Quantized Space & Time

reply to post by Moduli


To put my thoughts on this more simply. Are all the fields that exist physically in reality quantized? And then I must ask, are the totality of fields, space itself? Or do the totality of fields exist on/in space? And is space its own field, that you say is not quantized? And is that space infinite and extensive beyond energy/matter/fields/somethingness? Or is space, all fields, all energy and matter of the universe a closed object, and all that exists always and forever, with potentially other similar objects beyond it, and do these all exist on the same 'space'?

Trying to quantize time and space would be like trying to count grains of sand in blown glass, or trying trying to sweep a dirty floor.

Our reality is a soup of ever-changing and fluctuating energy. You can't say space is "nothing" because it has "stuff" in it. Space is pumped full of this sort of ray, and that such wave far beyond our visual scope. (like solar winds, radio waves, ect)

Which leads me to believe there are more forces of nature in existence that we have yet to identify (Higgs Field)

Space cannot be quantized because it "moves" too much, once you have "accounted" for a particular "section" of space, the particles occupying that space have most likely moved.

As far as time is concerned, it is my personal belief that time exists because motion exists, time could be considered the "measurement of motion" in the sense that where things once were have moved since they have been there.

If the universe could be quantized, it would have to be considered stationary for all parts to be accounted for, if it was stationary time would not exist as no particle would move to any new location.

The universe is infinite because motion exists.

Moduli

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

Zeno's paradox was solved rigorously centuries ago.

Yes, but the solution to this paradox involves time:

Aristotle (384 BC−322 BC) remarked that as the distance decreases, the time needed to cover those distances also decreases

source
What happens now if you only have one spatial dimension to wrap (let's say a D-2 brane into a D-1 brane), and no time is involved, only space?

And no, Zeno's paradox is still a matter of debate even today.

Today there is still a debate on the question of whether or not Zeno's paradoxes have been resolved.

source

We can (and do) have that and still know perfectly well that space is not quantized in any way.

Pray tell me how we know that. I've been searching quite around for physical proof of this.

After all, they do say that

The Planck length is about 10−20 times the diameter of a proton, and thus is exceedingly small, it is considered the smallest length possible, see quantum foam.

source

reply to post by ImaFungi

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

I personally tend to lean towards the idea that space its self is the "nothingness" in which all energy exists. And that's why we measure the universe to be "flat" and infinite in all directions. For some reason I very much dislike the concept that the universe is some sort of bubble of space-time in a "void" of nothingness, so it's good that the evidence doesn't point that way imo.

However, if we want to say that empty space is the equivalent of "nothingness", the issue is that even though space-time is generally flat over long distances, it can easily be curved and manipulated, and it seems strange to say that nothingness could be stretched and bent. I think loop quantum gravity solves this conflict nicely though because it tells us that energy is created by bending space.

We already know that energy and matter are the same thing, and in loop quantum gravity energy and space become the same thing, so everything is really just some expression of twisted space-time... I think the problem is not defining "nothing", but defining what "something" actually is as compared to nothing. Nothing is simple, it's nothingness, a lack of something.

I like to define "something" as space (aka the fabric of nothing) which is no longer flat/neutral and has been warped in some way to give it a potential energy or differential from the zero-point. But how does energy arise within an infinite sea of nothing, how is it possible to get something from nothing? Quantum mechanics shows us that even a completely empty vacuum is fluctuating with vacuum energy.

I think that chaos and unpredictability is somehow built into the heart of reality, so that even complete nothingness cannot remain in the same state forever. Random quantum mechanical fluctuations ensure that energy is always created, but I personally think negative energy and positive energy are always created in equal amounts, so the sum total of all energy is still adds to zero.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument demonstrates that time and space are to be considered as concepts: more to conceptual illusions actually.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Star and flag. That was a good write up. Wasn't to wordy, and it was concise, and to the point. Good job.

Here's what I think (atm):

It's not a simulation in the sense that it is a copy of another reality but it is a simulation in the sense that it is a reproduction of God's concepts.

The most fundamental form is going to be Word. That is, a set of structured information that forms a symbol. The Word is of course Jesus and the information is the concepts of Yahweh all moving through Word byway of will or Spirit.

The motion, will, or force of reality seems to echo evolution. It is becoming a concept rather than just being a fixed thing that randomly changes. There is only order, there is no random or chaos, it's all becoming as I keep saying over and over around these forums: concept reproduction; and the concept is faithfulness.

The simulated motion or imagery we perceive, however, is just a concept that God favors. For whatever reason, he prefers the image to appear as a 3 dimensional form and like any shape in a 3 dimensional plan, its motion was chosen to appear spherical. Why? Well, I don't know why God likes spheres and 3d plans, but their motion appears to be becoming of a particular thing - a trading of information with a singular goal in mind - to be come faithful.

So, its technically not a simulation because the simulation is reality but it is all still imagery if that makes sense.

My guesses at the image:
-Time is the rate at which form reacts to information.
-Space-fabric is the connective quality of all forms because they all form 1 image. The image of fabric is represented as aether and the connected quality of all - it is like he is pleading with us to see all is connected - no separation of stuff.
-And all the rest of the imagery is, for lack of a better term, thermoelectric convection - he likes spheres for some reason.

Oh and a question to all:
If everything that exists creates the volumetric area of space, and it is all connected, how is it not all one form/image? Any ideas on that?

ChaoticOrder
We already know that energy and matter are the same thing

This is not meaningful in actual physics, any more than saying we know mass and 7 are the same thing.

Energy is a quantifiable property of elementary particles, both ones with (rest) mass and ones without. People might tend to call the first class of particles "matter" and the second one not so but that's not critical.

Energy and matter are NOT the same thing.

It so happens that there exist specific, physical reactions in the Standard model which permit interactions which change the total number of particles with positive rest mass. In these reactions, as in all reactions, there are properties which must be conserved by all particles undergoing the reaction, one of which is energy balance.

Bleeeeep
My guesses at the image:
-Time is the rate at which form reacts to information.

The notion of "rate" already has time built into it. You can't make a mechanistic explanation of time by referring to rate.

ImaFungi
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?

Quantum mechanical particles always are quantum mechanical particle/waves/thingies.

It so happens that in various experimental limits, they exhibit behaviors which humans happen to call 'wavelike' because humans have intuitive understanding of 'wave' and 'particle' behavior (limits) but not the actual QM behaviors.

(deeper in quantum mechanics it's the question of the 'basis' for representation of the 'wavefunction', when things are particle-ish they are eigenstates of the 'number operator', but don't have to be. Also the human terminology is confusing and derived from the early development of QM: using the words like 'quantum mechanical particles have a wavefunction' is common but forcing the 'particle' and 'wave' words into a separation which doesn't actually exist).

There are certain experimental facts which make things appear to be mostly one or the other. For instance, the lack of conservation number for photons (you can create and destroy them without having to balance anything else out other than momentum & energy) and long wavelengths mean that in practical experimental situations they are observed mostly in wavelike situations.

For instance, in common radio technology, the sum of a huge number of photons has physical behavior which is extremely wavelike. By this we mean that the particle-nature is quantitatively inconsequential for describing the behavior for most uses.

Because of the positive rest mass and conservation of baryon number, atoms for instance behave very particleish behavior, meaning that the wavelike nature is not important in calculations. (but sometimes it can be!)

However, both cases of atoms and photons the reality of the dual-behavior is real, this was the enormous experimental breakthrough of the 1900-1935 period. And as far as we know everything in the universe has this dual property.

Pretend everybody were a hermaphrodite. Now in the party, some people would act very butch and manly and appear to be male-only, and some the opposite and very feminine, and some others swinging, but deep down when you really get experimental with them, everybody's a hermaphrodite.

There is actually a situation common to everyday life where the particle nature of electromagnetic waves is consequential even though it is otherwise imperceptible. Consider the electronic sensors used in modern digital cameras. In low light, the noise in the image comes in no small measure from the quantized nature of photons exhibiting quantum behavior in the interaction with the sensor. This is why cameras with physically larger, more expensive sensors (e.g. dSLR and similar larger cameras) have better pictures in such situations than cameras with smaller frame sensors.

This is a fundamental physical limitation, it isn't as if in a few years Sony's new chip will be able to miniaturize it to one tenth or one hundredth of the current size. The efficiencies are already approaching quantum limitations.
Even if super-advanced ET aliens made cameras, for the similar performance they'd still need a sensor a couple of centimeters across.

I'm guessing so, since numbers can stretch out to infinity. That's why we have exponents, like 10 to the power.
The shortest units milli - pico, where the largest would be kilo - tera. However, I don't think they stop there, and can go to incredible lengths where it just asinine. That's why exponents are great, cause you don't have to write a large amount of zeros.

As for the big bang, and time, they say that the time never had a beginning or an end. So I'm guessing in what space-time where in, must be apart of much larger system of space-time.

One aspect of the higgs boson that caught my eye in a documentary about, is "parallel symmetry". I heard thats a course all in its own.

I'm still a bit of a novice when it comes to quantum physics, but I enjoy the characteristics of the universe.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Chaotic

I personally tend to lean towards the idea that space its self is the "nothingness" in which all energy exists.

This is incorrect according to modern physics. The vacuum is teeming with energy, it just averages out to zero. At the quantum length energy fluctuates to huge levels. The concept of the vacuum or space being nothing has served us well. It has lead to great leaps forward in physics. This was spurred by the rejection of the aether model. Today it is looking like we are going back in that direction with a little modern spin.

Quantized space is the new aether and it does seem to be showing signs of success. The Casimir effect has now been demonstrated and there is no explanation for it under the 'nothingness' model. It is nicely accounted for with the quanta of space being tiny little randomly fluctuating bits that can convert to energy or particles.

I suspect that gravity will be a lot more readily understood within this model because the new aether can be massaged in the way Einstein described. Nothingness can't be, well not very well. It certainly can't lead to infinitely quick responses across vast swathes of space. The forming of a particle from a quanta of space could leave a tiny gap in the quanta of space. This sounds remarkably like a curve in space if the quanta don't like true voids.

You seem to be leaning this way with this comment

But how does energy arise within an infinite sea of nothing, how is it possible to get something from nothing? Quantum mechanics shows us that even a completely empty vacuum is fluctuating with vacuum energy.

Will

reply to post by mbkennel


I just did. Lol

I know we can't know time, speed, change, rate, or any measurement without knowing everything unto the end of time, or maybe not even then, or at all. Maybe all we can know is we have consciousness, will, and structure.

What I was describing, however, was the way I believe we perceive/experience time.

We cannot measure it truly. The best we can do is synchronize our mickey mouse watches and pretend like have it all figured out. Then we add in leap years/seconds as we continue to pretend.

I believe reality is predetermined. I believe everything is order, thus nothing is chaos/random. I believe the information that controls our deterministic/ordered reality, causes speed/time/and all imagery. I believe the rate (grab your synchronized mickey mouse watch) or measurement of the reactionary speed (speed not time) of change within a field cluster, is its rendering of time. That is the reactionary speed, not the change, or speed at which it fully changes, but the reaction to the information that sets the change in motion.

i.e. How quickly you can react to the future as it is coming at you is your experience of time. The faster you go will then slow down the reactionary speed you can have to change, such as the experience of inertia, gravity, mass, or mickey mouse watches on faster moving bodies relative to slower moving bodies.

I don't know if you can quantize speed if that is what you were implying. Or were you implying speed is time? I think its a matter of preference for the man in charge - and if everything is limited to relativity between two things, then we may never know for sure - but I like to guess at stuff I become aware of but can't find a [good] concept for.

Was that what you wanted to know? Speed or time? I think I answered both.

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

Yes, any discreetness of spacetime would cause the speed of light to depend on wavelength (very high energy light would travel at nearly c, and lower energy light would travel at less than c). The difference in speeds is small, but when traveling for very long amounts of time (millions or billions of years), the difference in arrival times would be easily large enough to measure. But for astronomical sources, we see no such difference (very far away things don't look delayed compared to very close things).

There are other bits of proof, too, but this is the easiest to understand.

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

This claim includes things more general than that. Really, any kind of discreteness is included here.

ImaFungiSo 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?

It's not a belief, it's a fact. It would be very obvious if there were any kind of discreteness to spacetime.

And it doesn't make sense to say "the same infinite as if...". It's true that there are an infinite number of numbers between any two numbers. But the distance is the meaningful metric to use, and that's obviously different for different points.

ImaFungiTo put my thoughts on this more simply. Are all the fields that exist physically in reality quantized?

Basically, yes. The gravitational field is quantized, in the sense the electromagnetic field is, but that does not mean that the set of possible distances you can measure is discrete.

And again, this has nothing to do with there being a smallest possible measurable length.

Moduli

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

Yes, any discreetness of spacetime would cause the speed of light to depend on wavelength (very high energy light would travel at nearly c, and lower energy light would travel at less than c).

Does this disprove loop quantum gravity and if so is LQG dead?

And has this determination been made since 1999 when this article was published which seems to indicate uncertainty on the topic of quantized time?

Is time quantized? In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit?

"The brief answer to this question is, 'Nobody knows.' Certainly there is no experimental evidence in favor of such a minimal unit. On the other hand, there is no evidence against it, except that we have not yet found it.

I was thinking along these lines when I said I don't know on page 1, but if this has been settled I'd like to learn more about it. Any references you care to share on this?

Arbitrageur

I see the Yin and Yang!

Sacred Geometries!

I would like to share some links to scientific papers about this theory, but I've linked it in so many threads already, it would almost be advertising. The papers belong here tho.

Just dig around for Haramein, N. (2012). Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass.

His seminars are mind warping as well. When you find the papers and seminars, should link them in. I would, but like I said, I've done it so much, I look like a Fanboy!

The seminars are actually really really entertaining, from the ancient archaeology stuff to the physics.

ArbitrageurDoes this disprove loop quantum gravity and if so is LQG dead?

Yes, it does. (Other things also disprove it, too.) No competent theoretical physicists have taken the ideas in LQG seriously for many decades. This hasn't stopped the incompetent ones from continuing to talk about it, unfortunately, and most of what they do is trying to sell books about it rather than doing any actual science. This is what happens when you can't get fired in academia...

And has this determination been made since 1999 when this article was published which seems to indicate uncertainty on the topic of quantized time?

Is time quantized? In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit?

Pretty good evidence against it was known at that time (much more is known now). But it wasn't really common knowledge then, because it's such an uninteresting and implausible area of research, most experts hadn't given much thought to experimental analyses of that kind of thing.

From a theoretical point of view, the idea is pretty obviously going to be wrong, and most theoretical physicists who consider the idea end up showing it's mathematically inconsistent pretty quick, and so don't give it much consideration in terms of experiments. So you end up with a lot of physicists unaware of experiments directly disproving it.

AbleEndangered
Just dig around for Haramein, N. (2012). Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass.

His seminars are mind warping as well. When you find the papers and seminars, should link them in. I would, but like I said, I've done it so much, I look like a Fanboy!

The seminars are actually really really entertaining, from the ancient archaeology stuff to the physics.

I also found his lectures entertaining.

His lecture on how a square has no volume and therefore a cube has no volume was probably one of the most entertaining things I've ever heard. He blatantly exposed his complete lack of understanding of grade school geometry, and then presents it as if he's made a major revelation in modern physics that even his teachers didn't understand. No, sorry Nassim Haramein, I'm afraid it's you that don't understand. In geometry a 3 dimensional object like a cube has volume by definition, so claiming it doesn't have volume just makes him look silly, which as I said is pretty entertaining.

The fact that he can't even understand the most simple concepts like the difference between 2D and 3D geometry leaves him hopelessly clueless when he delves into more complex topics, like his calculation that a single proton has more mass than Mt Everest. So no, I don't think we need to spread those links around except to people that already know physics who might find such gross misconceptions entertaining.

If people that don't know physics follow the links, they might wrongly think the guy has some idea of what he's talking about, which he doesn't. It's better if they learn physics from someone who actually knows physics.

reply to post by Moduli

Thanks for the clarification, I learned something.
See, sometimes some of us do listen to you. But I still like to confirm what you say with external sources since maybe not everyone agrees with you, but I do value your comments.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Every Atom, is its own galaxy or universe!

The new weight of the atom, actually fits the grand scheme of things better.

The missing Mass!

Its ok tho, once you close your mind. You will never understand!!

reply to post by AbleEndangered

As Carl Sagan said, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


so true, very true.

Still looking for marbles!!