Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

There Is No Single Instant In Time

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the all-is-flux dept.

Science 672

tekkieRich writes "Some interesting news from the world of physics. Supposedly, in this paper, the author answers some of the major paradoxes (achilles vs. the turtle and Zeno) concerning our understanding of time. 'Impressed with the work is Princeton physics great, and collaborator of both Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, John Wheeler, who said he admired Lynds' "boldness," while noting that it had often been individuals Lynds' age that "had pushed the frontiers of physics forward in the past."'"

cancel ×

672 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GNAA FP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598784)

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.isprime.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by proud GNAA member Tirel.

________________________________________________
| ______________________________________._a,____ |
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ |
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ |
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ |
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ |
| ______-"!^____________________________________ |
` _______________________________________________'

M$ sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598811)

this is just another evil attempt by Micro$oft to monopolize the industry

A lot of people must browse at -1 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598819)

Top short films on IMDB [imdb.com] . Take a look at what's #3.

Top Short searches for past 30 days
Listed below are the most popular Short titles, searched for in the last 30 days, at IMDb, along with their positions during the previous time period.

this period previous period
1 2 Lord of the Piercing (2002) (TV)
2 1 T2 3-D: Battle Across Time (1996)
3 3 Gayniggers from Outer Space (1992)
4 5 Sex and the Matrix (2000) (TV)
5 4 Shrek 4-D (2003)
6 6 Couch (2003) (TV)
7 7 Alien Love Triangle (2002)
8 9 Darkened Room (2002)
9 12 Ritual, The (1996)
10 10 Star Trek: Borg Encounter (2003)
11 11 Blossoms & Blood (2003) (V)
12 8 Hero (2001)
13 14 Jack Black: Spider-Man (2002) (TV)
14 18 Bottle Rocket (1994)
15 17 Braindead (1987)
16 13 European confusion: Making-of 'L'auberge espagnole' (2002) (TV)
17 19 Standing Room Only (2002)
18 22 DysEnchanted (2003)
19 - Hire: Beat the Devil, The (2002)
20 23 Hire: Ticker, The (2002)
21 - Deflation (2001)
22 - Judge Not: In Defense of Dogma (2001) (V)
23 - Multi-Facial (1994)
24 - Hire: Star, The (2001)
25 16 Hire: Chosen, The (2001)

The HP49G+ is Coming!!! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598786)

Just had a glance at HPcalc.org [hpcalc.org] , and noticed that specifications for a new calculator, the HP49G+ [hpcalc.org] are up. There's been talk that HP is releasing a new super calc, and this seems to be it.

It has a 75mhz ARM processor, SD card storage, IRDA, an improved keyboard and screen and several other HP features, such as RPN [arachnoid.com]

Naturally, these specs are not set in stone, but it seems legit (check out This PDF file [hpcalc.org] !) This calculator seems to be the TI [slashdot.org] -killer that HP supporters have been waiting for.

Article Text (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598791)

Public release date: 31-Jul-2003

Contact: Brooke Jones
Brooke.Jones@australia.edu
Independent Communications Consultant

Ground-breaking work in understanding of time
Mechanics, Zeno and Hawking undergo revision

Full size image available through contact

A bold paper which has highly impressed some of the world's top physicists and been published in the August issue of Foundations of Physics Letters, seems set to change the way we think about the nature of time and its relationship to motion and classical and quantum mechanics. Much to the science world's astonishment, the work also appears to provide solutions to Zeno of Elea's famous motion paradoxes, almost 2500 years after they were originally conceived by the ancient Greek philosopher. In doing so, its unlikely author, who originally attended university for just 6 months, is drawing comparisons to Albert Einstein and beginning to field enquiries from some of the world's leading science media. This is contrast to being sniggered at by local physicists when he originally approached them with the work, and once aware it had been accepted for publication, one informing the journal of the author's lack of formal qualification in an attempt to have them reject it.

In the paper, "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity", Peter Lynds, a 27 year old broadcasting school tutor from Wellington, New Zealand, establishes that there is a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time, and in doing so, appears to throw age old assumptions about determined instantaneous physical magnitude and time on their heads. A number of other outstanding issues to do with time in physics are also addressed, including cosmology and an argument against the theory of Imaginary time by British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.

"Author's work resembles Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity", said a referee of the paper, while Andrei Khrennikov, Prof. of Applied Mathematics at Vaxjo University in Sweden and Director of ICMM, said, "I find this paper very interesting and important to clarify some fundamental aspects of classical and quantum physical formalisms. I think that the author of the paper did a very important investigation of the role of continuity of time in the standard physical models of dynamical processes." He then invited Lynds to take part in an international conference on the foundations of quantum theory in Sweden.

Another impressed with the work is Princeton physics great, and collaborator of both Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, John Wheeler, who said he admired Lynds' "boldness", while noting that it had often been individuals Lynds' age that "had pushed the frontiers of physics forward in the past."

In contrast, an earlier referee had a different opinion of the controversial paper. "I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author's arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus. I'm afraid I am unwilling to waste any time reading further, and recommend terminal rejection."

Lynds' solution to the Achilles and the tortoise paradox, submitted to Philosophy of Science, helped explain the work. A tortoise challenges Achilles, the swift Greek warrior, to a race, gets a 10m head start, and says Achilles can never pass him. When Achilles has run 10m, the tortoise has moved a further metre. When Achilles has covered that metre, the tortoise has moved 10cm...and so on. It is impossible for Achilles to pass him. The paradox is that in reality, Achilles would easily do so. A similar paradox, called the Dichotomy, stipulates that you can never reach your goal, as in order to get there, you must firstly travel half of the distance. But once you've done that, you must still traverse half the remaining distance, and half again, and so on. What's more, you can't even get started, as to travel a certain distance, you must firstly travel half of that distance, and so on.

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."

Rather than the historical mathematical proof provided in the 19th century of summing an infinite series of numbers to provide a finite whole, or in the case of another paradox called the Arrow, usually thought to be solved through functional mathematics and Weierstrass' "at-at" theory, Lynds' solution to all of the paradoxes lay in the realisation of the absence of an instant in time underlying a bodies motion and that its position was constantly changing over time and never determined. He comments, "With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the time interval, or how slowly an object moves during that interval, it is still in motion and it's position is constantly changing, so it can't have a determined relative position at any time, whether during a interval, however small, or at an instant. Indeed, if it did, it couldn't be in motion."

Lynds also points out that in all cases a time value represents an interval on time, rather than an instant. "For example, if two separate events are measured to take place at either 1 hour or 10.00 seconds, these two values indicate the events occurred during the time intervals of 1 and 1.99999...hours and 10.00 and 10.0099999...seconds respectively." Consequently there is no precise moment where a moving object is at a particular point. From this he is able to produce a fairly straightforward resolution of the Arrow paradox, and more elaborate ones for the others based on the same reasoning. A prominent Oxford mathematician commented, "It's as astonishing, as it is unexpected, but he's right."

On the paradoxes Lynds said, "I guess one might infer that we've been a bit slow on the uptake, considering it's taken us so long to reach these conclusions. I don't think that's the case though. Rather that, in respect to an instant in time, I don't think it's surprising considering the obvious difficulty of seeing through something that you actually see and think with. Moreover, that with his deceivingly profound paradoxes, I think Zeno of Elea was a true visionary, and in a sense, 2500 years ahead of his time."

According to Lynds, through the derivation of the rest of physics, the absence of an instant in time and determined relative position, and consequently also velocity, necessarily means the absence of all other precisely determined physical magnitudes and values at a time, including space and time itself. He comments, "Naturally the parameter and boundary of their respective position and magnitude are naturally determinable up to the limits of possible measurement as stated by the general quantum hypothesis and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but this indeterminacy in precise value is not a consequence of quantum uncertainty. What this illustrates is that in relation to indeterminacy in precise physical magnitude, the micro and macroscopic are inextricably linked, both being a part of the same parcel, rather than just a case of the former underlying and contributing to the latter."

Addressing the age old question of the reality of time, Lynds says the absence of an instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process also illustrates that there is no such thing as a physical progression or flow of time, as without a continuous progression through definite instants over an extended interval, there can be no progression. "This may seem somewhat counter-intuitive, but it's exactly what's required by nature to enable time (relative interval as indicated by a clock), motion and the continuity of a physical process to be possible." Intuition also seems to suggest that if there were not a physical progression of time, the entire universe would be frozen motionless at an instant, as though stuck on pause on a motion screen. But Lynds points out, "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time - time would be a physical quantity." Consequently Lynds says that it's due to natures very exclusion of a time as a fundamental physical quantity, that time as it is measured in physics, or relative interval, and as such, motion and physical continuity are possible in the first instance.

On the paper's cosmology content, Lynds says that it doesn't appear necessary for time to emerge or congeal out of the quantum foam and highly contorted space-time geometrys present preceding Planck scale just after the big bang, as has sometimes been hypothesized. "Continuity would be present and naturally inherent in practically all initial quantum states and configurations, rather than a specific few, or special one, regardless of how microscopic the scale."

Lynds continues that the cosmological proposal of imaginary time also isn't compatible with a consistent physical description, both as a consequence of this, and secondly, "because it's the relative order of events that's relevant, not the direction of time itself, as time doesn't go in any direction." Consequently it's meaningless for the order of a sequence of events to be imaginary, or at right angles, relative to another sequence of events. When approached about Lynds' arguments against his theory, Hawking failed to respond.

When asked how he had found academia and the challenge of following his ideas through, Lynds said it had been a struggle and that he'd sometimes found it extremely frustrating. "The work is somewhat unlikely, and that hasn't done me any favours. If someone has been aware of it, my seeming lack of qualification has sometimes been a hurdle too. I think quite a few physicists and philosophers have difficulty getting their heads around the topic of time properly as well. I'm not a big fan of quite a few aspects of academia, but I'd like to think that whats happened with the work is a good example of perseverance and a few other things eventually winning through. It's reassuring to know that happens."

Lynds said he had initially had discussions with Wellington mathematical physicist Chris Grigson. Prof. Grigson, now retired, said he remembered Lynds as determined. "I must say I thought the idea was hard to understand. 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." Although Lynds remembers being frustrated with Grigson, and once standing at a blackboard explaining how simple it was and telling him to "hurry up and get it", Lynds says that, unlike some others, Prof. Grigson was still encouraging and would always make time to talk to him, even taking him into the staff cafeteria so they could continue talking physics. Like another now retired initial contact, the Australian philosopher of Science and internationally respected authority on time, Jack Smart, who would write Lynds "long thoughtful letters", they have since become friends, and Prof. Grigson follows Lynds' progress with great interest. "Academia needs more Chris Grigsons and Jack Smarts", said Lynds.

Although still controversial, judging by the response it has already received from some of science's leading lights, Lynds' work seems likely to establish him as a groundbreaking figure in respect to increasing our understanding of time in physics. It also seems likely to make his surname instantly associable with Zeno's paradoxes and their remarkably improbable solution almost 2500 years later.

Lynds' plans for the near future the publication of a paper on Zeno's paradoxes by themselves in the journal Philosophy of Science, and a paper relating time to consciousness. He also plans to explore his work further in connection to quantum mechanics and is hopeful others will do the same.

###

So when was this article posted??? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598793)

There Is No Single Instant In Time

Posted by timothy on Sunday August 03, @03:46AM
from the all-is-flux dept.

That's just the state of a counter... (5, Insightful)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598823)

when slashcode decided to examine it.

The posting act begins when the submit button is pressed, and ends when the database updates it's article index.

All "events" have a beginning and an end. Some of them have a known duration so the delta is not noted, but it still exists.

I don't know what's so revolutionary about that stance, especially from a practical standpoint, other than maybe the "directionless" nature of time. I think that, however, is an oversimplification that fits into the author's little mental framework he wants to construct. I prefer to think of complex intervals as very small closed sets around the approximate instant. There's nothing wrong or counterintuitive about that.

Re:That's just the state of a counter... (5, Insightful)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598886)


I'm not a scientist, but something tells me what is time can't be measured by us because we are inside whatever makes everything tick. Only those outside our system could measure the time inside our system. I would liken it to a computer program: it can't tell when it's being timesliced by the operating system, and it seems like it is running seamlessly, but it is not.

Re:That's just the state of a counter... (4, Insightful)

roard (661272) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598939)

In fact, be outside the system wouldn't be a definite answer : a known effect in physic is that the observator modify what he observes ...

... and that's true in others branches (behavior sciences, electronic, etc.)

Re:So when was this article posted??? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598850)

That's a range of time, not an instant. Idiot.

You insensitive clod! (3, Funny)

MrLint (519792) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598794)

I've been counting down the seconds until i die and this guy tells me were are no seconds?! geez i dont want to freaking live forever

Re:You insensitive clod! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598924)

you idiot, if you were really counting down the seconds the old way you'd never die- you'd only get halfway there, and then halfway again, and then another halfway, and never actually get there. Which would suck- Do you really want to get stuck in the Moment of death?

Singularity next? (4, Interesting)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598796)

So, the next paradigm to disappear is the singularity of Black Holes; I never believed in them anyhow...

But, Lynds' is brilliant, if true/not disproofed/widely accepted.

Re:Singularity next? (1, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598842)

I think most physicists don't believe in the singularity. The singularity is an embarrasing reminder that we don't have a theory of quantum gravity.

String theory for instance solves the "singularity problem" nicely by just saying that a black hole is just a very energetic string. Then again string theory isn't currently the most usefull theory as it's far from complete.

Re:Singularity next? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598958)

String theory for instance solves the "singularity problem" nicely by just saying that a black hole is just a very energetic string. Then again string theory isn't currently the most usefull theory as it's far from complete.

Not only that, but it still has the intrinsic assumption of a continuous time (IIRC I should eve n say _times_ as or in fact in string theory there are several time dimensions).

Also, empirically proving string theory will be, well, very hard; and due to the complexity of the equations involved, even numerical solutions of them for something as simple as the behavior of a hydrogen atom is impossible.

Finally, the number of people in the world who truely understand string theory and its implications is less than a handful. Maybe Paul Witten is the only one...

Offtopic but interesting. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598798)

What's your favourite pr0n site?
I like this [wereanimal.net] one but I'm a
pervert... So - Post your links!

Re:Offtopic but interesting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598841)

Huh? Broken link?! What?! How the **** could THAT site get slashdotted?!

Re:Offtopic but interesting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598881)

d0h. mistake. try this. [wereanimal.net]

Groundbreaking? (0, Troll)

cliffy2000 (185461) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598799)

Allow me to quote the title: "Ground-breaking work in understanding of time; Mechanics, Zeno and Hawking undergo revision" I don't understand what the hell he's talking about. Either I'm not as smart as I think I am, or he's BSing his way through this. Zeno's theories are pretty well-established, you know "Man is walking across a road, if you keep on dividing the time intervals, he'll never get there." This Lynds seems to just be restating the theory with some fancy terms. I wouldn't be surprised if this were another Alan Sokal [nyu.edu] or, even worse for the realm of physics, Bogdanov brothers [cassiopaea.org] type of work.

Re:Groundbreaking? (1, Interesting)

dal3 (195148) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598814)

From the article:

--
In contrast, an earlier referee had a different opinion of the controversial paper. "I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author's arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus. I'm afraid I am unwilling to waste any time reading further, and recommend terminal rejection."
--

I'm not into the scientific journal "scene", as it were, but I expect that's about as insulting as a review can possibly be. So maybe this guy is onto something profound, but more likely it's smoke and mirrors.

Re:Groundbreaking? (4, Informative)

TheFrood (163934) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598860)

I'm not into the scientific journal "scene", as it were, but I expect that's about as insulting as a review can possibly be. So maybe this guy is onto something profound, but more likely it's smoke and mirrors.

Having been exposed to that "scene", I can tell you that the referees for papers submitted to academic journals are capable of being quite clueless when they want to be. I've known a number of authors who got comments back from referees which made it quite clear the referees hadn't even bothered trying to understand the paper.

Believe it or not, the whole paper-refereeing scene isn't that much different from the Slashdot moderation system. Referees are chosen more or less at random (from within the community of people who are knowledgeable about the paper's subject matter, and who are willing to read and comment on a paper.) And just like Slashdot, some of them won't take the time to read the paper completely, some won't understand what the paper is really saying, and some will let their own personal biases determine how they vote.

TheFrood

Re:Groundbreaking? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598932)

Believe it or not, the whole paper-refereeing scene isn't that much different from the Slashdot moderation system.

Has any referee ever sent a paper back and scrawled on it: "J00 f4gg0t! If I ever meet j00 I will kick your ass!"

Re:Groundbreaking? (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598957)

Has any referee ever sent a paper back and scrawled on it: "J00 f4gg0t! If I ever meet j00 I will kick your ass!"

Given the recent decline in the quality of reviews, such a letter would not surprise me.

Re:Groundbreaking? (5, Informative)

Keeper (56691) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598861)

Zeno's theories are pretty well-established, you know "Man is walking across a road, if you keep on dividing the time intervals, he'll never get there." This Lynds seems to just be restating the theory with some fancy terms.

It isn't a theory, rather a paradox. If you keep dividing the time & distance intervals, the two objects never pass each other. They just get infinitely closer. Hence the paradox. The paradox (and most of science for that matter) makes the assumption that time can be measured in finite bits.

What this guy is saying that there are no moments in time (or rather, there is no basic/smallest unit of time), which is why the two objects pass each other.

When you think about it for a little bit, it makes sense. It's kind of like PI ... you can try and mark an instant in time, but that instant still represents an interval. The more precise your equipment, the smaller the interval, but the interval can get infinitely smaller.

Re:Groundbreaking? (1)

JordanH (75307) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598925)

  • What this guy is saying that there are no moments in time (or rather, there is no basic/smallest unit of time), which is why the two objects pass each other.

I fail to see how this is different, or if it is different in some subtle way, how this explanation is better than the common Calculus approach to these paradoxes.

Re:Groundbreaking? (1, Insightful)

Soko (17987) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598862)

It's 4am, I've been coding for too long tonight, and can't truly parse the article as well.

That being said, I'd say that perhaps the young man, not being a "classical" physicist, has a fresh perspective on the matter? You know, perhaps he's seeing the forest through some different trees....

Dunno, just a point for discussion.

Soko

Re:Groundbreaking? (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598912)

Maybe, but just seeing the forest does not qualify you to tend it as you don't know what the different trees are, what they need and so on.

Science is mostly about seeing the trees not the forest as as a structure it is already overwhelmingly too large to be comprehended by single individuals.

Re:Groundbreaking? (2, Informative)

Soft (266615) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598871)

Further still, there is a quote at the end, from "mathematical physicist Chris Grigson": "(...) the idea was hard to understand. 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." Well, I thought it was well-settled that objects do not have determined positions or speeds, because quantum mechanics say that position and momentum are conjugate variables (delta-X * delta-P > \hbar). And same for energy and time: you cannot measure phenomena of arbitrarily short durations because you would need to work at arbitrarily high frequencies, hence arbitrarily high energies.

As for Achilles' "paradox", it took some time for me to understand it, but now it is obvious that the mathematical model used simply cannot account for the time beyond the point where Achilles passes the tortoise. Therefore, in that model, of course he cannot pass it, and time "stops". This not being what we observe in reality, a better model is required; just like Newtonian mechanics not being compatible with electromagnetics, time dilation, etc. but simpler.

I'd have to read the actual paper, but the linked article definitely stinks and points to the guy being a crackpot. One of many...

Not Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598802)

It is about metaphysics, folks. Not goofy kind, but more closer to philosophy than physics itself.

And of course you don't need a Ph.D. to use your brain. Everyone should learn from that.

Re:Not Physics (1, Redundant)

phritz (623753) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598870)

In doing research a few years back, an advisor gave me these pointers on dealing with new "theories" that might be A)scientifically unimportant (metaphysical instead of physical), or B)are complete crackpot science. We ask these 2 questions:

-What experimental predictions does this new model make? i.e. the theory must be falsifiable

-Why is this new model better than current theories? i.e. the new theory should contain as few parameters as possible

For instance, Einstein's papers made some bold experimental predictions - his theory could easily be proved or disproved on the basis of experiment (time dilation, specifically, is easily testable). Further, special relativity completed the unification of electricity and magnetism and accounted for the trouble in detecting the ether - making his theory preferable to old concepts, which could not account for various "coincidences" in Maxwell's equations. If anyone is going to be comparing this guy to Einstein, his theory had better be clearing up some holes in modern physics or making some bold new experimentally testable predictions.

So, has anyone read the actual paper? Does it give an answer to these questions? And is Foundations of Physics Letters a respectable journal? I've never heard of it before in my life.

A "slice 'o life" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598803)

"There Is No Single Instant In Time"

Of course. There's only past and future. A little thought experiment will prove that to you. As everyone knows time can be divided ever finer. Fematoseconds, attoseconds, etc. however fine you go, there's always a past and a future, but no present. Try that on your friends and see their heads spin.

Re:A "slice 'o life" (1)

Nine Mirrors Turning (33252) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598835)

Of course. There's only past and future. A little thought experiment will prove that to you. As everyone knows time can be divided ever finer. Fematoseconds, attoseconds, etc. however fine you go, there's always a past and a future, but no present.

This is true if you postulate time as a continuum. If time is discrete then this does not hold true. Some people working with loop quantum gravity postulates both discrete time and space. See qgravity [qgravity.org] for more.

Re:A "slice 'o life" (1)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598930)

This is what comes of racing turtles. *I* race penguins, and they are fast, slippery little buggers quite ahead of their time.

Mirror (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598804)

n case the site (or routes to the site) get slashdotted. Here [martin-studio.com] is a mirror.

There is only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598805)

the present.

Gah (2, Flamebait)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598807)

Not even the people on FARK.com bought into this crap (where it was posted a week ago). The paper is a bunch of crap and doesn't tell us anything either we don't already know, or is in any way usefull.

Re:Gah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598810)

Blasphemy! Slashdot is the end all and be all of information for the geek. Be gone with your FARK.com comment. BE GONE, I tell you!

Re:Gah (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598884)

Ever seen a fark dupe?

Also, fark posts stuff months before slash.
yeah. game. point. match.

I don't see why there should be time anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598901)

Time is a subjective illusion caused by motion of particles and differences of state in two non-simultaneous observations. So, why should there be a "dimension" consisting of time, as it is merely a subjective concept (although handy in physics)?

new paradox ?? (4, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598808)

A similar paradox, called the Dichotomy, stipulates that you can never reach your goal, as in order to get there, you must firstly travel half of the distance. But once you've done that, you must still traverse half the remaining distance, and half again, and so on. What's more, you can't even get started, as to travel a certain distance, you must firstly travel half of that distance, and so on.

I always thought the reason you could never get started on the way to your goal was the 'trying to get a woman to go some place when you have been ready and waiting for ages' paradox

Intresting... (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598812)

...Is this somehow parallel with how to know the exact location of a particle you must actually move the particle from that location?

If I'm understanding what I'm reading correctly, which I'm probably not, it seems that to locate a specific moment in time you have to be aware of that moment happening which takes time and thus you can't?

Actually, I'll shut up now. I'm probably just sounding stupid.

I probably shouldn't of posted this.

Me and my low self esteem.

Re:Intresting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598849)

Actually, I do find that rather interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Thank you.

Re:Intresting... (1)

Gyan (6853) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598931)

it seems that to locate a specific moment in time you have to be aware of that moment happening which takes time and thus you can't?

Pretty much, I read in some for-the-layman neuroscience book that the "present" we keep on talking about ranges from about 1/2 second - 10 seconds ...etc based on the event at hand and our concentration and that there is no concrete concept of the "present"

Zeno's "paradox" (2, Insightful)

henben (578800) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598815)

What does this have to do with Zeno's paradox and Achilles and the turtle? Aren't they to do with points in space, not time?

I thought the solution to Zeno's paradox is that although you occupy an infinite series of points when you move, they can still sum to a finite distance. The Greeks may not have understood this, but this was all worked out centuries ago. By Cantor or someone.

So the author of this paper is claiming to solve a non-problem - doesn't sound very promising to me. Also, in these days of online preprint archives, why didn't the submitter link to the actual paper?

Yeah, no kidding (0, Troll)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598832)

They guy's a collage dropout, and basically spewed a bunch of philosophical rubbish. He's either dense, or just exposing density everywhere else (i.e. trolling)

Re:Yeah, no kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598851)

Why the hell isn't your site working?

I finally got broadband and your sites been down all fucking day.. FIX IT DAMMIT

Re:Yeah, no kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598896)

Okay. Just leave post email address and what section you want up first, and I'll email you as soon as I fix it.

PORNO FOR THE PEOPLE! [autopr0n.com]

Go easy on him! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598897)

Jeesh! Go easy on the poor guy...

Lesson in etiquette & persuasion: First thank him for whatever his site provides, express concern about it being down, then say how much you truly looking forward to it coming back online.

A little kindness, tact, and appreciation can often get you further than whining and bitching. As an aside, if you want to insult someone, the tactful clever way to do it is to be sly: insinuate the insult rather than just shouting something like "you're an obnoxious jackass."

Re:Yeah, no kidding (2, Insightful)

BurningTyger (626316) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598868)

Just because Shakespeare grew up in a small town and never received any formal education does not stop him from writing Hamlet.

It may take 4+ years of College training to learn most of the existing definitions / derivations / equations. But it only takes a genious to come up with a eureka in physics and philosophy.

For those of you who don't understand the article (myself included), it maybe because the article is just a rather crappy summary of the work. The actuall paper is to be published on the AUGUST issue of "Foundations of Physics Letters". Wait to read it then criticize.

Re:Yeah, no kidding (2, Insightful)

Soft (266615) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598910)

Just because Shakespeare grew up in a small town and never received any formal education does not stop him from writing Hamlet.

"The usual rejoinder to someone who says 'They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Galileo' is to say 'But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.'" (Carl Sagan)

For those of you who don't understand the article (myself included), it maybe because the article is just a rather crappy summary of the work.

That it is, anyway. But the comments it quotes from other scientists, especially those favorable to the crackp^H^H^H^H^H^Hyoung groundbreaker, point to him restating the obvious, at best. OK, who knows...

Summary of the article (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598816)

Here is a summary of the article:

Blah Blah Blah time blah. Lynds continues that blah blah blah time blah continuous blah blah.

Man.. RUSH fans are gonna be PISSED.. (1)

jbuilder (81344) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598825)

That means "Time Stand Still" really *is* a completely irrelevant tune... ;-)

Kind of Like (1)

m1a1 (622864) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598827)

This seems to me kind of like how you can't just find pi by measuring the circumference or a circle and dividing it by the diameter. I had always thought of this being because there is no such thing as an exact point in space, but maybe I was just misunderstanding or something. It reasons to assume that if there is no exact point in space then there is also no exact point in time.

As to the referee who stated "he author's arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus." He needs to understand that math doesn't work if you don't understand the physics behind. Math without physics tells me if I mix a cup of water and a cup of milk I get two cups of fluid. It just aint so.

Re:Kind of Like (3, Insightful)

BobTheLawyer (692026) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598938)

"This seems to me kind of like how you can't just find pi by measuring the circumference or a circle and dividing it by the diameter. I had always thought of this being because there is no such thing as an exact point in space, but maybe I was just misunderstanding or something."

The only reason you can't determine pi to high level of accuracy by measurement is that in practice there will be inaccuracies in your measurements and in the shape of the circle. measurement issue. In principle, given perfect circle-making and measurement techniques, your accuracy is only limited by the Planck length (1.6 x 10-35m).

Time is mostly subjective anyway... (1, Insightful)

WegianWarrior (649800) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598828)

Ever noticed how time seems to fly past when you're having fun? Or how something boring can drag out for ever? Or even better, how a workday can seemingly be endless, but a week full of them is gone boefore you knew what happened?

While it is a good while since I studied physics, it tells me that while we can make clocks that appers to measure how fast times goes, we move 'along' in time in a more haphazard fashion, slowing and accelerating as we blunder on. Time might be the diminsion thats 90 on the other three (width, depth and lenght), but we have a lot more problems determining both an objects movement in that dimension and the position in it.

In short, while some of the article went over my head (I've just gotten out of bed y'know), I think he might be on to something.

ps: It's sorta scary to see that people whos very job it is to broaden our understanding can be horrible quick to judge ("I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author's arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus. I'm afraid I am unwilling to waste any time reading further, and recommend terminal rejection."), as that will only slow down the speed we as a society learns about the world around us. Someone might be off the mark, but it's hard to decide from the first two paragrahps they write.

pps: In Terry Pratches well know discworld-series, the classical paradox is about a tortoise outrunning an arrow instead. And off course, the real question is what to do with all the tortoises on a stick the testing of that axiom gives you... ;P

Is this a hoax? (5, Interesting)

BobTheLawyer (692026) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598829)

The article is either incredibly bad journalism and way over-simplifying the paper, or else it stinks of a hoax.

"Lynds also points out that in all cases a time value represents an interval on time, rather than an instant. "For example, if two separate events are measured to take place at either 1 hour or 10.00 seconds, these two values indicate the events occurred during the time intervals of 1 and 1.99999...hours and 10.00 and 10.0099999...seconds respectively." "

This is stunningly obvious. I learnt the resolution of this, and the tortoise paradox, at age 17 in high school maths classes.

Also, why is the contact for further information an "Independent Communications Consultant"?

Re:Is this a hoax? (5, Informative)

rajah (25235) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598949)

Sounds like it.

Try Googling "Peter Lynds" or check out a similar thread at the Chinese University of Hong Kong: http://www.phy.cuhk.edu.hk/course/phy2002/forum/me ssages/300.html

Re:Is this a hoax? (1)

BobTheLawyer (692026) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598955)

great spot!

How come I and thousands of slashdot readers were too stupid to do a google search?

Paradox? What paradox? (4, Insightful)

tkittel (619119) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598834)

OK, I RTFA but i didn't RTFP (paper).

The tortoise vs. Achilles paradox has not really plagued modern physics in that it is not a paradox (anymore - it might have been to the Greeks). The supposed paradox lies in the misconception that an sum with infinite terms will always yield an infinite number. This is obviously not true - As Achilles needs to traverse ever smaller distances he also does that in ever smaller amounts of time.
And the times add nicely up to a finite time - the time when he overtakes the tortoise.

The article claims that this is still a paradox. I think based on the idea in this quote:

> With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the time
> interval, or how slowly an object moves during that interval, it is still
> in motion and it's position is constantly changing, so it can't have
> a determined relative position at any time, whether during a interval,
> however small, or at an instant. Indeed, if it did, it couldn't be in motion."

Say WHAT?!?

Please tell me why you can't have a well determined position as a function of time and be in motion as well?

He goes on to claim that uncertainties in the values of times is somehow a profound proof that no instant in time exists. Hey, you could say the same thing about the distance the poor fella has to transverse - thus spoiling the whole 'ever smaller distances' thing.

Please enlighten me.

Re:Paradox? What paradox? (4, Insightful)

Keeper (56691) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598891)

Please tell me why you can't have a well determined position as a function of time and be in motion as well?

If you assume that there is no atomic unit of time, then any representation of an "instant" in time actually represents a delta of time. In any delta of time, an object in motion is changing position -- which means that while you may get a pretty acurate measure of an items position, it is impossible to measure it's exact position.

What he's also stipulating is that if it was possible to have an atomic unit of time, and it was possible to take an exact measure of the position of an item, then it wouldn't be possible for that item to be in motion. An item is in motion if it is changing position -- but if you can measure it's exact position, then it isn't changing position. At least I think that's what he's trying to get across.

Re:Paradox? What paradox? (2)

roard (661272) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598933)

Please tell me why you can't have a well determined position as a function of time and be in motion as well? If you assume that there is no atomic unit of time, then any representation of an "instant" in time actually represents a delta of time. In any delta of time, an object in motion is changing position -- which means that while you may get a pretty acurate measure of an items position, it is impossible to measure it's exact position.

Exactly. And the theory appears logic to my Im-not-a-physic-guy notions, as we can't spot at the same time a particule's position and velocity (heisenberg uncertainty principle). So this theory fits well in this view, no ?

What he's also stipulating is that if it was possible to have an atomic unit of time, and it was possible to take an exact measure of the position of an item, then it wouldn't be possible for that item to be in motion. An item is in motion if it is changing position -- but if you can measure it's exact position, then it isn't changing position. At least I think that's what he's trying to get across.

Yes, and I believe it's right; it really seems to link to the heisenberg's principle, from my low understanding of physics...
And the fact that the heisenberg's principle is verified in the real world let me thinks that this guy's theory about time is perhaps true.

In fact what's intriguing for me (apart the asshole who read the two first paragraphs and then had a definite position about the entire paper), is the fact that this idea seems quite evident ... But I'm not a physicit, I'm a computer science guy ...

The latest conversation in #GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598837)

uiu BitchX: Press ^F to see who left ^E to change to [irc.servercentral.net]
<h3n> this just in
<h3n> there's an explosive controversy down at the bomb factory
uiu SignOff BiiruXP: #gnaa (Ping timeout: 302 seconds)
<penisbird> I used to work in a bomb factory
<penisbird> but my boss "fired" me
uiu gnaasuks [~f@CPE-203-51-235-109.qld.bigpond.net.au] has joined #gnaa
<penisbird> no it doesnt fool
<gnaasuks> yH:you
<penisbird> get yo white ass outta here!
<gnaasuks> how do you make the ASCII art? by hand?
<penisbird> ya
<penisbird> and the GNAA doesnt suck
uiu SignOff gnaasuks: #gnaa (Connection reset by peer)
<tirel> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=73368& cid=6598784
<h3n> nicely done.
<h3n> i like this calculator specs troll, though.
<tirel> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=73368& cid=6598819
<tirel> haha
<h3n> heh.

Re:The latest conversation in #GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598882)

Haha morons. I'm GNOMEBOY, not sjp_sucks. You fucked up, tirel.

Science imitates art . . . again. (1)

ahfoo (223186) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598839)

The lack of a fundamental unit of meaning of any sort was established in the humanities long before it came into vogue in the hard sciences.
And a look at the title of the web site certaily brought to my mind Thomas Kunh's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that I happen to have sitting right next to me here.
EurekaAlert? That's a joke, right?

Re:Science imitates art . . . again. (2, Insightful)

tedrlord (95173) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598898)

That's quite a comparison you make there. For one thing, there is a difference between a unit of meaning as it is used in the humanities and a unit of time. A big difference. In the arts, they're talking about an objective reference point for values and ideas within the human mind and reflected in our view of the universe. This paper refers to a unit, or more specifically a moment, as a specific point of existence in the (in his view non-existent) flow of time of the universe irrespective of humans, though obviously perceived by us.

Also, as someone else mentioned, from what I can tell this paper is basically just philosophy anyway, which falls under the humanities.

fark did it first! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598843)

this was on fark a few days ago.. and i said it there so ill say it again.. DUH

His ideas arent new at all.. I laugh at his retardedness

Paper was mostly philosophy (3, Insightful)

HermesT (694672) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598844)

I read about this in the newspaper and thought "wow this sounds exciting". Then I saw the actual paper. It turns out that his ideas are not fleshed out with any mathematics, so its just a philosphical position that he is taking.

I do think that time is a bit of a mystery, and its possible that that his ideas may be roughly right. It might imply that moments or "moment intervals" were some sort of fractal sets, such that a moment can never be finitely splittable (only infinitely splittable). A mathematical model that accomplished this (within the framework of currently accepted/known physics) would be remarkable.

Re:Paper was mostly philosophy (4, Insightful)

tedrlord (95173) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598876)

Unfortunately, people often confuse quantum physics and philosophy. Even more unfortunately, some of these people are quantum physicists.

Re:Paper was mostly philosophy (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598887)

I also recommend "Nobel lecture: A confrontation with infinity" by Gerard t'Hooft in the Reviews of Modern Physics [aps.org] (Rev. Mod Phys. 72 (2000) 333).

It addresses well how the notion of differentiation, where movement is divided into inifitesimally small space and time intervals of constant motion, was crucial to the development of modern physics and how it sometimes fails in multidimensional physics of elementary particles.

Nothing new under the sun (3, Informative)

bradleyjg (68937) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598847)

John McTaggart proposed a similar theory in the "Nature of Existence" - written in 1921. Perhaps if physicists payed more attention to philosophy ...

Re:Nothing new under the sun (5, Funny)

Edward Scissorhands (665444) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598929)

Heh, yeah, right, like we want our scientists to pay attention to philosophy. You know what would happen then, right? Scientists would realise that they actually know far less about the world than they realise and they'd all move to a cabin in the woods and write strange and impenetrable poetry instead of staying in the lab and coming up with useful theories which engineers can then use to create an even better dishwasher.

Listen, bub, we need people to design our machines and technology can't improve without a better understanding of our physical world. I want my flying cars, damnit, and no stinkin' philosopher is going to expose the hard questions to vulnerable scientists and engineers to distract them from making my dishwasher!

It doesn't take a genius to solve this "paradox"! (1)

Sterling Christensen (694675) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598855)

..."the Achilles and the tortoise paradox, submitted to Philosophy of Science, helped explain the work. A tortoise challenges Achilles, the swift Greek warrior, to a race, gets a 10m head start, and says Achilles can never pass him. When Achilles has run 10m, the tortoise has moved a further metre. When Achilles has covered that metre, the tortoise has moved 10cm...and so on. It is impossible for Achilles to pass him. The paradox is that in reality, Achilles would easily do so." The first snapshot was when Achilles was at 10m, then after another meter (at 11m), etc... If you keep taking increasingly smaller and smaller step, your never going to reach the point in time the Achilles actually crosses the tortoise! DUH!

nth post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598857)

since no one can ever have the first post now.

Academia is a pain in the ass. (2, Insightful)

BillsPetMonkey (654200) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598859)

If someone has been aware of it, my seeming lack of qualification has sometimes been a hurdle too. I think quite a few physicists and philosophers have difficulty getting their heads around the topic of time properly as well. I'm not a big fan of quite a few aspects of academia, but I'd like to think that whats happened with the work is a good example of perseverance and a few other things eventually winning through.

Sorry for the long quote but it highlights something I've been gnashing my teeth over for a while - academia is rarely about real research these days, only chasing research funding - my entire CS Masters was about a program design paradigm with highly esoteric underpinnings and very little mathematical substance - on the other hand it was well funded!

Hence it doesn't surprise me that the research for this important and highly academic topic was done by a non-academic, and he got little or no help from the academic community.

Re:Academia is a pain in the ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598878)

academia is rarely about real research these days, only chasing research funding

Slashdot posting is rarely about real discussion these days, only chasing positive moderations.

Someone should do some further research into the similarities between academic research and Slashdot karma-whoring.

Or not.

time wasting on Slashdot (2, Funny)

56ker (566853) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598865)

Oh well - if there's no such thing as time I can spend as long on /. as I like. :)

Peer review is breaking down (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598866)

Foundations of Physics Letters...a 27 year old broadcasting school tutor from Wellington

Oookay... an amateur publishing in a low impact journal.

I must say I agree with the quoted referee but on the other hand I am not suprised that the article got published. Peer review system is breaking down because of the sheer volume of new articles and the low priority scientsts give to reviewing other people's papers.

calculus-what? (1)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598867)

Correct me if I'm wrong here (IANAM), but didn't calculus solve this problem like, a few hundred years ago?

Interesting idea (2, Interesting)

roard (661272) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598869)

After reading the story, I found this theorically really interesting... And in fact I'm starting to believe he's right ;-)

Ok, let do a computer analogy (hey we're on /.)

... if time is continuous and that there isn't a thing like single points in time (which effectively explain some things), why do you, human, believe that we could measure single points ? Could it be that computers functions even more identically to our brain that we suspected ?

I mean, one of the big difference between the brain and computer, is that the computer digitalize the information, it quantify it. I thought previously that the brain functionned more in an analog mode...

But if his hypothesis is right, and if single points in time aren't a "true" reality... and are just a human point of view...
Then the fact that we function like that, is perhaps because our brain effectively "digitalize"/quantify the information, like a computer. Only that the brain "digitalize" better (ie, we don't seem to even see that it is "digitalized", we only see continuous electric signals), but in a deep real way, the brain really function like a computer : to understand the world, it quantify it. So we could have artefacts and loss of the "true" reality ...

And this would explain why we are then able to quantify things like the movement -- because we accept the error of our "digitalization" of the world.
It's also find an echo on the uncertainty principle of heisenberg ...
Wouldn't it be a funny thing if we realize that we function like a computer and we approximize the real world, and not only the real world (after all we know that our senses are prone to error), but that this quantification of the world affect deeply the way we consider/understand the universe itself ? :-)

OT: No moment in time?... (1)

Botunda (621804) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598872)

I just let out the "nastiest,longest, most putrid smelling" of farts in a long time.
So if there were a moment in time that would be it.

Trust me... friends were there they can testify


Not sanitized for your protection, you insestuious clod

Another way to look at it (1)

Insipid Trunculance (526362) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598873)

Well time need not exist if you imagine an infinite number of parallel universes all of which sucedd each other to give the "illusion" of time.

PDF of the actual paper can be found here (4, Informative)

BurningTyger (626316) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598885)

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001197/0 2/Zeno's_Paradoxes_-_A_Timely_Solution.pdf

It may not be the same paper that will be published in Foundation of Physics Letter in August. But it is a complete paper on Peter Lynds' discussion on Zeno's Paradox.

Get it before it's /. ed

I've been thinking about this recently too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598889)

It seems to me that the absence of an instant in time illustrates that there's no such thing as a physical progression or flow of time. Without a continuous progression through definite instants over an extended interval, there can't really be any progression.

That sounds kinda counter-intuitive, but it's exactly what's required by nature to enable time (relative interval as indicated by a clock), motion and the continuity of a physical process to be possible.

Anyway, cool stuff. I hope we'll hear more about this in the future.

Strange. (2, Informative)

Black Copter Control (464012) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598890)

I would have thought that Quantum uncertainty would have made it obvious that time doesn't have definite intervals. It's pretty much the same argument to say that you don't know exactly where something is at a specific 'moment' in time as it is to say that you can't specifically determint the 'moment' at which it was exactly there.

Link to PDF of actual paper (3, Informative)

warm sushi (168223) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598892)

philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001197/02/ Zeno's_Paradoxes_-_A_Timely_Solution.pdf

Just in case anyone actually wants to read it before commenting. :)

Why is it that... (1)

dankdirk77 (690855) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598895)

... critical breakthroughs in science hit Slashdot right after a huge bong hit? OK, so basically time just enables objects to change location, but is not the driving force, it's just "there"... haha, all those stupid german and french watch makers are going to have fun in the coming weeks trying to compensate for THAT!!

Now? (1)

Comfortably Numb (6293) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598899)

Wouldn't now be considered a single instant in time?

Dieing when? (-1, Offtopic)

hypermike (680396) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598902)

The new death tests will be... you will die sometime January 23rd between the seconds of 08:23:34.09994 and 08:23:34.09996.

is "sniggered" a word? In the first para of the article."

"How about which snigger took the last doughnut?"

"Thats wildly inappropriate" ah bless reno911

The "philosophical" version of his paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598903)

Google cache [216.239.37.104]

pdf [pitt.edu]

seems pretty straightforward to me (1)

h4x0r-3l337 (219532) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598905)

What's described in the article all seems pretty straightforward and already well understood. Either the article is outright lying about this "bold paper" being published in the "Foundations of Physics Letters", or august is a really slow month and they needed some amusing filler...

This guy is bullshiting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598906)

That's nothing groundbreaking or profound about this paper. The notion that time is continuous and can't be measured to a moment had been well discussed and understood by many. For pete sake, it has been discussed in my high school physic class. This guy is just using convoluted language to state the obvious. Next.

Wow.. (1)

James_G (71902) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598908)

He comments, "Naturally the parameter and boundary of their respective position and magnitude are naturally determinable up to the limits of possible measurement as stated by the general quantum hypothesis and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but this indeterminacy in precise value is not a consequence of quantum uncertainty. What this illustrates is that in relation to indeterminacy in precise physical magnitude, the micro and macroscopic are inextricably linked, both being a part of the same parcel, rather than just a case of the former underlying and contributing to the latter.

That's just what I was about to say!

My brain hurts... (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598916)

Doesn't the term unit define a unit in time?

Crackpot? Explain how. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598919)

In typical slashdot fashion, there are a LOT of replies saying the guy is a crackpot, has repeating the obvious, doesn't understand anything, etc etc.

Well, I read the article very carefully (the grammar sucked), and did my damnest to understand, and I think he's on to something.

So here's a challenge for all the people commenting: if he's a crackpot, explain how, in full and precise detail. (For bonus points, use better grammar than the article.) If you think he's stating the obvious, then explain why; while you're doing that, explain why so very many "important" people apparently didn't know that.

Re:Crackpot? Explain how. (4, Informative)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598941)

No.

In science the burden of proof is on you. If you can't make your case so that you peers can readily understand the evidence your work will most likely be disqualified with comments like those he got from the referee.

You may be 100% right but if your paper is confusing, uses unorthodox terminology and contains crap figures you can bet that the referee is going to disqualify it. This guy should have co-authored the paper with a professional scientist who knows the proper language and the way to present new ideas. And this attitude is not elitism. Science must be ultraconservative to keep the crackpots out. And unlike the crackpots would like to believe, given enough time and attempts to push a new revolutionary theory through (not by one person but by many) it will eventually be accepted as the proof for it accumulates.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6598922)

All the retards gather together and appoint themselves a new King Retard.

Next up: There is no stupidest person; there is always somebody stupider, ergo, there is no such thing as stupidity.

Re:LOL (1, Funny)

corebreech (469871) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598934)

I accidentally hit the Post Anonymously button on this one.

Any moderations should be made against this post.

That is, if you can find the time to do so.

Re:LOL (1)

Botunda (621804) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598940)

I think I speak for all of us... You be the king

At first (0, Offtopic)

spudchucker (680073) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598935)

when I saw the photo on the web page, I thought he was hitting a bong!

This kid has actually proven Barnum's Conjecture, (0, Offtopic)

Mordant (138460) | more than 11 years ago | (#6598936)

"There's a sucker born every minute." ;>
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>