Kiwi Time Genius

[kandrathe]

A friend sent me this link, and as there seem to be some persons here interested in the topic so I will post it for all.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...c-gwi072703.php

I always thought Zeno's paradox was a bit of a crock when I first heard it, but alas, also lacked the mathematical skills to debunk it as well.

Edit: Here is a link to the actual paper; http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/oth...xt-2003-045.pdf

I also noted in some physicists discussions their finding fault with Lynds concept of "static". But then again, it seems to be more vitriolic lashing out at him.

[Occhidiangela]

Thanks for the link, it looks as though the peer review process is still a work in progress. There were differing levels of enthusiasm expressed by the critics.

What he says here:

"According to both ancient and present day physics, objects in motion have determined relative positions. Indeed, the physics of motion from Zeno to Newton and through to today take this assumption as given. Lynds says that the paradoxes arose because people assumed wrongly that objects in motion had determined positions at any instant in time, thus freezing the bodies motion static at that instant and enabling the impossible situation of the paradoxes to be derived. "There's no such thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is, it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness."

Is a paraphrase of something I have been saying for years:

"There is no such thing as Time, it is a tool we invented to measure the continuing flow of events."

I can't prove my assertion, and it appears from the comments of one of his referees that neither can he. Paradoxes sometimes suffer from weakness in definition.

That said, it looks as though some folks a bit smarter than I see great promise in his work.

As to this comment:

He is theorising in an area that most people think is settled. Most people believe there are a succession of moments and that objects in motion have determined positions."

The Universe is an analog system, a continuum, and as such, is at times poorly modeled by digitization. The flip side of that is digitization and slicing sure as hell helps us "get" what is going on better than the next best tool!

It will be interesting to see where his ideas lead. For his sake, I hope it is not into a beaker of matter trying to replicate Cold Fusion.

[kandrathe]

Yes, it reminds me of the contrasts between systems described by waves and those described by particles. Then you get the tricky stuff that is described by both. I think if his theories play out (and I hope they do), it may have some implications for a solution to the treatment of time in physics dogma like general relativity, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, et.al. and consequently has been a complaint back to von Neumann,

"First of all we must admit that this objection points at an essential weakness which is, in fact, the chief weakness of quantum mechanics: its non-relativistic character, which distinguishes the time t from the three space coordinates x,y,z, and presupposes an objective simultaneity concept. In fact, while all other quantities (especially those x,y,z closely connected with t by the Lorentz transformation) are represented by operators, there corresponds to the time an ordinary number-parameter t, just as in classical mechanics."

Just as we are trapped into our beliefs about the linearity and granularity of time (quantum moments), I would surmise that even our concepts of dimension are clouded by our perceptions of 3 space. So I go back to wondering if mathematics is just our tool for approximating the nature of reality.

Unfortunately, I think, the bulk of humanities capabilities in mathematics is limited to a small portion of easily solved linear equations. This limits most peoples mathematical understanding of reality to classical mechanics, or at best special and general relativity, and then there are the dedicated few who delve into quantum mechanics and beyond. But I fear that the true nature of reality is so chaotic, that no system of equations will ever describe it. The best we can do is to approximate it in controlled state environments. I kind of relate it to driving on a curvy highway. That is, we are seeking the equation to the curvy center line, when the best we can probably do is to sense when we are going into the ditch. Or, in other words, I fear that there is no equation for the center line. So from the Aristotlian POV, if we eliminate all those things that are not true, what we are left with is the truth. The problem is in knowing when you have reached it.

Anyway, I think it is useful to challenge ALL sacred cows, and I'm glad this guy had the guts to do it even with all the obstacles cast before him.

[cheezz]

There is no such thing as Time, it is a tool we invented

Hmmmmm. An interesting statement indeed. :P :P For something that doesn't exist, I sure could use a pile of it. Perhaps you could say that time exists only as an intangible unit of measurement.

[Occhidiangela]

There is no such thing as Time, it is a tool we invented to measure the continuing flow of events

OK?

[kandrathe]

Perhaps you could say that time exists only as an intangible unit of measurement.

Our perceptions tell us that time exists as we observe motion. Without it how would any matter be able to change state? So tangible, yes, in our perception and understanding of reality.

What Lynds is trying to say is that there is no moment in time in which you can fix any object. Zeno's paradox is based on the fallacy that there was a fixed point in time and space where you would be half way to your destination. It is fallacious in its understanding of the particle, a position in space AND of its understanding of time. Your heart continues to beat, and in fact the electrons swirling around the carbon atoms within your body continue to move, and whatever sub-atomic processes are driving them continue. Meanwhile you are traveling on the Earth which is in constant motion, around a sun, within a galaxy, and a universe etc. which are all in constant motion. Only in your perception of a starting point/time and ending point/time could you consider a point/time that is half way in which you would progress through. The motion of an individual through space and time is better understood as a disturbance of particles through some quantum soup. Zeno's paradox and other such puzzles are purely philosophical masturbation that has nothing to do with reality. But, it was insightful for Zeno's day in understanding the infinite divisibility of their known reality.

But according to Lynds, if you consider time as a continuum and add notions of relativity, in that time is elastic and subject to distortion by gravity and velocity, then even measurments (micro or macro) in very controlled circumstances are subject to perturbances and error. It could be theorized that in some ways their is no difference between space and time in so far as relativity is concerned, and so Heisenberg might also apply to time and space in fixing a particles position or velocity. The probabilities described by Heisenberg are the precondition of the Uncertainty Principle and not a result of it. But, then again, time seems to be a different thing to us as we are unable to move through it as we are with space. Our observations of things like the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicate that entropy has some time-assymmetrical nature. A cup of coffee cools over time, but there is no reason in classical mechanics that would prevent the reverse from occuring.

So I think at best then, maths become a way or a tool to approximate the expected outcome, but may not be the "answer" to any cosmological truth. It is very hard to shake off a lifetime of experience in what our perceptions tell us are "gravity", "space", or "time".

We seem to be very good at creating black box solutions to vexing questions concerning the cosmological, or sub-atomic scales. Quantum Mechanics became neccesary to describe why electrons do not go crashing into their neutrons within milliseconds as classical physics dictates. I for one, am somewhat jaded now in my belief of these solutions, as it seems they only describe limited problem domains and are constantly being debunked or reworked to accomodate new observations. But, then again, its all we have.

[Occhidiangela]

Zeno's paradox and other such puzzles are purely philosophical masturbation that has nothing to do with reality. But, it was insightful for Zeno's day in understanding the infinite divisibility of their known reality.

Will we ever understand unknown reality? :) I find that a pint or ten of Guinness is a decent start in that direction. :D The Egyptians invented beer, and I suppose they did so for a reason.

[pakman]

What is reality :blink: :blink:? I think I'll take the Guinness route to find the answer to that question. Guinness is one of my favorite stouts. But the topic of beer is a whole new thread :)

[--Pete]

Hi,

I haven't studied Lynds' paper yet, and from the linked article not much of use can be determined, so I'll wait to comment on that.

However, two thing you said brought comments to my mind:

and so Heisenberg might also apply to time and space in fixing a particles position or velocity.

There are a number of quantities that do not commute in the mathematics of matrix mechanics. By that I mean that the product {A,B} is not equal to the product {B,A}. This lack of commutation gives rise to relationships of the form delta_A X delta_B >= kh where k is a small geometric constant that depends on A and B and h is Plank's constant. The {position, momentum} commutation relationship is the one best known to the general public as the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" along with its (nonsensical, IMO) Copenhagen Interpretation. However, a similar relationship exists between {time, energy}. So, if this is all that Lynds is saying, then he is not saying anything new and would hardly be causing a ripple.

In "classical" quantum theory, both time and space are still thought of as continuous. More advanced theories consider space to be quantized at the Plank length and, by the Lorentz transformations, then so is time. This has been "known" (i.e., postulated) for well over a decade, maybe more. So, again, if what Lynds is saying is that time is not continuous, then again that is nothing new.

So, while what he is saying may be a breakthrough or may be nonsense (Occhi phrased it well :) ), for sure it isn't as simple as the posts in this thread (or the linked article) make it out to be. The concept of time in modern physics is little like Newton's continuous, uniform and universal flow.

I for one, am somewhat jaded now in my belief of these solutions, as it seems they only describe limited problem domains and are constantly being debunked or reworked to accomodate new observations. But, then again, its all we have.

All I can do is to quote (I've forgotten the source. If anyone can supply it, I would be grateful): "Progress in Physics isn't made by replacing a wrong theory with a right theory. It is made by replacing a wrong theory with one more subtly wrong." Unlike Pallas Athena, physicists did not spring forth from Zeus' head fully mature, with all knowledge, crying out the Hamiltonian of the Universe. They've had to make slow progress, with each new development giving rise to a new technology that allowed observations to be made in a new regime, giving rise to new phenomena that required a revision of the theories that led there. To expect anything else is to fall into the hubris of the Greek philosophers who thought that TRUTH could be achieved by thought.

So, by all means be "jaded now in my belief of these solutions" for no rational person believes that these are the ultimate solutions (indeed, internal paradoxes indicate strongly that they are not). But do not become jaded with the *process* by which we have arrived at what limited understanding of the universe we have. The scientific method may not, probably isn't, the best method for obtaining knowledge, but (paraphrasing Churchill), it is the best we've found so far.

--Pete

[Zarathustra]

*adds his name to the list for a Guinness outting*

[Occhidiangela]

So, what to serve with Guinness?

1. More Guinness

2. Irish Stew

3. Brats and grilled onions (Yes, wall paper peeling the next day)

4. A combination veggy and chicken tenders platter, with Ranch Dressin Dip

5. Guacamole and tortilla chips

6. Fish and Chips

7. Fire broiled red meat

8. Ritz crackers and a generic Antacid.

9. Pizza

10. Corned Beef and cabbage

*scratches head*

It really is getting hard to cater these days . . .

[pakman]

It's really a toss up between the brats cooked in beer with onions and then grilled :), or the corned beef, cabbage and potatos :P

[kandrathe]

But do not become jaded with the *process* by which we have arrived at what limited understanding of the universe we have. The scientific method may not, probably isn't, the best method for obtaining knowledge, but (paraphrasing Churchill), it is the best we've found so far.

Aye. As I reflect, my frustration has more to do with the slow progress of understanding and in how some persons and institutions are more interested in protecting their turf or dogma.