I Is the Idea of a Continuum Always an Approximation to the Physical?

walkeraj
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
Question: When thinking of continuums the most notable seems to be space-time but they also mark a simplification to reality like in continuum mechanics, often taught when learning the tensor calculus needed for general relativity.

The question is that for general relativity when a geodesic becomes incomplete as can happen in a singularity situation for black holes, what does this say about the idea of a continuum as space-time in general relativity? Does this mark the limit of applicability of the continuum concept? Is space-time continuum truly only a mathematical approximation to something physical? (If this last question is too philosophical, omit it.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Good question. The problem is to find a viable model of discrete spacetime.
 
I think that the continuum is always an idealization of physical reality, even in classical mechanics. My DE professor used to say: "Reality is discrete if you look closely enough." Nevertheless, we use DE to describe it successfully. Doesn't the continuum already break down in QM? Nevertheless, we use continuous transformation groups" (old-fashioned for Lie groups) to describe it. Our models break in extreme situations, Newton at high speed, and GR (possibly?) at close ranges.
 
walkeraj said:
for general relativity when a geodesic becomes incomplete as can happen in a singularity situation for black holes, what does this say about the idea of a continuum as space-time in general relativity?
Nothing. You already posted a separate thread on this, which has now been closed as it is based on an invalid premise.

walkeraj said:
Does this mark the limit of applicability of the continuum concept?
No. See above.

walkeraj said:
Is space-time continuum truly only a mathematical approximation to something physical?
This is a separate question from the above two, and this thread should be limited to discussing it. The short answer is that this is still an open question and is a subject of research in quantum gravity. So far nobody has come up with a model that makes any useful predictions that are testable with our current technology and have passed any such tests.
 
This question is impossible to answer, and at best is philosophical (see PF Rules) and at worst...um...worse. It boils down to "As we look at smaller and smaller scales, mighy we discover that thinsg we thinka re continuous are really discrete (or for that matter, things we think are discrete are just conglomerations of things we thought were continuous.): Maybe yes, maybe no. No way to tell.

But without comparison to the real world, it ain't science.
 
fresh_42 said:
I think that the continuum is always an idealization of physical reality, even in classical mechanics.
There are others that also share this opinion, but it is important to recognize that as of today there is no experimental evidence to support that idea. It is in the theoretical physics literature, but without any experimental validation.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top