Question about spacetime quantization

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
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Back
Top