" Logic problem "

BATHORY

G'Day all

In a previous thread dmouse mocks me for giving a serious reponse to what i see as a serious question about infinity from pubsinger.

It said that " it has nothing to do with reality, its just a logic problem " or some crap to that tune.

Ok dmouse to appease yourself to the board, and buy back face, i ask you the following. Please answer according to the " obvious law " you imposed on me.

A question was asked on the Scientific American magazine web site(sciam.com) which was close to this,

"Is there a minimum value of time?".

Well dmouse, can you speculate ?? Its easy easy japaneesy !!

Simon

I would say yes for the same reason that there is a minumum value in terms of distance and time is just another dimension.

I like to think of time as the difference between two events.
If nothing happens there is no time to speak of.
When an event occours such as when a photon is emitted from a source we can call the interval between two points of travel time, and break it up according to the distance the photon has traveled.Since a photon is not infinatly small niether can the distance it travels be broken up into infinatly small parts.
Since time is the differnce between two events it is the same as distance in that it is not broken up into infinatly smaller parts.

It seams logical to me that there is a least amount of time , and therefore a least amount of movement that an object can make.

So I believe , unless someone can show diffeently that time moves in jumps.
Also that every thing else moves in tiny jumps.
The problem this creates though is in defining whether an object that has moved is actually the same thing, as it jumps to get there , there is no way we can tell if it is the same thing(were talking on the tiny level here , not a person or a bus)or a new one, ie do things move or is it more like a tv screen where movment is an illusion?
Sorry to ramble.

non_trias_theos

The question presupposes that we know what time is. But do we? Non says no we do not.

If you can define time--you deserve a nobel prize. The human mind simply cannot satisfactorily prehend, comprehend or apprehend the notion of time. We finite participants in Dasein can only take stabs and make guesses in relation to the nature of time.

But scientists have said that there is a something called Planck time. Does this maybe answer your question? Could Planck time be the minimum value of time?

Hmmm

sleepy,

This is similar to what my Junior High chemistry teacher told me. I believe he was basing his statements on Einstein's writings (he had a major jones for Einstein) when he said that "time is change." By that notion, if we could measure the smallest change, then the time it took for that change to occur is the smallest measurable unit of time. I can't remember, but I thought he said the smallest measurement of change was the vibration of electrons as they orbited the nucleus of an atom. That was many years ago.

Dunssco... uh, I mean, non_trias_theos might have the "obvious law" that bathory is looking for.

If I understand correctly, the "Planck length" is the distance scale at which gravity crosses over from the quantum to the 'classically measurable' and is about 1.6 x 10^-35* m or about 1 x 10^-20** times the size of a proton. Any distance under this is impossible to measure because you cannot accurately determine the position and momentum of a subatomic particle closer than this "Compton Wavelength." (Maybe this is the 'vibration' that my Junior High teacher was talking about. And I thought he was an idiot because he believed in evolution...)

"Planck time" is the time it would take a photon in a vacuum cleaner to travel that distance--about 1 x 10^-43*** seconds.

Hmmm

To get an idea of how small 1.6 x 10^-35 is, compare it to how large our sun is, which has a mass of 2 x 10^33 grams

* .00000000000000000000000000000000016 meters
** .000000000000000000001 the lenght of a proton
*** .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds

crawdad2

it's easy;

the "min value of time" is what bored people that debate the "min value of time" have.

funkyderek

"The shortest unit of time in the multiverse is the New York Second, defined as the period of time between the traffic lights turning green and the cab behind you honking."
- Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies

--
But if you pray all your sins are hooked upon the sky
Pray and the heathen lie will disappear
Prayers they hide the saddest view
(Believing the strangest things, loving the alien)
-- David Bowie, Loving The Alien

ballistic

Correct me if I'm wrong by more than 0.00000000000001 but isn't there a problem with measuring such a unit as caused by the uncertainty principle or does this just apply to particle theory? How would you go about measuring it anyway? Why not just look on the box the universe came in, it will say something like 2 GHz or something.

Frenchy

On a clear sultry summer night
Stars twinkle and sparkle in sheer delight
Pin pricks of light in the black dome of night
In their struggle to remain shall also lose their fight

They too shall one day fade away into the night
When eons have flown and time itself has grown trite
Then time will keep a wary eye on the night
And ponder its own precarious plight

For when all is gone and creation is no more
For what purpose will time serve to keep the score
When nothing there be to mark or sight
Time itself shall slip gently into the coming night

From: The Coming Night
By: The French Knight

dmouse

Sorry BATHORY, I’ve only just seen this thread.

In a previous thread dmouse mocks me for giving a serious reponse to what i see as a serious question about infinity from pubsinger.

Forgive me if that’s how it came across, I had no intention of sounding sarcastic. However, my comment was regarding your response to my logic problem not pubsinger’s.

It said that " it has nothing to do with reality, its just a logic problem " or some crap to that tune.

Do you not believe then that there can be pure logic problems unconnected to reality? I don’t understand your issue with this. Also, you proceed from a false premise, as I’ve already said, I made that comment in regard to your comments about the logic problem I posed, not pubsinger.

Ok dmouse to appease yourself to the board, and buy back face, i ask you the following. Please answer according to the " obvious law " you imposed on me

What!? I’m not in the least worried about your illusions about me losing face. The board doesn’t care either. You’re making an issue about nothing. And why do you put “Obvious law” in commas, as if you are quoting me? I never said that, and I never imposed anything on you.

"Is there a minimum value of time?".
Well dmouse, can you speculate ?? Its easy easy japaneesy !!
Everything is relative......

OK, I’ll give it a bash, though I haven’t done any research on this. I would say off the top of my head that there isn’t a minimum value of time. However small amount of time you define you can always shorten it, theoretically. Time is defined as a continuous forward flow of an event. Something has to happen for time to be measured. In reality though there may be a limit to the smallest unit of time we can measure, due to the fact that by observing we influence what we observe (on this scale).

I don't profess to be the Oracle, knowing all things (far from it) so if you have the definitive answer then let me know - I'm always willing to learn.

" Logic problem "

Share this