Question about spacetime quantization

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of quantized spacetime on the nature of spatial dimensions. It argues that if spacetime were quantized, one could potentially describe locations using fewer numbers, suggesting a shift from continuous to discrete coordinates. However, it is clarified that even in a quantized framework, three spatial dimensions would still require three numbers for location, albeit in a different mathematical structure (from real numbers to integers). The analogy of a street grid illustrates how quantized space would restrict positions to specific points rather than continuous values. Ultimately, the consensus is that while quantization may change how we represent space, it does not alter the fundamental requirement for three spatial dimensions.
theneedtoknow
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
I have a question about spacetime...if spacetime was quantized, would we still be considered to have 3 spatial dimensions?

As far as I understand, 3 numbers are the minimum that we currently need to specify a location somewhere in space after selecting an arbitrary origin (the numbers are usually presented as (x,y,z) coordinate triplets). I'm dropping the 4th time coordinate because I'm not concerned with a specific event, but only a point at which events keep occurring as time flows.

If spacetime is quantized, then wouldn't we be able to describe points in space with fewer numbers, and thus we wouldn't actually have 3 spatial dimensions? If i simplify to a "2 dimensional" plane, we would currently need to pick an origin and then specify each point with an x and y coordinate, and there would be an infinite number of such points for any specific area. But, if there was a discrete number of points (quantized spacetime) in that same area, then wouldn't we be able to pick an origin, and go around the origin in a spiral, numbering every discrete point we encounter? And we'd be able to assign a single number to every point on the plane, instead of needing 2 numbers per point?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to take time into consideration if you aim to use it in any type of application.
 
If three-dimensional space were quantized then you would still need three numbers to describe a location in it. Essentially you would be changing your space from \mathbb{R}^3 (triplets of real numbers) to \mathbb{Z}^3 (triplets of integers). In some sense you are right that there are fewer numbers, since the cardinality of \mathbb{R} is larger than the cardinality of \mathbb{Z}. Even though there are infinitely many integers, there is a "larger" infinity of real numbers (you might want to read about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum" ).

You could imagine quantized space as being more like how we locate points on a street grid -- you might say that something was on the 11th floor of the building at 42nd Street and 3rd Avenue, or (42, 3, 11), but you wouldn't say that it was on the 11.325th floor at 42.08 St and 2.71 Ave, or (42.08, 2.71, 11.325). If the grid were actually quantized, then you could only ever be exactly at an intersection, and exactly on a given floor, never part-way between them.

It is true as Division said that in any application to physics you would have to include the time dimension, although this is not necessarily a requirement when trying to form a picture in your mind of what quantized space might look like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
theneedtoknow said:
But, if there was a discrete number of points (quantized spacetime) in that same area, then wouldn't we be able to pick an origin, and go around the origin in a spiral, numbering every discrete point we encounter? And we'd be able to assign a single number to every point on the plane, instead of needing 2 numbers per point?

The process you described is sometimes considered in mathematics, for example the points of the plane with integer coordinates could be put into one-to-one correspondence with the integers on a line.

There is, however, no possibility for spacetime to be discrete in this simplistic sense. It would violate all kinds of observations that we can already make. Even fringe theories like loop quantum gravity are not proposing a discrete spacetime: what they mean by 'quantization' is not the same as 'turn into a discrete set of points.'
 
Thanks for the help everyone :) I think I understand this a bit better now
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
794
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
885
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K