Understanding Continuous Space, Spectra, and Planck Units in Quantum Spacetime

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter denisv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuous
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the mathematical consistency of continuous space and the spectra of operators within the framework of Planck units. It asserts that while quantum mechanics (QM) treats spacetime as continuous, this is an approximation that breaks down at extremely small scales, necessitating the use of quantum field theory (QFT) or beyond the standard model (BSM) physics for accurate descriptions. The conversation highlights the limitations of QM in fully capturing the complexities of quantum spacetime and suggests that a lattice structure based on Planck length may be a more accurate representation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Mechanics (QM)
  • Familiarity with Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Knowledge of Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) physics
  • Concept of Planck units and their significance in theoretical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of continuous versus discrete spacetime in quantum theories
  • Study the mathematical foundations of Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Explore the concept of Planck length and its role in quantum gravity theories
  • Investigate current discussions in dedicated BSM physics forums
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, theoretical researchers, and students interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and the implications of Planck units in modern physics.

denisv
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
How are continuous space and continuous spectra of operators mathematically consistent with Planck units?

Shouldn't the quantum spacetime be a lattice (or what have you) of integer multiples of the Planck length?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Probably.
In ordinary QM treating spacetime as continuous has the distinct advantage that the wavefunction is a differentiable function. The level at which this is an approximation is really, really small, much smaller than the levels at which one uses ordinary QM. If you're probing those kind of distance scales you probably at least want to be using QFT anyway, if not BSM (beyond the standard model) physics; nobody claims that QM alone is a complete and accurate description of nature (or if they do, they're wrong).
Afraid I can't tell you much about anything more advanced than QM though (soon ... :biggrin: once I've done these exams :( ) Perhaps someone else on here can help. If not, try the dedicated BSM forum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K