Euclidean geometry doesn't exist?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of Euclidean geometry in the context of quantum physics, exploring whether Euclidean geometry can accurately describe real space or if alternative geometries, such as non-commutative or stochastic geometries, are necessary. Participants examine the implications of quantum mechanics on geometric concepts and the relationship between mathematics and physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that quantum physics indicates Euclidean geometry is artificial and cannot represent real space, proposing the need for a "quantum geometry" based on probabilities.
  • Another participant introduces non-commutative geometry, which involves non-commuting objects in a manifold, suggesting it may relate to quantum mechanics.
  • A participant argues that Euclidean geometry is a mathematical construct, separate from physics, while another counters that it models everyday experiences well but has limitations outside its domain.
  • There is a question about the necessity of non-commutative geometry in quantum mechanics, with some uncertainty expressed regarding its relationship to complex space.
  • One participant expresses a belief that quantum mechanics may require a stochastic geometry due to the granular nature of space at small dimensions, contrasting it with the sufficiency of Euclidean geometry at larger scales.
  • A later reply emphasizes that quantum mechanics should not be approached with classical thinking, suggesting that it is more about manipulating information than implying a granular structure of reality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between Euclidean geometry and physics, with some asserting it is purely mathematical while others argue for its physical relevance. The necessity of alternative geometries in quantum mechanics remains contested, with no consensus reached on the implications of quantum theory for geometric frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of Euclidean geometry in the context of quantum physics and the potential need for new geometrical frameworks, but do not resolve the mathematical or conceptual challenges involved.

K1NS
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
As a newbie, I apologize if this topic has been discussed before.

It seems to me that one result of quantum physics is that Euclidean geometry is artificial and cannot be represented in real space. For example, there can be no such thing as a straight line in granular quantum space.

And Euclid's fifth postulate, that parallel lines never meet, becomes false. Why? Because of random variations in space, lines are not straight, but they would "wobble," albeit at tiny Planck distances. But over an infinite distance, they would meet and diverge an infinite number of times.

I believe we need a "quantum geometry" to describe space and time, where measurements, lines and angles are replaced by probabilities.

If this topic has been discussed here or elsewhere, I would appreciate a reference so I could read more.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's called non-commutative geometry. Basically it assumes that the elements of a manifold are non-commuting objects, i.e. the different components of the coordinates satsify some commutation relation:

[ x_i, x_j] = i \theta_{ij}

where the object on the right needs to be specified. Real coordinates would ofcourse commute.
 
Euclidean geometry is a branch of mathematics, not physics. How closely the real world (universe) comes to Euclidean geometry is a separate question.
 
I think Euclidean geometry is physics. It models the objects of everyday experience extremely well. Of course it fails outside of its domain of validity.
 
Sorry, but why does quantum mechanics need a non-commutative geometry? Is it because it is dealing complex space?
 
pythagoras88 said:
Sorry, but why does quantum mechanics need a non-commutative geometry? Is it because it is dealing complex space?

OP here.

I'm not sure if quantum mechanics needs a non-commutative geometry. That was xepma who said that. xepma may be right that non-commutative and stochastic geometries are the same, but I am not enough of a mathematician to know.

But I believe it needs a stochastic geometry, based on probabilities. It is not because we are dealing with complex space (although I'm not sure what you mean--multidimensional, with imaginary dimensions?), but because we are dealing with granular space, at least at very small dimensions. If spacetime is indeed granular, then straight lines would randomly "wobble" and measurements would be replaced by probabilities. It seems to me that Euclidean geometry may be sufficient for macro-space and for approximations of micro-space, but for small dimensions "quantum" geometry would have to supplant Euclidean geometry much as quantum mechanics supplanted Newtonian and Einsteinian physics at small dimensions.
 
I see... thanks for the explanation. I will go and do some read up on this!
 
Daverz said:
I think Euclidean geometry is physics. It models the objects of everyday experience extremely well. Of course it fails outside of its domain of validity.
Just because accountants use addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division does not mean that those operations are accounting rather than mathematics. Those concepts are mathematical concepts that happen to be very useful to accountants. Similarly, just because physicists use Euclidean geometry does not mean that Euclidean geometry is physics.

Euclidean geometry is mathematics, not physics. Whether Euclidean geometry does or does not exist in the "real world" is not necessarily relevant to mathematicians. Mathematics does not have to have any connection to the "real world" at all. In fact, a rather famous mathematician, G. H. Hardy, argued that the best mathematics has nothing to do with the "real world."
 
You are trying to think about Quantum mechanics in a classical way. Quantum mechanics is done differently, it is all about manipulating information. Quantum mechanics does not imply that the world is granular at some level rather it implies that our knowledge about the world has certain limits.

When you transfer to Hilbert space you can in fact think this way that you have said.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K