Why you can't subdivide a quantum of space
10th December 2020
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
Why you can't subdivide a quantum of space.
I call the quantum of space the 'APE'.
But before I explain why you can't even in theory subdivide an 'APE' which is based on a 'Real' space, let me explain how you can be mistaken into thinking you can subdivide normal abstract space.
If you believe space is simple and continuous as in abstract volumes, then in theory you can subdivide this volume in two, and keep on doing this down the scales infinitum. This is because there is no limit in the scales. What this means you can take any small volume and duplicate it and reconstruct the larger volume, again with no limit. All volumes are constructed the same irrelevant of scale, so in theory there is no limit.
Now imagine that space is not simple and continuous as explained above, but constructed by 'complex volumes' (the 'APE's being the basic units of space itself).
This means that every real volume is a 'complex volume' that consists of other 'complex volumes'.
This is not difficult to understand, imagine the room you are in is a complex volume (you can calculate it's simple volume, length X width X height). Now each item in the room is also a 'complex volume' eg chair, table, cup, saucer, the air surrounding them. You can again calculate each simple volume, the total of the simple volumes totals the simple total of the room. Now imagine that two of the items have the same simple volume, say a wooden cup and a ceramic cup identical in size shape and volume. If both were the same volume why is one different from the other, IE. One is wooden and one is ceramic?
Would it not make sense to say they are both 'complex volumes' that have the same simple volume?
If you say that they are 'complex volumes' and can explain how these 'complex volumes' come together to create these simple abstract volumes of the two different cups, would it not make more sense?
Especially if you can construct everything from one basic 'complex volume'. Which I can do....
But before I do that, let's assume that complex volumes exist, and if they exist, why you can't even in theory subdivide them.
Imagine the 'complex volume' consists of two volumes, one 'Real' fixed volume, and one real 'virtual volume' which is constructed by the dynamics of the 'Real' volume. To understand this imagine you spin a ring (wedding band) by placing it on the table and flicking it with your finger, what you get is a spinning fuzzy ball. The fuzzy ball is real and has a boundary equal to the diameter of the ring, and different from the space outside of it (and obviously different to the volume of the ring).
The ring equivalent is a bound 3D space, and the fuzzy ball is equivalent to a bound 4D space.
If you now add the missing 5th dimension, the density of the ring itself, you have the basics of a 'complex volume'.
Obviously the 'APE's are more complex than this, but for now imagine everything in the universe is made of these 'complex volumes' making one big complex volume'.
Now let's try and do what we did with simple volumes. You can now divide this volume in two, and keep subdividing, initially any small volume that is duplicated can create the larger volume as before.
But when you get to two quanta you can subdivide them to get two single quanta, you can then duplicate this single quantum any number of times to create any size 'complex volume'.
But when you try to subdivide the quantum of space itself, there is no way of cutting this space into smaller pieces such that by duplicating any of the bits it will create another 'complex volume'.
You will either end up with a bit of ring or a bit of virtual space, neither can be duplicated to create the whole original quantum, it is not theoretically possible.
For those that don't see the obviousness of the above, and think they can, I can show that using the 'Real' 'APE's and all their complex movements and dimensions that it will be truly not possible to do.
But let me use another example of what a quantum really means. It means it is not possible to cut it into a smaller piece and keep the meaning of the quantum the same.
Imagine a herd of cows, I can say that the 'quantum' of a herd of cows is the cow itself. Meaning this is the smallest unit that can construct the herd. You can subdivide the herd as many times as you like until you are left with just one cow, multiples of the quantum cow can reconstruct the herd. But subdivide the cow into smaller bits and the quantum no longer exists. Say you chop it anyway you like when the size is so small you will end up with a bit of head, or a bit of a hoof, or a bit of a tail. There is no way of dividing it so you get every bit of the cow in your small volume, the tail is too far away from the tail, the hoofs are in 4 different location. Duplicating the head, or tail or hoof will never create a cow. The pieces are meaningless as a complete cow!
If this doesn't convince you, then you are reading the wrong book and you are unlikely to understand the mechanism of quantum gravity.
Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
Why you can't subdivide a quantum of space.
I call the quantum of space the 'APE'.
But before I explain why you can't even in theory subdivide an 'APE' which is based on a 'Real' space, let me explain how you can be mistaken into thinking you can subdivide normal abstract space.
If you believe space is simple and continuous as in abstract volumes, then in theory you can subdivide this volume in two, and keep on doing this down the scales infinitum. This is because there is no limit in the scales. What this means you can take any small volume and duplicate it and reconstruct the larger volume, again with no limit. All volumes are constructed the same irrelevant of scale, so in theory there is no limit.
Now imagine that space is not simple and continuous as explained above, but constructed by 'complex volumes' (the 'APE's being the basic units of space itself).
This means that every real volume is a 'complex volume' that consists of other 'complex volumes'.
This is not difficult to understand, imagine the room you are in is a complex volume (you can calculate it's simple volume, length X width X height). Now each item in the room is also a 'complex volume' eg chair, table, cup, saucer, the air surrounding them. You can again calculate each simple volume, the total of the simple volumes totals the simple total of the room. Now imagine that two of the items have the same simple volume, say a wooden cup and a ceramic cup identical in size shape and volume. If both were the same volume why is one different from the other, IE. One is wooden and one is ceramic?
Would it not make sense to say they are both 'complex volumes' that have the same simple volume?
If you say that they are 'complex volumes' and can explain how these 'complex volumes' come together to create these simple abstract volumes of the two different cups, would it not make more sense?
Especially if you can construct everything from one basic 'complex volume'. Which I can do....
But before I do that, let's assume that complex volumes exist, and if they exist, why you can't even in theory subdivide them.
Imagine the 'complex volume' consists of two volumes, one 'Real' fixed volume, and one real 'virtual volume' which is constructed by the dynamics of the 'Real' volume. To understand this imagine you spin a ring (wedding band) by placing it on the table and flicking it with your finger, what you get is a spinning fuzzy ball. The fuzzy ball is real and has a boundary equal to the diameter of the ring, and different from the space outside of it (and obviously different to the volume of the ring).
The ring equivalent is a bound 3D space, and the fuzzy ball is equivalent to a bound 4D space.
If you now add the missing 5th dimension, the density of the ring itself, you have the basics of a 'complex volume'.
Obviously the 'APE's are more complex than this, but for now imagine everything in the universe is made of these 'complex volumes' making one big complex volume'.
Now let's try and do what we did with simple volumes. You can now divide this volume in two, and keep subdividing, initially any small volume that is duplicated can create the larger volume as before.
But when you get to two quanta you can subdivide them to get two single quanta, you can then duplicate this single quantum any number of times to create any size 'complex volume'.
But when you try to subdivide the quantum of space itself, there is no way of cutting this space into smaller pieces such that by duplicating any of the bits it will create another 'complex volume'.
You will either end up with a bit of ring or a bit of virtual space, neither can be duplicated to create the whole original quantum, it is not theoretically possible.
For those that don't see the obviousness of the above, and think they can, I can show that using the 'Real' 'APE's and all their complex movements and dimensions that it will be truly not possible to do.
But let me use another example of what a quantum really means. It means it is not possible to cut it into a smaller piece and keep the meaning of the quantum the same.
Imagine a herd of cows, I can say that the 'quantum' of a herd of cows is the cow itself. Meaning this is the smallest unit that can construct the herd. You can subdivide the herd as many times as you like until you are left with just one cow, multiples of the quantum cow can reconstruct the herd. But subdivide the cow into smaller bits and the quantum no longer exists. Say you chop it anyway you like when the size is so small you will end up with a bit of head, or a bit of a hoof, or a bit of a tail. There is no way of dividing it so you get every bit of the cow in your small volume, the tail is too far away from the tail, the hoofs are in 4 different location. Duplicating the head, or tail or hoof will never create a cow. The pieces are meaningless as a complete cow!
If this doesn't convince you, then you are reading the wrong book and you are unlikely to understand the mechanism of quantum gravity.
Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com
