Ground-breaking work in understanding of time

Eurekalert ^ | July 31, 2003 | Brooke Jones

[TomServo]

Same subject, different write-up?

Yup.

[Nebullis]

In doing so we have gained insights into the nature of time and physical continuity, classical and quantum mechanics, physical indeterminacy, and turned an assumption which has historically been taken to be a given in physics, determined physical magnitude, including relative position, on its head.

This is a red flag. Maybe a psuedo-crank.

[Nebullis]

I think he's arguing that the traditional math is right, but it doesn't model reality.

That's not a new argument. That's exactly why there is a paradox.

[glorgau]

How can I ever touch anything if the closer I get the denominator of the fraction of the distance between my finger and the object keeps getting bigger.

According to the article, you can't! It is all jut a construct of the mind.
If you had watched the "Matrix Reloaded", then the answer would be "There is no spoon". :-)

[Old Professer]

Since time is an artiface, it can be as Humpty-Dumptyesque as we like.

[Old Professer]

Artifice, sorry.

[glorgau]

I took a numerical analysis class in college where the professor focused on infinitismals. They were presented as the precursors to calculus. doing calculations with infinitismals is such a huge pain compared to calculus, I can see why people try to fit everything into the calculus bandwagon - it's a lot less work and cleaner!

[logos]

Just a crazy thought...

You remember our way long ago conversation about the speed of light? Whatever distance light traverses, and at whatever speed, it takes some amount of time to go from A to B. So, if time doesn't move, and according to this author it has "no direction," and presumably no motion, what is the speed of light relative to immobile time? ;^)

[VadeRetro]

Calculus is based upon the so-far correct premise that the limit of a function as something goes asymptotic (your infinitesimal goes to zero) is the exact answer. Lynds seems to be waving away the premise that you can do that, and his solutions seem to be of the form, "There is no solution."

I forsee controversy.

[VadeRetro]

What immobile time? ;)

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[VadeRetro]

Time is an artifice? That's another thing. I hate it when things are all in my head but they don't go away when I close my eyes and think wonderful thoughts.

[longshadow]

I think he's arguing that the traditional math is right, but it doesn't model reality.

But that's the rub; if the "traditional" math/physics is RIGHT, how can you tell it DOESN'T model reality?

IOW, if the "traditional" mathematics/physics always gives the correct answers, in what practical sense can it be said to NOT model reality?

Lastly, if this guy is on to something deep and profound, then his theory should be able to make falsifiable predictions that "traditional" math/physics does not make, and then we can see who's "right." And if his theory makes no predictions that differ from "traditional" math/physics, then on what basis is his system to be preferred over the "traditional" one?

[logos]

From the article (toward the end)...

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."

I warned you it was a "crazy question". If time has no direction, it must be immobile, right?

[VadeRetro]

Well, maybe time doesn't go in any direction, but I for one seem to be in free-fall along the time axis and it's getting scary.

[steve8714]

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[Way2Serious]

You can read his solution to Zeno's paradoxes here.

The engineering solution to Zeno is: You may never quite get all the way there, but you can always get close enough to get the job done.

[logos]

Well, maybe time doesn't go in any direction, but I for one seem to be in free-fall along the time axis and it's getting scary.

LOL!

Hmmm...Time is motionless, but you're in free-fall and presumably moving away from time. Therefore...

...having left time behind, once you break free from space, you can tell us if God is there after all.

Time for lunch. It's difficult (for me) to give these topics the serious thought they seem to demand. Nice to "see" you again.

[meowmeow]

I've been wondering why I never have enough time. Apparently I don't have any at all. I guess I'll just keep moving.

Does this mean I can pitch my copy of A Brief History of Time? It's not like I ever got past page 20 anyway.

[Physicist]

Gee, I can't believe no one has paged FR's resident physicist on this.

Actually, I've been paged several times on more than one thread about this. Frankly, there's just not much I can say about someone who seriously thinks that Zeno's paradox is still a meaningful issue. It's just not worth much of my (or anyone else's) attention.