While working in both RF fields of satellite and terrestrial communication, it occurred to me that it was likely, at some point, that a unit of time could no longer be subdivided, that this universe supports only minimal discrete time increment. If such a discrete time existed within a context of...
The name $c$ is accurate. The name "speed of light" is only under accurate very specific conditions. The numerical value of $c$ is essentially arbitrary (most theorists just set it to one). The fact that it exists at all comes from the fact that spacetime carries a Lorentzian metric.
it occurred to me that it was likely, at some point, that a unit of time could no longer be subdivided. How likely, and how have you estimated the likelihood? So the rule of this space-time element is (...) What empirical evidence leads to this rule? I believe both Quantum behaviour and large scale radiation/gravitational infuences could be explained by this approach. What reason would you have to believe so? which I feel is necessary Why should your feelings matter when creating a physical theory?
Wow, this seems like a dysfunctional forum. I was not promoting a "personal theory", I was attempting to find if any existing theories were similar to my interpretation, as noted in the comment above - although it wasn't really answered either. Thank you Amit.
“I believe X could be explained by this approach” sounds like a personal theory to me. If you want to know whether there are any theories that quantize spacetime, you don’t need to first spend three paragraphs telling us what you believe.
@Rumbleweed The existence of the Planck length and time does not imply that spacetime is discrete. This is a common falsehood that probably comes from pseudoscience. See physics.stackexchange.com/q/9720/174766.
Is there a theory? Absolutely. My own (peer reviewed and published) theory of Dilating Loop Relativity (which got its start with Loop Quantum Gravity) matches very closely with what you are seeking: pulsus.com/scholarly-articles/…
@Ghoster It was published in the "Journal of Modern and Applied Physics" which is also part of Pulsus.
@VincentThacker Absolutely. The scientific process is that once a theory has been peer reviewed and published, it should be presented to the community for discussion and opinions. Go for it!
@foolishmuse Does the scientific process also include a $99 fee for “fast review”? Not for physicists who want to be taken seriously. Your paper would have received a desk reject at a respectable journal, and you should not be hawking it here.
@Ghoster You are, of course, free the denegrate the process. But it would be more valuable to everyone if you spent your time looking at the theory itself.
@foolishmuse Any paper that describes the Planck time as — I quote — “10 sec to 43 sec” is not worth serious consideration. You cannot gain respectability by “publishing” stuff like this.
@VincentThacker Yes, I’m aware. That user doesn’t get nearly enough pushback when he does it.
@Ghoster I'm sure you saw that was a quote from someone else. And I'm not attempting to gain respectability, I'm not an academic and I don't pretend to be. I'm just putting out an interesting idea. As mentioned before, your comments, criticisms and discussion on the theory are welcome.
@foolishmuse So the fact that that particular nonsense is from “someone else” makes it OK to take seriously in your paper? No.
I'm not an academic and I don't pretend to be. That’s hardly the impression given by your reference to “my own (peer reviewed and published) theory”. I’m glad we’ve clarified the situation. I’m done.
@Ghoster actually the mistake was in transposing in the final publishing. If you look at my earlier paper here; vixra.org/pdf/2202.0156v2.pdf on page 6, you will see that it should have read "Planck Time: 10^-43 seconds". Just a typo in publishing. Sorry that it caused you such consternation.
Discussion on question by Rumbleweed:…
Discussion on question by Rumbleweed:…