed, of many spaces -- but I don't think perception of space is anything more than relating yourself to some other "observer" (IOW, without two reference points, would you still "feel the space"?).
 
ahrkron said:
Points are basically a tool for our bookkeeping. They do not correspond to any physical structure. The fact that laws of nature seem to be diffeomorphism invariant strongly supports this position.
Could you explain a bit about what 'diffeomorphism invariant' means?
 
  • #10
This link takes you to a section of Carlo Rovelli's "living review" on Loop Quantum Gravity exactly on that issue:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1/node11.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
misster y said:
Is space also a concept?
We see the matter but also feel the space!
I points are a concept then the position (x,y,z) of matter is another concept not a reality.
But I can do the question with other words: Can we talk of points of space? Can we apply this absolute concept in physics?
This is an axioma that never appears in the books of physics!

If you are going to talk about "points" and "space" in this way, then I have to ask "what is YOUR definition of 'point' or 'space'". The fact is that physics and mathematics often use the same terms with DIFFERENT definitions. Which are you using?
 

Similar threads

High School I Need Help on Understanding Some Basic Astrophysics / Sand Clock Universe
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Undergrad How Does the Balloon Analogy Explain the Expansion of the Universe?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
High School Contradictions in the Distribution of Gamma-Ray Bursts
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Undergrad How Many Unique Points Exist in a Region of Space?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate Question on possible dark matter classification
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Why is the observed local region of space flat?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Number of ways of arranging 7 characters in 7 spaces
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Are Space and Time Just an Illusion in General Relativity?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
High School Did the Big Bang create space and time?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Graduate How Can We Harness the Power of Space Elevators and Atmospheric Electricity?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K