Spacetime is Doom - Zeno's paradox crashed the computer

Science and Technology
1

So you folks know that I been dealing with weird notions like the oft seen headlines Spacetime is Doomed.

Just google it if you’re curious. You’ll see Nima Arkani-Hamed come up a lot, then Hoffman will start popping up, which is why I’ve been getting familiar with the mumbo jumbo.

“The Unknown Question” –The End of Spacetime Posted on Jun 22, 2019

dailygalaxy - com/2019/06/the-unknown-question-the-end-of-spacetime/

 

The Doom of Spacetime
Why It Must Dissolve Into More Fundamental Structures
Nima Arkani-Hamed

https://pswscience.org/meeting/the-doom-of-spacetime/

…

We have studied fundamental physics for 2,000 years and understand the field very well. So, Arkani-Hamed said, it is particularly jarring when something that seemed like an essential element of how we think about the universe turns out to be wrong. He said that where we are today.

20th century scientists revolutionized physics with the theories of quantum mechanics and spacetime, which together form quantum field theory. Those concepts led to predictions accurate up to 12 decimal places, when tested. And that accuracy is what makes doubts about their accuracy so disturbing.

Arkani-Hamed then described the two “storm clouds” he sees for spacetime and quantum mechanics. The first storm cloud suggests that spacetime is doomed. The second, that quantum mechanics are limited.

To explain the first cloud, Arkani-Hamed presented a thought experiment. To see what exactly is going on at arbitrarily small distances, we must use high energies. In a world without gravity, there is, in principle, no limit to scaling the size of the detector to see what is going on at increasingly small distances. But we live with gravity, and where there is too much mass, we get a black hole that traps light – meaning that if we build too big a detector, we will create a black hole that will prevent us from seeing what happens at the smallest distances. Thus, gravity limits our ability to measure spacetime, which means our current understanding of spacetime is merely approximate and not fully accurate.

Similarly, the second cloud is explained by the problem of measuring quantum mechanics. To measure such quantum observables, our precision improves by how many measurements we take. But, to take the infinitely many measurements required to reach almost exact precision, would require an infinitely large measuring apparatus, which is again limited by gravity. This limitation means quantum mechanics is also an approximation.

Since spacetime and quantum mechanics are limited and approximately, Arkani-Hamed said they cannot be fully accurate. To be fully accurate, we must rethink our most basic understandings of physics, as there are no measurements of any sort in the interior of space and time that can belong as precise properties of the world. …


So because they figured out a mathematical trick to split spacetime geometry, he can split it again, and again, and golly gee, at some point trapped within the feedback of it’s own Zeno’s Paradox , the supercomputer melts down, and the profession gets to gloat that he’s slain spacetime. Bully for him.

2

Am I over simplifying?

3

About those geometries,

Arkani-Hamed2018_Article_ScatteringFormsAndThePositiveG.pdf

Have at it. :slight_smile:

 

4

Who can l trust with time travel secrets?

5

The real problem with Zeno’s paradox is the presentation of the question. In a quantitative universe, a universe of discrete things, one cannot do division with a remainder. In our universe of things, we recognize only whole things; thus we have to do partitioning, not division, to separate a group of items into two or more smaller groups.

To me, the obvious conclusion is that there exists a smallest thing. I accept that everything is made of these smallest things.

6
In a quantitative universe, a universe of discrete things, one cannot do division with a remainder
Why not?
thus we have to do partitioning, not division
I don't understand the distinction between partitioning and division? Can you explain?
I accept that everything is made of these smallest things.
But, things don't exist at the smallest scales, it turns out to be energy. Quarks are more a "mathematical concept" than a "thing." Or?
7
In a quantitative universe, a universe of discrete things, one cannot do division with a remainder Why not?
Per Wiki: In mathematics and empirical science, quantification (or quantitation) is the act of counting and measuring that maps human sense observations and experiences into quantities. Quantification in this sense is fundamental to the scientific method.
I don’t understand the distinction between partitioning and division? Can you explain?
We can partition a group of objects into a number of smaller groups where the number of objects in each smaller group is not necessarily the same. Division is commonly accepted as partitioning where each smaller group has the same number of objects. In the case where it is not possible to put an equal number of objects into each smaller group, we will have some number of objects "left over" an we call that number a remainder.

Note that partitioning deals with whole objects (discrete things) while division commonly recognizes fractions of objects. Of course objects don’t exist as fractions of themselves. The classic statement is that two halves of an apple don’t constitute one apple. Perhaps today we should say that we don’t recognize one-half of a quark as a thing.

But, things don’t exist at the smallest scales, it turns out to be energy.
Energy is not a thing; it is a description of the excitation, or state of motion, of an object. If there is no moving (excited) object there is no energy. When we recognize that there is energy in a place, we recognize that there is an excited object in that place.

Consider that we can recognize only those things we can detect with our senses or our machines that enhance our senses Our ability to detect objects is limited by the scale of the inputs we use. I believe we have not yet developed a system using inputs and producing outputs beyond the scale of light frequencies and light speed.

8

Fair enough makes sense.

Though,

Energy is not a thing; it is a description of the excitation, or state of motion, of an object.
I still think it's reasonable to say at the scale of atoms, there are no "objects" there are bundles, mathematical description of excitation and motion of other mathematical descriptions (quarks) if you want to be that way about it.

or?

9
I still think it’s reasonable to say at the scale of atoms, there are no “objects” there are bundles, mathematical description of excitation and motion of other mathematical descriptions (quarks) if you want to be that way about it.
Perhaps "object" as it is commonly used (meaning something "solid") is not the proper term. What other term would convey the meaning of a specific volume occupied by something which excludes other similar things from concurrently occupying that volume? In other words, what would we call a specific volume occupied by something which behaves as a fermion, and which obeys the Pauli exclusion principle?

Whatever name we apply to these “things” they will be things, not descriptions, mathematical or otherwise. Of course we will describe them but the description will not be the thing. A rose by another name is still a rose, not a description of a rose. A quark by another name is still a quark, not a description of a quark.

Descriptions don’t get excited or have motion. The volume occupied by what we recognize as a thing (such as an atom) may be a bundle of smaller things, but that thing and the smaller things in the bundle are still things, not descriptions of things, and each will be a fermion.

It seems much more “reasonable” to me to consider that there is a smallest thing that occupies, and perhaps even identifies, the smallest unit of volume, what we call space. If so, then space is a thing, or if you prefer, a really big bundle of things.

10
A quark by another name is still a quark, not a description of a quark.
And still light years beyond the human experience. Even though we've figured out how to make observations on that scale.
Descriptions don’t get excited or have motion.
Right. It's the people who use and misuse them, that you need to watch out for.

Too many people talk about things scientists have discovered down there and thoughtlessly extrapolate it up to our scales, that’s bad, self-defeating even, and that what I’m driving at.