"Within each density there are seven sub-densities"

[Lavazza]

This is most certainly true, and even if we see smaller than those scales there is always a scale below it that we cannot see. My position is inherently unprovable. I was speaking from Nassim Haramein's perspective where the universe is a fractal. At a certain point it just starts to repeat itself. It has no edges.

I must admit the idea of the universe as a fractal makes a lot of sense to me in a way. From a philosophical point of view it feels quite elegant. I will have to investigate Haramein's work.

Also to argue for your side of the equation a little more (Which is a lousy way to win a discussion )

As I think I have also just become guilt of...!

there's the problem of the planck constant, a theoretical minimal size, below which space itself is undividable. And there's a noise factor. Apparently below a certain size around 10^-16 I believe. At any rate just at our current maximal resolution. The universe begins to act really chaotic and you just kinda lose grips with causality.

Indeed, to what I think you are speaking is know as Quantum physics or Quantum mechanics. At that small level, much smaller than the atomic scale, all known physics get a bit wonky. As explained quite well in 'the Elegant Universe', time is no longer a constant, things can be in multiple locations at once, rabbits pull magicians out of hats... the list goes on.

Still, I think Nassim is right and there is no smallest particle. These are just artefacts of our physics. Also note that to measure the very small we need extraordinary amounts of energy which one could argue upsets the normal behavior of nature at that level. Since that energy at some point is likely going to be converted to matter. If we measure that generated matter we're not actually measuring the small.

Extraordinary amounts of energy? I have not heard of this before, but I have heard something that is similar to what you are speaking of. I believe it's called the observer effect, wherein physicists learned (in the 70's, I think) that they themselves were altering the outcome of their sub-atomic experiments because of their observation. You're probably already familiar with the now famous (at least in the science world) double slit experiment.

That is itty bitty Incidentally the elegant universe you linked to is a brilliant documentary on the subject. I see that it's present on google videos. If anyone is interested in the subject and hasn't seen it, this one is recommended

Quoted for complete agreement. Here it is part 1 of the documentary on Google Video if any following the discussion are interested. (It seems you'll have to go to the actually GV site to see the whole thing. But it's all free.)

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-1322493346942339345&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

Well actually I do have an answer on that one. Zeno's paradox is only a paradox because his perception of movement is wrong. These infinite amount of half way points you speak about are each achieved in an infinitesimal time. Lifting the total travel time back into our normal realm and resolving the paradox. Basically zeno introduced an artificial infinity. The same goes for any other type of activity that can be seen as infinitely dividable. And then suggested it was an impossible hurdle, which it clearly is not. I think Zeno's paradox is an artefact of his model. Just like the infinitely small is obscured by artefacts in our scientific model. But like I said, my position is inherently unprovable. I can't prove any of it, and it's not based on modern scientific insight (Unless Nassim counts ).

Well, I might suggest that the paradox still exists even after your explanation. The key is with the concept of infinity. An infinite number by it's very nature has no end. If you typed a number 1 on your keyboard, and then held down the 0 key such that it created a sting of zeros, the lifetime of the universe would expire before you could enter enough zeros to even make a sub-atomically small scratch on the, well, infinitely huge number that an infinite number would be. You could take the number on your computer after billions of years of entering zeros, and then take it to the power of the same number and it would make absolutely no difference. In fact, it's utterly useless to even attempt thinking about measuring such a number- the measurements are completely meaningless. My only point in making such an illustration of the infinity concept is to show that IF indeed there is no smallest unit of space, or smallest particle, then regardless of the amount of time it would take to cross such small halves of distance makes no difference, because you will always, always have more halves in which you would need to first cross. Even if you had, well, all the time of the universe at your disposal to attempt to cross them.

Yet as Zeno suggests, and we obviously experience, we cross them anyway! So what gives? It's a paradox with no resolve, scientifically, in my opinion. I might invoke some LOO principals though. The fact that we can move at all may be proof that we're living in a grand illusion.

Also, have no fear of needing to prove or disprove our concepts, we're already out of the arena of proof so it makes little difference I'm just loving the dialog as I'm sure you are also.

To summarize, I don't have a real answer to your suggestion that there might indeed be a smallest particle, I spoke from the fractal Point of view. But that's a point of view and points of view don't serve as actual proof. But zeno's paradox fortunately was added in by you for me to save a little bit of my honor Thank you !

Indeed I think Zeno serves both of us to some extent. To think that Zeno thought all this stuff up thousands of years ago- amazing.

Like I said, yield to temptation Especially in these subjects. Philosophy rocks! In spite of lousy job chances.

Did Lavazza drink Lavazza?

I'm a philosophy nut too. Ever listen to Philosophy Talk, the radio show? link: http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Not Lavazza unfortunately, it's not as common here in the states as it was in Australia. Just lousy starbucks.