Timeline for Does the discreteness of spacetime in canonical approaches imply good bye to STR?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2011 at 7:53 | history | edited | Luboš Motl | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 22 characters in body
|
| Jan 23, 2011 at 15:31 | comment | added | Matt Reece | @space_cadet: I already gave you one reference on bounds on Lorentz violation in response to your question about graphene. One of the Fermi observations Lubos refers to is nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/edsumm/e091119-06.html, although I'm not sure why anyone would have expected an effect there given the already strong bounds.... | |
| Jan 23, 2011 at 10:53 | comment | added | user346 | simply untrue. I'm certain that there is no experiment in orbit or on earth which has ever probed any such effects anywhere close to the Plank scale. If there is please give me some references so I can share the sad news with my peers :) | |
| Jan 23, 2011 at 10:50 | comment | added | user346 | you say - discrete spacetime immediately implies lots of bulk degrees of freedom that remember the detailed arrangement of the discrete blocks - unless it is regular and unique. Consequently, the "vacuum" carries a gigantic entropy density - the Planck entropy density if the concept is applied at the Planck scale. This is true only if you don't believe what the holographic principle or the covariant entropy bound has to say about the limits of observability of these bulk degrees of freedom. Also you claim the Fermi satellite has verified that even at the Planck scale. AFAIK that is | |
| Jan 23, 2011 at 8:19 | comment | added | Luboš Motl | Exactly! Did you get to all these conclusions independently? Cool... I've been pointing the analogy - it's more than analogy, it's almost an equivalence - with the luminiferous aether for years... People like to "make things out of pieces" - and the electromagnetic and gravitational vacua are no exceptions. Moreover, there is this statement that "distances smaller than Planck length don't exist" that confuses many people. They heard it and misunderstood it, thinking it applies to coordinate differences. It can only apply to Lorentz-invariant "proper" distances, otherwise relativity is broken. | |
| Jan 23, 2011 at 8:13 | comment | added | user1355 | It's very much reminiscent of the 19th century aether Lubos!! I hope that gloomy history is not repeating itself. | |
| Jan 23, 2011 at 7:45 | history | answered | Luboš Motl | CC BY-SA 2.5 |