First of all, I found error in the definition of acceleration. There are two methods to determine if an object is accelerating. With the first method we measure the distance an object is covering in a certain period of time. Suppose an object covers 1 meter in the first second. But in the other second the object covers 2 meters. We certainly have acceleration here because the speed of an object was increased from 1m/s to 2m/s. With the second method we measure the time it takes for an object to cover a certain distance. Suppose an object covers the distance of one meter in one second, but the next meter is covered in half of the time. Here we also have acceleration, because the speed of an object was increased from 1m/s to 2m/s (1m/ 1/2s = 2m/s). However, we don't really know what is going on: we don't know what the acceleration is and what causes the acceleration. Speed contains only two elements: distance over time d/t. Therefore, we can describe both of these methods in the equations: nd/t = d/t/n where “n” stands for unknown value. We can clearly see that “n” must increase in both equations to get acceleration. In the first equation “n” must increase value because the greater the distance covered by an object in a certain time equals higher speed. In the second equation “n” must also increase because to get a higher speed, the object must cover a certain distance in a smaller time.

If in place of “n” we use time (t), in both equations we are getting the distance (d). Distance is the value we are looking for, because only distance was increased in both of our experiments. Now, if we use distance (d) in place of “n” in both equations we are getting d²/t, which is the proper description of the acceleration. Acceleration is a change in the distance of speed and this is the proper definition of acceleration. We are never going to get acceleration in form of d/t² , which is today's acceleration. Now, compare my acceleration a = d²/t to the Planck constant h = md²/t.

If we divide the Planck constant by my acceleration of c (speed of light), we get the mass contained in the Planck constant which is 7.372 x 10 - 51 kg. Should we now call it a particle or a quantum of mass? Yes, it's a particle, but not a quantum of mass.