What is the smallest conceivable measure of space ?

M

Mohat

Banned
Banned
Hello, I have been considering the physics of a spatial point and was wondering what the smallest possible measure of space was , meaning vector or scalar .

I have determined that two adjoined points must be the smallest vector/scalar and the only way I can think of expressing this measure seems quantum spookiness .

0+0=1x

Is there any other way to express this ?
 
Orion68 said:
If have determined the same thing, in my opinion what you are describing is a photon. If interested in how to express this you could download and read https://metric.science/download.php?file=Metric_Science.pdf .
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link and download which I have started to read , which I hope will turn out to be an interesting read .

I have got to this point and thought I'd comment :

Quote by Einstein: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

Einstein suggesting that imagination is more important than knowing something which is totally untrue as wild imaginations in physics are not based on causality .

Knowledge is based on what we know , imaginations without knowing are fiction at best !
 
Orion68 said:
If have determined the same thing, in my opinion what you are describing is a photon.
Click to expand...

I was actually describing any given spatial point of real coordinate space R^n and zero point energies corresponding 4 dimensional volume but we haven't yet discussed 0+0=1x .

(0+0)^3=m1 is a leap forward in the topic and lattice relational .

I have stopped reading the provided link for now at this stage : ''The speed of a photon in vacuum is 299 792 458 ms-1''

Lights momentum is actually an energy transitional value , photons are ''pulled' rather than having a propulsion .

I liked the part describing a photons core as (x0,y0,z0) , I thought that was good thinking and it does fit in with my own thoughts in reference to atoms and space . (x0,y0,z0)+(q1+q2)=m1/t

I do not think photons are a particle personally , I consider electromagnetic radiation to be more of an entangled ''fabric'' whole and the 'flow'' is determined by energy levels and temporal transitions . Light slowing down passing through a medium suggesting the higher level of energy of the medium impedes the lights ''flow'' , additionally suggesting that lights ''flow'' can be inverted .
 
Last edited:
Mohat said:
Hello, I have been considering the physics of a spatial point and was wondering what the smallest possible measure of space was , meaning vector or scalar .

I have determined that two adjoined points must be the smallest vector/scalar and the only way I can think of expressing this measure seems quantum spookiness .

0+0=1x

Is there any other way to express this ?
Click to expand...


The only comment that I can think of related to this is that Dr. Albert Einstein stated something to the effect that infinite smallness was just as possible as infinite bigness?

I am sure that somebody here can find the exact statement that he made on that idea.
 
mathman said:
Planck length? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
Click to expand...
Is the smallest conceivable vector measure of light d/t according to Planck .

Planck reverse engineering length measure to give his value .

I went the opposite way and started with a single point measure of 0 , in adjoining an additional point 0+0=1x . This must be the smallest conceivable dimensional measure demonstrating Plank is incorrect unless Plank is equal to ?
 
Mohat said:
Is the smallest conceivable vector measure of light d/t according to Planck .

Planck reverse engineering length measure to give his value .

I went the opposite way and started with a single point measure of 0 , in adjoining an additional point 0+0=1x . This must be the smallest conceivable dimensional measure demonstrating Plank is incorrect unless Plank is equal to ?
Click to expand...
?
 
mathman said:
Planck length? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
Click to expand...

Yes, good explaination here .

Wikipedia said:
Therefore, the Planck length is the minimum distance that can be explored.

The Planck length refers to the internal architecture of particles and objects. Many other quantities that have units of length may be much shorter than the Planck length. For example, the photon's wavelength may be arbitrarily short: any photon may be boosted, as special relativity guarantees, so that its wavelength gets even shorter.[13]

The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of Lorentz symmetry.[7] However, certain theories of loop quantum gravity do attempt to establish a minimum length on the scale of the Planck length, though not necessarily the Planck length itself,[7] or attempt to establish the Planck length as observer-invariant, known as doubly special relativity.

The strings of String Theory are modeled to be on the order of the Planck length.[7][14] In theories of large extra dimensions, the Planck length has no fundamental, physical significance, and quantum gravitational effects appear at other scales.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
 
Dicart said:
Yes, good explaination here .


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
Click to expand...
Yes it is a reasonable explanation but my question asked about the smallest conceivable measure of space and I am confident that 0+0=1x as described not only describes the measure but completely changes our understanding of math because 0+0 in normal terms is 0 .

Additionally my 4 dimensional equation (0+0)^3 is a simple learning ''tool'' for beginners in dimensional analysis and xyzt understanding.
 
Mohat said:
Yes it is a reasonable explanation but my question asked about the smallest conceivable measure of space and I am confident that 0+0=1x as described not only describes the measure but completely changes our understanding of math because 0+0 in normal terms is 0 .

Additionally my 4 dimensional equation (0+0)^3 is a simple learning ''tool'' for beginners in dimensional analysis and xyzt understanding.
Click to expand...
Is your question a physics definition or a math definition? For physics I believe Planck length is answer. For math there is no smallest number > 0.
 
mathman said:
Is your question a physics definition or a math definition? For physics I believe Planck length is answer. For math there is no smallest number > 0.
Click to expand...

I consider it is a physical and mathematical description but most of all proving x0+x0=x1 must be something new ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top