Tangled Up in Spacetime
scientificamerican.com
Tangled Up in Spacetime
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: Tangled Up in Spacetime
#2I always thought of Einstein's theory of General Relativity as a model. For me it doesn't explain the execution.
This to me makes more sense that at a quantum level there are discreet particles that are being acted on according to relativity. I think of it more like a CPU where this is a clock input.
Re: Tangled Up in Spacetime
#3I always thought of Einstein's theory of General Relativity as a model. For me it doesn't explain the execution. This to me makes more sense that at a quantum level there are discreet particles that are being acted on according to relativity. I think of it more like a CPU where this is a clock input.
I don't know if this discredits General Relativity in any way. From what I understand, it underlies General Relativity by defining the nature of space and time.
Re: Tangled Up in Spacetime
#4I thought quantized spacetime had already been disproven below a testable range? I.e. Any theorized particles wouldn't be seen by particle accelerators smaller than say a solar system or drastically larger.
Re: Tangled Up in Spacetime
#5I thought quantized spacetime had already been disproven below a testable range? I.e. Any theorized particles wouldn't be seen by particle accelerators smaller than say a solar system or drastically larger.
I believe there's a few other models of LQG and others which can still be tested. But I'm skeptical we'll see any positive results. The only reason I hope I'm wrong is that if spacetime can't be quantized then we're stuck with singularities which aren't much fun all things considered.
Re: Tangled Up in Spacetime
#6I always thought of Einstein's theory of General Relativity as a model. For me it doesn't explain the execution. This to me makes more sense that at a quantum level there are discreet particles that are being acted on according to relativity. I think of it more like a CPU where this is a clock input.
Quantum mechanics is pretty field oriented (doubly so for QFT, which is what you're dealing with at that scale) so I don't understand why it would be any less of a "model" than general relativity.
Re: Tangled Up in Spacetime
#7I thought quantized spacetime had already been disproven below a testable range? I.e. Any theorized particles wouldn't be seen by particle accelerators smaller than say a solar system or drastically larger.
I seem to remember some discussion about this with GEO600 results a couple years back. Their detector was seeing a bunch of noise and the conversation included asking if we had begun to see granularity of spacetime at their resolution.
Re: Tangled Up in Spacetime
#8I always thought of Einstein's theory of General Relativity as a model. For me it doesn't explain the execution. This to me makes more sense that at a quantum level there are discreet particles that are being acted on according to relativity. I think of it more like a CPU where this is a clock input.
Quantum mechanics is pretty field oriented (doubly so for QFT, which is what you're dealing with at that scale) so I don't understand why it would be any less of a "model" than general relativity.
Space and time are very macro concepts according to general relativity. It doesn't actually explain how time elapses differently on one atom vs. another atom only that it does.
I am traveling close to the speed to light how is my watching running slower? How do the atoms in my watch know to run slower?
I am not suggesting that current quantum mechanics is more than a model, but I think we are along the right path to figure out the answer to my above question.
Re: Tangled Up in Spacetime
#9I always thought of Einstein's theory of General Relativity as a model. For me it doesn't explain the execution. This to me makes more sense that at a quantum level there are discreet particles that are being acted on according to relativity. I think of it more like a CPU where this is a clock input.
I don't know if this discredits General Relativity in any way. From what I understand, it underlies General Relativity by defining the nature of space and time.
I didn't suggest this discredits general relativity.
Re: Tangled Up in Spacetime
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quantum mechanics is pretty field oriented (doubly so for QFT, which is what you're dealing with at that scale) so I don't understand why it would be any less of a "model" than general relativity.
Space and time are very macro concepts according to general relativity. It doesn't actually explain how time elapses differently on one atom vs. another atom only that it does. I am traveling close to the speed to light how is my watching running slower? How do the atoms in my watch know to run slower? I am not suggesting that current quantum mechanics is more than a model, but I think we are along the right path to…
The ideas here lean heavily on entanglement, which is very macro (not to mention unexplained) itself. So I don't see a path forward as far as figuring out how pieces of the system "know" to do what they do via the it from qubit program.