Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.33
Rate Ophis
 
|
 |
Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« on: 2003-08-04 16:30:16 » |
 |
I came across this interesting article on a website called EurekAlert: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php
The article talks about a 27 years old New Zealander, Peter Lynds, who seems to be coming up with bright ideas about the nature of time and space without having the "appropriate" degrees and credentials (to the discontent of some academics of course  ).
I've only browsed the article quickly from work and I haven't yet looked for an online copy of the paper but my initial understanding is that Lynds' insights seems to be describing the background independence of Loop Quantum Gravity.
|
|
|
|
|
Drakeo Vortex
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 77
Reputation: 7.90
Rate Drakeo Vortex
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #1 on: 2003-08-05 06:48:59 » |
|
Don't you find it interesting that this person has no credentials at all. What do you think his chances
were of coming to these conclusions if he would have had to de-educate himself from formal education.
All the resources of knowing a specific field as well as anyone has known it are at your fingertips.
Find books, argue with intellectuals, go to confreneces and so forth is so easy. It requires very little money
to self educate. How can you get this meme to replicate in everyone?
It is hard enough to just get people to work out in a gym 3 times a week let alone learn and change and
grow. What memes are countering self-improvement? How can we battle them?
How do you inspire the world? Where do we begin?
|
|
|
|
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #2 on: 2003-08-07 18:13:42 » |
|
That's one hell of a post, Ophis. I've been pondering the implications for the last everal hours and for me it is quite mind boggling. Admittedly I had never spent too much effort understanding time, but I never though that there were instants in time - I had assumed that the notion was there as a quantitative description for the purpose of easing calculations. I had thought was was evidenced by the fact that science keeps trying to measure smaller time intervals - and since every time we look at time, we find that there is some smaller quantity - unlike AT or QM where objects are eventually resolved, sorta.
In other words, the "instant in time" notion never really seemed accurate, but this article alludes to the fact that scientists were generally looking at time as having static moments. Does anyone know who was the first to set in motion the notion of static moments in time?
|
|
|
|
|
Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.33
Rate Ophis
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #3 on: 2003-08-08 00:12:08 » |
|
I still haven't really taken the time (pun) to read the papers referenced by the article above.
What I've gathered from my last book on Quantum physics ("Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin) is that there indeed is a "shortest amount of time" which is simply a (relative) ruler that we use to measure the shortest amount of change.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #4 on: 2003-08-08 12:30:23 » |
|
from http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm
The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #5 on: 2003-08-08 13:09:27 » |
|
OK, I can understand that
So my next question would be - are they all in sync?
I have two photons, and in my super vacuum dual photon measing device. Would they always move in lock step? Is Photon A that moves this length doing so at the same instant as Photon B? Because the planck time is the smallest meaningful measurement, does this time pass like clockwork?
Does that make sense?
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #6 on: 2003-08-08 14:12:37 » |
|
Quote from: BillRoh on 2003-08-08 13:09:27
I have two photons, and in my super vacuum dual photon measing device. Would they always move in lock step? Is Photon A that moves this length doing so at the same instant as Photon B? Because the planck time is the smallest meaningful measurement, does this time pass like clockwork?
|
They would have to be in sync because if the were not, there would be time difference between each photon's "clock" that is smaller than the Planck time.
But this may all be thrown out if Peter Lynds is right.
|
|
|
|
|
Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.33
Rate Ophis
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #7 on: 2003-08-08 14:25:36 » |
|
This said, let's not forget that one particle's planck time might be an eternity for another particle. It's all relative from where the measurement is made.
|
|
|
|
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #8 on: 2003-08-08 17:07:58 » |
|
Ok then. So my next question would be 2 fold. And thanks for helping me with this.
1> If the Proton A and B need to be in sync so as not to violate the shortest interval of time, then it would imply that this is true for the whole universe - time everywhere would have to be in exact sync. Proton A located in my magic vacuum machine and Proton B located in Zarlaks laboratory in a far away galaxy would be the same. It just seems, well, very improbable to me. Is it just me that suspects that time is NOT in same everywhere in the universe? Does the idea even sound odd to anyone else? (besides the Lynch fellow) If the current model says that all the universe is in lock step at planck time level when using photons in a vacuum, does that imply that Time itself is a constant and definable entity?
2> What did you mean, Ophis, when you said
Quote:| let's not forget that one particle's planck time might be an eternity for another particle. It's all relative from where the measurement is made. |
I do not understand this Ophis - could you give me a little more detail as close to normal speak as possible? Thanks.
Bill Roh
|
|
|
|
|
Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.33
Rate Ophis
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #9 on: 2003-08-09 01:33:27 » |
|
Special Relativity stipulates that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. This has serious impacts on the concepts of space and time and according to Einstein, your suspicion that time is not the same for any two given objects is a valid one.
I do suspect however that the contraction of time can only be measured in whole units of planck time (quantas of time maybe?). I don't remember reading this anywhere and I am far from an expert on the matter but this is the only way I can make any sense of this.
What I meant by my last comment is that if we accelerate object "A" at a speed close to the speed of light relative to object "B", one unit of planck time from A's perspective will last numerous WHOLE units of planck time from object B's perspective.
You might have heard this example already but the model that I use to help me visualize time (and space) contraction is that of a light clock abord a moving train. I got that model from Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" book.
The light clock is made of a photon that bounces at a regular interval between two mirrors. Suppose the photon moves at the speed of light and time "t" is the time it takes for the photon to go the distance "d" from one mirror to another.
Now John and Julie want to do a spacetime experiment. John takes the photon clock on a train and Julie remains outside. The train then leaves the station. From John's perspective (aboard the moving train) the photon clock hasn't changed much, it still takes "t" time to travel distance "d" from one mirror to another.
Julie's point-of-view however, causes a "problem". From her perspective, the light clock is now moving away from her. When Julie measures the distance traveled by the light clock's photon during her perception of time "t", the photon has traveled not only the distance "d" between the two mirrors, but also the distance "d2" that the train has traveled during her time "t".
Of course, according to special relativity, it is not possible for that photon to have traveled distance "d3" (the third side of a triangle formed by "d" and "d2) given a universally accepted measurement of time "t". The only way to reconcile these measurements is by contracting spacetime so that Julie's time moves faster that John's.
Now the question is: once John stops the train and remains at rest relative to Julie, is the time difference between them measured in whole units of Planck time? According to quantum mechanics (or at least my understanding of it), the answer is yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.33
Rate Ophis
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #11 on: 2003-08-09 11:24:15 » |
|
I don't think this necessarely invalidates Special Relativity. C is a theoretical limit and it could be that we haven't encountered (or that we never will) any particle that can actually reach that speed. C might need to be redefined a little more carefully though in the light of the discoveries you refer to. Do you remember where you read this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.33
Rate Ophis
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #13 on: 2003-08-11 10:20:23 » |
|
This is certainly an interesting article but I didn't read any conclusive evidence to throw special relativity out the window yet. Then again, what is conclusive evidence in a field in which we know the theory isn't complete? 
|
|
|
|
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
|
Re:Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
« Reply #14 on: 2003-08-11 22:01:28 » |
|
Thank you Ophis. You are well within my understanding now. The interesting statement I think is the one about any time being divisible by planck time by whole numbers. And this jibes with with what I understand David to be saying.
So what we have is: Planck time is the smallest meaningful measurememnt of time, all time is in sync and any measurememnt can be divided by planck time and come out with a whole number.
I don't believe it. I like it, and I understand why planck time would exist under the current models, after all, it's the shortest meaningful time.
1st: It implies that all planck time (pt) makes it's steps, throughout the universe, at the exact same time. It also means that in the time this step is happening, everything in the universe is static. Also, using planck as the shortest meaningful amount of time is not saying that it is the smallest amount of time at all unless time is defined as units based on Planck time.
2nd: It implies that time is nothing more than Planck time. In other words, not seperate from matter / energy - it is a function of matter / energy.
Both of these reasons, in my poorly trained mind, lead me to think that this Peter Lynch guy is on to something.
|
|
|
|
|
Author
Logged
