I have always thought that since time approaches zero as you approach the speed of light, time should also approach zero as you approach the smallest “SIZE” of zero. In your example, where you continually cut gold in half until you reach the point of “no longer being gold”- I think there should be a mathematical description of space time whereby time slows down relative to size. In this contemplation of space time, I like to call it “little z”. When trying to visualize this “little z” plane in traditional geometry, the “little z” plane is not visible because it sits on the “surface” of space time as a single point on a graph [X,Y,Z]. Picture a water well in the ground. Except instead of tunneling towards the center of earth, it is tunneling towards the smallest point in space time. The surface is described as [X,Y,Z,z]. If we place a powerful microscope at the top of [X,Y,Z,z], as we increase magnification of the microscope in order to observe smaller and smaller components of this point in space time, we are describing “little z”. In a sense, we have a tunnel in space time that connects non quantum world to the quantum world. The question becomes, is there an “event horizon” which exists somewhere along the “little z” plane which can be mathematically expressed by the point on the “little z” plane where time goes to zero and distance goes to zero- defining the “moment of quantum existence”.

I would like to define a formula for “little z” which needs your brain power- The result of the formula would explain “spooky action at a distance” because quantum sized material could instantaneously communicate because there is no time or distance once you reach some minimum threshold in size.

Regards,

John

Thanks for sharing. ]]>

Obviously this is an enormous project to parse out. This was just a loose rambling of how I might draft an outline of the topic.

]]>Dan

]]>As for your question… yes a single quantum or Planck volume of space is the smallest amount of space, but that doesn’t stop us from asking what its internal structure is. Think of it this way, a single gold atom is the smallest amount of gold theoretically possible. Anything smaller than that doesn’t have the properties of being gold, but that doesn’t mean that gold isn’t made of something, or that it doesn’t have any internal structure. What it means, is the smallest piece of gold is made of something other than gold. Likewise, what the smallest pieces of space are made of is not space. Each piece of space is made of a large collection of superspace (something other than space). The whole, nothing can be smaller is a slight misunderstanding. It is nothing in space can be smaller. Nothing that manifests itself in the medium of space. Hope that helps.

]]>I just finished your amazing! Thank you for that mind expanding adventure. I am a huge fan of these types of books and have read many of them from Lawrence Krauss, Max Tegmark, Lee Smolin, Sean Caroll, and Richard Muller to name a few. Your book is one of the best I have ever read. I hope you will actually write a book on conciousness. What a great read that would be!

Quick question:

If a quanta is a Plank Volume of space, and that is the smallest possible volume, then how could it also be a fractal structure where a quanta represents its own universe if nothing could be smaller?

Regards,

Dan

]]>Interesting video, there are definitely some parallels there.

Yes, of course. In an additional variable theory quantum entanglement becomes a deterministic consequence of a pre-programed evolution of subsystems. When two particles become entangled their combined state is known without addressing the additional variables, but their individual states cannot be ascertained without knowledge of the role of the additional variables. We use a state vector to represent an ensemble projection of all the possible exact states that each subsystem might have at any given moment. Lack of knowledge of the exact state is the only reason we use a state vector to represent it this way. Once we make a measurement we gain knowledge about the exact state of one of the subsystems, and therefore immediately gain clarity about both. We switch from using the state vector as a representation at this point because we no longer have the lack of knowledge that led us to use a state vector to represent the system. If you’d like to read more about how this model treats entanglement, see Einstein’s Intuition Chapter 12 (Sections: The State Vector, The Bell Theorem: Blurring Local Realism), Chapter 13 (Section: The State of Space), and Chapter 14 (Sections: Schrödinger’s Cat, Entanglement). ]]>