User Controls
Do circles objectively exist?
-
2021-10-31 at 1:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by troon I don't think a circle can objectively exist in a discrete space. that seems contradictory.
Why? Discrete spaces are just as objective as continuous spaces (both of which seem about as objective as you can get what with having formal definitions). Distance can be defined over a discrete space, so a circle can still exist, it just ends up being a finite set of points rather than an infinite one.
And like Falcon said, the things that happen at a Planck length don’t really seem to suggest the universe has some kind of fundamental spatial resolution, only that emergent behavior exists at certain spatial scales. -
2021-10-31 at 3:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Distance can be defined over a discrete space, so a circle can still exist, it just ends up being a finite set of points rather than an infinite one.
When you have a finite number of points on a circumference then it's still just an approximation of a circle, at any scale. -
2021-10-31 at 3:36 PM UTC
-
2021-10-31 at 4:06 PM UTCThere are only 2 genders by the way
-
2021-10-31 at 4:07 PM UTC
-
2021-10-31 at 4:50 PM UTCi always wondered if atoms are perfectly spherical, i guess not?
-
2021-10-31 at 4:53 PM UTCThe Planck length itself is essentially the limit for how deeply we can probe nature with something like a particle collider. You need higher point energies to probe shorter distance scales due to the Planck-Einstein Relation where you need higher energies for higher frequencies and thus progressively shorter wavelengths. Past the Planck length, you're creating black holes. And then more energy just creates a bigger black hole.
-
2021-10-31 at 4:56 PM UTCBut that's according to our existing understanding. Probably that's not true in whatever the real theory of quantum gravity is.
-
2021-10-31 at 10:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmG The Planck length itself is essentially the limit for how deeply we can probe nature with something like a particle collider. You need higher point energies to probe shorter distance scales due to the Planck-Einstein Relation where you need higher energies for higher frequencies and thus progressively shorter wavelengths. Past the Planck length, you're creating black holes. And then more energy just creates a bigger black hole.
Originally posted by mmG But that's according to our existing understanding. Probably that's not true in whatever the real theory of quantum gravity is.
↑ dalit parrots and regurgitates already known and thought out thoughts about stuffs he could barely understand to sound sophisticated and ehjucated and less dalited.
do you have original thoughts and researches ? -
2021-11-01 at 1:17 AM UTC
-
2021-11-01 at 1:45 AM UTC
-
2021-11-01 at 1:52 AM UTC
-
2021-11-01 at 1:53 AM UTCFood for thought: Wouldn't black holes count as perfect circles/spheres?
-
2021-11-01 at 2:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmG Wouldn't a granular "bottom" to spacetime not be better in terms of arguing for a true circle to exist?
Yeah, exactly, constructing a circle out of finite physical parts would seem to be at least conceivable. If we imagine particles as finite sized objects in continuous space you’ll never be able to arrange a finite number of them in a circle, but that’s no problem in discrete space. -
2021-11-01 at 2:14 AM UTCshell theory
-
2021-11-01 at 10:08 AM UTC
-
2021-11-01 at 10:10 AM UTCShell hypothesis
-
2021-11-01 at 10:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by troon If black holes evaporate, then their mass must reduce at the boundary, so I don't think they could be perfect circles.
Even then
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem -
2021-11-01 at 10:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Yeah, exactly, constructing a circle out of finite physical parts would seem to be at least conceivable. If we imagine particles as finite sized objects in continuous space you’ll never be able to arrange a finite number of them in a circle, but that’s no problem in discrete space.
Whenever I visualize your circle in discrete space, I always see quantization happening between points on the circumference. I can visualize a very good approximation of a circle, but no better. Which of us is retarded? -
2021-11-01 at 10:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmG Even then
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
Interesting, but the phrases 'rapidly decays' and 'excepting quantum fluctuations' suggest that variations exist at a small enough scale.
