Essay Abstract

In this essay, I argue that spacetime has greater detail than is being taken into account and that this limited view of the four-dimensional field has been hindering us from continuing to produce advances in science of the same power and utility as relativity and quantum theory. A number of the mysteries in science--such as what constitutes dark matter and dark energy--would likely be solved if we had a better picture of spacetime. I describe how space may be a fundamentally continuous physical system with information in a digital form, and how time may be a quantum-based physical system also with information in a digital form. I further discuss how our reality is likely digitally based and how a discrete model of time can bridge the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Author Bio

Lamont Williams is a science writer and editor originally from the Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey metropolitan area. He is author of "The Greatest Source of Energy--A New Theory of Time," which describes a method of linking general relativity with quantum mechanics through a new model of time that emphasizes Einstein's view that gravity is caused by the curvature of the time dimension of spacetime.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Lamont,

you write in your essay:

"It is difficult to imagine our space being composed of spatial atoms without also imagining a force between those atoms, holding them together".

May I politely disagree with you? Why should there be such a force? In my view discrete spacetime should be regarded as the ultimate bottom layer of nature, the most primitive physical concept, the structure from which everything emerges: we should expect it to justify the existence of particles and forces, that are manifestations of its dynamics, without need to go the other way around, and justify it, in turn, in terms of other particles and forces.

Good luck with the contest!

    Hi, Tommaso,

    Thank you for your comment. I agree with you that discrete space and time are the ultimate bottom layer of nature. Everything that you describe is what I talk about in my book in detail. I just do not believe space is 'fundamentally' discrete. I do believe time is, however, fundamentally discrete, as I describe in the essay.

    I'm open to any further questions. This is a great forum.

    Best,

    Lamont

    6 days later

    Dear Lamont,

    I wanted to let you know that I have read your essay.

    The most pertinent part for me was at the end where you said "We have gotten to the point where we are expending a great amount of effort and resources trying to resolve mysteries which are likely unsolvable without first understanding these components of the universe on a deeper level". Yes indeed.

    I think many are content to assume that the matter was fully solved by Einstein. Or that space-time is irrelevant because experienced reality is the product of a mathematical quasi reality that exists without time and in a very different kind of space. Assuming the quasi reality to be the more real.

    Anyway it was good to read your account and opinions.

    Your presentation style, like a magazine article, was eye catching and immediately stood out for me as different from the other essays I have looked at so far. Best wishes, Georgina.

    Georgina,

    Thank you for reading my essay and for your feedback. I agree: Spacetime is quite relevant, and we really need to understand it better to make significant progress.

    Yes, I noticed my style of writing is different from many of the others. I tried to stay true to the contest guidelines, which called for Scientific American--type articles. This may be a blessing and a curse, in that the writing style is in agreement with what the contest called for, but many of the community evaluators may be partial toward more technical pieces like their own.

    The contest organizers have some discretion, so hopefully, I can at least make it to the expert panel stage.

    Best regards,

    Lamont

      I feel I should clarify my point to Tommaso. I do believe that discrete space and time are the ultimate bottom layer of nature, but when I say 'nature,' I'm thinking of the universe as a working system, not its basic, fundamental components. Only through discrete space and time do you get matter, force, (relative) energy, and all the workings of the universe. However, on a fundamental level, I believe space at least is a continuous object. Its discreteness would come from particular one-, two- or three-dimensional regions becoming more 'timelike' in their nature, though they would continue to be space.

      9 days later

      Also, when such particles fall into black holes,

      they and their information are fully absorbed by

      the vacuum. Black holes do not contain matter

      crushed to a small size--the matter in a black

      hole is completely destroyed, leaving nothing in

      the black hole but curved spacetime.3 Lastly, it

      is widely accepted that some elementary particles--

      called virtual particles--pop into and out

      of space continuously.

      Lamont,

      Some say that information is not lost in the event horizon of a black hole -- the holographic effect. If you believe that the principalities of a black hole and the big bang are related, does that mean that the matter in the black hole is destroyed or that it recycles in a new universe with the big bang?

      Your essay is quite impressive, professional and complex. Thanks for the read.

      Jim Hoover

        Thank you, Jim! I appreciate the compliments.

        I must say that I'm really impressed by your question. You really get what I'm saying.

        My answer is that I believe the matter in a black hole recycles. I believe our space exists in parallel with another space and that there is a constant cycling of energy between the two. Matter would leave our space through black holes/singularities, enter the sister space, and reemerge in our space through white holes/time-reversed singularities. (The black holes and white holes would not necessarily be connected to each other.)

        In my estimation, this sister space is what the Dirac Sea (and its quantum theory equivalent) attempts to represent. It is a negative energy vacuum, the presence of which prevents electrons, for example, from falling into the negative energy range. The space we live in is a positive energy vacuum.

        Please let me know if you have any further questions.

        Hi, Jim,

        One more thought: Note that by taking the loss/recycling of energy into account, you can eliminate, in a natural way, two types of infinities: (1) gravitational infinities at singularities, and (2) the infinite energies in quantum theory, which are usually removed, on paper at least, by the mathematical procedure of renormalization.

        Lamont

        4 days later
        • [deleted]

        Dear Lamont:

        I especially liked your last paragraph and cited is a sentence from it.

        "We have gotten to the point in which we are expending a great amount of

        effort and resources trying to solve mysteries that are likely unsolvable without first understanding these particular components of the universe on a

        deeper level.

        I too think we need to question the universe in deeper if not divergent ways. Maybe a simple concept can lead us to different understandings and ways of thinking.

        Good luck with your essay, it was interesting and enjoyable to read, (as is mine.)

        Joseph Markell

          Thanks, Joseph!

          I appreciate the feedback and will take a look at your essay as well.

          Lamont

          Lamont,

          In my essay I comment on the principalities of black holes and the big bang as twins. My idea of super-massive black holes recycling over billions of years into other universes might counter what Hawkings' view of black hole dissipating over time.

          What do you think?

          Jim

          Hi, Jim,

          I read your essay...very interesting. I think black hole and Big Bang singularities are definitely sisters. I think of the BB singularity as the ultimate white hole. The singularities at white holes are time-reversed compared to those at black holes. I can't say I agree with the creation of new universes though, but it is an interesting idea. I think energy/information definitely exits our space, but only to cycle back.

          Lamont

          Hi, Jim,

          I read your essay...very interesting. I think black hole and Big Bang singularities are definitely sisters. I think of the BB singularity as the ultimate white hole. The singularities at white holes are time-reversed compared to those at black holes. I can't say I agree with the creation of new universes though, but it is an interesting idea. I think energy/information definitely exits our space, but only to cycle back.

          Lamont

          Lamont

          A very enjoyable read, thank you. I feel you hit all the pertinent targets spot on, which has not been that common. I agree you're on the right lines when you say ref unification;

          "Time obviously plays an important role in both theories, so its disappearance is puzzling and has hindered efforts to create a unified theory."

          I think you may like to just try the unification model offered in my essay, which seemed to me to parallel much of what you said. It's a little testing mentally (dynamic volumes and variables) but yields a very Occam's razor solution. There's no maths, so unfortunately few of the highbrow physicists here can understand the language! I hope you'll have a go, and do please give me your views.

          Peter

            Thank you, Peter. I will definitely take a look at your essay as well.

            Best regards,

            Lamont