Posted by meghashyam jilugu on November 01, 19103 at 12:50:06:
MY VIEWS ON QUANTANIZATION OF SPACE TIME
i bielieve there is a minimum quanta for everything.,space time.
this is because consider this-a car starting from a point "a" has to travel through a distance of about 40 kilometers to reach a point "b".
in order to travel the distance,it has to first reach the 20 kms mark.that is it has to travel half the distance first.then it has to still travel 20 kms
in those 20 kms it has to travel 10 kms ,to be left to travel another 10 kms.then 5,then 2500m,then 1250m,then 725m-----------------------you can prolong the meathod to infinity.still the car has some distance to travel.
it means the car has allways some distance to travel before reaching the exact 40kms mark.does it mean the car cannot ever reach 40kms mark(b).but we know that the car reaches the mark and even cross it.this is a contradiction.
this could be only possible when we consider quantanization of space.that is distance is also quantized,a particle can only move in terms of quanta--2quanta,2000000 quanta,it cannot move distances such as 1/2 quanta,1/3 quanta.
the object has to travel either in terms of quanta or not travel at all.this would easily resolve the contradiction.for example for simplycity consider that 40kms=20*2 to the power of x.then by applying the meathod for x times finally we are left with
20 quanta.by applying the meathod one more time we are left with 10 quanta.then 5 quanta.now quantum nature comes into play.if the car has to travel exactly half the distance, it needs to travel 2+1/2 quanta of distance, which is impossible according to our theory.
so it needs to travel either 2 or 3 quanta.if it travels 3 quanta then we are left with 2 quanta.which it travels 1 by 1.if it travels 2 q it has to travel 3q which it travels one by one by one,or 2 by 1.
similarly we can prove the same for time also. but as the quanta of time and distance are extremely small,we donot see any difference .
so time and space are quantized which leads us to some intresting situations,they are
NO PERFECT CIRCLE OR SQUARE or ANY COMMON GEOMETRICAL FIGURE
THE scientists have been trying to find the exact value of "pi".the supercomputers managed to find it upto about 600 million places of decimals.
yet the number goes on and on and on. pi is the relationship between the diameter and the perimeter of a circle.
let us try to consider a circle of radius of x quanta. then by the nature of the circle,the perimeter needs to be x * "pi", which is x multiplied by
3.---------------upto infinity . however as fractional values of quanta are not possible, the circle cannot be constructed. either we have to overstep or understep the
circle. IT MEANS ONLY ONE THING- -practically A PERFECT CIRCLE IS NEVER POSSIBLE IN NATURE
now consider a square "abcd" of side x quanta. then by pythogoras theorem ,the diagonal should be " 2 to the powre of 1/2 " into x quanta.as we know similar to the value of "pi",there is no perfect value for " 2 to the powre of 1/2 " .so the diagonal cannot exist. so
A PERFECT SQUARE ALSO DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE i would like to discuss something ABOUT
THE VALUE OF QUANTA
the value of quanta depends upon the frame of reference, or otherwise it depends upon your velocity.it is why we experience length contractions or expansions why travelling with high velocity.
velocity expression(why the velocity of light is greatest)
the velocity of a body is nothing but,rate of change of existance points.that is if there is a minimum distance that a body can travel
then,the body when travelling in a straight line, can only be at certain points:if it starts from a point a,it can be only at a point b , where the distance between a and b is one quanta of distance.the body while travelling in a straight line connot be in any middle point. the velocity of a body is nothing but the rate of change of existance points.the body simply disappears at one point and then reappears at another point,this is because if the body were to p normally or continuously (in normal sense) the points in between it is a contradiction to our theory. the time lapse between moving from one point and another is 0 . it takes zero time because if it would have taken a finite value of time, while moving from one point to another the body would have disappeared (nowhere to be present in the universe for that time),;which is then a contradiction to the law of conservation of m.so velocity can be measured by the value of time a body spends at a existance point (light spends the least time).the higher time one has to spend at a point the slower his velocity.but a body cannot spend a time less than 1 quanta of time.so the least it has to spend is one quanta.or otherwise there is a maximum velocity that a body can achieve(which is the velocity of light) thats why there may be a maximum velocity that a body can achieve which is the velocity of light
movement in nature is not continuous.it is discontinuous.things donot flow like a game of carromboard.they move in discrete steps like in a game of chess.this is why when we see a moving object,at an instant -it appears stationary.we only know it is moving because the stationary part shifts to another point.
why does the value of quanta depend on the frame of reference?
the value of quanta depends on the frame of reference.consider the following.
there are two persons and a ball.let us consider a frame of reference which is at rest with respect to the 1st person on the ground
consider that in this frame of reference the ball is moving with a velocity of 2 quanta in the x-axis and 0 quanta in the y- axis.then consider that a person is travelling in this frame of reference with an velocity of 2 quanta making an angle of 45 degrees with the
x-axis.
then in the frame of reference of the person, the ball is moving with a velocity of
which is equal to values of quanta in the first frame of reference.
but the velocity can only be in multiples of 1 quanta.this is a contradiction. we can easily solve the contradiction by considering that the value of quanta would set itself into such a value so that, the absolute velocity of light(300000kmps in any frame of reference") and the velocity of the ball are integral multiples of it.so the value of quanta drpends upon the frame of reference.but in this frame of reference it may appear that the length may get shorter or longer due to subsequent shortening and longening of the basic value of quanta.or we may say that it may appear to us that a rod of length 40m appears to be 39.9999999998 meters due to the change in the basic value of quantum.or in other words clocks slow down ,speed up and rods get bigger and smaller simply due to change of frame of reference.
i think the values of quanta are arbitary and depend upon the frame of reference.but in any frame light has the maximum velocity or light spends the least time at an existance point.in any frame of reference no matter in any value of quanta the velocity of an object could be compared to the velocity of light by comparing the quanta values of time that light spends(1) and the quanta value of time
the body spends.ecquired by the body is equal to the force multiplied by noof quanta of distance.
inverse square law
there are 3 types of forces in this universe.each one of them depends upon inverse squarelaw.
inverse square law connects the relationship between magnitude of force and the distance between the two points in question.
for example two electrons seperated by a distance "d" attract each other by a force f1 which is directly proportional to their mes and inversely proportional to their distance. this is the traditional view of inverse square law.it is dependent upon distance.
but the distance in meters or in any traditional units depends upon your frame of reference(this is because the value of quanta changes as your frame of reference.the same opinion is also given by the theorey of relativity proposed by the famous physicist albert Eainstein.so does that mean that the value of force between two points depends upon the observers frame of reference.
that is the force between two points depends upon the observers frame of reference.but there may be another solution to the problem.that is that the force between two points does not depend upon the distance between them but only depends upon the noof quanta of distance between the two points.we know that the noof quanta of distance between two points does not depend upon the frame of reference.the statement of inverse square law may be restated as "the force between two points is directly proportional to their mes(or charges) and inversely proportional to the square of the noof quanta of distance.
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS