Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is Spacetime smooth?

  1. Jul 6, 2009 #1

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Is Spacetime Smooth?

    Smooth: infinitely differentiable

    If there were a limit to the differentiability of matter's motion through time, I'd assume it would be at the quantum level (where particles are not actually point particles).

    Example:

    When I accelerate in my car, the value of my acceleration does not go from 0 to a. There is a non-zero jerk, the rate of change in acceleration. I'm fairly sure that I can also, with my human senses, detect a non-zero change in jerk (i.e. a higher nonzero derivative). My senses are not fine enough to detect much higher derivatives of motion, but I intuitively suspect that it would take infinite energy to move something in a spacetime that were not smooth.

    Is there a limit to the differentiation of motion through space with respect to time?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 6, 2009 #2

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    as far as we/I know, yes, it is smooth
     
  4. Jul 6, 2009 #3
    Everything we know about space-time was learned through classical experiments. Only certain attributes of space-time appear to apply to QM, and classical space-time is incompatible with the results of certain QM experiments. For example, spooky action at a distance is spooky (i.e. paradoxical) only if we insist that classical space-time applies fully to everything in QM.

    The basis of classical space-time is the presumption that intervals, dimensions, etc. all exist regardless of whether there are any events occurring. That is, we consider space-time a field within which events occur. We presume two clocks run at the same speed because they are immersed in the same space-time "field", and somehow that field has an attribute called "time" to which both clocks are subject.

    That view is fine for classical mechanics. However, consider that an interval that has no events marking its ends, is immeasurable. And saying something exists but is immeasurable, is unscientific. From this we can easily presume that space-time is simply the average effect of many interrelated intervals (which DO have events at their ends), and that there is no space-time where there are no events.

    Those two macroscopic clocks are not synchronous because they are immersed in the same space-time. They are synchronous because they are trading myriad particles (virtual photons). Thus they have many consecutive states in common, and it is causality that keeps them synchronous, not some field called "time". Two tiny freezing cold clocks will be less synchronized because they trade less information. Thus a machine in a closed system is welcome to run infinitely fast from one interaction (decoherence/trade of information) with the universe to the next. That's why entangled particles (which are, by definition, in a closed system) are welcome to act like local particles and not worry about causality--because there is no space-time interval between them until they are again measured (interact with) the rest of the universe.
     
  5. Jul 6, 2009 #4
    For everyday observations and calculations, the classical view of smooth spacetime is fine and proven to very precise tolerances....BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If you are interested in a quantum based view in response to your question, since you posted it in a quantum forum, see this thread:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2259041#post2259041, Is there a limit to frequency. There I have numerous main stream sources referenced which say space and time ARE discrete.....

    There IS a contradiction with relativity, referenced at the end of my post # 13 in that thread and an explanation of the conflict is referenced in Wikipedia. .
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2009
  6. Jul 6, 2009 #5

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Your sources are wikipedia and popular science books?
     
  7. Jul 6, 2009 #6
    As far as modern physics goes, spacetime seen through our senses is not the "spacetime" that exists independent of our experience.

    If we want to probe deeper and have a more complete answer, we have to invoke relativity and qm and we will have to invoke consciousness and try to explain why our perceptions differ so much with the experimental results(which is a battlefield of interpretations in physics).

    Were you talking about the spacetime as seen in our subjective experience or the "spacetime" that we presume must be fundamental? If it's the latter, i don't think current physics has much to say, unless a string theorist wants to present the latest trends towards understanding the true structure of spacetime.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2009
  8. Jul 6, 2009 #7
    Quantum foam as described by Wikipedia gives a good perspective, I think, on spacetime at small distances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam


    It's not much more than this:

     
  9. Jul 6, 2009 #8

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    i) Quantum foam is still quite a theoretical mumbo jumbo, it is a difference in speaking about what we know and what theories are out there.

    ii) you stated elsewhere that you are not a trained physicists, then who do you know that the wiki article gives a good perspective? The article uses terms like "fabric of spacetime", not a very scientific term..
     
  10. Jul 6, 2009 #9
    Your sources are wikipedia and popular science books?

    absolutely!
    Hawking, Brian Greene, Lee Smolin, Paul Steinhardt, Neil Turok, Leonard Susskind...are good enough for me....I'll take their interpretations of the advanced mathematics over my own limited understanding anytime...sometimes arXiv....

    What relaible sources do you suggest??

    I like to refer to Wikipedia since others can generally have quick and easy accses, perhaps in their native language....
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2009
  11. Jul 6, 2009 #10

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Well, they have interpreted to non-physics people, that is the "problem" of pop-science argument.
     
  12. Jul 6, 2009 #11
    Malawi,
    as a trusted source of knowledge on this forum, attacking valid theories of mainstream, world renowned physicists, or me personally, will not help me or other forum participants learn new points of view.

    If I have misquoted or misinterpretated the authors I've referenced, by all means let me know so I can do better next time....

    A lot of others here help me learn, and that's all I'm trying to do for others. People are free to read the sources I've referenced and make their own interpretations...or not.

    Remember, this is supposed to be FUN!!
     
  13. Jul 6, 2009 #12

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The point I am making is that you called those sources "mainstream", and that we must differentiate from what is known and not and if "quantum foam" etc. are Nessiscary vs. Possible.

    Now, where did I attack a valid theory? How is a theory valid? well.. if it makes sense with experimental data. So....
     
  14. Jul 6, 2009 #13

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I didn't necessarily mean the spacetime of general relativity (though it may apply for all I know). It's just that when we discuss velocity, acceleration, and higher derivatives, we're discussing motion through space with respect to time. So either space or time alone would be insufficient to describe smoothness. For instance, dx/dx and higher derivatives of space with respect to itself aren't very useful, and dy/dx can be shown to not be smooth (a cliff edge, for instance). Orthogonal space coordinates are generally taken to be independent of each other, anyway. So we know we want to differentiate space with respect to time (or vice versa?).

    This is where my "paranoia" about making the statement "spacetime is smooth" comes from. If i remember correctly, in QM, particles tend to "move" from point A to point B without crossing the distance between (but that may just be a failed laymen interpretation from my pre-college years). This might cause lots of problems for any expectations of smoothness.
     
  15. Jul 6, 2009 #14

    jambaugh

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Operationally speaking space-time is not physically real. It is the manifold of parameters we use to describe relationships between physical events (which are real). Since we choose to use "smooth" parameters space-time is smooth.

    Note that we model gravitation by describing the curvature of space-time but the only real = observable part of this is the paths (causal chain of events) taken by physical objects. Remember that Einstein's equivalence principle goes both ways, (gravitational) dynamic forces are equivalent to geometry but also geometry is equivalent to (gravitational) dynamic forces. Putting it all on geometry is just one of a continuum of possible gauge choices we can make.

    I think this is one of the problems with much of current quantum gravity research. Trying to quantize (come up with a quantum mechanical description of) space-time is like trying to quantize . . . oh say the complex plane. These are both abstract mathematical constructs and not physical objects. Rather you quantize something like the hydrogen atom or (we can hope) a particle orbiting around a black hole.
     
  16. Jul 6, 2009 #15
    jambaugh:
    Why do you think that?

    What does "physically real" mean to you?

    I'm wondering if it is any less real than light or mass or gravity, for example. Seems like we really don't know what any of them really are....
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2009
  17. Jul 6, 2009 #16

    jambaugh

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Light hits you in the eyes, mass can hit you in the head, these are real. Gravity is the reason the mass hit you in the head if it is an apple falling from a tree. Gravity is a component of the dynamics of light and apples and electrons. We experience these things directly or indirectly.

    Let me put it this way... the number 3 is not real it is a mental (mathematical) construct but an essential one in describing real things such as 3 apples. Space and time are not real but likewise essential mathematical constructs in describing real things such as the dynamic relationship between those three apples when we for example juggle them.
     
  18. Jul 6, 2009 #17

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And even then, we only observe points along the path. Whether it's our eyes or electronic sensors, there's some resolution limit.

    I feel like the question is independent of the gauge. Whether we're accelerating upwards in an elevator or being pulled down by gravity, the nature of the motion of objects through space should apply universally.

    (edit) by the way, this reminds me of an experiment in which a gauge symmetry is broken:
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0602/0602591.pdf

    As you've implied, there is a lot of symbolism going on here. As physicists, gaining intuition through the mathematics is one of our more interesting career obligations. The complex plane itself is not a physical object, but if we have a physical system that utilizes the mathematics of the complex plane, we can begin to develop intuition about how complex vectors arranged in this plane represent physical processes.

    Thank you for an interesting reply!
     
  19. Jul 7, 2009 #18

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The wave-function is continuous and smooth though. And the particles don't "move", it is meaningless to ask where the particles were before any measurement.
     
  20. Jul 7, 2009 #19

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    jambaugh, I agree with you in many points, hats off.

    But it is possible that a discrete description of space-time MIGHT be more conceivable for describing physics at "smaller" levels that we are aware of today -> just as we might have more than 3 spatial dimensions, there might be more of them, but they are so small that the effect of them are undetectable so far.
     
  21. Jul 7, 2009 #20
    Yes, if qm is complete the continuous "movement" of large ensemble of particles(classical macro system) is an illusion or a very weak approximation. The true classical "motion" of a tennis ball as described by quantum theory is like this:

    If this emoticon :shy: is a tennis ball

    :shy: (tennis ball is now here; a moment later it ceases to exist at this point) -- :shy: (tennis ball appears now over here, perhaps at plank length intervals, a moment later ceases to exist at this point) -- :shy: (tennis ball appears now here and a moment later ceases...)....


    Since the original question was posted in this subforum, i don't think we can infer knowledge about the structure of "physical" space, as what we already know from QM about it is anti-realist in nature.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Is Spacetime smooth?
  1. Discrete Spacetime. (Replies: 6)

  2. Spacetime entanglement (Replies: 11)

Loading...