Quantized Space & Time

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

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


Chaotic

Its not even close to 100%, the theory is not fully formed yet tho there are some working along those lines. It might be a false hope based on our beliefs, but I don't know how else the never ending search for smaller and smaller particles will be ended. Linking to quanta of space is a natural endpoint but science tends to surprise.

Its probably not necessary to play with negative dimensions tho mathematicians love introducing extra dimensions (which often just turn out to be other qualities). In an attempt to describe the material it will be necessary to include space. Imo space is the balancer to mass. Negative space I can't even conceive of. Fortunately all of the force equations already have space or at least an area dimension in the inverse square law which might make things easier. You can probably guess why I lean toward a geometric solution to the mass origin from that.

I doubt I would be able to explain braid theory all the way to atomic orbitals. However QM quite nicely describes the orbits, the most successful formulae ever conceived, if I remember rightly. (Standing waves are an old model superseded by the QM one.) It should be a straight but not necessarily easy path from quantized space to quantum mechanics. In fact a general form would be expected to combine them all, it is the goal of unified field physics.

Standing waves and harmonics are great concepts to help visualize the forms, but I use crystal forms instead. There is already a great deal of math done on the subject and its not unusual to borrow, just like harmonics can be re-used. I've not seen it used for multiple particles interacting in a quantum lattice, but I guess someone somewhere has tried. Maybe its in the video, I can't download them on these poor comms.

Will




posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Exsoteric
 


Exsoteric

Planck doesn't strictly describe a 'planck sized particle', but a bit of space as you say later. With this in mind I'd agree with you on where the fundamental particles come from. Personally I'd remove the time element but everyone seems to use space-time.

The speed of light is a barrier for objects, as you say there are physics models that only allow for between 1c and 2C, 2C and 3C etc speeds. Gravity clearly operates at higher speeds than C otherwise we would no longer orbit the sun. Despite some dubious attempts to explain it with bent space, I was always impressed with the idea that when u spin around your mass ineracts with every particle in the universe. Try modeling that with bent space-time. I think it was Einstein who put up this paradox, he had no answer.

I've no idea what the upper boundary conditions are, but we have a neat lower boundary. I hope it does not shrink


Will



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   

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)


Yes! That is exactly what I am saying, you got it! And since time is a human perception, one cycle at that speed would be the lowest unit of time. A lot of theoretical physics - psychology deals with this issue.

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.

Original point:
If we thought at the speed of light, the length of the individual cycle would be the smallest unit of time. However, if I had to guess, that would be equal to d/dx only. However, thinking at d/dx speed would make us omniscient in the particular moment we were in because we would know all.

It is also possible that yin and yang think perpendicularly to each other. Therefore, to a yin (female) the yang (male) would be thinking at infinite speed, and to the yang (male), the yin (female) would be thinking at infinite speed, depending on the angle between their rates of thought.

Let me know if you get what I am saying -
edit on 17-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Here, I can explain the yin and yang thought process being perpendicular. I believe that the yin is aware of the moment, while the yang is aware of the functional (neuropsychology does support this, but not absolute in scope or in general).

So is a yin thinking fast enough to gather all of the clues around her to figure out what the yang is doing, and is the yang fast enough to be aware of the whole yang interface (as it seems to involve banding) to know where all the clues are?

Although I am learning that yang is not necessarily always temporal, or visa versa.
edit on 17-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Paging Chaotic Order! Important pm.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

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.com
edit 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.

The quantization of physical reality is a requirement. Without it, organized development and material structure would not be possible. An infinite delineation would prevent synchronization of change without a very heavy and active "hand" keeping it all in sync at all times. All change happens in quantized synchronization with the Universe's fundamental Unit Rate of Change. All tone, all vibration, all activity is based on that URC. It's the indivisible instant of Now, and it's the unitary basis of Time itself.
edit on 9/19/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Space in reality ( beyond mathematical convenience, but actually physically an exact or finite quantity of space) being quantized depends entirely on whether or not space is a something, or if it is nothing.

If it is something, then it is quantized. If space is absolute nothingness, and energy is the somethingness which interacts with other somethings in this infinite space of nothing space, then it is not quantized in reality.

If what we see and detect, and know as space, distance between objects, is in fact a brand or relative of energy/matter like the energy/matter/somethingness we are familiar with, then by default, that space, being a somethingness itself, is quantized. For energy cannot be created or destroyed, it means there is always an exact quantity of energy, and proportion, thus making the entirety of what we perceive as space, material/energy but just of a different type when compared to stars and planets.

Now whether there is quanta of space, like there is supposed quanta of light, or of quarks, or gravity, is the question I believe in question. Consider the theory of gravity, that there is a field that exists all throughout the universe, and where there is mass, this field is altered to the extent of allowing nearby masses to orbit. And now the search theoretically and experimentally is to try and contact the supposed quanta associated with this field altering activity, the graviton. An electron is thought to be a local excitation of the electron field, and a photon of the EM field. So the problem to me, is, What is the nature of quantization, when dealing with theories of fields. How is a field connected to itself. Can something exist that is not quantized. How do waves tie into this?



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

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.


No, there are such experiments which show experimental consequences which don't depend on human interpretation. The behavior is fundamental to quantum particles objectively. BTW, it isn't "either a wave or a particle" but that quantum mechanical stuff behaves as if it were approximately like a wave or approximately like a particle in different circumstances, but always as a real quantum mechanical particle always and forever.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


So if a particle has the property of a wave, while it is a wave, it is still a particle? If so, I understand perhaps a single discretely valued quanta, turning into a wave like object, while energy and all is conserved, and so in a way you would say yes even when a particle becomes a wave "its still that particle" just in a different form? Is a photon an electromagnetic wave? Or electromagnetic particle?



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The nature of whether or not space is in reality quantized is interesting. All things we know of are quantized, A pool of water for example, even though it has a very dynamic property and appears to be one singular object, it is quantized in the sense that it occupies an exact finite area, as well as being composed of an exact (though potentially fluctuating value, give or take,limited) quantity of molecules, which are made up of an exact quantity of atoms, which are made up of a quantity of sub atomic particles, which are considered the fundamental quantity of energy/matter.

So is it really thought that space is like a pool of water, or 3-d fabric, of a molecular like nature, with nodes, that connect it? Can we imagine any substance or material thing which exists that isnt composed of quanta? Is plasma quantized? Of course there is a finite extent to its area of existence, but is this relatively large area made up of many particulates which combine together to make a solidish material existent, like a pool of water or towel is, or is it a super blend of quanta smeared out over an area showing that something of a pure energy can manifest?

Also fundamental particles/quanta. Were these created from quanta? Is the original existence of energy and matter quantized, in that it was quanta and particles? What is an example of something existence even theoretically or hypothetically that would not be quantized?

Last but not least, how is space created digitally? Is there a proportionate relationship between the hardware and software of space creation and usage on computers and simulations compared to material/energetic/digital,non spatial information?

Can a computer simulate infinite space?

The whole idea of spatial expansion is very confusing but i think relevant to this topic as well.
edit on 19-9-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

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.com
edit 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.



This is what I was just talking about, using derivatives, as when you have a space vs. time graph with time on the x-axis, d / dx would be the smallest unit of time by definition. I was thinking about some ways that math theory could get to the core of the issue -



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
If there is no human interpretation, then how does a human ever observe the data generated by the experiment? Do you have any examples? The timeline could be collapsing once they observe the data. It could just be an extended double-slit experiment, depending.

For example, when reading about Schrodinger's Cat, someone who is not involved in the experiment does not have his timeline collapse until after he is told about it.
edit on 20-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


There are no infinites in our reality, infinity is a mathematical concept that does not translate to our reality, like in how many times can you cut apple or what is the quickest time for a chemical reaction to occur, in our physicality we are limited in many ways that is why we can't observe 5th dimensions (taking time and space as the 4th, even if we can't observe it continually we can perceive it)...



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


I personally always listen to what you say and look forward to your chimes. Though surely you can simplify it. There are a minimum number of reasons why you say what you say is right, cant you simply say. Its a yes or no thing, its either quantized or not.

Do you think space is absolute nothingness? That is the only way it can not be quantized. 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. You are saying space has no parts, so if it is not absolute nothing, if space includes higgs field, curvable gravity field, photon field, dark energy field, 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, something so large an expansive being connected to itself, as one substance, without parts.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

ChaoticOrder
Is there such a thing as the smallest unit of length or the shortest increment of time?


That's a very good question.

I believe that there might be. Otherwise you'd have to put up with Zeno's paradox while bundling up extra dimensions into tiny packets. Imagine converting a two-dimensional (space only) sequence

010
010
000

into a one-dimensional (space only) sequence

010010000

But at the same time having infinite division of spatial possibilities between two digits. The translation itself would give an infinite sequence, and render all attempts of dimensional "packaging" into fewer (M-theory) futile.

In theory we could assign spatial references, so that even if minimum length is a false assumption, it doesn't collapse the dimensional packaging into a fewer number (just ignore what you don't use - like converting a 2k pixels TV to a DV TV resolution). But then it would directly contradict special relativity, which states that there is no preferred frame of reference anyway.



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.

edit on 21-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

ImaFungiDo you think space is absolute nothingness?


That doesn't really mean anything. "Nothing" is a philosophical concept, not a physical one.


Because if space is a finite amount, or finite at one moment in time, doesnt that mean it is an exact quantity.


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.


Also the idea of expansion of space, isnt it expanding in a quantized way.


Not really, it can be expanding in a perfectly continuous 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.


But having an "exact" subdivision doesn't mean that. 1 can be exactly divided up into 1/2 + 1/2. 1/2 can be exactly divided up into 1/4 + 1/4, etc. But it's still an infinitely divisible quantity. And it's still the case that there can be infinitely many configurations of the discretely organized things.


[...] 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


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).



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

swanneOtherwise you'd have to put up with Zeno's paradox[...]


Zeno's paradox was solved rigorously centuries ago. It's not a paradox. And it's probably the case that even the ancient Greeks understood the resolution to it, even when the idea was proposed.


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.


That's not what a minimum measurable length means. We can (and do) have that and still know perfectly well that space is not quantized in any way.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

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.


How is this known? Is there clear experimental disproof against any such kind of theory or only certain classes of such? (and what are they?)

When you say "quantized" do you mean some kind of analog to having a non-zero commutator?



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.
edit on 21-9-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Moduli

That doesn't really mean anything. "Nothing" is a philosophical concept, not a physical one.



Not true. In physical reality, we are ignorant of this truth so yes we must consider the options philosophically while scientifically searching for the truth, but it may be that the energy/matter/somethingness of the universe may exist in an infinite void of absolute nothingness. And so space, may be that nothingness, the canvas on/in which all something exists. If this is not true, that there is no such thing as an area of nothing, that all that exists is modes of something, meaning space/vacuum is somethingness, a type of energy or matter, then that would mean the universe is a singular phenomenon (potentially) and now this is the tricky thing to think about, think of the universe as a sphere or rectangle or however you want, galaxies, there are a finite amount of them, the universe at any given time must take on some 3d shape if you were to connect the dots. So now consider what may be beyond, if there is no such thing as an area of nothingness, then ...there is nothing beyond the furthest galaxies? Its beyond nothingness, its not nothing or something, it just doesnt exist... there is no space there? there can be no things there? So is there a barrier which separates the galaxies, and space, from this infinite non something non nothingness?

So basically what that has to do with is, if there is nothingness, does that nothingness exist within our universe, is that nothingness in every proton, and atom, and inbetween air molecules and galaxies? Is it that absolute nothingness that exists where no energy or matter exists? Like original ideas of the vacuum perhaps. Or is what exists there space, which is not nothing, but an energetic relative of all energy and matter, which shared the same birth?



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.


So what then physically and realistically has to do with existing as a quantized phenomenon? The nature and abstract rules of numbers in and of themselves have no bearing on physical reality. I would claim the only true numbers are -1... 0... +1 the entire theory of numbers are built from that. You can scale in and out infintely with that simple concept. 1 may be 100 or 1000. and in between 0 and 1 are infinite numbers. It is a measurement system, this consistent system of course can be placed over reality, but just because the number 1 can be abstractly divided infinity, doesnt mean 1 area of space can be infinitely divided.




Not really, it can be expanding in a perfectly continuous way.


If something occurs continuously does that automatically remove it from being considered a quantized activity?




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).


So your criticism of my responses have been due to your belief that space is infinitely divisible? Meaning that if you touched your two fingers together there exists an infinite amount of space between them? The same infinite amount as if you held them two inches apart? and as infinite as the distance between two galaxies? Or do you mean that the distances are measurable beyond precision there fore they are infinite? If we had a video camera that could visualize everything that existed in reality exactly as it existed and could zoom in or out to any possible and desirable scale, you are claiming that in the area of one inch, if we were to pause the movement of the universe, we could zoom in on that area for ever? And do the same for every inch surrounding, and so on? And if we did this experiment while the universe was unpaused and moving, is this the main reason for your belief, that as we are zooming in on one area, because the universe is moving, that we are always witnessing a new area of space, and so the quantity of space we would be witnessing would be infinite?





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join