R. W. Tanney.¹  [To homepage]

Zeno's paradoxes of 'Achilles and the tortoise' and of the arrow are based on the concept of infinitely divisible time and space.  Achilles cannot pass the tortoise in a foot race because each incrementally smaller portion of space is traversed in an equally smaller amount of time, so that the tortoise's 10 foot head start is never completely overcome.  The arrow cannot really be moving because in an infinitely small amount of time it will traverse an infinitely small distance.  Unreal.  There is no demonstrable proof of this concept of the Universe, and these paradoxes are enough to make one wonder whether the concept can possibly be correct.

Let us suppose for a moment that neither time nor space are infinitely divisible.  If time and space have some smallest components, then existence itself must also ahve a smallest unit, whether it be conceived of as particle or force.  There must be some smallest entity which constitutes the difference between being and not being.  Let us call this entity a 'quirk.'  Definition:  a quirk is the smallest entity which constitutes the difference between being and not being.  We must enquire as to the necessary nature of such an entity.  Is there only one type or many?  Are quirks self-replicating and reproducing, or is each quirk the product of special creation?

The smallest amount of space may be that space occupied by one quirk.  Let us call that space 'nowhere' (pronounced "now here").  The only possibly smaller space may be that between quirks.  Let us call that space 'northere' (pronounced "nor there").  I suspect that this space is approximately the size of a photon, if one can conceive of a photon having a measurable size.  Whatever the size of this smallest space, it represents the difference between a quirk's position in one iteration of existence and it's position in the next iteration if it is not stationary. It is the finest grain in the fabric of being.

The smallest duration of time is the time required for a quirk to propagate.  Let us call it a momento.  I suspect that a momento is approximately 10-43 seconds.  The immeasurable gap between momentos is called a 'momentum'.  Whatever this smallest duration is, it is the difference between the state of one iteration of existence and the next.  Perhaps it is momentum which gets us from one iteration to the next.  In any case, we can only experience the succession of momentos, and never the momenta between these frames of existence.  Whatever may take place in the interval, it is outside what we experience as being.

For the sake of setting a base-line for discussion, let us suppose the following things about quirks:
 

•   There is one type only.
•   Each quirk replicates itself with each momento.
•   Each quirk generates one other quirk with each momento.
•   The relationship between each quirk pair generates a new quirk with each momento.

These are not the only possible assumptions we might make about quirks, but are speculations which give us a starting point for a scientific search for confirming or dis-confirming this hypothesis.

 Following the above assumptions, the mathematical rate for generation of quirks may be stated:

  q₀   = 0
  q₁   = 1
  q_n+1 = q_n + 2^qn  -1

  q₂   = 2
  q₃   = 5
  q₄   = 36
  q₅   = 68719476771
  q₆   = 68719476771 + 2^68719476771 -1

The rapid increase in a progression like this could easily account for the "Big Bang".  We must ask what properties of a single type of entity could ultimately account for space and force.

If the reader is skeptical about the possibility of the Universe regenerating itself in this way every 10^-43 seconds, I must ask if the reader has been to the movies, and, if so, if the reader could recall a single frame which stands out in  his or her memory.  If reality flickers, it does so more rapidly than is detectable.  In fact, if the Universe is discontinuous in this way, we can never detect its flicker, as we flicker with it, and we can only detect what falls within the frame.

I would be interested in hearing, especially from physicists, what this notion would entail for our concepts of physics and reality, in other words, existence in general and micro-physical activity in particular.  We must enquire as to whether the generation of the first quirk was a random event.  We may state this question as: "Was the first event of Creation random?".  When we have an answer to that, it may be profitable to ask the same question of the second event.  The answer to this will depend on whether we have determined how many separate acts of creation would be necessary to account for the proliferation of matter in the Universe.  The precise definition of the quirk given above and its rate and method of propagation are purely speculative, and I would hope for scientific minds to be able to refine this notion, providing more likely values for the proposed minima and for the rate and method of propagation, or providing a convincing argument why this model of reality must be rejected.

NOTE:  some of the terminology may seem goofy, but no more so than calling certain sub-atomic entities 'quarks', a borrowing from James Joyce.  The concept itself is serious.  The quark and the photon are both 'quirk' contenders as I see it.

¹ MDiv.(Pastoral Counseling and Psychology, Ashland Theological Seminary), MS(Computer Information Systems, Boston University), SFC (US Army Retired) To homepage