0

This question has already been asked Does the Planck scale imply that spacetime is discrete?

however I'm wondering if there has been any change in the community since it was asked roughly 8 years ago. In particular, the accepted answer on the previous question seems to be pretty emphatic in the negative:

The proposition that distances or durations become discrete near the Planck scale is a scientific hypothesis and it is one that may be - and, in fact, has been - experimentally falsified. For example, these discrete theories inevitably predict that the time needed for photons to get from very distant places of the Universe to the Earth will measurably depend on the photons' energy. The Fermi satellite has showed that the delay is zero within dozens of milliseconds.

However, there was another good answer that appeared roughly two years later which takes the idea of a discrete universe as a serious scientific question. They also link an 89 page PDF (https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6191) which takes the issue very seriously. Did the author of that PDF fail to just read Luboš Motl's answer?

Does Luboš Motl's answer give zero chance for such a model or is it simply very unlikely. Has the science changed at all?

Note: I realize that this is a `duplicate' question, but the second answer in the other question seems both sincere and respectable yet largely ignored. What's up with that?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Clclstdnt
  • 101
  • 1
    Don't add a duplicate, just put a bounty on the old question. The fact is that there are always multiple ways to answer every question. I think Lubos' denial is a little too strong, a more cautious thing would be to say that we don't really know either way, but he is correct that the most common opinion is that spacetime isn't discrete. – knzhou Jun 10 '19 at 20:45
  • Sorry.... new to this community. And besides, I have so few points to give. – Clclstdnt Jun 10 '19 at 20:48
  • Echoing the above comment, please do not duplicate questions. There is an explicit bounty reason for "answers may be outdated and need changes" if you think that the facts underlying the answers to a question have substantially changed. For the issue of the Planck length, see also https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/185939/50583 – ACuriousMind Jun 10 '19 at 20:49
  • A bounty of 100 is plenty to get answers! You can also stick around a bit — it doesn’t take long to get about 100 more rep. – knzhou Jun 10 '19 at 20:51
  • Thank you for the helpful insight! I'll consider posting a bounty in a week or so.... – Clclstdnt Jun 10 '19 at 21:01

0 Answers0