Theories on Dimensions/Time Quantized?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evankiefl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    quantized Theories
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of dimensions and time, specifically whether they are quantized or continuous. Participants explore theoretical implications and evidence regarding the divisibility of lengths and the continuity of time, touching on concepts from quantum mechanics and fundamental particles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether there is evidence to support the idea that lengths can only be so small or if they are infinitely divisible.
  • There is a proposal that time may exist in discrete frames, similar to energy quanta in light, while others argue for its continuity.
  • One participant expresses a belief in the infinite divisibility of lengths, suggesting that even if technology cannot currently divide an object, it theoretically could be divided.
  • Another participant emphasizes that there is currently no evidence suggesting space and time are anything but continuous, referencing the Planck length and time as theoretical constructs rather than definitive truths.
  • Some participants note that fundamental particles have distinct sizes and suggest that they cannot be divided, while also discussing the implications of spacetime versus matter.
  • There is a discussion about the behavior of particles during high-speed collisions, with one participant explaining that particles like electrons do not split but can create new particles from kinetic energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the divisibility of lengths and the nature of time, with no consensus reached on whether these dimensions are quantized or continuous. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of current knowledge regarding the fundamental nature of space and time, and the discussion reflects ongoing uncertainties in theoretical physics.

evankiefl
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I wasn't sure what category to put this in or if the proceeding questions are established theory so I decided to put it in "Beyond the Standard Model."

Is there evidence to suggest that a length can only be so small or that all lengths are infinitely divisible?

Is there evidence to suggest that time is continuous or that it exists only in discrete frames?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evankiefl said:
I wasn't sure what category to put this in or if the proceeding questions are established theory so I decided to put it in "Beyond the Standard Model."

Is there evidence to suggest that a length can only be so small or that all lengths are infinitely divisible?

Is there evidence to suggest that time is continuous or that it exists only in discrete frames?

Thanks.

Myself, I believe that lengths are infinitely divisible simply because I can't imagine a object so small that you can't split/divide it. Even if we (humans) cannot divide it in a experiment, the object still exists and has mass. Even if it was 1000's of times smaller than a proton, emphasis on 'if it was', I believe that you could always, theoretically divide it. I simply can't imagine not being able to divide something even if we don't have the technology to do so. Also, I can't imagine a particle that is made up of nothing except itself - if that makes sense.

What do you mean by, is time continuous?
 
I mean, are moments in time infinitely divisble or does change occur in discrete frames, analgous to the way that light have bundled energy quanta.
 
what do you think?
 
There is currently absolutely no evidence to suggest that space and time are anything but continuous.

Theoretically, people often talk about the Planck length and Planck time being the smallest meaningful units of space and time. This is, however, more a statement about our lack of knowledge than any deep truth about the universe. Essentially, the Planck scale simply tells us when our currently decoupled theories of quantum mechanics and gravity will need to be unified in order to get a correct picture of reality.
 
MegaDeth said:
Myself, I believe that lengths are infinitely divisible simply because I can't imagine a object so small that you can't split/divide it. Even if we (humans) cannot divide it in a experiment, the object still exists and has mass. Even if it was 1000's of times smaller than a proton, emphasis on 'if it was', I believe that you could always, theoretically divide it. I simply can't imagine not being able to divide something even if we don't have the technology to do so. Also, I can't imagine a particle that is made up of nothing except itself - if that makes sense.

What do you mean by, is time continuous?

Fundamental particles have distinct "sizes" that are quantized in a way if you will. You cannot ever divide them into anything. But we are talking about spacetime, not matter. As has been said above, we have no reason to believe that time or space is quantized.
 
Drakkith said:
Fundamental particles have distinct "sizes" that are quantized in a way if you will. You cannot ever divide them into anything. But we are talking about spacetime, not matter. As has been said above, we have no reason to believe that time or space is quantized.

But even if you had the smallest particle, wouldn't you be able to accelerate them to high speeds and collide with each other so they split up, like we do with protons?
 
MegaDeth said:
But even if you had the smallest particle, wouldn't you be able to accelerate them to high speeds and collide with each other so they split up, like we do with protons?

No, as the particles do not split up. Let's look at electrons since protons are not fundamental particles but are composite particles made up of quarks. When two electrons are collided at high speeds they create a number of particles. The key here is that they can create particles that are MORE massive than they are! It's like crashing your car into a brick wall at 99% the speed of light and having 5 buses appear from the wreckage! The particles were not part of the electrons to begin with, they were created from the kinetic energy of the two electrons. To the very best of our knowledge Electrons, Photons, Quarks, and various other particles ARE fundamental. IE they are not made up of smaller less massive particles.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 163 ·
6
Replies
163
Views
29K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K