Mr Lynd’s approach apparently resolves Zeno’s paradaox (Achilles racing the tortoise) and is described by one reviewer as “resembling Einstein’s 1905 special theory of relativity”.
I’m no physicist but is this a big deal? How prestigious is the journal it’s being published in Foundations of Physics Letters? Have any dopers out there read it yet?
From reading that article, there’s nothing that sets it apart from the scores of other crackpot papers that physicists have to deal with. My biggest lament is that it’s hard for the public to distinguish between well-researched and legitimate but complicated work, and something like this. Not without resorting to ad hominems, at least.
But come on, resolving Zeno’s Paradox? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that this guy has never taken a calculus class, as evidenced by this quote:
So is this more akin to the Sokal Affair. How did it get published at all? Is the journal involved a respeceted source or just some sort of vanity publisher?
This seems to corroborate recent findings that there is no Plank Time. In other words, there is no smallest unit of time, time is not quantanized.
I’m paraphrasing from the Sep 2003 isssue of Astronomy here:
If there is such a thing as planck time, then measurments of time periods smaller than this is impossible. Therefore, the speed of light cannot be defined to greater precision than this. This means that photons can have slightly different speeds. And that over extremely long distances, they would get out of phase. This would be seen as a slight blurring.
Light that is in phase produces somethig called an “airy disk”, a ring around the object being seen. If time is quantized, then distant object shouldn’t have airy disks. But they do, so time isn’t quantized.
This plays havoc with big bang theory, since without a smallest unit of time, the energies and density at the beginning become infinite instead of just really realllly large.
I admit I’ve never heard of it, but it seems to be legitimate. The August issue isn’t online yet at that site. I should probably let an actual physicist give a more experienced contribution. I think that “letters” are usually given more leeway than actual “papers”. Still, it sounds surprising that it got in, so maybe I’m missing something.
Thaumaturge, that’s pretty good, but I would hardly say that Lynds’ paper corroborates anything. If there was any experimental basis for his work, it wasn’t mentioned in the article.
Yeah, Corroborates is a strong word. I suppose " expressess the same idea but without anything to back it up" is better. More like the article I linked to accidentally corroborates parts of his paper hehe.
This still has pretty interesting implications, that will shortly turn my brain to goo as I attempt to realize them. There is no smallest unit of time, every moment blends into the next.
Are they smoking crack? What am I missing? Einstein defined the speed of light as a constant. How in God’s name could quantized time, which reduces the possible number of different velocities, increase the number of velocities of light, which are constant?! Things do not become “blurry” below Planck’s constant; Planck’s constant demonstrates the discrete nature of reality.
But the quote that really gets me is “if light is quantized.” I understand they mean the time aspect of light’s velocity, but it just sounds so stupid. Einstein explained that light was indeed quantized (into photons) 100 years ago with, I believe, the blackbody radiation paper.
Unlike most physicists, (I am not a physicist), I believe that space is quantized. It would solve a bunch of infinite energy paradoxes, and also just seems a natural extension of Planck’s constant. But if time is really just the 4th spatial dimension, then how could theoretical physicists believe time was quantized but not space? Something doesn’t smell right here.
I’d say it’s quite a jump to say that because we cannot measure light’s speed with infinite precision it must therefore not be a constant speed.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Achernar *
**
I’m here specificly to show my profound ignorance. Please, sir, can you tell me about String Theory? My need to know isn’t huge. I don’t need to teach it, I just want to understand how it lured my son to “explore what’s next”
String theory proposes that all elementary particles (electrons, quarks etc.) are actually made up of 1-D strings. How, you’re asking do 1-D objects look like point particles or little balls? Well take a length of yarn and roll it into a ball, place it on the ground and imagine you looked at it from the top of you house. See how that 1-D’ish object now appears as a 3-D ball or a 0-D point particle? Same idea.
The amount of energy the string possess gives rise to all the physical properties of the electron/quark etc. that we’re more familiar with
The theory also needs additional dimensions to our 4-D space-time. The last numbers I remember are 7 or 11. Apparently these dimension are “rolled up” and are so small in extent that we will likely never encounter them. The other way to think of it is that when the universe came into being our space-time dimensions inflated dramatically, leaving the others behind.
String theory is a theory of elementary particles which posits that on there are fundamental ebtities which are either 1-D finite lines or !-D closed loops and elementary particles are the result of standing waves on a string.
Later combined with the theory of supersymmetry in oder to create superstring theory in which there are 10 dimensions for fermions (electrons, , quarks, protons, neutrons, etc.) and 26 dimensions for bosons (photons, piopns, kaons, etc.) . Superstring theories looks alot better bet for describing gravity than quantum field theory (i.e. quantum theories that attempt to describe gravity).
M-theory is also an extension of string theory that postulates that the fundmental entities are two dimensional.
[nitpick] M-Theory is an overarching construct that unifies 5 distinct variations of String Theory, plus 11-dimensional Supergravity into a single framework. Extending the 1-D strings into 2-D 'branes is just a secondary effect of the theory.[/nitpick]
I don’t understand how this paper got published or why people say the idea of continous time is a new concept. My first year calc prof was telling us about all sorts of applications in which systems are modelled on “continuous time”.
Using Occam’s razor, the simplist way to think about time is that it is uniform, just like it seems, so that’s the most likely thing to be true. The things that seem made up just to be novel also most likely are.
OK, I understand the concept mentioned above where if there was such a thing as Planck time, that the speed of light can only be measured as precisely as Planck time allows, and that anything more precise is impossible to measure. I also understand that if this were true, by extension, it would be theoretically possible for the speed of light to actually vary slightly below the measureable limit of Planck time. Therefore, it would stand to reason that the effects of this potential discrepancy would become more apparent the more time goes by. Would it not be possible to set up an experiment to try to find miniscule variations in the speed of light to either prove or disprove the concept of Planck time?
Am I missing something? I am not a physics major, but the theory seems to make intuitive sense to me…
Ummmmm …CuriousCanuck…look at the link I posted. The results say that there is no Planck time. Theorists had thought until now that time was quantized, if for no other reason than that it makes things easier. Turns out they were wrong.