I say base it on either one of 2 things:

1. Observational evidence of quantization.  I mean that energy, mass, and time measures are always multiples of universal constant.

2. If using quanization makes good predictions.

It sounds to me like she was asking what the quanta would be, in a hypothetical quantization of space-time. At least that was how I interpreted.

a relative - ish description would make more sense as volume per second is too background dependent to be particularly useful.

To describe quantum gravity with any luck. but seriously, quantum space-time geometry could be potentially used for everything.

 But any quantization is in some way arbitrary and subject to interpretation. Is that why you're asking?

No, I don't think so. I'm not so much interested in anyone here on the forum coming up with the end product, only in other peoples ideas as to where to start (what quantities could describe a unit of space-time) and how they might justify starting with those quantities.

I believe it will be possible to unify QM and Relativity, thus creating what is colloquialy called the Theory of Everything. To do so, however, requires a quantum explanation of gravity, something which nobody has ever achieved. If there is one theory, it will fall under QM. According to our understanding of physics, every physical phenomenon should be able to be explained in terms of quantum mechanics. To have a phenomenon which cannot be explained by QM is to have a disjointed understanding of reality. As to which hypothetical explanation should work for this, I'm not holding my breath on M-theory, loop quantum gravity seems promising, but of course, you must remember, I am not a physicist. This is not my field. Thus, although I can follow developments, I adopt a wait and see approach. 

But ... um ... calculus.

That's the whole of my argument, actually. Getting all discrete math where almost all of the math that's done in physics is calculus is just confusing.

I mean, if you want to say there's a smallest unit of space-time and call it the "Eloise", go ahead. You can make it an N-dimensional limit as space-time approaches zero.

Oh, so I see where you stand, now, Will, Okay...

(kidding.. )

No? Really? Mixing discrete and continuous physics is confusing, you say?

Is that a dare?

Totally.

I think a better way to tackle this would be to ask, what do we need in order to quantize space-time.

Well, we clearly need the physical constants we already have, and perhaps others to be named later, like the speed of light and gravitational constant.

We also need a much better understanding of gravity on the quantum level.

To do that, we need a lot more experience in and understanding of how to work in more than 4 dimentional systems.

To do that, we need to better understand fundamental particles.

All that said, I think space-time, if it is ever quantized beyond our idea of light-years, will involve the understanding of accelerations within multiple dimentions.

That isn't much of an answer, I know, but part of arrive at such an answer lies in recognizing the pieces of the puzzle we don't have quite yet.

The amount of information that can be obtained from particle and/or photon could be a basis.

Empty space has zero information, like a computer's memory that is erased. A particle has a finite amount of information associated with it(position, frequency/energy). Since high energy particles have more information(i.e. finer quantization) the so called base quantization is higher than low energy particles.

So there is not really a base quantization of time-space. There is empty time-space which has the potential to contain packets of information(particles/photons) which are all being clock by the digital computer(our time/space universe) at the speed of light.

Then what is the amount of information in empty space? Sounds like the foam and virtual particles are conductors of information but have zero information. Like a computer memory that is erased it has the potiential to contain real information, but if it's empty(erased) it has zero information.

I lean more towards the idea of conductors of information than storers of information myself.  So, going with the computer analogy, they wouldn't be memory but rather the silicon wires that connect the logic gates.  There is always some information on the line (at least while the circuitry is active with flowing electricity) but that information rapidly changes as the state of the system progresses.

That's interesting, and I think there is some truth to what you're saying/thinking however, I don't see how that can be a basis, it kinda needs to be a result.

What empty space is that? Is that empty space by definition, or are you referring to the appearance of physical spaces in everyday experience?

Is there? How do you know this?

That's all that learnin' I done in them schools.

Browr? I think you may have lost me, but that's all the equations in my head being unable to find a direct relationship between a proportion of energy (are we still talking kinetic energy?) and acceleration that wouldn't somehow involve a mass. Help? 

I yam what I yam. (A jerk, in case nobody's been paying attention.)

Oh-HO! Do I smell a unification attempt, or are you giving time a couple of dimensions instead of just one? Like on  this site?

I thought bosons were self-gravitating by definition. But what you're talking about seems to be the potential energy of the mass of the boson when you say "specific energy".

By "efficient body" do you mean the net vector(s)?

What a tease! Is it five dimensions, or is it base gravitation for a particle that measures exactly one Eloise?

More like on this site, amirite? Heheh, I kid.

I've known about that site for ages, still cracks me up. The guy is a loony, but also the first thing I think of when I hear "multi-dimensional time."

TIME CUBE: Because time is bipolar. . .? lol

Well, clearly the dimensions we curently use do not cover what happens. Three or four dimensional space cannot account for or explain sufficiently gravitational lenses or black holes - and that's before we even get to the subatomic level, which I frankly don't understand suffieciently to offer a meaningful treatise here.

Looking at gravity wells, such as black holes or gravity lenses, I think it is even possible that time and space can bend or if you will, acclecerate, differently. And we've not even gone to the quantum level. These would certainly be anomalies, but I think it's the anomalies that will help us understand how things really work.

In a nutshell though, I mean accelerations in physical space, quantum space, and in time. Perhaps others. I also think we need to learn how to understand how gravity changes and influences space-time much better before we get to the previous.