Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.talk.creationism > #396917

Re: particle nature of spacetime?

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 25/06/2015 6:14 PM, Dale wrote:
> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of
> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
>
> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this

The Natural or Planck Units seem to address this. A Planck Length seems 
to be the ultimate smallest unit of space, while a Planck Time is the 
ultimate smallest unit of time. It doesn't mean that you can't invent 
numbers smaller than this, they simply won't have any meaning below the 
Planck level.

It's a controversial subject, many traditionalists don't believe in 
Planck units as being anything more than a mathematical curiosity. That 
space and time must extend down infinitesimally. Others think Planck 
Units are telling us something fundamental about the universe. 
Superstring Theory, with all of its controversy, may be right about one 
thing, it envisions its fundamental objects, the strings, as being about 
1 Planck Length in size. Some of the strings may grow & inflate to 
larger than 1 Planck Length, but none may shrink below it. Even if 
Superstring Theory is disproved, this aspect may remain in any other 
next-generation theory.

My own take on this is that space and time are just our way of 
interpreting the minimum distances between particles (either energy or 
matter), and the minimum movements of these particles, respectively. If 
no two particles of anything can occupy the exact same space, then the 
Planck Length is the minimum space between any two particles. If 
particles are moving about, the minimum movement step would have to be 
between two adjacent Planck Lengths, and the amount of time that passes 
between these two steps is the Planck Time.

> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing", more
> "nothing"? space would be some set having a cardinality/ordinality of
> infinity, but "nothing" is the null-set and would only exist in
> philosophical logic and philosophical mathematics, this is a contradiction

Space is a very special nothing, because it's filled with lots of stuff. 
Our traditional definition of a vacuum was any volume of space that has 
no matter in it. Well as of Einstein's Special Relativity, we've known 
that matter is just a special form of energy (it's a phase of energy, 
much like ice is a phase of water). Then as of the advent of Quantum 
Mechanics (especially Quantum Electrodynamics) we've known that space 
must be filled with energy -- huge amounts of energy as a matter of 
fact. We call this energy the Quantum Vacuum Energy, or just Vacuum 
Energy. This energy just exists because space exists: if space didn't 
exist, this energy wouldn't exist either. So since we know matter and 
energy are the same thing, if space is filled with energy everywhere, 
then there really can't be any real vacuum anywhere in the universe.

Now think of my wording up above, "if space didn't exist, this energy 
wouldn't exist either". This implies that space must exist as a 
something. There doesn't exist a true nothingness. Mathematicians have 
something that's less than nothing, which they call a null set: it's a 
true zero, it's entirely abstract, just exists as a thought experiment. 
But a true zero doesn't actually exist in this universe (or any other).

> would have to study the mathematics of general relativity to see how
> time is proposed to fit in here ...

Time is a dimension just like any of the spatial dimensions, but it 
happens to be the direction in which movements are measured. During the 
Big Bang, this is the direction that was randomly chosen for the 
momentum of the Big Bang to express itself.

	Yousuf Khan

Back to alt.talk.creationism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

particle nature of spacetime? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-06-25 18:14 -0400
  Re: particle nature of spacetime? Ralph <mmman_90@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-25 19:15 -0400
  Re: particle nature of spacetime? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-25 18:18 -0700
    Re: particle nature of spacetime? Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-06-26 10:20 -0700
      Re: particle nature of spacetime? Ralph <mmman_90@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-27 19:40 -0400
  Re: particle nature of spacetime? "Col. Edmund J. Burke" <namcolonel@bigboobs.net> - 2015-06-25 18:31 -0700
    Re: particle nature of spacetime? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-25 19:45 -0700
      Re: particle nature of spacetime? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-06-26 00:25 -0400
        Re: particle nature of spacetime? Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 00:34 -0400
        Re: particle nature of spacetime? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-25 22:23 -0700
          Re: particle nature of spacetime? Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-06-26 10:20 -0700
  Re: particle nature of spacetime? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-06-26 01:53 -0400
  Re: particle nature of spacetime? Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-06-26 10:25 -0700

csiph-web