Refreshrate of the Universe

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

  1. Cyperium I'm always me Valued 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!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,049
    Yes, now we only have to calculate the bandwidth....
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued 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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . 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. MysteriousStranger Banned Banned

    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_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued 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.
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Nice !

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Cyperium I'm always me Valued 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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The refreshrate would be: 18518518518518518518518518518519000000000000 frames per second (if we skip the conventions and write it plainly).
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2009
  12. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    To say the least

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    What is the duration of one frame, i.e. how long does a single refresh take?
     
  14. Cyperium I'm always me Valued 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

Share This Page