Is space is continuous or discrete?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of whether space is continuous or discrete, exploring theoretical implications, potential experiments, and the relationship between space and elementary particles. Participants consider various perspectives from physics, including string theory and particle physics, while also addressing the challenges of experimental validation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference physicist Lisa Randall's statement that the nature of space—continuous or discrete—remains unknown.
  • String theorists might argue that space occupied by theoretical strings suggests a discrete nature, though current technology cannot validate this idea.
  • There is speculation that extreme events in deep space could provide insights into the nature of space, but the energy required for experiments may exceed current capabilities at facilities like CERN.
  • One participant suggests that finding a particle that cannot be divided further could imply space is discrete, but others argue that this does not necessarily follow.
  • Discussion includes the idea that particles are perturbations in fields, leading to a perspective that space might be continuous, challenging the notion of discreteness as a linguistic construct.
  • Concerns are raised about the relevance of linguistic arguments to the physics discussion, with some participants asserting that such arguments do not pertain to the scientific inquiry at hand.
  • A participant mentions a summary by Ethan Siegel that may provide additional context on the quantization of space and time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on whether space is continuous or discrete, with no consensus reached. Some argue for the discrete nature based on theoretical frameworks, while others advocate for continuity based on field theories. The discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of current experimental capabilities and the high energy requirements for potential tests. There is also a recognition that discussions about the nature of particles and their existence may diverge from the main topic of space's continuity or discreteness.

Varsha Verma
Messages
47
Reaction score
2
I was watching a video where well known physicist Lisa Randall said that we still don't know whether space is continuous or discrete.

My question is, how do we find whether space is continuous or discrete?? What type of experiments are possible? Is it being done now??

I am thinking this may be connected to elementary particles. So, I am thinking like this: Space will be discrete if we ever found a particle that cannot be divided further. But then that particle also resides inside space, so how can we tell that SPACE is discrete??

How do we do it?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
String theorists might argue that space occupied by the theoretical strings is a discrete bit of space.
While string theory looks good mathematically, we have no technology at present which could validate the idea.
 
Varsha Verma said:
What type of experiments are possible?
From what I have read, the Energy needed to prove or disprove this is way in excess of what they can use in CERN etc.. I imagine that the answer may lie in observations of extreme events in deep space.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Varsha Verma
Varsha Verma said:
Space will be discrete if we ever found a particle that cannot be divided further.
We've found several kinds of particles that, as far as we know, cannot be divided further - electrons, for example. It doesn't follow that space is discrete.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Varsha Verma
sophiecentaur said:
From what I have read, the Energy needed to prove or disprove this is way in excess of what they can use in CERN etc.. I imagine that the answer may lie in observations of extreme events in deep space.
So, what is the experiment we can do if we assume we have this enormous energy??
 
Varsha Verma said:
So, what is the experiment we can do if we assume we have this enormous energy??
No idea but do most of us really understand how things like the Higgs Boson are detected by CERN? It's based on looking at the various energies of the products of high energy collisions. Higgs predicted a presence at a certain energy and they found it.
Perhaps looking for a variations in some of the expected spectra of very high energy products could imply spatial quantisation. On a very humdrum level, you can detect periodic variations along an RF feeder line by looking at the frequency response (it behaves like a temporal filter). However it's done (if ever) it will be very subtle on top of very subtle!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Varsha Verma
I thought [according to Sean Carrol et al] that particles don't exist - they are all perturbations in various fields..
 
MrFPercival said:
I thought [according to Sean Carrol et al] that particles don't exist - they are all perturbations in various fields..
These perturbations exist. These perturbations are particles. Therefore, particles exist. They just don't behave the way that our classical intuition, based on a lifetime of experience with bullets, beads, and other small solid objects, expects.

However, further discussion of what particles are is off-topic here and belongs in a thread of its own - but please review some of the many threads on this subject that we already have before starting a new one.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Varsha Verma
Nugatory said:
These perturbations exist. These perturbations are particles. Therefore, particles exist. They just don't behave the way that our classical intuition, based on a lifetime of experience with bullets, beads, and other small solid objects, expects.
However, further discussion of what particles are is off-topic here and belongs in a thread of its own - but please review some of the many threads on this subject that we already have before starting a new one.

Back on topic, as 'particles' are perturbations or mathematical snapshots of field vibrations I tend to think that space/spacetime is continuous or the universe is 'one'. Saying something is 'discrete' is a question of linguistics; language is discrete and uses atomic chunks [nouns etc] so we naturally attach labels to everything so we can process concepts and communicate. To 'know' is to atomise something into pieces which are then themselves believed to be 'real' or discrete. We need some sort of linguistic calculus to unpick it all.
 
  • #10
MrFPercival said:
Saying something is 'discrete' is a question of linguistics; language is discrete and uses atomic chunks [nouns etc] so we naturally attach labels to everything so we can process concepts and communicate. To 'know' is to atomise something into pieces which are then themselves believed to be 'real' or discrete. We need some sort of linguistic calculus to unpick it all.

Sorry, but it doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with physics.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K