It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

Quantized Space & Time

page: 1
9
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:30 AM
Is there such a thing as the smallest unit of length or the shortest increment of time? That is the question I want to discuss in this thread. It may seem like a stupid question at first glance, a bit like asking if there is such a thing as the largest possible number. Our natural intuition would seem to tell us that space and time can be divided into infinitely smaller units. From our point of view time seems to be a smooth and unbroken phenomena. Likewise, it's natural to think that we can zoom in infinitely on an object to get finer and finer detail.

After all, it's not like we live in a computer game right? Why should space be cut up into little discrete units of length and why should time be split into discrete intervals? Could it really be possible that small particles are restricted to certain units of space and that they move between those units in periodic intervals of time? While it may seem quite hard to grasp, I will now present several arguments which will make you strongly question the possibility of quantized space and time, and hopefully convince you that it is more rational overall.

The first problem that crops up when you try to describe space as an infinitely divisible variable is that you open the door for a fractal universe... if you are able to zoom in infinitely on any given patch of space you must accept the possibility that eventually you'll zoom in on a whole new universe. You cannot argue that particles wont form at such small scaled because there is no such thing as "small scales" in infinitely divisible space. The conclusion is that there is an infinite number of unimaginably small universes surrounding us and filling every part of space.

The next, and equally as concerning problem, is the concept of the big bang when interpreted through the lense of infinitely divisible time. If any length of time is infinitely divisible, every passing moment is an eternity in some sense. When we calculate the age of the universe, we do so by calculating how fast the universe is expanding and we work backwards, until all the energy of all the galaxies is condensed into a singularity. The standard model breaks down however once you get too close to the singularity and the energy densities become too extreme.

The problem is essentially that if time is infinitely divisible, then our calculations will allow us to see closer and closer to the moments just after the big bang, but it's always possible to get closer, so we need more and more computing power to look closer and closer, but the mathematics breaks down before you can reach a meaningful conclusion. The only conclusion you can reach is a point of energy so dense where the curvature of space is so high that it forms a singularity where all energy is condensed into one single point with no volume.

Another problem which arises when one is dealing with infinitely divisible space and time is a problem related to velocity. If space and time is infinitely divisible, it means that a particle can occupy an infinite amount of different points in space. This is problematic because if a particle isn't restricted to certain positions in space, it can be made to travel through space at infinitely slower and slower velocities. When we measure the velocity of anything, we're talking about velocity relative to our own frame of reference, which is typically the Earth.

So when we measure the speed of a spacecraft exiting the Earth's atmosphere we say it's travelling at a certain speed, relative to our position on Earth. But we also know the Earth moving. The true velocity of the craft is not what we measure it to be from our frame of reference, it's only true from our frame of reference. But what is the velocity of Earth relative to? It can't be relative to the speed of light, because light behaves according to the theory of special relativity. If we can't even detect the end of the universe how can we even define what "truly stationary" even means?

It's all relative unless we have some sort of fundamentally stable reference point, but there is no such point. There is no sign post out in the universe which reads "this sign is absolutely stationary and can be used as a reference point for determining the true velocity of any object". But if there is no such reference point then how can the speed of light be the universal speed limit? If everything is relative it makes no sense what so ever to say that the speed of light is the universal speed limit, we don't even know how fast we are really travelling through the universe or multiverse.

This is a huge problem for the standard model in my mind. However, if we accept the idea that space and time may be quantized, then we can calculate what is the smallest possible length (planck length), the shortest period of time (planck time), and thus the limits on velocity, and how those variables relate to our own frame of reference. It gives us some fundamentally stable reference point to base our observations upon. Having quantized time also allows us to step back towards the moment of the big bang in discrete units of time instead of continuous time.

One theory which takes this approach is loop quantum gravity. In this theory space and time are broken up into discrete units and we can say with absolute precision exactly how much energy can fit into any given unit of space. Believe it or not, this is achieved with very solid mathematics and theoretical models. When matter is sucked into a black hole the bits of information which made up that matter are stored on the 2-dimensional surface of the event horizon around the black hole in a sort of holographic format.

One puzzling feature is that the entropy of a black hole scales with its area rather than with its volume, since entropy is normally an extensive quantity that scales linearly with the volume of the system. This odd property led Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind to propose the holographic principle, which suggests that anything that happens in a volume of spacetime can be described by data on the boundary of that volume.[120]

Black Hole - Event Horizon

The Planck length is the square root of the Planck area, which is the area by which a spherical black hole increases when the black hole swallows one bit of information. The proof is relatively simple and was first set out by Jacob Bekenstein.[3]

Planck Length - Physical Significance

Now if you're not a physicist, it may seem strange to measure matter in terms of informational "bits", but trust me it's very possible to do, especially since all particles are quantum mechanical in nature. Loop quantum gravity takes the idea that any given Planck unit of space has a very specific maximum energy density, so it's impossible to create a singularity or single point of energy which contains all the energy of the universe. Instead, if you work back towards the big bang you find that at some point space becomes "full" and it causes a big bounce event.

Most loop quantum gravity theorists do not like to make presumptions about what led up the big bounce event. Loop quantum gravity does not predict that the universe is cyclic or that it will re-collapse. It says that if the universe were to re-collapse then it would not end in a singularity like general relativity would predict. Current observations indicate that the universe will in fact expand forever, which only makes the mystery of what happened before the big bang much deeper and mysterious. But what reason is there to believe that loop quantum gravity is correct?

Well for a start it solves all of the paradoxes I just mentioned. Secondly, quantum mechanics already demonstrates the fact that everything we can measure is quantized. There are no truly continuous or fractal energy states in nature. For example the energy states that an electron can possess around the nuclei of an atom is broken into discrete energy states. Light comes in discrete little packets of quanta which we call photons. There is no such thing as 1.5 quantas, one quantum is the smallest possible unit of energy, it cannot be broken into smaller units.

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization".[1] This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values.

Quantum

Nature does not like infinite fractions when it comes to the behavior of particles and energy. For most quantum physicists it isn't a big leap for them to accept that idea that space and time could also be quantized. In fact it becomes hard to see how space and time couldn't be quantized when you look closely enough at the problem and realize that everything else is quantized. Particle physics is now becoming dominated by quantum field theory, which describes particles as quantized ripples in an underlying field.

For example the Higgs boson is commonly described as the result of a ripple in the Higgs field. The universe is telling us something, and that something is that reality must be built on discrete units and not infinite fractions. That is why there does in fact appear to be such as thing as the "smallest particle", that is why all particles look exactly the same. If you could divide energy up into infinitely small units, then nearly all particles would look different, but in fact all fundamental particles in existence have the exact same structure (eg electrons).

I believe that the same rules apply for space and time because if they didn't apply it would result in a whole range of paradoxes. I don't think everything is quantized because we live in a computer simulation, I think everything is quantized because that's just the natural state of reality, it's impossible for anything to be defined with infinite precision and so the universe doesn't attempt to define anything with infinite precision. We live in something which resembles a digital universe not because it's a simulation, but because information likes to be in a digital state.
edit on 16/9/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:38 AM

I don't know if this helps or is exactly what you are looking for, but if we measure the speed of our thought process in the amount of time (Hz) it takes to think of something and then have it realized (being creative and then following through), the faster that we can do this, the more aware of our surrounds we can become - I was charting it out the other day, and was under the impression that the speed of light might be the fastest, at which point we would be entirely aware of our surroundings.

It is interesting, because this plays into Luciferian Light and Ascension / Beings of Light. Oh, I was answering your question about the smallest increment of time, and I think that would be when the cycles per second have reached the speed of light... since time is a construct of our minds, this is entirely legitimate, in my opinion -
edit on 16-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:46 AM

I have to think about this for a second, a Hz would be cycles per second... I see what I am trying to say here, the Hz value would approach infinity, and one cycle would be the smallest unit of time. At least that is a start, there might be something that could set the limit, any ideas?

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:19 AM

Oh, I was answering your question about the smallest increment of time, and I think that would be when the cycles per second have reached the speed of light... since time is a construct of our minds, this is entirely legitimate, in my opinion

I agree that time is a construct of our mind. If the speed of light is indeed the maximum speed limit for any object, then the fastest processor in this universe cannot have computational cycles which are faster than the speed of light. It's better to think in terms of the particles which move through time rather than the movement of time. Time does not move, the particles do. The photon moves the fastest out of all the particles and it never stops moving because it has no mass, so in essence we can imagine that every time a photon moves from one place to another, the universe has completed one cycle. And if all the positions in space that the photon can take up are restricted to a discrete set of points in space, it's not really like the photon has moved at all. Each time a unit of time passes, the photon will jump from one position to the next without actually travelling the space between the points, much like how an electron will undergo a quantum leap between energy levels around the atom. The rate at which we perceive time is related to the rate at which our brain completes computational cycles, and of course that is much slower than the speed of light. If our brains did function at the speed of light, I don't believe we would be aware of everything, but we would be aware of everything that we could possibly be aware of.
edit on 16/9/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:23 AM
Sorry this isn't necessarily related to your post but from what I've read, it seems like your a teacher, a student, or you like the field of physics, the only reason ask is because I'm trying to get into this field as well but am at a crosswords as to what type of physics, I would like to learn. I did read your post and after half way through I was lost, but I think I do grasp the concept. From what I understand it seems to work itself out, but I'm def not educated on the matter.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:44 AM

amsterdamn87
Sorry this isn't necessarily related to your post but from what I've read, it seems like your a teacher, a student, or you like the field of physics, the only reason ask is because I'm trying to get into this field as well but am at a crosswords as to what type of physics, I would like to learn. I did read your post and after half way through I was lost, but I think I do grasp the concept. From what I understand it seems to work itself out, but I'm def not educated on the matter.

Researching theoretical physics is just one of my many hobbies. Personally I think some sort of quantum cosmology field would be the most interesting. I think quantum field and quantum gravity theories are the most promising avenues of research. I would personally avoid string theory because I think loop quantum gravity is much more robust alternative and offers more testable hypothesis.

LQG differs from string theory in that it is formulated in 3 and 4 dimensions and without supersymmetry or Kaluza–Klein theory extra dimensions, while the latter requires both to be true. There is no experimental evidence to date that supports string theory's predictions of supersymmetry and Kaluza–Klein theory extra dimensions. In a 2003 paper A dialog on quantum gravity,[74] Carlo Rovelli regards the fact LQG is formulated in 4 dimensions and without supersymmetry as a strength of the theory as it represents the most parsimonious explanation, consistent with current experimental results, over its rival string/M-theory. Peter Woit in Not Even Wrong and Lee Smolin in The Trouble with Physics also regards string/M-theory to be in conflict with current known experimental results.

Loop Quantum Gravity - Gravitons, string theory, super symmetry, extra dimensions in lqg

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:11 AM

So when we measure the speed of a spacecraft exiting the Earth's atmosphere we say it's travelling at a certain speed, relative to our position on Earth. But we also know the Earth moving. The true velocity of the craft is not what we measure it to be from our frame of reference, it's only true from our frame of reference. But what is the velocity of Earth relative to? It can't be relative to the speed of light, because light behaves according to the theory of special relativity. If we can't even detect the end of the universe how can we even define what "truly stationary" even means?

Well, there is always the microwave background radiation - as I have shown before How fast are we?, you could measure the relative speed of an object compared to the MBR. Sure, that thing isn't "stationary", but we have sufficiently measured its parameters.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 07:49 AM

ManFromEurope

Sure, that thing isn't "stationary", but we have sufficiently measured its parameters.

The CMB radiation consists of electromagnetic radiation (photons) which travel at the speed of light, so it is indeed not stationary. Like I said in the opening post, how is it logical to use photons as a reference point when they behave according to the rules of special relativity? Maybe I'm just missing something about special relativity, but I cannot see how the CMB helps us to solve this problem in a satisfying manner.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 08:17 AM
Excellent topic.

It has always been my opinion that both space and time must be quantized.

Because the inescapable alternative is that you must have infinite complexity in finite amount of space or of time, which is a contradiction in itself.

I think science will bear out this view eventually.

However, try pitching this view with mainstream mathematicians or physicists and you're in for a brawl, as you can see here:

physicsforums.com
edit on 2013/9/16 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:09 AM

ChaoticOrder
The CMB radiation consists of electromagnetic radiation (photons) which travel at the speed of light, so it is indeed not stationary. Like I said in the opening post, how is it logical to use photons as a reference point when they behave according to the rules of special relativity? Maybe I'm just missing something about special relativity, but I cannot see how the CMB helps us to solve this problem in a satisfying manner.
The CMB photons travel at the speed of light, that's true.

I think what you're missing is this red shift versus blue shift picture, of the photon frequency (or wavelength). This provides an apparent "stationary reference frame" and tells us our motion relative to that frame.

www.astrobio.nau.edu...

The Earth's motion through space causes a spatial red/blue shift of the CMBR.
We are moving toward the blue shift and moving away from the red shift, and the amount of the shift can even tell us the velocity.

edit on 16-9-2013 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:24 AM

Well that's the reason I tend to post threads like this on ATS and not on those popular science forums which are full of self-proclaimed experts. Those forums are probably one of the worste places to learn about physics imo because everyone is so closed minded and set in their ways, rather than appreciating how much we still don't know about the nature of reality.

But I think the main reason they were so hostile towards you was actually because of what you were arguing about irrational numbers. Personally I would have to agree with them, that pi is a number. It may not be a number that we can ever fully express, but it can be mathematically manipulated using algebra and other techniques which treat it as if it were a number. So for all intents and purposes it is a number.

The true problem that you are really getting at is that pi is an infinite number with infinite precision, and that is very much related to what we are discussing here. It's not that pi has no real value, it's that we can never fully express the real value. One can mathematically prove that 0.999... where the 9 repeats for infinity, is actually equal to 1. They are the same value from a mathematical point of view.

However mathematics is pure abstract logic, it allows us to manipulate weird objects like complex numbers and even do arithmetic with infinities. I do not think the real world is like that though, it's impossible for anyone to ever write out the full value of pi, and that to me is the very essence of why everything in the real world must be quantized. Abstract irrational numbers simply do not translate over into the real world.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:39 AM
Hi,

What you have done here is a very clear and precise written introduction to the concept of unified field theory.

After years of studying I also came to the same conclusions as you have pointed to here... But...

After looking further into it I started to study Quantum Gravity and found Loop Gravity to be the most likely truth.

It is in fact what brought me to ats...

Finally an answer to EVERYTHING - Quantum Field Gravity - BRAIDS

In fact it goes far more than to talk about the quantisation of space/time to a deeper understanding of the unified field.

It explains that for example the LHC and in fact the goal of the whole field of particle or high energy physics is something they don't yet know it is. Not a search for the smallest scale particle but will eventually discover that all matter is made of space time and there is nothing in the universe other than this raw material.

In my further searching I discovered God.... No not the god of religions but the true God... that there is no difference between you and me and that we are all just aspects of the whole. The whole being consciousness that is the foundation of all creation from the raw chaos at the fundamental level of reality... The unified Field.

Enjoy,

Korg.

edit on 16-9-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:43 AM

We are moving toward the blue shift and moving away from the red shift, and the amount of the shift can even tell us the velocity.

Hmmm, that is very interesting. I thought that redshift was typically caused by the expansion of space between the galaxies. Why is it that our movement away or towards a photon would cause us to measure a redshift or blue shift in the wavelength of the photon? I don't quite understand why the velocity of our solar system or our galaxy would cause the wavelength of the CMB photons to blue shift in the direction that we were travelling.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:57 AM

Same principle. In the case of blue shifted galaxies, we are moving toward them (or they toward us, depending on your reference frame), and in the case of red shifted galaxies, they are moving away from us (or we are moving away from them, depending on your reference frame), though as you pointed out the apparent motion in some cases is the result of the metric expansion of space.

So if you understand that, and it sounds like you probably do, then it should be pretty easy to just substitute the cosmic microwave background radiation photons for photons from galaxies.

And if you don't, an over-simplified analogy would be the Doppler effect of a train whistle pitch dropping as it passes you. It's "blue-shifted" or higher frequency when moving toward you, and "red shifted" or lower frequency when moving away from you. But don't get the wrong idea from that analogy that cosmological redshifts are Doppler shifts...it's more complicated than that because there's no metric expansion of space in the train example, but that analogy should give you some idea, until you study the details of cosmological redshifts.
edit on 16-9-2013 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:09 AM

Korg Trinity

Finally an answer to EVERYTHING - Quantum Field Gravity - BRAIDS

Just a note... I am not trying to derail or distract would be readers away from this thread... nor am I the author of the thread above...

Peace,

Korg.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by Korg Trinity

Not a search for the smallest scale particle but will eventually discover that all matter is made of space time and there is nothing in the universe other than this raw material.

I agree, but personally I'm starting to move away from the braid theory. I believe that loop quantum gravity is correct in the general claim that all matter is made of space-time, but I'm not convinced that it forms in the types of braids that we typically see theorized by loop quantum gravity physicists. I think the way space is quantized is something even more fundamental than braids. In my mind it seems like you could have a virtually unlimited number of braid configurations, even very simple braids could be configured in many different ways. But we don't seem to observe that type of extreme particle diversity in the real world. There seems to be a rather small set of fundamental particles which can be used to construct every other type of particle.

So there's something very strange going on there, and I think it really gets down to the fact of what space-time actually is. Is it just a projection from a holographic surface, is it some type of 2D surface or membrane which produces the illusion of 3D space, or is space actually 3-dimentional, or perhaps there are even more dimensions that we can't see? Until we really have a good answer to these questions we will have trouble describing how space is quantized and how it can be manipulated to form a restricted set of fundamental particles. I have thought about this problem a little bit but it's really beyond my ability to work with such complex ideas.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:27 AM

Same principle. In the case of blue shifted galaxies, we are moving toward them (or they toward us, depending on your reference frame), and in the case of red shifted galaxies, they are moving away from us (or we are moving away from them, depending on your reference frame).

I don't think it's quite the same principle. The light from galaxies which are moving away from us is typically red-shifted not because the galaxy is actually moving through space at a high speed away from us, but because the space between our galaxy and the other galaxy is expanding, so the space the photon is travelling through is literally expanding. As the space expands it stretches out the wavelength of the photon, and by using "standard candles" that is how we can tell how far the photon has travelled to reach us. However a galaxy which is travelling towards us must be moving through space towards us at a high enough velocity so that its speed will overcome the expansion of space. Which is to say, the only galaxies moving towards us will be galaxies which are very close to our galaxy, and so there will be little to no wavelength shifting on the photon which is caused by the expansion of space. So what remains must be some other type of wavelength shifting phenomena.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:48 AM

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Korg Trinity

Not a search for the smallest scale particle but will eventually discover that all matter is made of space time and there is nothing in the universe other than this raw material.

I agree, but personally I'm starting to move away from the braid theory. I believe that loop quantum gravity is correct in the general claim that all matter is made of space-time, but I'm not convinced that it forms in the types of braids that we typically see theorized by loop quantum gravity physicists. I think the way space is quantized is something even more fundamental than braids. In my mind it seems like you could have a virtually unlimited number of braid configurations, even very simple braids could be configured in many different ways. But we don't seem to observe that type of extreme particle diversity in the real world. There seems to be a rather small set of fundamental particles which can be used to construct every other type of particle.

So there's something very strange going on there, and I think it really gets down to the fact of what space-time actually is. Is it just a projection from a holographic surface, is it some type of 2D surface or membrane which produces the illusion of 3D space, or is space actually 3-dimentional, or perhaps there are even more dimensions that we can't see? Until we really have a good answer to these questions we will have trouble describing how space is quantized and how it can be manipulated to form a restricted set of fundamental particles. I have thought about this problem a little bit but it's really beyond my ability to work with such complex ideas.

Hi chaotic

Quantized space is very likely, I have been playing with the idea for a while and it seems to have some merit. It is the only theory that can provide a bottom for the never ending onion peel of particles. As Korg points out there is likely a way that space gets converted into fundamental particles that build the rest. The floor is the space to fundamental particle transformation. I expect there to be a simple relationship (akin to energy to mass) that defines the amount of matter we apparently see in the universe.

This is not without its experimental hints already. The energy density at the planck length is absolutely enormous and after all energy is effectively mass. Casimir seems to have shown that whilst the energy fluctuates and balances to near zero, particles and energy can be scooped from the vacuum. It strongly supports the space to energy/matter relationship.

Whilst I understand why you do not like the 'braid' model as you put it and think there are unlimited configurations, there are likely only very limited numbers of ways that these quanta of space can be packed together to be stable. The usual candidates most know from crystals are imo the most stable energetically. If a quanta of space is wrapped up (for want of a better term) properties might emerge from its kink in the space matrix of quanta. If for geometric reasons the space quanta need to fill the voids between them (I think we need a new set of terms) this may distort the space around it causing very basic properties like mass.

These new particles might only remain stable if collected together in the larger subatomic particles. Just like crystals like certain mixes, there may well be similar patterns that work in this quantized space. Its a case of plugging them together to fill those lovely symmetric tables of particles the physicists come up with.

I think its the only way to connect the gravitational field and matter. In past experience like entities affect like entities. Its what linked the fields of electricity and magnetism. Likewise matter is known to affect space, is i such a great leap to think the two are connected deeply?

Apologies for all the 'liekly's''maybe's' and 'probablies' but its a really odd field. In the end I don't know it will be the source of that esoteric knowledge of 3D space projections and the rest, but it will likely so up the field of matters building blocks. Judging by what the electromagnetic combo delivered, it could be a very lucrative field of science.

Will
edit on 16-9-2013 by will2learn because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 11:57 AM

Whilst I understand why you do not like the 'braid' model as you put it and think there are unlimited configurations, there are likely only very limited numbers of ways that these quanta of space can be packed together to be stable.

I don't dislike it, I think it's a brilliant theory and I definitely think that something close to it is the truth. But the more I think about it, the more it seems like it's not a 100% correct theory. I think it's very close to the truth but not quite all the way there. For example, why is it that the standing waves produced by electrons around the nuclei produce shapes which correspond to spherical harmonics? Can you fully explain such abstract behavior of fundamental particles using only the braid theory?

My personal theory is that space can be stretched into a so called "negative dimension" (creating negative energy), which cannot be detected from within our own dimension. The basic idea is that energy can only be created if an equal amount of negative energy is also created. So we really only get to see one side of the big bang, in negative space there should have been a negative big bang. I really don't want to get too much into this concept in this thread but you can read more about that theory here.

I also want to share the following video because it's super cool and related to the subjects I have brought up in this post (spherical harmonics in particular) and near the end it shows something which I think is starting to get extremely close to the way subatomic particles are structured and the way they oscillate, and it's something which cannot be fully explained by braids imo. However, while I believe that both these concepts are getting very close to the truth, they are not entirely compatible. We need something which can merge the best of all these theories.

EDIT: to quote top comment from the video:

Tetrahedral non-euclidean geometry was my specialty... it is how spherical harmonics work, for buckyballs as well as hydrogen atoms... you are really on to something here...﻿ when you say "is this how atomic oscillations work", they're called "spherical harmonics" and yes, they work almost exactly how you have shown them... bravo, you deserve the nobel for this

edit on 16/9/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:27 PM
Hi,

That’s a good question. Yes space and time are quantized. If one really seek to understand, even as a lay person, then she or he will learn now what science in the future will ultimately learn, that space and time are discrete and actually form the smallest Planck size particle. Though it’s not correct, for now they can be thought of as spacetime particles, as it may help to imagine them. Everything in our universe (Bosons, Leptons and the Hadrons) are made from these particles.

The speed of light ( C ) is a limit? That is partially right, but that is because the speed of light is the limit only in any given three dimensional reference frame, we live in one, but there can be other reference frames, in fact if we live in a universe possessing 12 dimensions (3x4), it means besides our own, we can have access to other reference frames.

Though in any reference frame the max speed is that of light once reached we automatically inter the next, thus we can achieve a total of 4C. The speed of light should not be seen as a limit per se, but as a pivot or relative boundary. (by the way, you don’t get to this boundary by (moving) going fast.)

There are no infinities, there is no such thing as “forever”, nature is smarter then us. As we observe the universe the numbers may seem incredible and unlimited, but there aren’t an infinite number of particles or elements, there aren’t an infinite number of planets, stars or galaxies, like-wise, there isn’t an infinite number of time and space. What we refer to as gravity has many other faces, it’s a meta-phenomenon, and the out-come, the purpose is always the same. We can imagine infinities, but nature always sets upper and lower boundaries.

That everything is quantized, of course! If everything in the universe) is made from discrete particles of space and time, the basic building block, so it can only follow that energy (Planck's constent) and matter (alfa prime) are also quantized. Plancks constant relates to the discrete nature of the spacetime geometry of Volume (energy) and “alpha prime” (it will be discovered) relates to the discrete spacetime geometry of Area (mass).

top topics

9