Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Kevinandrew]

Does anyone know if space and/or time exist in descrete parts? I.e. - is there such a thing as a quantum of space or a quantum of time?

[A Poster He or I]

I'm not sure if my response will be what you're looking for but I can answer this scientifically one way, and philosophically another.

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the most successful scientific theory in history in terms of predictive accuracy and degree of empirical validation. If we believe its view of things, space and time ARE merely the quanta operating within it, or put another way, the operation of quanta qua quanta manifests as space and time, a.k.a., the "quantum foam" of the zero-point energy field. In this case, one can certainly speak of a quantum of space, measuring 10^-33 cubic centimeters (the Planck length), and a quantum of time, whose duration is 10^-43 seconds (the Planck time). Anything smaller or briefer is outside the domain of science.

Philosophically speaking, however, I think it important to realize that the Planck limit exists as testament to the fact that human faculties of observation become unavoidably interactions at the quantum scale, making further differentiation, objectification and identification impossible, even in principle. This speaks very much about epistemological limits to apprehending reality, but to my mind, says nothing about reality's ontology.

Therefore, I do not rule out the possibility of an objective ontology "behind" or "beyond" the Planck scale, but I don't consider it to be of philosophical interest--at least not until scientific reason can theorize about it productively. Although I risk offending any Platonists on this forum, to my mind, philosophy is best done without regard to metaphysical speculations.

[Kevinandrew]

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the most successful scientific theory in history in terms of predictive accuracy and degree of empirical validation. If we believe its view of things, space and time ARE merely the quanta operating within it, or put another way, the operation of quanta qua quanta manifests as space and time, a.k.a., the "quantum foam" of the zero-point energy field. In this case, one can certainly speak of a quantum of space, measuring 10^-33 cubic centimeters (the Planck length), and a quantum of time, whose duration is 10^-43 seconds (the Planck time). Anything smaller or briefer is outside the domain of science.

I've just done some quick sums on the numbers you've given, and it would seem that if a particle moved from one quantum of space to the next in one quantum of time, this would be appoximately the speed of light. Is that part of quantum theory? Or is that how these Plank numbers have been derived?

[A Poster He or I]

I recall that the Planck Time is indeed the time needed for light to cross the Planck Length, so yes to that one.
I think the Planck Length derives directly from Planck's Constant (which is expressed as a measure of energy) which is the entire basis for quantum mechanics, but I don't recall how it is so derived.

[Foszae]

time and space are distinct, but it's a complex reason.

time is continually transformative. it is indeterminacy turned determined. it is future potentiality turned into past event. it is superposition turned into either/or result

Time happens to Space. imagine have a hypothetical particle in future possible space. it does not exist until Time reaches it. (you did not exist 600 years ago, but you exist today).

as Time unfolds, that hypothetical particle in space is transformed into either of its options (i'm simplifying the math). it becomes a particle or an antiparticle. we may try to predict, but we cannot affirm that it will be the same entity in space which we perceive as its potential in future Time. and in fact, it is only after Time has been processed relative to a space that a result can even be understood.

moreover. Time is still apparently unidirectional. and what that means is that we cannot take a chunk of anything present in Space and cast it back forward into potentiality of Time to come.

the fact that we influence quanta through interaction is a truth of our conscious mind which we intrepreted from the same rules which apply to anything which experiences Time, even if it's a mute chunk of iron, it still exists with potential Time ahead of it, and its interactions (though not conscious) will behave identically.

Planck's science was solid, but it was also formed in the days before we had even theorized that there were more dimensions than he had accounted for. it is likely that the general truth of frequency/amplitude will continue deeply into quantum layers. but, given our current limited knowledge of quantum mechanics, it is entirely possible that his constant is a fixed limit only at the level of our four-dimensional world. for that matter, and it is extremely relevant, it's also sufficiently possible to imagine that Einstein's speed limit for light is only applicable at our 4D level as well. the interactions at deeper dimensions have not been codified, and as such we simply cannot presume that it should hold true all the way down.

[PaulNZ]

time and space are distinct, but it's a complex reason.

time is continually transformative. it is indeterminacy turned determined. it is future potentiality turned into past event. it is superposition turned into either/or result

Time happens to Space. imagine have a hypothetical particle in future possible space. it does not exist until Time reaches it. (you did not exist 600 years ago, but you exist today).

as Time unfolds, that hypothetical particle in space is transformed into either of its options (i'm simplifying the math). it becomes a particle or an antiparticle. we may try to predict, but we cannot affirm that it will be the same entity in space which we perceive as its potential in future Time. and in fact, it is only after Time has been processed relative to a space that a result can even be understood.

moreover. Time is still apparently unidirectional. and what that means is that we cannot take a chunk of anything present in Space and cast it back forward into potentiality of Time to come.

the fact that we influence quanta through interaction is a truth of our conscious mind which we intrepreted from the same rules which apply to anything which experiences Time, even if it's a mute chunk of iron, it still exists with potential Time ahead of it, and its interactions (though not conscious) will behave identically.

Planck's science was solid, but it was also formed in the days before we had even theorized that there were more dimensions than he had accounted for. it is likely that the general truth of frequency/amplitude will continue deeply into quantum layers. but, given our current limited knowledge of quantum mechanics, it is entirely possible that his constant is a fixed limit only at the level of our four-dimensional world. for that matter, and it is extremely relevant, it's also sufficiently possible to imagine that Einstein's speed limit for light is only applicable at our 4D level as well. the interactions at deeper dimensions have not been codified, and as such we simply cannot presume that it should hold true all the way down.

I apologise before I start because I have no knowledge in this field but I am interested, so thought I'd make an enquiry.

As I understand it time is a human construct placing events we experience into a linear format to allow us to comprehend our own existence. That in itself does not necessarily mean that time exists as we understand to.

To exist, a thing has to have a place in time. Does this mean that time therefore cannot exist prior to our own existence, and that time itself exists in many layers at any one time, relative to the individual/object perceiving it? (I fear I may be talking nonsense!)

Help me out please...

[Belinda]

I think that Paul is concerned with the Thing in Itself regarding time. I cannot think of any theory better than that of Kant, that the Thing in Itself has to remain forever hidden from us. The perception of the nature of time which I believe is common these days is the notion of time as the arrow which , as one-directional, procedes from cosmos into chaos, according to the second law of thermodynamics, which covers every system from the human body to the universe.

[Xris]

Space is surely only an expression of the time where events are occuring. As time is not a constant how can you measure it?

[Belinda]

I understand that measurements of time always relate to the gravitational situation obtaining where the people are wanting to measure change.
Additonally, measurements of time can be expressions of human need for understanding very local change such as how long it takes to walk to the new pastures, or to the waterhole.'A day' or 'a day's work' are also measurements of time.We still have antiquated-sounding measures of time such as 'working days' when we are estimating e.g. when the money in the bank can be spent.

#1

Does anyone know if space and/or time exist in descrete parts? I.e. - is there such a thing as a quantum of space or a quantum of time?

Is it the Planck constant?

[Cronos988]

Space is surely only an expression of the time where events are occuring. As time is not a constant how can you measure it?

Surely? How so?

I was of the impression that time is only an expression of movement within space, not the other way round?

[Xris]

Space is surely only an expression of the time where events are occuring. As time is not a constant how can you measure it?

Surely? How so?

I was of the impression that time is only an expression of movement within space, not the other way round?

Made me think about this..We need an event that creates time , the space did not exist before the event. So yes I believe space is an expression of the time where events are occuring. Two distant events create the space between them . One event will not create space.But I am open to persuasion on this one.

[Cronos988]

Made me think about this..We need an event that creates time , the space did not exist before the event. So yes I believe space is an expression of the time where events are occuring. Two distant events create the space between them . One event will not create space.But I am open to persuasion on this one.

Ok, if you put it this way, then you are referring to "space" only in the time dimension? In this case, I would agree that 2 different states of matter (e.g. different positions in the 3 other dimensions), 2 events so to say, create space in the time dimension. Just like you need at least 2 objects to have space in the other 3 dimensions.

[Foszae]

I apologise before I start because I have no knowledge in this field but I am interested, so thought I'd make an enquiry.

As I understand it time is a human construct placing events we experience into a linear format to allow us to comprehend our own existence. That in itself does not necessarily mean that time exists as we understand to.

To exist, a thing has to have a place in time. Does this mean that time therefore cannot exist prior to our own existence, and that time itself exists in many layers at any one time, relative to the individual/object perceiving it? (I fear I may be talking nonsense!)

Help me out please...

for what it's worth, hearing about Time from me is going to expose you to some of the strangest notions that one could come across.

we count Time and measure it on clocks. but that is a social convention more than anything else. we agree that time passes, and have set up a system which organizes its passage into discrete units. but all of that is just externalized result. the questions you ask in the final paragraph need to be answered with two perspectives.

firstly, time is a subjective, personal experience. the Time you experience is different than mine, even if we're both counting the same seconds on the clock. there is literally a form of relativity at work. you might be bored, not paying attention, and not interested in the proceedings. your relative experience of Time would be it is dragging on, passing very slowly and taking a very long amount of Time. on the other hand, i may be deeply involved in the conversation, thinking actively, trying to learn new ideas, and communicating passionately about the topic. my relative experience is that very little Time has passed; active and interested, i quickly adapt to the flow, keeping pace with the conversation instead of dropping out to a state of boredom.

using the example above, both of us have endured the exact same lecture, simultaneously, and it took x number of seconds for it to complete for both of us. the relativity though, is that you felt like it took hours and hours while i experienced it as only being 45 minutes.
{practically no-one in Science considers this an important fact yet}

i also do a lot of multi-dimensional theory. and yes, Time pre-exists its witnesses. it happens whether we had been there to notice or not (millions of years of pre-human History for example). and more importantly, it is likely to be the only dimension we measure which will still apply (in whatever form) at those deeper levels of quantum physics. but i won't drag that one out at this point.

the supposition is that Time flows equally to all entities which receive it. we both spent an hour in a lecture. you felt like it was never-ending, while i was surprised it had been an hour already. and it's not like you were subjected to so many more seconds of Time than i was. we both received around 3600. but our gauges of that flow were different.

why did Time dilate differently for you and i? i am talking about Einstein's Special Relativity here. the exact same form of Time dilation occurring without the interference of gravity.

is that a sensible explanation?

[Cronos988]

But is not time only a measurement of movement? We define time by looking at the movement of atoms, defining time as the difference between state A and state B of the atom.

That humans generally have similar perceptions of time (subject to personal relativity) stems from the fact that we are all made up from the same atoms, that "clock" us at the same speed, governing the life and death of our cells.

Time, in a very real sense, is a measurement of how many events occur. A movement of an electron is an event. We say that X electron movements equal one second. A day is an event, we say that 365 days equal a year. The more events happen, the more time passes. If more electron movements happen, more time has passed. That system works for us because the processes of our body are similarily based on events. Our cells survive for X events, each of which is caused by X electron movements.

The cambric explosion included a relatively small number of electron moevement events, but a relatively large number of evolution events. Does that mean that evolution happened faster or that more time has passed, since more events occured?

Similarily, during the class, the number of electron movement events in both your bodies was likely similar. Now if we say thoughts are events for the consciousness, should not time flow slower for you the more thought events you have (your thought events should expand time)? Or is it that you are focused, so actually less events occurs, compressing time?

[Foszae]

But is not time only a measurement of movement? We define time by looking at the movement of atoms, defining time as the difference between state A and state B of the atom.

i accept the gist of what you're saying, but i suspect it's actually the inverse. movement is only a measurement of time. space, mass, etc are downstream effects, existing after Time has finished it's quantum-side duties