Is space quantized?

[chikoka]

Let us explore the consequences of assuming that space is quantized.

If space was really quantised then there would have to be a finite number of angles that light from a star could leave it.
The allowed angles would have to coinside with the finite number of plank-spaces that surround the star at its surface.

Lets then say that two photons leaving the star are initially next to each other .
These two photons would move apart as they leave the star at an angle to each other .
Now at a distance delta_x from the star the absolute distance between the photons would be delta_y.
As Delta_x increases delta_y would also increase .
Say you can see the star where you stand , then that would mean that if you move across you should not be able to see the star unless you move delta_y units across at which you will again see the star .

Since this is not what happens in real life we must assume that space has to be either continuos or that the plank-spaces are extremely extremly small , or that the stars are really much closer than other measurements (such as red shift calculations) imply.

If the other measurements are correct then we should be able to calculate how small plank-space units are .By comparing the distance and the size of delta_y observed from photons from those stars.

There is another way that the light could seem to be continous.
With the above example the brightness of the light we see at intervals of delta_y units apart would be just as strong as if we were *on the star* since light does not reduce in intensity as it travels , only if it is diffused will it lose intensity.

If the photons distribute themselves across other plank-spaces that are next to the plank-space they occupy then the light should and will lose intensity as well as seem continuos across its range just as we see it.

This would presumably mean that light travels in straight lines over quanta as well as to regions of its weaker concetration to quanta beside its line of sight .

If energy is to be conserved ,as i assume it must , then diffusing of light will happen very quickly if the plank-spaces are small and only gradualy if they were relatively large.

If the current measurement techniques are correct then that would mean that the plank-spaces are very small and therefore the intensity of the light generated by these stars must be incredible large.
I cant put figures on this , but if a physicist among us would tell us if the calculated intensity of the stars is in concert with what i have written in this post.

[Tomas]

Let us explore the consequences of assuming that space is quantized.

If space was really quantised then there would have to be a finite number of angles that light from a star could leave it.
The allowed angles would have to coinside with the finite number of plank-spaces that surround the star at its surface.

Lets then say that two photons leaving the star are initially next to each other .
These two photons would move apart as they leave the star at an angle to each other .
Now at a distance delta_x from the star the absolute distance between the photons would be delta_y.
As Delta_x increases delta_y would also increase .
Say you can see the star where you stand , then that would mean that if you move across you should not be able to see the star unless you move delta_y units across at which you will again see the star .

Since this is not what happens in real life we must assume that space has to be either continuos or that the plank-spaces are extremely extremly small , or that the stars are really much closer than other measurements (such as red shift calculations) imply.

If the other measurements are correct then we should be able to calculate how small plank-space units are .By comparing the distance and the size of delta_y observed from photons from those stars.

There is another way that the light could seem to be continous.
With the above example the brightness of the light we see at intervals of delta_y units apart would be just as strong as if we were *on the star* since light does not reduce in intensity as it travels , only if it is diffused will it lose intensity.

If the photons distribute themselves across other plank-spaces that are next to the plank-space they occupy then the light should and will lose intensity as well as seem continuos across its range just as we see it.

This would presumably mean that light travels in straight lines over quanta as well as to regions of its weaker concetration to quanta beside its line of sight .

If energy is to be conserved ,as i assume it must , then diffusing of light will happen very quickly if the plank-spaces are small and only gradualy if they were relatively large.

If the current measurement techniques are correct then that would mean that the plank-spaces are very small and therefore the intensity of the light generated by these stars must be incredible large.
I cant put figures on this , but if a physicist among us would tell us if the calculated intensity of the stars is in concert with what i have written in this post.

Hey chikoka, break this down a tad more :-)

[MySuicide.X.MyBride]

I'm not the qualified physicist you were looking for, but I can add a little to this.

Let us explore the consequences of assuming that space is quantized.

If space was really quantised then there would have to be a finite number of angles that light from a star could leave it.
The allowed angles would have to coinside with the finite number of plank-spaces that surround the star at its surface.

Lets then say that two photons leaving the star are initially next to each other .
These two photons would move apart as they leave the star at an angle to each other .
Now at a distance delta_x from the star the absolute distance between the photons would be delta_y.
As Delta_x increases delta_y would also increase .

Would these not have distances equal to the inverse-square law?

Say you can see the star where you stand , then that would mean that if you move across you should not be able to see the star unless you move delta_y units across at which you will again see the star .

If a star only emitted two photons then you wouldn't be able to see the star, just a single quanta of light where you managed to observe the photon, but I suppose that's beside the point. I believe a real life application of this would be more complicated than just the distance between them since photons do not behave like little billiard balls or macroscopic objects. Since photons have wavelike properties as well, depending on how far apart they are when we observe them, they could even cancel each other out.

Since this is not what happens in real life we must assume that space has to be either continuos or that the plank-spaces are extremely extremly small , or that the stars are really much closer than other measurements (such as red shift calculations) imply.

If the other measurements are correct then we should be able to calculate how small plank-space units are .By comparing the distance and the size of delta_y observed from photons from those stars.

If we think of x and y as sides to a triangle, the point of the triangle would converge to equal the Planck length where the two photons were emitted. I believe even massless photons cannot occupy the same planck length.

There is another way that the light could seem to be continous.
With the above example the brightness of the light we see at intervals of delta_y units apart would be just as strong as if we were *on the star* since light does not reduce in intensity as it travels , only if it is diffused will it lose intensity.

If the photons distribute themselves across other plank-spaces that are next to the plank-space they occupy then the light should and will lose intensity as well as seem continuos across its range just as we see it.

This would presumably mean that light travels in straight lines over quanta as well as to regions of its weaker concetration to quanta beside its line of sight .

If energy is to be conserved ,as i assume it must , then diffusing of light will happen very quickly if the plank-spaces are small and only gradualy if they were relatively large.

If the current measurement techniques are correct then that would mean that the plank-spaces are very small and therefore the intensity of the light generated by these stars must be incredible large.
I cant put figures on this , but if a physicist among us would tell us if the calculated intensity of the stars is in concert with what i have written in this post.

Planck length has a defined size. There is definitely a limit to the amount of information you can have in a certain surface area of space. This can be seen when a black hole increases its surface area to accommodate infalling information, while maintaining the minimum space possible.

[Jamesh]

Is space quantized?

All describable things are quantisized. Space (as you view it, not me) has the quality of not being everything, which makes it a quantifible thing. It is not so much a quantum entity within our sub-universe, but relative to the totality wherein our universe is a bubble within a larger universe it then becomes of a quantum nature.

For me though, the thing called empty space is simply that portion of the totality where absolute equality of two opposites (expansion and contraction) manifests. Therefore even within our sub-universe space is quantisized, as each indiviudal thing itself is simply a multilevel layer of spatial-force (E=Mc2, E/C2=M) equalities and inequalities.

[chikoka]

Sorry for the late (and also partial) reply .


quote
---------------
If a star only emitted two photons then you wouldn't be able to see the star, just a single quanta of light where you managed to observe the photon, but I suppose that's beside the point. I believe a real life application of this would be more complicated than just the distance between them since photons do not behave like little billiard balls or macroscopic objects. Since photons have wavelike properties as well, depending on how far apart they are when we observe them, they could even cancel each other out
---------------


The star would not just emitt one photon but there would be a whole stream of photons at each of the allowed angles.
In between these angles you shouldnt see much since the largest portion of the wave function would be on the straight line leading away from the star and the least likelihoods of the photons position would be between the angle meaning it should at least be dimmer.



Quote
------------------
All describable things are quantisized. Space (as you view it, not me) has the quality of not being everything, which makes it a quantifible thing.
------------------

Something could still be infinite and not be everything.

eg. The real numbers are an infinite lot , but arent the totality of all numbers.

[Tomas]

Sorry for the late (and also partial) reply .

Something could still be infinite and not be everything.

eg. The real numbers are an infinite lot , but arent the totality of all numbers.

An individual photon always moves with its magnetic loop in a perpendicular position...

Thanks for the excellent reply, chikoka. I'm always on the hunt to learn a tad more
about this wonderfully myraid life I (we) live in.

Here's - Wave Theory and Photons - easily explained (for me).
by Dr. Chaim H. Tejman
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/photonP.htm

[Pincho Paxton]

Yes, space is quantized, and between those spaces nothing can pass. So everything is replicated over a small distance. Basically, a message is passed, like pass the parcel. The message however always leaks a little bit. The parcel is passed too far. The leak is gravity, magnetism, and everything else that cannot stop instantly. So gravity is a message for a planet... "Hold together", but the message goes beyond the particles, and outwards, so "Hold together!" leaked outwards becomes "Pull together" which now effect particles outside of the range of the message.

[yana]

No it's not quantized. Space is the great void beyond our horizons. You're confusing space with spacetime. My theory will prove everything that is true about our universe.