Background and no background?

Posted by sol on September 14, 2002 at 19:16:56:

In Reply to: Re: The Continuum Hypothesis, Not! posted by DickT on September 14, 2002 at 06:23:35:

Dickt,

What do we mean when we say "continuum"? Here's a description Albert Einstein gave on p. 83 of his Relativity: The Special and the General Theory:

The surface of a marble table is spread out in front of me. I can get from any one point on this table to any other point by passing continuously from one point to a "neighboring" one, and repeating this process a (large) number of times, or, in other words, by going from point to point without executing "jumps." I am sure the reader will appreciate with sufficient clearness what I mean here by "neighbouring" and by "jumps" (if he is not too pedantic). We express this property of the surface by describing the latter as a continuum.

Dickt, did nobody read the paragraph by Einstein?

If we are to understand topological movement as smooth, how could we say it is discrete? So it has to be described a different way. How would you describe points within the states of deveopement in the standard model?

Yes by its particle nature, and force carriers, but if we understood such manifestation in the developement of these particles, would it be better not to call it by the understanding of what energy does, in its signatures?

Sol

(Report this post to the moderator)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

• Re: Background and no background? -- DickT 9/14/02 (4)
  • Re: Background and no background? -- sol 9/14/02 (3)
    • Re: Background and no background? -- DickT 9/15/02 (2)
      • Planck Scale? -- sol 9/15/02 (1)
        • c1) Nano Planck Scale: Each String / particle is an Universe & Web of the Cosmos -- kx21 9/15/02 (0)

Post a Followup