platopes wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
[snip]

There is no fundamental chunk of time,

One of us is confused; if time is continuous, then one observes
everything, always, for "less than planck time", because "less than
planck time" is contained/included in *any* amount of time, including
one exact bit of planck time. I vote for this. But you're telling me I
can't observe for "less than planck time".
Maybe observing any part of an infinite length *is* observing that
length in it's entirety.


I try to paint it this way. The whole may contain structure on all
scales, both infinitely large, and infinitely small. But the nature
that we experience is limited.

Time is certainly continuous. But you cannot observe time on extreme
scales. Time appears continuous everywhere in between, as it should.

I dont think that this is a Zeno paradox.


rather,
there is a fundamental chunk of existence based on our ability to
observe time,

I don't observe time when I'm sleeping...(sorry)

I don't observe you when you walk behind a wall. If I could "see"
smaller than an electron, maybe I'd see you through the wall...either
way your existence, even though it may affect me, doesn't depend on my
ability to observe you, or any knowledge of your existence on my part.


True. But our ability to observe time means basically - can you build a
clock ?

You can build a clock based on tides, the moon, the seasons, the sun,
hurricanes, stars crossing the night sky, water drippin from a bucket,
whatever you wish. All of these things make wonderful clocks.

But you cannot build a clock out of the whole universe because it will
not tick. And you cannot build a clock out of sub-quantum scale
structures because all the dynamics will appear instantaneous, i,e,
individual clock ticks will appear as one.

Everywhere between these vast scales, time is definately continuous.


and this ability to observe has nothing to do with
instrumentation, and everything to do with what the universe wants us
to observe.

Existence is observed. It's the only thing the universe has decided
to show us.
Nonexistence is not observed. (Hundred-foot tall flame-throwing
babies exist conceptually as a comeback to the above statement).This
doesn't mean that whatever isn't observed doesn't exist.
Doesn't existence preclude nonexistence? Nonexistence can't have
relationships to anything, so how does one define it sensibly?
The concept of "nothing" serves only to reinforce the reality of
"something", since without the reality the concept has no meaning.


Anything can be said to exist fro zero seconds. It's trivial.
And anything which only exists for zero seconds does not really exist.
It's also trivial.

So, nonexistence is constructible using time.

And if there were structure balow Planck scale, it would appear
nonexistent to us. That's how it would behave - as if it does not even
exist.

If Planck is right, then :
"When the universe was created, it was already 1*10^(-44) seconds old."

Only certain humans need the universe to have had a beginning. One
thing's for sure - if it was "created" from "nothing", at some point in
time, then "nothing" is actually something containing time, and the
potential for the creation of the universe. Nice nothing ya got
there...


Planck created more problems than he solved.

Lets say that Planck is right. There is a fundamental chunk of time.
How do we get from one chunk to the next ? If the transition is smooth,
then it might as well be considered continuous. But Planck creates a
universe which is a little like the old time movies, existence occurs
frame by frame somehow.

Well, you have this fundamental chunk of time which is very, very
short. What's it made of ? Must be continuous, but that's a paradox,
because you already have the smallest possible piece of it.




Remember I said "one of us..." (might be both)

p

The strongest evidence is nonlocality and some other weirdness.

A change to one entangled particle has an instantaneous effect on it's
it's entangled partner.

Notice the word "instantaneous".

Two events separated by distance 0 occuring instantaneously.This
suggests dynamics in Minkowski(3+0), which is impossible in an absolute
sense because it would be absolutely trivial. But it's only relatively
trivial, because Minkowski(3+0) arises as an illusion as soon as you
lose your ability to observe time.

How much proof do you need ?


I have a better question. Tell me one good reason why it cannot be
true. I've been looking for quite a while, and still have'nt found that
reason.

LEFTY wrote:

Hmmmm - a good question. Really, you've illustrated a paradox
created by Planck, who never explains how time could possibly
have an "absolute bottom".

He may have mused over it in idle moments on occasion; but his
main aim, successfully achieved, was simply to explain observed
phenomena, sort of "this is how it must work for the sums to
add up and explain seemingly bizarre observations, but don't
ask me why", and that AIUI is how most physicists understand
or at least deal with quantum physics to this day.

| Androcles wrote:
|| LEFTY wrote:
|| The fundamental thing, however, is that time
|| and length become unobservable,
|| No... this is not true and it is a trap many fall into.
|| On large scales, you cant build a clock out of the whole universe. It
|| does not tick.

| Of course it ticks, and you CAN build a clock out of the entire unverse.
| See the tick (fixed font):
| | Merc | Venus |Earth |Solar | Mars | Watch |
| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| | |88/ |88/ | 88 / | 88/ |88/ |
| Mercury | 1 | 225 | 365 | 1 | 687 | 68400 |
| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| | 225/ | | 225/ | 225/ | 225/ | 225/ |
| Venus | 88 | 1 | 365 | 1 | 687 | 68400 |
| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| | 365/ | 365/ | | 365/ | 365/ | 365/ |
|Earth year| 88 | 225 | 1 | 1 | 687 | 68400 |
| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| | 1/ | 1/ | 1/ | | 1/ | 1/ |
| Solar day| 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | 687 | 68400 |
| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| | 687/ | 687/ | 687/ | 687/ | | 687/ |
| Mars | 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | 1 | 68400 |
| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| | 68400/| 68400/| 68400/| 68400/| 68400/| |
|Watch(sec)| 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | 687 | 1 |
| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|

Did you mean to write 86400 instead of 68400? __________Gerard S.



| Each entry in the table is a ratio between a pair of oscillators.
| Change one oscillator and you change every ratio in its row and column
| without affecting the others.

|| You can never observe it's operation. Time becomes
|| unobservable.

| Time is very observable. I'm part owner of this clock,
| which hasn't lost or gained a picosecond in 3,500 years.
| http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMStonehenge.jpg

LEFTY wrote:
Hmmmm - a good question. Really, you've illustrated a paradox created
by Planck, who never explains how time could possibly have an "absolute
bottom".

Palnck's thinking seems to follow the trend of those who searched for
that "fundamental widgit" from which all things were composed. People
have been looking for the fundamental Leggo. Thats why Planck thinks
that time has an "absolute bottom".

Planck had it backwards. There is no fundamental chunk of time, rather,
there is a fundamental chunk of existence based on our ability to
observe time, and this ability to observe has nothing to do with
instrumentation, and everything to do with what the universe wants us
to observe.


If Planck is right, then :
"When the universe was created, it was already 1*10^(-44) seconds old."

I think you shouldn't try to think what Planck thinks,
.... that is unless you have his brain in a jar and can
decode it.

It is customary to hold a scientist responsible for his
writing... but not what we think he tho't. :-)

Sue...



The only reason to say such things is to use physics as a surrogate for
confucianism.

"gerard46" wrote in message
...
|| Androcles wrote:
||| LEFTY wrote:
||| The fundamental thing, however, is that time
||| and length become unobservable,
||| No... this is not true and it is a trap many fall into.
||| On large scales, you cant build a clock out of the whole universe.
It
||| does not tick.
|
|| Of course it ticks, and you CAN build a clock out of the entire
unverse.
|| See the tick (fixed font):
|| | Merc | Venus |Earth |Solar | Mars | Watch |
|| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
|| | |88/ |88/ | 88 / | 88/ |88/ |
|| Mercury | 1 | 225 | 365 | 1 | 687 | 68400 |
|| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
|| | 225/ | | 225/ | 225/ | 225/ | 225/ |
|| Venus | 88 | 1 | 365 | 1 | 687 | 68400 |
|| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
|| | 365/ | 365/ | | 365/ | 365/ | 365/ |
||Earth year| 88 | 225 | 1 | 1 | 687 | 68400 |
|| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
|| | 1/ | 1/ | 1/ | | 1/ | 1/ |
|| Solar day| 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | 687 | 68400 |
|| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
|| | 687/ | 687/ | 687/ | 687/ | | 687/ |
|| Mars | 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | 1 | 68400 |
|| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
|| | 68400/| 68400/| 68400/| 68400/| 68400/| |
||Watch(sec)| 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | 687 | 1 |
|| |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
|
| Did you mean to write 86400 instead of 68400? __________Gerard S.

I leave deliberate mistakes to see if anyone pays attention :-)
Well done.

|
|
|| Each entry in the table is a ratio between a pair of oscillators.
|| Change one oscillator and you change every ratio in its row and
column
|| without affecting the others.
|
||| You can never observe it's operation. Time becomes
||| unobservable.
|
|| Time is very observable. I'm part owner of this clock,
|| which hasn't lost or gained a picosecond in 3,500 years.
|| http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMStonehenge.jpg
|
|

Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]

Androcles =Jämmerlichkeit


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]

Androcles = Jämmerlichkeit

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Sue..." kirjoitti viestissä
oups.com...

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
Suppose that this general argument regarding time and existence is
valid. You have points in spacetime which are unobservable and will
"appear" nonexistent.

What effect would that have on trasfinite cardinals in spacetime,
assuming that the manifold really has these properties ?

If existence "appears" relative, then this might do some really weird
things things to infinite sets. Maybe there are other forms of
infinity
which only exist in spacetime ? A highly intriguing thing to
contemplate.

I hate to even contemplate things like this because we have'nt even
got
the algebra to test these ideas yet. We, I, you, whoever, need to
modify the Lorentz Transform to admit one additional postulate, "Time
and length unobservable on extreme scales". That's the most important
thing at this point.


Just thinkin' about it'll make ya dizzy.

In ZF set theory with transfinite cardinals there is no universe. That
is to say, in ZF set theory space-time, and all the things within it,
does not exist.

Thus, you might understand why ZF set theory is not the correct theory
for the continuous and discrete in nature, there are a variety of other
theories variously with or without transfinite cardinals that admit a
universe.

When you have a universe, then you have basically in terms of set
theory and a set-theoretic universe a set of all sets. Cantor's
paradox is that the set of all sts is its own powerset, and that there
exists a bijection between the set and itself, yet according to his
theorem a set should not be able to biject, to have a 1-1 and onto
function, to its powerset. So, the universe is infinite, in terms of
functions between objects being objects, and that's empirical evidence
that infinite sets are equivalent.

This thread is about continuity in space-time or so. One of the
principles that I think holds in physics is that every particle has a
wavelength, de Broglie or so.

Although electrons were sent one by one,
interference fringes could be observed. These
interference fringes are formed only when electron
waves pass through on both sides of the electron
biprism at the same time but nothing other than this.
Whenever electrons are observed, they are always
detected as individual particles. When accumulated,
however, interference fringes are formed. Please
recall that at any one instant there was at most
one electron in the microscope. We have reached
a conclusion which is far from what our common
sense tells us.
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm

So... we must reconsider the experiment and the conribution
the apparatus makes to observed wave properties.

Sue...

A very interesting page. Thank you, Sue.

Henry Haapalainen

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip crap]
|
| Androcles =Jämmerlichkeit
|
|
| --
| Uncle Al
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
| (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf


Schwartz is ****ed off.
The Chinese told him "**** OFF, you DUMB ****"
They were right.
Androcles