Trouble for discrete space-time?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Eh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Discrete Space-time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a recent article on discrete space-time and its relationship to quantum mechanics and relativity. Participants explore the discrepancies between theoretical and measured energy densities of spacetime, the validity of predictions made by existing theories, and the potential role of new unified field theories and string theory in addressing these issues.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant highlights a significant disagreement between the theoretical energy density of spacetime and the measured value, suggesting this needs to be explained.
  • Another participant argues that the article misrepresents existing theories, asserting that quantum mechanics and relativity do not predict the "blurring" of light mentioned, and that current theories remain consistent with experimental evidence.
  • There is a suggestion that the vacuum energy problem may stem from a misunderstanding or lack of integration between quantum mechanics and general relativity, raising questions about the nature of vacuum energy itself.
  • A different viewpoint introduces string theory as a potential explanation for fluctuations in spacetime, noting that these fluctuations occur at scales smaller than the Planck length, which may not be observable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the article's claims and the implications for existing theories. There is no consensus on the existence or interpretation of the vacuum energy problem, nor on the accuracy of the article's representation of theoretical predictions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves complex theoretical concepts that may not be fully resolved, particularly regarding the integration of quantum mechanics and general relativity, and the interpretation of energy density measurements.

Astronomy news on Phys.org
One must first explain the disagreement between the theoretical energy density of spacetime, 1093 gm/cm3, and the measured value, 10-28 gm/cm3.
 
The cited reference is not the article. It is a paraphrase of the paper, and the paraphrasing is not accurate at all.

Quantum mechanics (QM) does not predict any kind of blurring of light as described in the article. Relativity does not make that prediction either. So failure to detect the "blurring" experimentally is not a problem for existing accepted theory.

On the other hand, such blurring may be a prediction of some of the new classes of unified field theories which are being floated. If so, such theories might be ruled out by this experiment.

Essentially, QM has managed to fend off 75 years of attacks from all quarters. Current theory is remarkably consistent with all experimental evidence. As to the comment about energy density being off by 135 powers of 10, I don't think this is a disparity that everyone agrees even exists. But I guess it is open to debate.
 
The vacuum energy problem is more of a desire than a fact. Physicists would like to think that they can compute vacuum energy density, so they devised a heuristic argument from QM and got that huge number... so the question is "is there really a huge vacuum energy we haven't detected", "does the idea of vacuum energy even make sense", or "what is the missing piece to the argument that gives reasonable results".


In all likelyhood, the "yes" answer goes to the last of those 3 questions, since it seems reasonable that an accurate vacumm energy theory would require general relativity which has resisted integration with quantum theories, so the heuristic argument breaks because it is based on a realm where we have no consistent theory.

Hurkyl
 
I haven't read the whole article, but String Theory could explain this. You see, Quantum Mechanics does predict powerful fluctuations of spacetime, but these occur at sizes smaller than a Planck's size. String Theory dictates that - while this would happen, at sizes smaller than a Planck's size - there is nothing smaller than a Planck's size.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K