# Smallest slice of time **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 28, 2001, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594 "2001-04-28T03:06:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![woolly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ebca7d/32.png) [@woolly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woolly)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2001, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/21 "2001-04-29T14:17:56Z")
Are these related to buckons … the lapsed time between when the boss stuffs up and when they pass the buck onto you? ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2001, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/22 "2001-05-02T12:33:36Z")
But what is it measured in smoots? your humble TubaDiva ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2001, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/23 "2001-05-02T14:50:12Z")
The Harvard Bridge is 364.4 Smoots plus one ear. [Cite](http://www.urbanlegends.com/collegiate/smoots_bridge_markings.html) ---
**Author:** ![furryman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/furryman/32/99_2.png) [@furryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furryman)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2001, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/24 "2001-05-02T15:03:43Z")
The smallest increment of time is a “minnowsecond”, that’s the amount of time between when you let go of a car door and when you realize it’s locked and you left your keys in the ignition. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2001, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/25 "2001-05-02T16:54:40Z")
So is Oliver Reed Smoot of Harvard Bridge fame any relation to George Smoot, of COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) fame? ---
**Author:** ![slortar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@slortar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slortar)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2001, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/26 "2001-05-02T17:57:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by furryman \* > \*\*The smallest increment of time is a “minnowsecond”, that’s the amount of time between when you let go of a car door and when you realize it’s locked and you left your keys in the ignition. 😉 \*\* I’d always heard that as an “ignisecond.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2001, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/27 "2001-05-02T19:03:06Z")
A Dentisecond is the gap between biting into a wild-pheasant burrito and, finding an obstruction, thinking of your dentist. Know the feeling? Yeah, me thoo. ---
**Author:** ![MarkGross](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MarkGross](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkGross)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2001, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/28 "2001-05-02T21:00:38Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > I’ve been very tempted to start a thread on this topic but will happily settle for hijacking this one with a discussion about whether time is incremental or continuous. \*\* Easy. Time is incremental. We just experience it continuously (barring things like mind altering substances and death). - Mark ---
**Author:** ![hyjynx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/49beb7/32.png) [@hyjynx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hyjynx)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2001, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/29 "2001-05-02T22:22:26Z")
Check out the following for thoughts on a descrete cosmos: A NEW COSMOGONY by EDWARD FREDKIN Department of Physics Boston University Boston, MA, 02215, USA [http://www.im.lcs.mit.edu/poc/fredkin/New-Cosmogony](http://www.im.lcs.mit.edu/poc/fredkin/New-Cosmogony) -hyjynx ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2001, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/30 "2001-05-03T00:15:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by slortar \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by furryman \* > > \*\*The smallest increment of time is a “minnowsecond”, that’s the amount of time between when you let go of a car door and when you realize it’s locked and you left your keys in the ignition. 😉 \*\* > > I’d always heard that as an “ignisecond.” 🙂 \*\* Furthering that, I’d always heard “ohnosecond.” ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2001, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/31 "2001-05-03T01:54:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by brother rat \* > > A favorite way to think about this in one of my early physics class was that if a plane was rolling down the runway and took off. And you were to pick a time reference, let’s say t = 1, and say that this was the last point in time in which the tire was in contact with the ground. Then you could not find a point in time in which tire was in the air for the first time. And vice versa. This seems to support the smooth time arguement. I believe that this is in fact the theory(?) of continuity, which is necessary for our understanding of calculus. Limits, integrals, and all that stuff would be pointless without continuity. A finite set of numbers would mean that those calculus courses I took were a complete waste of time! Say it ain’t so! On this topic,here [http://www.uvm.edu/~nvenet/pages/DedekindStory.html](http://www.uvm.edu/~nvenet/pages/DedekindStory.html) is a snipit I just typed up from a really great book about math called “Tour of the Calculus” By David Berlinski. This particular segment is his conception of Dedekind explaining how he has come to understand continuity. Check it out if you’re interested. ---
**Author:** ![WalkingDeadTacoGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b38774/32.png) [@WalkingDeadTacoGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WalkingDeadTacoGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/32 "2001-05-04T06:09:51Z")
Here’s the best me and my sleep deprived brain can do… Zarathustra posted earlier something from Xeno…the tortoise and achilles whatever thing. Xeno’s paradox eventually has you arrive that motion can’t exist. (Xeno’s paradox is similar to the tortoise and achilles thing. Basically every time you move a foot, before you do you move half a foot. But before you move half a foot you move 1/4 of a foot and so on. So eventually you arrive at 1 divided by infinity which is zero. Which means motion doesn’t exist) However, Xeno’s paradox is broken by the concept of space being quantified. In other words, there is only so small you can get which is probably those Planck distances you guys were talking about earlier. Space and time are together space-time so it’s my assumption that time is quantified as well. But there’s really nothing to prove that either are quantified. So an instant is either no time passing at all or a planck unit of time passing. I personally lean towards the planck unit thing, mainly because motion appears to exist. Ok so please hit me with a rock. Bye. ---
**Author:** ![Bindlestiff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bindlestiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bindlestiff)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/33 "2001-05-04T13:22:02Z")
When I was in Junior High (1953 or '54) I read an article that said “they” had just established an official definition of a jiffy as the amount of time it takes light to travel 2 cm. Even then, I wondered why 2 and not 1? Then I figured there must be some English people involved. Do any of you remember encountering this definition? Zenster, the easy answer to the question of whether time is continuous or particulate is “yes”. It’s probably like light in being ambiguous. I think that’s God’s (or Nature’s) way of allowing us to use it either way we need it. It’s still up to us to figure out how. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/34 "2001-05-04T16:53:48Z")
> [@](#): > > And you were to pick a time reference, let’s say t = 1, and say that this was the last point in time in which the tire was in contact with the ground. Then you could not find a point in time in which tire was in the air for the first time. And vice versa. By “vice-versa”, do you mean “pick the first point in time when the tire is _not_ in contact with the ground, then you could not find a last point in time when the tire is touching”? You can’t pick the first point in time the tire is not touching. If it’s not touching, it must have some height. If its motion is continuous, it must also have had half that height at some earlier time. But this contradicts the assumption that we’ve selected the first time the tire isn’t touching, so there is not such time. > [@](#): > > Is Oliver Reed Smoot of Harvard Bridge fame any relation to George Smoot, of COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) fame? Oh come on. Someone has to know this! Don’t make me start a new thread! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594/35 "2001-05-04T18:20:55Z")
The resolution to Zeno’s Paradox has nothing to do with quantization of space or time. It’s just calculus, and it works just fine with continuous positions. Yes, you have to make an infinite number of intermediate “steps”, but those steps are all infinitely small. It all works out in the end, just like any non-philosopher could tell you in the first place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smallest-slice-of-time/63594.md?page=1)