New Gravity

@Onyx @ScholRLEA There was an experiment at Fermilab specifically testing one theory of quantized spacetime that published results in December. A pixelated universe is ruled out for now.

@ScholRLEA said in New Gravity:
I'm not a physicist, but when I asked a physics professor about quantized spacetime, he dismissed it as being incompatible with inertia, because inertia requires a smooth motion.
I'm not a mathematician, but my intuition says that that would depend on the minimum possible spacetime separation between distinguishable events.
If spacetime has anything like an inbuilt Nyquist limit, then there ought to exist a discretespacetime model compatible in every respect with a continuousspacetime one.
Which would of course leave the question of whether the Universe is "really" discrete rather than "really" continuous completely open.

@flabdablet Hmmn, OK, I wouldn't really be able to judge that myself, from either a physical or mathematical perspective, but that does give me a little bit of a handle on it, I think.

@ScholRLEA said in New Gravity:
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't a quantized model of space be at odds with the entire foundation of Newton's model (and by extension, Einstein's), because it would imply that motion is not a smooth integral, but a discontinuous series?
Yes. That's exactly why the unification of quantum theory with gravitation is so bloody difficult. It doesn't help that both the Standard Model and General Relativity give such accurate results; it isn't clear what the problem really is.
String theory makes a bunch of predictions, but nobody knows if any of them apply to this universe…




@PleegWat Yes! That's why they keep perpetuating the spherical Earth myth! That's the only ball(s) they have left!
Filed under: I done got derailed it, haven't I?, Sorry!

@Onyx said in New Gravity:
hat's why they keep perpetuating the spherical Earth myth! That's the only ball(s) they have left!
But at least it's (mostly) blue…

@PleegWat said in New Gravity:
Isn't the illuminati all old men?
That's what they want you to think.


@flabdablet said in New Gravity:
That's what they want you to think.
That's what they want you to think they want you to think

@MZH said in New Gravity:
A pixelated universe is ruled out for now.
I hate language like this:
The fact that the Holometer ruled out his theory to a high level of significance proves that it can probe time and space at previously unimagined scales, Hogan says.
GIBBERISH! The next sentence is much more reasonable:
It also proves that if this quantum jitter exists, it is either much smaller than the Holometer can detect, or is moving in directions the current instrument is not configured to observe.

@boomzilla said in New Gravity:
I hate language like this:
The fact that the Holometer ruled out his theory to a high level of significance proves that it can probe time and space at previously unimagined scales, Hogan says.
Why? If the theory requires "X ≥ Y" and the machine shows "X < Y/1000000000", wouldn't that rule out the theory? And if the machine is likely to be wrong 1:1000000000, wouldn't that be high precision? (These are just examples, I didn't try to dig out the real figures.)
How would you word a statement to better convey that information?
If your argument is that the statement is imprecise, well so is this...
It also proves that if this quantum jitter exists, it is either much smaller than the Holometer can detect, or is moving in directions the current instrument is not configured to observe.
...because strictly speaking that "proves" nothing. It makes it highly probable.

@fbmac said in New Gravity:
I personally find dark matter an awesome idea, in hope for it to be something interesting
You realize that if you can't interact with it, you can't delete it, right?

@MZH said in New Gravity:
@boomzilla Ever since I saw the pictures of the Bullet Cluster, showing that the apparent distribution of dark matter can be independent of normal matter, I've been convinced that dark matter is an actual material thing. But, I'm not involved in any of the research (astronomical or direct detection), so I'm just watching the science play out. New physics or new kinds of matter are both cool.
That was my first thought on this: How does it explain the lensing not being focused where it's expected?
@dkf said in New Gravity:
@flabdablet said in New Gravity:
It's not completely implausible that nobody ever will have those skills.
I don't mean an exact solution. I meant that I can't even see far enough through the problem to know if a fractal matter distribution would make the sort of difference that actually substantively changes things; I know that it would be consistent with the Cosmological Principle on the grounds that at least some fractals have no meaningful edge and no particular special configuration. (Alternatively, the fractal might actually be in some sort of inverse space, rather analogous to a fourier transform or stereographic projection.)
But marrying the whole business of fractals with string theory (two quite different areas of mathematics AIUI) is a really tall order; totally beyond my skills. Then there are the more exotic MONDlike theories which would need this sort of thing doing too and it all needs a professional mathematician to make any progress, and that's definitely not me.
Wikipedia says that a similar idea's been proposed:
@LorneKates said in New Gravity:
(Complete sidenote: I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of America > Canada emigration after an election/proposition? Or is it all just talk?)
@boomzilla said in New Gravity:
The Northwest Passage seems much more sinister to me now.
Global warming is just a Canadian conspiracy to make the Northwest Passage a more attractive shipping route, thus trapping more people in Canada after they crash on the artificial reefs secretly placed there by the Canadian Illuminateh.


@dkf said in New Gravity:
@Dreikin said in New Gravity:
the Candian Illuminateh
QF
There's a typo in your quote. No, I don't know how it got there.
>.>
<.<
No idea at all.

@Dreikin said in New Gravity:
There's a typo in your quote.
Really? I'm so used to accalias that I tend to not see them any more. And I've not cleaned my glasses today.

@CoyneTheDup said in New Gravity:
If your argument is that the statement is imprecise, well so is this...
No, it's not that it's imprecise. It's that it's fucking gibberish. What is a "high level of significance?" I can practically guarantee you that it's statistical gibberish.
@CoyneTheDup said in New Gravity:
If your argument is that the statement is imprecise, well so is this...
"It also proves that if this quantum jitter exists, it is either much smaller than the Holometer can detect, or is moving in directions the current instrument is not configured to observe."
That's not gibberish, though. It makes sense! It's actually a defensible statement.