What do you think, is the fabric of the Universe continuous or discrete?
>>8148311
Either.
is
>>8148311
discrete
Insufficient data at this time
It's infinite
>>8148311
Discrete. The increment changes though based on something
>>8148311
continuous
Can you repeat the question?
>>8148311
>discrete
Obviously.
>>8148929
you're not the boss of me
What's thay in the pic? Is it an electric dipole? Nice simulation
>>8148311
If it where a lattice then the speed of light would change based on how closely it followed the edges. So it's continues but everything in it has limited resolving power and whatnot.
>>8148311
discrete
all the evidence points to it or at least not against it, plus i really don't see any reason for anything to be continuous
Discrete
>loop quantum gravity
There is no such thing as "the universe"
continuous
I doubt there will be an actual "smallest" constituent of the universe.(as in; we'll keep finding 'small'er and 'small'er things) You might as well look for the largest and compare it to our selves. (don't though.. it's not as useful)
has to be continuous. How would you even measure it if it were discrete?
>>8148311
it has to be discrete, otherwise you run into a glaring "turtles on top of turtles on top of turtles" issue
>>8148311
Discrete and continuous describe numbers, and there is no reason to believe that numbers really exist. The continuum is a formalization.
>>8148311
>continuous
>infinite sets
>real numbers
>>8148311
It probably looks continuous from our perspective, but I think that it's discrete. I think there is an absolute smallest unit of length to construct the universe. However, because of the particle/wave duality of matter, I think that the smallest unit might present in such a way that you could argue continuous. That's based on basically nothing scientific, just speculation.
>>8149472
>because of the particle/wave duality of matter
That duality is just a meme. Sound is wave, but it's a air paritcles at the same time.
>>8149538
> Sound is wave, but it's a air paritcles at the same time.
that's not a good example.
each electron is a wave, it's not a wave of electrons
>>8149538
god i hope you're just some stoner
if not, kill yourself
>>8149541
We can't measure "a wave". Wave is a math object: a function. We can measure some particle values and create a wave based on that measurment.
>>8148311
I'd have to say continuous. Certain drops in a wave, zero point energy, but the Wave Itself Is all.
>>8149573
The energy moves as a wave throughout particle arrangements. Without wave-like energy, seriously dude there're waves
>>8149573
Hit a fucking steel fence.
both
>>8149573
See that, bro, that's the 'energy.'
Sorry for being a dick, but
>>8149597
how old are you?
next you'll tell me of the 4 elements
continuous
there is no such thing as empty space
that would mean interactions between matter is impossible
even empty is 'something'. We just have yet to define it. This should be obvious.
>>8148311
i think its continuous, but that is like my subjecive opinion based on merely hypothesis i made because of the question... i mean not sure
>>8149605
>We just have yet to define it.
Aether was defined centuries ago
discrete
Not enough data, you can't know nothing
>>8148311
On principle I think discrete, but fuck knows how you'd prove it
>>8149792
not comprehensively enough.
It's discrete. You barely notice it.
>>8149460
Not an argument
>>8148311
The Planck length makes it discrete.
>>8150417
explain
>>8150437
He's wrong
>>8150445
This. He fell for a meme-understanding of planck length.
continuous, no doubt..
Why? cuz infinity..
Like a magnetic field, no matter how small the space is you are observing there will always be an electric field vetor
FOAMY
O
A
M
Y
>>8151101
It's discrete.
Q U A N T I Z E D
>>8151161
Can't be. C has to be the same speed in every conceivable direction. There isn't a discrete shape that can accommodate this.
Well now if its not continuous you cant really call it fabric now can you
>>8150417
When will this meme die?
The Planck length is literally just the number you get when you bang a bunch of physical constants together to get units of length. It just happens to be hella small and within an order of magnitude or two of the length scales where measurement would stop working and where quantum gravity would come into play.
There's no indication that the Planck Length itself has any physical significance.
>>8151749
>where measurement would stop working
>no indication that the Planck Length itself has any physical significance
Amazing what "no significance" can mean.
>>8151805
Read again
It happens to be within one or two orders of magnitude of the length scale where measurement would stop working. That means it's about a factor of ten out from the actual value at best. Being kind of close to a significant value doesn't make it a significant value.
>>8148311
Spacetime doesn't exist.
