# Refreshrate of the Universe

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Cyperium, May 21, 2009.

1. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,049
The speed of light is a limit of speed. Could it be that this limit is based on the refreshrate of the universe?

Perhaps you wouldn't be surprised to hear that I make games, and if you want something to go smoothly instead of skipping pixels you make it go one pixel at a time, and if you have a good refreshrate then it will go decently fast.

My guess is that the Universe don't skip "pixels", so the fastest that something can ever go is one pixel at every "refresh" and this would then be the speed of light.

Okay I know that the universe doesn't have a specific "refreshrate" but if you think about it, it does have a minimum amount of time, in which a moment cannot get any smaller; the planck length of time, which is: 5.391 24 × 10^−44 s and which happens to be the time it takes for light to go one planck length (which is the smallest length).

So this is the refreshrate of the universe! 1,8518518518518518518518518518519e+43 frames per second! Eureka!

3. ### SarkusHippomonstrosesquippedalo phobeValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,558
What if we live an interlaced existence?

5. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,049
Yes, now we only have to calculate the bandwidth....

7. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
I think there is a refresh rate, and if you have it nailed, I appreciate your post. But should the "," be a "."? That seems like a small point

. Also, shouldn't the "+43" be "-43"? If so, I will agree with your refresh rate as being a wagner, i.e. a wild arse guess not easily refuted. I also agree that there very well could be a refresh rate in that ball park if you consider the possibility that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments that are refreshing every quantum period (every instant, maybe at your refresh rate).

The thing is though that I think the Planck Mass is way too big. Any thoughts on that?

EDIT: Oops. I just noticed that you were talking about frames per second. So the 43 should be "+", right?

Last edited: May 23, 2009
8. ### MysteriousStrangerBannedBanned

Messages:
50
Einstein's special relativety (or maybe it's general relativety) suggests that as an observer approaches the speed of light that observer experiences time moving slower. I think this would mean that if an observer reaches the speed of light he would essentially not experience any passage of time whatsoever.

This links in with what you were saying about time being linked to the speed of light and the speed of light being some sort of "maximum."

However, it also suggests that the "refresh rate of the Universe" is relative to the observer. The closer to the speed of light you are moving the slower the refresh rate is.

9. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
It is special relativity, and the traveler experiences slower passage of time due to acceleration relative to the observer I think. Maybe that is what you said too? Nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light in theory because the mass increases with acceleration, and when you get close to the speed of light, the amount of energy needed to further accelerate the increasing mass approaches infinity.

However, the refresh rate is not the same as time dilation in accelerating objects I don't think. The refresh rate would be local, and in a Planck moment the movement of the particle that is refreshing would be associated with the movement of the mass of which the particle is a part, IMHO.

Messages:
43,184
Nice !

11. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,049
Yes, even if the refreshrate would be local, it would still be the same right? I think we have a case of multiple CPU's here

The refreshrate would be: 18518518518518518518518518518519000000000000 frames per second (if we skip the conventions and write it plainly).

Last edited: May 24, 2009
12. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,049
Thank you, I thought it made sense

13. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
To say the least

.

What is the duration of one frame, i.e. how long does a single refresh take?

14. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,049
That would be the planck length of time: 5.391 24 × 10^−44 s

(the number of planck lengths of time in one second would be 1 second/5.391 24 × 10^−44 seconds)

Planck length of time is the time it takes for light to go one planck length (in my view one pixel). The speed of light might have no limit, but is only limited by the refreshrate.

Come to think about it; If the speed of light is indeed infinite then it might have what it takes to defeat nothingness, perhaps only something with infinite speed could breach the nothing between the moments (it comes to the next moment with infinite speed, breaching the neverending nothing in between). Perhaps that nothing is filled with light and actually becomes the moment.

However, if the speed of light is infinite, then the refreshrate could be infinite as well, so why isn't it? Perhaps because the speed of light is only infinite at nothing?

(and this does not imply that nothing exists or so, it just doesn't have the time to exist, which is the reason why light is moving to the next moment instantly)

Last edited: May 24, 2009