Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:28:36 UTC No. 16083001

It isn't

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:30:45 UTC No. 16083004

>>16083001
planck

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:34:53 UTC No. 16083007

>>16083004
>I can only count to 5 so that's the limit

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:51:49 UTC No. 16083023

>>16083007
>i cant count so it must be uncountable

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:57:14 UTC No. 16083030

>>16083023
idiot

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:01:46 UTC No. 16083035

>>16083030
>uncountably infinite points
>discrete point
(You)

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:02:08 UTC No. 16083036

"space" is a mathematical hypothesis that doesn't exist in reality. Actual space is constructed by the relations between individuals. Our idea of space has to be continuous to describe all the possible relations.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:07:03 UTC No. 16083042

>>16083036
if space is a description of all possible relations it is inherently discrete

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:07:51 UTC No. 16083044

>>16083035
Reality made from points is not, field of amorphous fuzzy noise it is

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:09:36 UTC No. 16083046

>>16083042
so a particle can't possibly be an irrational number distance from another?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:13:23 UTC No. 16083051

>>16083044
there need to be countable microstates for entropy

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:17:58 UTC No. 16083054

>>16083051
Because?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:20:25 UTC No. 16083056

>>16083046
in the sense that you cannot increment the distance between them infinitesmally

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:28:34 UTC No. 16083062

>>16083054
there is a 0% chance that a moment without entropy will happen

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:35:58 UTC No. 16083069

>>16083062
How this is relevant to your last post and discreteness of reality??

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:45:40 UTC No. 16083075

>>16083056
>go over one and up one
>you are now an irrational distance apart without incrementing infinitesimally

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:47:58 UTC No. 16083077

>>16083069
reality doesnt work if spacetime is continous, there need be a finite set of possible microstates in a finite region of space for things to happen

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:51:19 UTC No. 16083080

>>16083075
pythagoras btfo

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:00:54 UTC No. 16083089

>>16083077
>there need be a finite set of possible microstates in a finite region of space for things to happen
Refer to
>>16083054

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:38:37 UTC No. 16083119

>>16082998
>what is the “shape” of the subunit?
loop

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:47:35 UTC No. 16083129

>>16083007
I think it's more of a fundamental limit, at least mathematically in physics. The energy required for a collision to probe smaller lengths than the planck length would create a black hole

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:10:13 UTC No. 16083152

>>16083129
That makes no sense, please elaborate, why would a planck length scale interaction generate the same amount of energy as a billion kilo star collapsing in on itself

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:17:17 UTC No. 16083156

>>16083089
>>16083054
boltzmann. say if there is a point on a line, and it can be at any point on the line, then there is infinite entropy in that system. its akin to rolling an infinite sided die; a number will never come up, there cannot be a moment

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:30:15 UTC No. 16083165

>>16083156
1. Reality is not made of points and lines
2. Whatever that schizophrenic rambling is, which you just wrote, has absolutely zero relevance to the discreteness of reality
Please explain why the motion of an object going from a to b would not be completely uniform and continuous, it's not "occupying every point on a line" and has no entropy related issues

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:26:26 UTC No. 16083233

>>16083165
1. reality is quite literally made of points and lines called particles and waves
2. im sorry your imagination has been so thoroughly bludgeoned that you cannot digest an analogy, especially one using a metaphor of dice in the context of microstates.

i am not talking about something “occuping every point on a line”, i am saying that there is no notion of entropy in a continuous system; for if there are infinite possible microstates in a finite area then there is infinite entropy.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:17:11 UTC No. 16083279

>>16083233
>particles and waves are points and lines
toppest of keks
I'm not even that same anon but this is laughable

waves are waves, they are visually represented by squiggly lines but they are not lines.

particles don't even exist, they are (according to the SM which is our best model so far) excited states of quantum fields, a useful concept sure but not Reality

>>16082998
the concept of "shape" doesn't make sense in this context, a shape is the distribution of something in space, space itself can't have a shape, things that are in space can have a shape.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:42:32 UTC No. 16083294

>>16083152
it would be a micro black hole, and the more energy you go above that the bigger the black hole gets
>[in a particle accelerator, ] if they can create black holes, they will have reached the Planck scale, which is believed to be the shortest meaningful length, the limiting distance below which the very notions of space and length probably cease to exist. Any attempt to investigate the possible existence of shorter distances, by performing higher-energy collisions, would inevitably result in black hole production. Higher-energy collisions, rather than splitting matter into finer pieces, would simply produce bigger black holes
https://archive.is/CAEXp

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:54:08 UTC No. 16083310

>>16083165
if I remember correctly the ratio between earth and a proton is similar to that of a proton and a planck length.
having planck increments would "look" continuous for your monkey brain.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:02:33 UTC No. 16083326

>>16083233
1. all "particles" are ultimately made of the exact same thing, there are no such things as "waves", what you describe as waves are excitations of matter, transfer of work from one part of the system to another, this applies all the way from atoms in air down to the electromagnetic field down to the firmament of reality
2. your analogy makes zero sense
>for if there are infinite possible microstates in a finite area then there is infinite entropy.
What microstates, the only place where your microstate idea would apply was if reality was indeed discrete, but it's a smooth, boundaryless manifold, there are no discrete states or steps, it's all an uniform transition from one state to another without a true beginning or end, any semblance of boundary is a mere illusion which, upon closer inspection, would reveal ever more actors taking part in the play
>>16083294
Ah, there was the misunderstanding, what you're talking about are particle accelerators and dismantling matter via high energy collisions, not reactions which occur on the planck scale naturally, of course you can't use particle accelerators to get down to that scale, because at one point there is no discernible boundary between anything and, as you pointed out, the high energy input just blasts things apart, but I highly doubt that anything interacting on that scale would ever require such input to form higher order interactions

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:50:31 UTC No. 16083554

>>16083326
>not reactions which occur on the planck scale naturally
I think the point is more that microscopic black holes are the limit of energy density. The more energy you squeeze into one spot in space the closer you get to creating a black hole, and when the black hole appears, instead of being able to squeeze even more energy in to that one spot, the black hole starts expanding and starts spewing out the energy you put in. This can theoretically happen naturally just as it could in an accelerator, but the accelerator would need to be a lot bigger than the LHC.

Some particles that have been detected from space are much higher energy than what the LHC produces, like this one for example which had about 200x more energy than the typical LHC particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle
and also this stephen hawking quote
>Collisions releasing greater energy [than the LHC collisions] occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens
https://home.cern/science/accelerators/large-hadron-collider/safety-lhc

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:10:17 UTC No. 16083588

>>16083554
>I think the point is more that microscopic black holes are the limit of energy density
But this is purely hypothetical, observations at that scale are impossible
>Some particles that have been detected from space are much higher energy than what the LHC produces
Yes, those are also higher mass things than things at the planck scale, naturally they have more energy when they are travelling extremely fast, but things like electromagnetic waves also travel very fast, yet don't impart that much mass on things

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:30:32 UTC No. 16083613

>>16083051
Entropy is cope. It doesn't real.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:13:55 UTC No. 16084000

>>16083588
>But this is purely hypothetical
Yeah that's right. A lot of hypothetical things have turned out to be true so far though so it has a decent chance of being real

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:04:52 UTC No. 16084067

>>16084000
And now it has hit a dead end

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:36:51 UTC No. 16084710

>>16082998
I don't know, but perhaps this gives you something to work with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology