tdweomer

Hi. Has anyone here discussed this yet? http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-gwi072703.php
It made me feel somewhat justified about a "time's fake!" argument I had with friends several years ago, not that I solved any paradoxes or anything . I am not well versed in this subject, but it seems to me Lynds just took a "philosophically" different point-of-view, rather than perform some battery of tests that provided evidence to support Zeno. Any gurus out there want to shed a little light on this subject for me?

Kat_Somm_Faen

Just started reading but I will give you a little wuote - 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.


I felt motivated by you asking "gurus" to explain. I as a condition do not like elitists and consider science and philosphy considered not as a real of specialists but rather questioners. There are no gurus for me and I believe that in order to question one does ot have to read "Work ABCD" or "Intro to XYZ" in order to start. Questioning and iquiry and a sound mind to accept and question with a right amount of both belief in onces qouestioning and doubt about the conclusion. Take any way you might! First scientist and philosophers had no starting point. They just had one qondidion - love towards wisdom eh! I believe in science and philosophy according to that ideal.

End of rant!

Have fun my man! Give us your own thoughts!

Kat_Somm_Faen

So his solution to "time" is Panta Rhei?

Flow and motion exists. Only Change is eternal. Does not seem to me to be ALL THAT radical.

It seems to me that he is thinking just a rehashed, different form of previous ideas. IE. there are no distinct points that move through time, no "quant of time" yet I thought that was perfectly clear from dividing by infinity. Having a set snapshot of time would mean that there is a set point to which one can zoom in in a timeline, a coorindate point. Yet one point no matter how "zoomed in" to it you are still represents nothing close to a finite "half" in Zenos paradox. There is no miti how much you can half. If that was true and you his a limit during your halfing you would rich your "snapshot" in time. The arrow can always come 1/2 of the distance closer to the target not matter how small the distance.

Hmmm I dunno. I always though of time as a measure of change and only applicable if there are interactions . In a sense something hovering in empty space woulg exhibit no time. As soon as there is an observer ( like in the thread about S "Schrödinger's ignorant cat?" there is time. A cat that is isolated like in the cat experiment - that cat would actually be a timeless thing. Time itself arises form interaction. No interaction = no time. Saying you can isolate a "point in time" means to say it does not exist since its existence is only possible by interaction with othr "points in time".

Again Panta Rhei is not tham much of a discovery IMO.

....

Edit: In fact trying to zoom in onto a "point" in time or a coordinate IMO is similar to zooming in on a part of a fractal. I am sure you had seen those ... and constant repeating pattern. In fact there is no "zooming in" on a fractal in a sense of a definite action when you are done "zooming in". Each "zoom" is just as same as the previous one the scale is the only thing that differentiates them. And so zooming in from 1x to .1x is as same as zooming an from 10^-100 000 000 to 10^-100 000 001 or whatever the number of zeros. The same in the postive magnification on a fractal.

Friar Bellows

I couldn't find an online version of his physics paper, but I did find his paper on Zeno's paradoxes:

Zeno's Paradoxes: A Timely Solution

I'm not sure how one could properly evaluate his work without reading his papers.

Kat_Somm_Faen

I just came back from reading about Zeno. Apparently there is little left as written record by Zeno himself. What was his point regarding his paradoxes? Did he "solve" it or made it fit into a view of time?

Jesse

Here's his more recent paper discussed in the Eurekalert press release:

http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electron...t-2003-045.pdf

This guy sounds like a crackpot to me, his argument involves a lot of philosophical rambling without any actual math, and he seems to have a pretty poor understanding of things like calculus and "block time". The consensus on most newsgroups I've seen is also that he's a crackpot or that this is a hoax.

Artemus

The August 2003 issue of Foundations of Physics Letters is not yet available at the Kluwer online website. (Nor is the June issue, for that matter.) It may be a while before it can be determined if this is a hoax.

Kat_Somm_Faen

I personally don't take him as a hoax rather as a guy who has found a new and different way to state Pant Rhei said first by Heraclitus "On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow."

Bunk and hoax... kinda doubt it but more that I though time was already compared to flow before him and Arrow of Time was quite often used when discussing time.

Jesse,
what is this "block" of time you mention? I may be undestanding it wrong here... but as lons as we are talking about "block of time" it can always be broken into a smaller block...

Jesse

Basically, "block time" is the idea that the flow of time is purely a subjective matter, that spacetime itself is a single four-dimensional entity with time as one of these dimensions. The past hasn't "ceased to exist" in some objective sense, it's just a different region of spacetime. This view contrasts with the traditional "moving now" view which most people (including Lynds) seem to have. More on block time here:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_time

It's really more of a philosophical issue than a physical one, although a number of things about relativity seem to be a better fit for the "block time" view than the "single moving now", like the fact that observers in different reference frames have different definitions of simultenaity (in one frame event A may happen 'at the same time' as event B, while in another frame A may happen after or before B), and there are no physically preferred reference frames in relativity. This doesn't totally settle the issue, since one could imagine a "metaphysically preferred reference frame" which determined the "true present" but which had no special physical consequences whatsoever, although this seems somewhat inelegant.

Some pages discussing philosophical aspects of these two views of time:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/s...chennotes.html
http://dna2z.com/projects/time.html

Lynds briefly mentions the block time idea in his article at the top of p. 3:

But here he is taking vague verbal descriptions of the block universe as "static" far too literally--perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the block universe as "timeless" in the same sense as mathematical structures like the mandelbrot set. Do we need an external time dimension to say that mathematical structures like the mandelbrot set or the real number line are "static" or "timeless"? I don't think so, so why couldn't the same be true of spacetime?

Chimp

Is time antisymmetric?

Space is at right angles to time.

Electricity is at right angles to magnetism.

Gravity is at right angles to inertia. What if time is a process of increasing density gradients.

Are photons wave-fronts along processed space-time, alot like
the frames on a movie reel?

|-->|-->|-->|-->[photon]

Antisymmetric time and particle "spin"

<-------- (-t)
[particle]
---------->(t)