The Instigator
Goldenpersuader
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bencbartlett
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Chance Gravity (my own idea)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
bencbartlett
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,037 times Debate No: 25470
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Goldenpersuader

Pro

I would like to see how someone interested in physics will react to my theory, I am not a physicist or even good at Mathematics but I do like to try and put a theory to certain events.
My theory is that space time is made up of set points where matter can be like pixels on a TV with gaps in between. When an object travels though space every one of its smallest particles jumps from dot to dot registering by chance, but as its moving forward there are points its more likely to move to but it may choose another its chance. Gravity comes in when a large or fast object takes up allot of points and causes the points to bend out , this means that as a particle fly s by our moon it starts to register on the points bent around it. The particle is attracted because if you draw a set of dots in an arch on paper and and start to join them to make a line travelling to the next logical point you will curve in towards the inside of the curves. the same happens as the particle attempts to make its way though space. The speed of a travelling particle effects the chance that it will turn from its current path so speed effects chance, maybe because speed effects gravity.
Finally time slows for you the faster you go or the stronger the gravity you are effected by. I think this is because if you hit a set of curved dots and had to jump from one to another and another person hit a set completely straight and unaffected by gravity, he would hit points with very little gap between then whereas the man inside the gravitational field would make large leaps from point to point sometimes meaning that even though he is travelling further he is in existence for less time making him age slower. The speed of light is simply the fastest it is possible to jump from one point to another.
bencbartlett

Con

To begin with, it’s nice to see someone else who likes to debate physics on here; it seems the vast majority of debates are all about politics or philosophy right now. Your theory is interesting, to say the least, though there are a few holes in it. I’ll point these out below. Also, just to give you some background information, I’ve got a background in quantum physics (physics major at MIT), particularly QCD and neutron scattering, so gravitation isn’t my area of specialty, though I’ll try and give you my two cents about it all the same, though I’ll stress contradictions it has with quantum physics more so than relativity. Some of the things I’ll be using are fairly mathematical, and, while I’ll try and explain them to the best of my ability, since you said you’re not really from a physics/math background, if you don’t understand any of them or think that they’re wrong, don’t hesitate to ask in the next round.


Your theory seems to take simple explanations of things that already have been explained, such as Lorentz contractions and time dilation, and make them more complicated, modifying them to fit your theory. A lot of concepts do not match with your theory, however. You may have just not noticed these, but if I am interpreting your description of your theory correctly (and please correct me if I am not in the next round), then some things don’t quite mesh.


Since you haven’t specified the mathematics of how the particles move from “pixel” to pixel, I’m going to assume it is whatever system provides the least error with current theory.


So, on to the main contentions I have.


Note: on second thought, I’m running out of space here. I’ll divide my argument up into two rounds. The first one is for quantum mechanics, and the second will be on the conflicts it has against relativity, though I may have a few other arguments related to QM.


C1: Your theory is inconsistent with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, among other laws of quantum mechanics. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, ΔxΔp≥ħ/2, states that the uncertainty of a system’s position, Δx, multiplied by the uncertainty of its momentum, Δp, cannot be greater than ħ/2, or 5.27285738 × 10-35m2kg/s (basically a very small unit of impulse). However, your system treats the motion of particles in a deterministic manner, where the position can be known exactly at every moment in time. This means that one can have no information on the momentum whatsoever, since Δp must be brought to infinity to preserve the uncertainty principle, as Δx is zero, since you know the position exactly due to the pixelation of space.


A second principle your theory violates is that of superposition and wavefunction collapse. Every particle or system of particles has a property called a wavefunction, which gives all possible information about its quantum states. This is generally denoted as ψ, and can be solved for using the Schrodinger wave equations. A superposition is the combination of two or more separate wavefunctions, denoted as ψ = a|φ1>+b|φ2>. Think of this as ripples in a slinky. A standing wave is any wave that doesn’t move along its transverse axis, so in this analogy, it's basically when you make a wave in a slinky that just goes up and down, not along the axis of the slinky. Say you have two people, one holding each end of the slinky. The first guy tries to make a standing wave with two periods in the slinky, and the second guy makes one with three periods. When only the first guy is making the waves, the wavefunction, loosely, could be expressed as ψ = 1|P2>+0|P3>, and when only the second guy is doing it, it is ψ = 0|P2>+1|P3>, where P2 and P3 denote the "wavefunctions" associated with a two period and three period standing wave. However, when they start doing it at the same time, you’ll get a strange combination of these, denoted as ψ = 1/sqrt(2)|P2>+1/sqrt(2)|P3>. (The 1/sqrt(2) is just a constant added to ensure that the sum of the squares of the wavefunction add up to 1.) Now for a more applicable example. The spin of a particle, or the way it behaves in a magnetic field, can be in both a spin up and spin down state. At the same time. (ψ = 1/(sqrt(2))|U>+1/(sqrt(2))|D>). This is not saying that it’s either up or down, and you don’t know until you measure it, it’s actually in both up and down, just like the slinky is making both a two period and a three period standing wave at the same time. However, when you take a measurement of the system, something called a wavefunction collapse occurs. This means that any measurement-taking operation, or any action that even has the potential to extract information from the system, will cause a superposition of several wavefunctions to collapse into one of the wavefunctions, where the probability of collapse into each is proportional to the square of the coefficient in front of it (essentially, the more one wavefunction is used, the more likely it is to collapse into that state). Similarly, this applies to position in space, where each path through space can be represented by a vector, just like |U> and |D> or |P2> and |P3>. However, by quantizing space, your deterministic theory would involve a wavefunction collapse every time the particle changes “pixels”, meaning that no quantum phenomena could result at all, since your particle’s wavefunction would be confined to that individual point in space. I’ll explain one of the biggest problems I see with your theory here, but I’ll be using a fairly technical and mathematical explanation, so you can either take my word for it and move on or read through the next paragraph.


Derivation:



The wavefunction of a particle or system can be expressed in two ways: one, using vectors and linear algebra, as you have seen above with the bra-ket notation, and one using functions with calculus. I’ll be using the latter here. Essentially, expressing the Schrodinger equation of a free particle in any line, if you try to quantize space, you’ll end up with a remainder term when integrating the square of the wavefunction over all real space. Basically, this means that there is a certain probability that the particle may just cease to exist. Not cease to exist, and convert its mass to energy, like an annihilation reaction, but simply cease to exist. The energy is gone forever. Obviously, this violates conservation of energy. I’ve attached a condensed derivation of this in a picture below. I’ve skipped a few steps, since the actual math would take many pages to go over, but I’ve left in the key steps. Essentially what I’ve done is solved for the wavefunction of a free particle in three-dimensional space, generalized it to one dimension, taken the continuous wavefunction and quantized it to take into account your quantization, or “pixilation” of space, and then tried to plug that back into the Schrodinger equation, getting a remainder term. When integrating over all real space, the probability of existence should always equal exactly 1. If it doesn’t, (and it didn’t in this case), there is a huge problem, as I explained above.



===Conclusion and continuation===


I’ve tried to explain, to the best of my ability, why your theory violates quantum mechanics. It also looks like I’ve run out of space. I’ve got a heap of other arguments I’ll put in the next round, more so in the relativity area, which is less math intensive, but if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. To be continued... (Dun dun dun.)



===References===


Good references to look up things about quantum physics (I use too many concepts to be able to cite them all):


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Goldenpersuader

Pro

I have read about most of what you wrote about and your argument was very strong, except in parts where a theory was used to prove a theory could not be.
Like me saying everything you just said can not be true because my uncle said god did it.
I will now go into a little greater detail about my theory but still very unmathmatic because I have a c in GCSE math.

I think that the most basic of fundamental particles is a simple single state piece of energy that can be still, move in any direction that there is an open space or be somewhere else at random for the time it takes the particle to jump into its next space which always depends on the impulse imparted onto it.
I think these particles decide on which space to next move to for the combined reasons of.
1.which spaces are taken.
2. Can I give some of my momentum to move a particle in time for me to take his place.
3. Direction and speed I last traveled at.
4. After other things all considered it's chance I could go against them all.
If this was true all other structures known and unknown must be built from these simple building blocks and I think this'd is possible even after reading your earlier evidence.

You mentioned that a particles positions cannot be known exactly, and I realise that I am cutting very much to the point with my arguments. In my greater detail I say that for part of the time the particles are not known but somewhere else as they decide where to next move.

You said that a particle an disappear completely, this could happen if a particle was deciding where to next be and every possible place became taken, the chances would be minute though.

You said that under magnetic forces a particle can have a bend both to the right and left at the same time and when it is observed it chooses. This could be explained by the particles having both the options of right and left available before they choose.

Any known characters tic of any particle can be explained by the functions of these simple particles and I would like you to name one that you think I would have trouble simply explaining. I would appreciate it if you explained it as non mathematically as possible for me though.

Finally I read about particles being in communication over infinitely large spaces a while ago and even that fits with my theory when you think they may not be different but just the same particle in its two homes in space.
bencbartlett

Con

To begin with, I don’t quite understand your analogy about “using a theory to prove a theory that cannot be” and your uncle saying “God did it.” All of the concepts which I have introduced in the last round are accepted principles in physics; can you direct me to the ones you take issue with specifically? Furthermore, I’m not quite sure you understand the boundaries to which theories must be correct. If I develop a theory, say, that how fast something heats up in the microwave is dependent only on how long it is in there, and then I find that oil heats much more slowly than water (which is the case, by the way, because of water’s polarity), then I have found evidence that contradicts my theory, and I must revise it, no matter how many other things it accurately predicted. Similarly, I have shown in the last argument that your theory is inconsistent with multiple principles in quantum physics, and will show in this round the conflicts with special and general relativity. These are all accepted concepts in physics, not “theories which cannot be”, which your theory contradicts. Thus, your theory is flawed to some extend and requires revision.

===Rebuttal===
To begin with, I take issue with your assertion that “the most basic of fundamental particles is a simple single state piece of energy”. As of current, there are 16, arguably 17 fundamental particles, none of which can be considered more “basic” than the others, as they are, by definition, fundamental. These include the six quarks (up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom), the six leptons (electron, muon, tao, and their neutrinos), and the four (likely five within a year or so) bosons (photon, gluon, W and Z and likely the Higgs boson, awaiting further verification from CERN). Each of these particles is distinct and fundamental.

Next, I take issue with your assertion that “the particle’s position cannot be known exactly… for part of the time, I say that the particles are not known but somewhere else as they decide where to next move”. I’m a little confused with what you’re suggesting – do you mean to say the particles “go somewhere else” while they make up their mind where to go? And if so, what on earth would incline you to conclude this?

“You said that a particle can disappear completely, this could happen if a particle was deciding where to next be and every possible place became taken, the chances would be minute though.” First, I never said a particle can simply disappear completely. This goes back to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: ΔxΔp≥ħ/2. An identical statement says something quite different: by rearranging the units, ΔxΔp≥ħ/2 can be changed into ΔEΔt≥ħ/2. This can very loosely be thought of as the following statement: “You can borrow energy from the universe, but the more you borrow, the faster you have to return it.” It is this effect that is responsible for vacuum fluctuations and the Casmir effect. However, if you have a particle simply disappearing from existence, you are borrowing a non-zero amount of energy for an infinite amount of time. I could go into the finer details of how this violates the Lagrangian symmetry, but take my word for it: particles don’t just disappear, aside from vacuum fluctuations. Note that conservation of energy has been proven rigorously, and is not just a theory, but a law.

“You said that under magnetic forces a particle can bend both left and right at the same time and when it observed it chooses. This could be explained by the particles having both the options of left and right available before they choose.” You’re misunderstanding two key concepts here. 1) Spin is not the same thing as charge. One deals with precession in a magnetic field, the other deals with the curvature of a trajectory in a magnetic field. You cannot have a superposition of wavefunctions with charge (at least this has never been observed), though you can with spin. 2) Your analogy doesn’t quite explain superposition. A particle will remain in a superposition until an information-gathering observation is made, in which case the wavefunction will collapse, causing it to choose one of the multiple component vectors. It literally behaves as BOTH possibilities. It doesn’t just have the option to do either and then chooses one. It will do both until an observation is made. It is this key difference that allows quantum computers to function so efficiently, as each qubit in a quantum computer can perform multiple superpositions of operations at the same time, not just one or the other.

“Finally, I read about particles being in communication over infinitely large spaces a while ago and even that fits with my theory when you think they may not be different but just the same particle in its two homes in space.” First of all, this is called quantum entanglement. This often occurs when two information-carrying particles are produced at the same point in spacetime. These particles can then be brought far away from each other (at less than or equal to the speed of light). However, meaningful communication between the particles faster than the speed of light is impossible. I will outline the steps of this process below.
1) A particle, say, a photon, is produced with its entangled pair.
2) The photons go in opposite directions at the speed of light for a year. (So the distance between them is 2 lightyears.)
3) Alice (the measurer) observes the spin or other state of one of the entangled photons. She gets a random result, either up or down.
4) Bob is now guaranteed to get the same result as Alice. However, since Alice has no control over the original result, Bob will receive what seems to be useless noise. Thus, meaningful communication faster than the speed of light does not occur and causality is preserved.

===Further Points===
It seems I have almost run out of space again, however, I have one other point I would like to make. First, you said in your original argument that “the speed of light is simply the fastest it is possible to jump from one point to another” and described gravity as stretching the points out in space. If this were true, the speed of light would be variable based on the gravitational effects of the area – in parts of space where the “pixels” were less dense, light would appear to travel faster than where they were more dense. Obviously, this is not the case, as the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and independent of the motion of the source and observer.

Also, utilizing conservation of energy once again, if you integrate all possible paths in a gravitational field, there is a non-trivial probability that, using your theory, a particle can permanently create potential energy by increasing the distance between itself and the object it is orbiting by consistently taking a path leading further away from the object. Obviously, the vast majority of the particles will remain near the object, however, given the incredibly tight error bounds of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, this poses a major problem with conservation of energy.

===Conclusion===
I have shown that your theory is incompatible with multiples laws of thermodynamics, quantum physics, and relativity. Since your theory, even though it explains a few things correctly, cannot account for these laws, it is flawed and must be revised. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
Goldenpersuader

Pro

of current, there are 16, arguably 17 fundamental particles, none of which can be considered more "basic" than the others, as they are, by definition, fundamental. These include the six quarks (up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom), the six leptons (electron, muon, tao, and their neutrinos), and the four (likely five within a year or so) bosons (photon, gluon, W and Z and likely the Higgs boson, awaiting further verification from CERN). Each of these particles is distinct and fundamental"
really ? knowing that time after time the simplest answer in physics is usually the correct one you believe that all of these particles are the fundamental particles.. I think they they are still complicated structures made from something more fundamental. once the atom was thought to be the smallest anything could be.

you said that my theory meant that light could travel faster than the speed of light if gravity bent the points it could land on thus causing the gaps between to be larger. this is exactly what I meant and it would not make light travel any faster. because it would cover the same amount of points in the same time but it would cover more distance.
my theory then basically splits space into two layers "pixels" that can be turned on or off. and the fabric that they sit on which slightly depending on the state of the pixels attached to it.
bencbartlett

Con


===Closing remarks===


I’ve definitely enjoyed debating this topic with you – you seem to have some interesting ideas, so keep working on them, though I would strongly suggest furthering your math background if you want to go into physics. In any case, I’m glad you put this up as a topic. And on to the last bit of rebuttals!



===Rebuttal===


really ? knowing that time after time the simplest answer in physics is usually the correct one you believe that all of these particles are the fundamental particles.. I think they they are still complicated structures made from something more fundamental. once the atom was thought to be the smallest anything could be.



What separates the standard model as the most fundamental set of particles from, say, the atom, is the mathematically rigorous derivation of the standard model. The concept of an atom originated with Democritus in ancient Greece, and was conceived of purely through intuition, whereas the standard model has been derived mathematically using Lagrangian physics and has been shown to be consistent with measurements taken on the particles. Furthermore, though I am aware this is the last round of the debate and you’ll be unable to respond, I would like to pose the question as to what makes you believe that they are complicated structures made of something more fundamental. What characteristics of, say, quarks, makes you think this?



“you said that my theory meant that light could travel faster than the speed of light if gravity bent the points it could land on thus causing the gaps between to be larger. this is exactly what I meant and it would not make light travel any faster. because it would cover the same amount of points in the same time but it would cover more distance.



If light covers more distance in the same amount of time, its speed (distance/time) increases… I’m not sure what your argument is here.



===Conclusion===


While it has been pointed out in the comments section that quantized space is “supported by many scientists” (personally, I see this statement as a bit of a stretch, as many of these are fringe theories in physics), universally, the quantization of space in these theory is at or smaller than the Planck length. Your theory presumably uses larger pixel sizes, since each pixel must be at least as large as the smallest particle, generously being around 10^-25m in size, approximately 10 billion times larger than the Planck length. Physics has no explanation for what can happen at sizes smaller than the Planck length, as at that scale, space seems to be continuous; however, the massive pixilation of the universe present in your theory causes a large number of problems, as shown in round 1.



However, in summary, your theory violates quantum physics, particularly the Heisenberg uncertainty and wavefunction collapse principles, and general/special relativity, with a variable speed of light in a vacuum. That’s not to say your theory is entirely wrong, as it does account for many occurrences in physics, albeit in a forced, reverse-engineered manner. But it does break down when the concepts I mentioned are applied, so it cannot be entirely correct, and requires revision. That said, I enjoyed this debate, and vote con.


Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by lovedebate11 5 years ago
lovedebate11
um.. WHat?
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Your idea that space is discrete is supported by many scientists.
Posted by Goldenpersuader 5 years ago
Goldenpersuader
that's not my theory you fool :p
Posted by alex.whyte 5 years ago
alex.whyte
I'm not sure what you're debating here. If I accept this, will I be trying to prove that this is not a logical assumption?
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
"time slows for you the faster you go or the stronger the gravity you are effected by." Unoriginal theory.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
GoldenpersuaderbencbartlettTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument were too vague for a subject which is extremely precise. A systematic study of Physics and Mathematics is needed before anyone can present a 'theory'.
Vote Placed by Chaos88 5 years ago
Chaos88
GoldenpersuaderbencbartlettTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro simply dismissed established theories, equating them to statements of opinion. Also, Pro could have used Heisenburg's theory to bolster his own credibility.