Where are the lengthons or the spacions?

[Phred101.2]

What I want to know about the theory that is supposed to predict fundamental particles of time is:
where's the one that predicts fundamental particles of distance? Why aren't people looking for the complementary distance particles? Surely without distance time would not work, so where are the lengthons or the spacions?

 

[ranger]

Why would we need particles for distance? Does that make sense? What do you think distance is?
Whats this "fundamental particles of time" ?

 

[ZapperZ]

What I want to know about the theory that is supposed to predict fundamental particles of time is:
where's the one that predicts fundamental particles of distance? Why aren't people looking for the complementary distance particles? Surely without distance time would not work, so where are the lengthons or the spacions?

If you can show me how a particle make an interaction with time, then I'll come up with the fundamental particle.

BTW, before you get into an awful mess, I'd suggest you read the PF Guidelines before proceeding any further.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Based on the question, I think there is some confusion about tachyons [as there well should be ]. IIRC, they are defined to be any time-reversed or superluminal particle, not particles of time.

 

[Mk]

predict fundamental particles of time is:
where's the one that predicts fundamental particles of distance? Why aren't people looking for the complementary distance particles? Surely without distance time would not work, so where are the lengthons or the spacions?

The idea of particles of things is called quanta, that's where "quantum theory" comes from. Particles of light are quanta, and are called photons. The idea of quanta was created to be able to study phenomena such as light in a different way.

I believe those lengthons you are looking for are called "centimeters."

 

[zoobyshoe]

Based on the question, I think there is some confusion about tachyons [as there well should be ]. IIRC, they are defined to be any time-reversed or superluminal particle, not particles of time.

I've always heard this:

tachyon: a hypothetical particle held to travel only faster than light

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tachyon

 

[rewebster]

What I want to know about the theory that is supposed to predict fundamental particles of time is:
where's the one that predicts fundamental particles of distance? Why aren't people looking for the complementary distance particles? Surely without distance time would not work, so where are the lengthons or the spacions?

so, the answer to figuring out gravitons and photons is to introduce hypothetical particles? This is starting to sound like how string theory is based.

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe those lengthons you are looking for are called "centimeters."

Priceless!

I believe Ivan's guess about the OP's misconception (that the tachyon is a "quantum of time") is right.

 

[Phred101.2]

those lengthons you are looking for are called "centimeters."

I know they're called centimeters, but what's one made of" Can you fedex one to me so I can have a good look at it (I've got a pretty good microscope)?