Recent content by swissgirl1999 Refer

I think that humans are intelligent beings, so, if, for more than a century, cosmology and QM don' t speak the same language, i.e., the discrete ontology of Nobel award physicists (including Einstein himself) does not fit with cosmological observations, if GR and QM are incompatible, if nobody...

You' re right again, but why should it be? Physics (and science) provides the background for physical ontology. So my argument, even though philosophical, doesn' t deviate from the fact of receiving physics' theoretical answers to ontological questions. Correct me if I'm wrong again, but my...

You`re right, I over stated and generalized and it may sound offensive, so I`m sorry for that; however, my point, to be more precise, is — physicists often respond with theories to ontological questions. "We don’t use discrete spacetime because it doesn’t work. Yet" — that's the right attitude...

physical ontology is physics, not phili physical ontology is physics, not philosophy...

I totally agree with you, nevertheless, my point is about ontology and not engineering... Cosmology or QM may always use continuous models 'cause they really work; I'm not also claiming spacetime must be discrete, I'm just asking why both models don't have the same approach on ontology...

At the cost of making physical ontology incompatible with theories that claim that the universe has fundamental laws that differ according to scale; who tells the photon how far it can jump? If the space inside the atom is non-continuous, why should it be continuous between molecules, and so...

The Nobel Prize-winning experiments that form the observational foundation of Modern Physics consistently point toward discreteness rather than continuity. I did not find an equivalent (or any at all) body of direct observation supporting the continuity axiom. Here is a non-exhaustive list of...