It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
ChaoticOrder
reply to post by will2learn
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 thisedit on 16/9/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
ChaoticOrder
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)
Pejeu
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.comedit on 2013/9/16 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)
darkbake
For example, I think the Double Slit Experiment is not actually a physics experiment, but a psychological one - I think it is a product of our perception. In fact, I think that the only reason we see either a wave or a particle is not because there IS either a wave or a particle, but because our minds are filtering out one or the other.
This is not because the thing we don't see isn't in this particular reality, either - what is really going on is we are multi-dimensional ourselves in our perception.
NorEaster
Pejeu
However, try pitching this view with mainstream mathematicians or physicists and you're in for a brawl, as you can see here:
physicsforums.comedit on 2013/9/16 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)
Man, I've been living theoretical physics and cosmology for the last year or so, and was working today on a hyper-defined strategy to use the result deviations from as many Time Dilation experiments as possible to then calculate the next available common denominator - well below the point-nanosecond dilation results being recorded, of course - between all such deviations, with the point of taking the calculated demarcation of Time to its smallest measured length. Hell, the Planck time length (5.39106(32) × 10−44 s) is just an arbitrary number, so it's not as if anyone has even bothered to actually try to short list the possibilities for the quantum unit of Now. I think I might have something coming together on that.
ChaoticOrder
Is there such a thing as the smallest unit of length or the shortest increment of time?
ImaFungiDo you think space is absolute nothingness?
Because if space is a finite amount, or finite at one moment in time, doesnt that mean it is an exact quantity.
Also the idea of expansion of space, isnt it expanding in a quantized way.
And if what is truly meant by quantized is constituting of quanta, like a blanket is quantized with its exact quantity of threads, which have their exact quantity of molecules, with their exact quantity of atoms, etc.
[...] then you are saying the nature of fields, and space, is one like a fundamental particle, it can be broken down no further. Which is very hard to imagine
swanneOtherwise you'd have to put up with Zeno's paradox[...]
But then, as this gentleman Moduli accurately points out, there is a minimum measurable length which applies regardless of what spacetime looks like.
So, we'll never be able to really know for sure since we can't probe past this point anyway.
Moduli
Not that anyone ever listens to me, but, I will pop in briefly to say: space and time are not quantized in any way. This is known to be definitely true.
This is different than the "minimum measurable length" issue, that can happen perfectly well in a continuous spacetime.
If you want to understand why, I invite you to study physics and math in depth for the next several years or so, in order to understand exactly what this question even means, and then for several more years to understand how to answer it. It's complicated.
Moduli
That doesn't really mean anything. "Nothing" is a philosophical concept, not a physical one.
Being finite or "exact" doesn't have anything to do with being quantized. The number 1 is finite, but it's infinitely divisible into smaller parts.
Not really, it can be expanding in a perfectly continuous way.
That doesn't have anything to do with it. Being quantized is what would imply that it could be not broken down any further at some point (although in principle there's no problem with something being like that, it's just that space isn't).