Write4U:
It's hard to know what to say to you. In response to my post in which I suggested that you might like to learn something about quantum theory, you spent almost an entire post making excuses as to why your use of idiosyncratic terms and inaccurate descriptions doesn't matter. It's like you don't care whether what you say is right or wrong; as long as words are coming out of you and landing on the page, that's all that matters to you.
This is not the first time that you have quoted regular dictionary definitions, wikipedia and similar sources back to me when I have pulled you up on a matter of how something is actually defined in science. You seem to think that it's enough to know how the Webster's dictionary defines "quantum", and you don't actually need to understand how scientists (physicists) define it, even when you're trying to talk about in-depth matters concerning its technical aspects. Also, I don't know what you think you're achieving by trying to "introduce" me to something like Planck's constant. If you're under the impression that anything like that is news to me, then you're most likely severely underestimating the person you're talking to. I am not one to trot out credentials and argue from authority, but please assume that I have some relevant credentials when it comes to physics. That should be obvious from my record of posts to this forum over the past 20 years.
That said, let me turn to your questions.
That is remarkable! The definition posits that they don't even touch!
At the quantum level, the idea of things "touching" is problematic. At that level, there are only the basic forces of nature - only forces and fields. Particles are very much
not like little billiard balls, when you look at them close up.
Consider a laser beam, like you might find in a laser pointer or a CD player. That beam contains billions upon billions of photons every second. All of them have approximately the same wavelength and lots of them exist essentially in the "same place" at the same time. Specifically, nothing in physics prevents all of the photons from being in exactly the same place at the same time. In a quantum sense, we would say that all the photons are in the same "quantum state" (which includes all the information about the photons' position, among other things).
This behaviour is not unique to photons, but nor is it always the case. If we take a bunch of electrons, say, then their behaviour is very different. Quantum rules actually prevent electrons from being in the "same place at the same time". And
that is ultimately why we have chemistry at all, rather than having electrons in atoms all existing in a single lowest energy level in every atom.
What troubles me is the question if certain particles create a spacetime coordinate, or if all spacetime coordinates are of the same size, i.e. a discrete point, instead of an area.
A
coordinate is a mathematical abstraction, used as a convenient calculational device. We can't detect coordinates. Coordinates don't
do anything, by themselves. They are
ideas.
Therefore, it is meaningless to talk about particles "creating" coordinates. Only people can create coordiates.
Q1 Is there space between the two bosons in the same spacetime coordinate?
No.
Q2 Does that mean bosons are smaller than a spacetime coordinate?
That question is meaningless. Coordinates are numbers. They have no size.
Q3 Does that mean a single spacetime coordinate has several possible dimensions?
No. A single coordinate is a single number.
Spatial coordinates use 3 numbers. Spacetime coordinates require 4 numbers.
The word "dimension" can refer either to a spatial dimension or to a mathematical dimension. The two are similar but not identical.
Q4 Do all quanta have the same value?
Is an electron the same as a photon? Both are quanta. Go figure.
Time follows a consistent set of rules, so it's real, but beyond physics, it takes on a subjective spin. (using a watch to ''tell us'' time, for example)