Hi

Is there a consensus or majority view amongst physicists as to whether
space is continuous or made up of very small discrete "chunks"?

I know there have been a number of discussions about this at
sci.physics, including one ongoing, but I'm not looking for technical
answers or arguments - I wouldn't understand them. I just want to know
how the numbers come out on either side. 50-50? Or 90-10 one way? Or
what?

TIA

wrote in message
oups.com...
| Hi
|
| Is there a consensus or majority view amongst physicists as to whether
| space is continuous or made up of very small discrete "chunks"?
|
| I know there have been a number of discussions about this at
| sci.physics, including one ongoing, but I'm not looking for technical
| answers or arguments - I wouldn't understand them. I just want to know
| how the numbers come out on either side. 50-50? Or 90-10 one way? Or
| what?
|
| TIA

Science has always been advanced by individuals, not consensus.
What was consensus 100 years ago is nonsense today.
Androcles

"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message ...

wrote in message
oups.com...
| Hi
|
| Is there a consensus or majority view amongst physicists as to whether
| space is continuous or made up of very small discrete "chunks"?
|
| I know there have been a number of discussions about this at
| sci.physics, including one ongoing, but I'm not looking for technical
| answers or arguments - I wouldn't understand them. I just want to know
| how the numbers come out on either side. 50-50? Or 90-10 one way? Or
| what?
|
| TIA

Science has always been advanced by individuals, not consensus.
What was consensus 100 years ago is nonsense today.

To the original poster who asked:
"Is there a consensus or majority view amongst physicists as to whether
space is continuous or made up of very small discrete "chunks"?"

There is a consensus and majority view amongst physicists as to whether
this newsgroup is continuous and made up by very large discrete "cranks".

Dirk Vdm

Androcles wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
| Hi
|
| Is there a consensus or majority view amongst physicists as to whether
| space is continuous or made up of very small discrete "chunks"?
|
| I know there have been a number of discussions about this at
| sci.physics, including one ongoing, but I'm not looking for technical
| answers or arguments - I wouldn't understand them. I just want to know
| how the numbers come out on either side. 50-50? Or 90-10 one way? Or
| what?
|
| TIA

Science has always been advanced by individuals, not consensus.
What was consensus 100 years ago is nonsense today.
Androcles

I am not asking whether either opinion is right or wrong, or
speculating about what might happen in the future. I am simply asking
about the views of the scientific community today, and whether a
majority would come down on one side or the other.

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | Hi
| |
| | Is there a consensus or majority view amongst physicists as to
whether
| | space is continuous or made up of very small discrete "chunks"?
| |
| | I know there have been a number of discussions about this at
| | sci.physics, including one ongoing, but I'm not looking for
technical
| | answers or arguments - I wouldn't understand them. I just want to
know
| | how the numbers come out on either side. 50-50? Or 90-10 one way?
Or
| | what?
| |
| | TIA
|
| Science has always been advanced by individuals, not consensus.
| What was consensus 100 years ago is nonsense today.
| Androcles
|
| I am not asking whether either opinion is right or wrong, or
| speculating about what might happen in the future. I am simply asking
| about the views of the scientific community today, and whether a
| majority would come down on one side or the other.

Continuous or contiguous, analogue or digital, to the Victorians our
minds worked like clockwork, today computers are the analogy. I doubt
any real scientist would have such a ridiculous opinion of connecting
nothing to nothing and calling space. Real scientists only happen along
occasionally, the rest are thoughtless clones.
The opinion of the scientific community is that of the loudest bleat,
they are all sheep anyway.

"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." -- Jonathan Swift

Androcles wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | Hi
| |
| | Is there a consensus or majority view amongst physicists as to
whether
| | space is continuous or made up of very small discrete "chunks"?
| |
| | I know there have been a number of discussions about this at
| | sci.physics, including one ongoing, but I'm not looking for
technical
| | answers or arguments - I wouldn't understand them. I just want to
know
| | how the numbers come out on either side. 50-50? Or 90-10 one way?
Or
| | what?
| |
| | TIA
|
| Science has always been advanced by individuals, not consensus.
| What was consensus 100 years ago is nonsense today.
| Androcles
|
| I am not asking whether either opinion is right or wrong, or
| speculating about what might happen in the future. I am simply asking
| about the views of the scientific community today, and whether a
| majority would come down on one side or the other.

Continuous or contiguous, analogue or digital, to the Victorians our
minds worked like clockwork, today computers are the analogy. I doubt
any real scientist would have such a ridiculous opinion of connecting
nothing to nothing and calling space. Real scientists only happen along
occasionally, the rest are thoughtless clones.
The opinion of the scientific community is that of the loudest bleat,
they are all sheep anyway.


In that case, I want to know what is the loudest bleat with respect to
my original question. Or are you saying that the majority view is that
the question is meaningless?

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | wrote in message
| | oups.com...
| | | Hi
| | |
| | | Is there a consensus or majority view amongst physicists as to
| whether
| | | space is continuous or made up of very small discrete
"chunks"?
| | |
| | | I know there have been a number of discussions about this at
| | | sci.physics, including one ongoing, but I'm not looking for
| technical
| | | answers or arguments - I wouldn't understand them. I just want
to
| know
| | | how the numbers come out on either side. 50-50? Or 90-10 one
way?
| Or
| | | what?
| | |
| | | TIA
| |
| | Science has always been advanced by individuals, not consensus.
| | What was consensus 100 years ago is nonsense today.
| | Androcles
| |
| | I am not asking whether either opinion is right or wrong, or
| | speculating about what might happen in the future. I am simply
asking
| | about the views of the scientific community today, and whether a
| | majority would come down on one side or the other.
|
| Continuous or contiguous, analogue or digital, to the Victorians our
| minds worked like clockwork, today computers are the analogy. I
doubt
| any real scientist would have such a ridiculous opinion of
connecting
| nothing to nothing and calling space. Real scientists only happen
along
| occasionally, the rest are thoughtless clones.
| The opinion of the scientific community is that of the loudest
bleat,
| they are all sheep anyway.
|
|
| In that case, I want to know what is the loudest bleat with respect to
| my original question. Or are you saying that the majority view is that
| the question is meaningless?

The question is meaningless.
What the majority think is of no concern to me.

Start:
Axiom: The vacuum of space is nothing.
Observation: Light travels in vacuum.
Observation: The moon orbits the earth.
Theory: Space must be something.
Goto Start.

Can you break the loop, or must we forever idle away our lives on
nonsense?
Androcles.
"That fellow seems to me to possess but one idea, and that is a wrong
one."--Dr. Samuel Johnson