Is time incremental?
Walter E.
Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
stream of infinitely small packages?
--
Walter
Smile and the world smiles with you
The Happy Iconoclast: www.rationality.net
josX
>Dumb question by a non-physicist:
>
>Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
>
>Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
>stream of infinitely small packages?
Time is defined by the UTC standard, it uses quanta called seconds.
Ask or search the web for SI (was'nt that 'standardization institute'?).
Relativity has been proven false, many times over in fact. The twins
are a good way to start learning why it's wrong, but you can start
anywhere, because everything is wrong.
"time" as set forth by Relativity is a failure, see 'relativity' of
A.Einstein, chapter 9, where Einstein fails to produce a correct argument
against absolute time, although he uses his erroneous logic to rave against
it (against absolute time and straight space).
--
jos
Mike Varney
"Walter E." <we...@bsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jPvc9.3481$0o5.1...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Dumb question by a non-physicist:
>
> Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
>
> Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
> stream of infinitely small packages?
In SR and GR time is not quantized.
Spaceman
>From: "Walter E." we...@bsan.rr.com
>Dumb question by a non-physicist:
No question that is "really wanting an answer for",
is dumb.
:)
>Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
Yes,
Quantum farts too!
:)
>Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
>stream of infinitely small packages?
Time in relativity is relative.
(It can change rates)
Time is science is absolute.
It can not change rates.
( a clock has malfunctioned.)
Science is dropping Relativity like a bad religion.
Join the Science ship.
and jump of that sinking "time ship"
:)
Hope that helps ya!
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Uncle Al
>
> Dumb question by a non-physicist:
>
> Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
>
> Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
> stream of infinitely small packages?
Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds. Anything smaller cannot be
meaningfully handled by extant physical theory.
BTW, "quanta."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Time is defined by the UTC standard, it uses quanta called seconds.
> Ask or search the web for SI (was'nt that 'standardization institute'?).
>
Actually that is misleading, as time is not quantized in SR and GR or
Newtonian mechanics and is often measured in
factors of 10^-3 (millisecond)
factors of 10^-6 (microsecond)
factors of 10^-9 (nanosecond)
factors of 10^-12 (picosecond)
factors of 10^-15 (femtosecond)
etc.
A Summary of the International Standard Date and Time Notation
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html
--Sam Wormley
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/time.html
Donald G. Shead
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:aku1uk$pj4$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
> >
> >Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
> >stream of infinitely small packages?
>
> Ask or search the web for SI (was'nt that 'standardization institute'?).
>
> are a good way to start learning why it's wrong, but you can start
> anywhere, because everything is wrong.
>
> "time" as set forth by Relativity is a failure, see 'relativity' of
> A.Einstein, chapter 9, where Einstein fails to produce a correct argument
> against absolute time, although he uses his erroneous logic to rave
against
> it (against absolute time and straight space).
> --
> jos
Time isn't incremental, but it's darned close to it! You might say it's
continuously variable.
Mike Varney
"Donald G. Shead" <u10...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:T1xc9.52$yK1.21...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
Idiot. Exactly what do you mean by "Time isn't incremental, but it's darned
close to it!"
You are stupid, SHead.
Sid Lanier
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3D72998B...@hate.spam.net...
Uncle Al, as usual, is correct. However, I want to introduce another,
sometimes overlooked, aspect of time. Let's suspend a perfectly elastic
glass marble from the ceiling by a thread (use one of those massless,
extensionless "spider-goat" threads). Draw it back to the left side, a
certain height, and release it. Watch, and measure it carefully, and you
will observe it to rise to the right-hand side exactly to the same height;
and you will measure that the time from top to bottom on the left is the
same as the time from bottom to top on the right. Now, introduce another
identical glass marble on an identical thread, and hang it so the marbles
are barely touching when at rest at the bottom. Now, put up a screen so you
can't see what happens at the bottom. Draw back the marble to the left, as
before, and let it go. Observe what happens. You will see a marble rise to
the right to the same height as before. If your measuring technique is
sensitive enough you will see it rise to the same height, but the time on
the right-hand side will be greater. That is because there is a time delay
in converting energy from one perfectly elastic marble to another perfectly
elastic marble in the collision.The time delay is given by t = (E*G)/c^5
where E is the kinetic energy of the first marble at the time of the
collision, G is Newton's gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light
in vacuum. This is just an example of the conversion of time into energy,
which obeys the law E = (c^5/G)*t. So, even in "perfectly" elastic
collisions there is a time delay. Time and energy are equivalent, just as
mass and energy are equivalent, but in differing magnitudes.
Cheers,
Sid Lanier
Mike Varney
"Sid Lanier" <lan...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Lxxc9.22281$FJ1.3...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3D72998B...@hate.spam.net...
> > "Walter E." wrote:
> > >
> > > Dumb question by a non-physicist:
> > >
> > > Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
> > >
> > > Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a
steady
> > > stream of infinitely small packages?
> >
> > Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds. Anything smaller cannot be
> > meaningfully handled by extant physical theory.
> >
> > BTW, "quanta."
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> > "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>
>
> Uncle Al, as usual, is correct.
Save that the original question was quantization in SR or GR.
<SNIP>
>Time and energy are equivalent, just as
> mass and energy are equivalent, but in differing magnitudes.
Bzzt.... try again. Time energy uncertainty, not equivalency.
Mark Fergerson
>
> "Walter E." wrote:
> >
> > Dumb question by a non-physicist:
> >
> > Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
> >
> > Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
> > stream of infinitely small packages?
>
> Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds. Anything smaller cannot be
> meaningfully handled by extant physical theory.
Yet we find Newton's G in the equation
defining t-sub-p: sqrt(h-barG/c^5) from
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?eqplkt
Is this a hint as to why gravity has
not been quantized?
Is there a similar Planck-style scale
for the other (already quantized)
forces, and if not, why not? ISTM that
those who think about compactified
dimensions might consider what good
they'd be; something along the lines of
a given dimension or set of dimension
compactified at a particular scale being
responsible for a given force. I know,
it's probably bullshit, but why?
Mark L. Fergerson
Sid Lanier
"Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
news:aku9qs$67m$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> "Sid Lanier" <lan...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Lxxc9.22281$FJ1.3...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D72998B...@hate.spam.net...
> > > "Walter E." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dumb question by a non-physicist:
> > > >
> > > > Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum
Mechanics.
> > > >
> > > > Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a
> steady
> > > > stream of infinitely small packages?
> > >
> > > Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds. Anything smaller cannot be
> > > meaningfully handled by extant physical theory.
> > >
> > > BTW, "quanta."
> > >
> > > --
> > > Uncle Al
> > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> > > "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
> >
> >
> > Uncle Al, as usual, is correct.
>
> Save that the original question was quantization in SR or GR.
OK, but what he said is physically correct. The continuum of both forms of
relativity is pure imagination---not based on measurement. And physics comes
down to measurement in the final analysis.
>
> <SNIP>
> >Time and energy are equivalent, just as
> > mass and energy are equivalent, but in differing magnitudes.
>
> Bzzt.... try again. Time energy uncertainty, not equivalency.
Not talking about principle of uncertainty here. Don't need to try again. I
have it right the first time.
>
Sid Lanier
Mike, clearly, what you have overlooked is the granularity of continuity.
Mike Varney
Idiot, clearly you do not know what you are talking about.
Mike Varney
Al did not state that.
> > <SNIP>
> > >Time and energy are equivalent, just as
> > > mass and energy are equivalent, but in differing magnitudes.
> >
> > Bzzt.... try again. Time energy uncertainty, not equivalency.
>
> Not talking about principle of uncertainty here. Don't need to try again.
I
> have it right the first time.
No, you did not get it right.
Uncle Al
>
> "Sid Lanier" <lan...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Lxxc9.22281$FJ1.3...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D72998B...@hate.spam.net...
> > > "Walter E." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dumb question by a non-physicist:
> > > >
> > > > Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
> > > >
> > > > Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a
> steady
> > > > stream of infinitely small packages?
> > >
> > > Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds. Anything smaller cannot be
> > > meaningfully handled by extant physical theory.
> > >
> > > BTW, "quanta."
> > >
> > > --
> > > Uncle Al
> > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> > > "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
> >
> >
> > Uncle Al, as usual, is correct.
>
> Save that the original question was quantization in SR or GR.
>
> <SNIP>
SR and GR are continuous and absolutely deterministic, for sure, and
GR is suffused with general covariance. GR is certainly incomplete
vs. a quantum field theory. GR does not work at Planck dimensions and
below. Nothing works there.
That GR is rock solid continuous and covariant offers hope that
assault with an intense *discrete* physical property (evolved from a
*discrete* exernal variable through Noether's theorem) that initiates
at a scale vastly larger than point dimensions will uncover anomalies,
prediction vs. observation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Uncle Al
Planck distance implies wavelength, wavelength implies frequency, and
frequency implies energy. My diagnostic for mechanical propagation
delay would consider the speed of sound in the solid (local speed of
mechanical information transfer) as the major contributor. The
magnitude of quantum threshhold anomalies is not generally accessible
in macroscopic objects, though superfluid helium is probably
large-scale naughty. Solid helium freely swinging balls below 2.17 K
are out of the question - for obvious reasons.
Uncle Al
C'min, Mike - are you going to argue against renoberation? If ya got
elastication ya got renoberation, as surely as a herpolhode snuggles
an invariant plane,
http://formen.ign.com/dating/1999-08-19.html
half-way down
Old Man
>
> Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
>
> Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
> stream of infinitely small packages?
> --
> Walter
No current successful physical theory requires that time be
quantized. There is no experimental evidence to support
time quantization. [Old Man]
Mike Varney
So, you agree with Lanier that time and energy are "equivalent"?
I am sure you know what I am talking about as I am sure I know what you are.
However Lanier proposes crank connections of energy and time.
Mike Varney
:-) "Fire drill"
Old Man
> "Walter E." wrote:
> >
> > Dumb question by a non-physicist:
> >
> > Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
> >
> > Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
> > stream of infinitely small packages?
>
> Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds. Anything smaller cannot be
> meaningfully handled by extant physical theory.
>
> BTW, "quanta."
> --
> Uncle Al
No experimental backing for Uncle Al's "Planck time".
The only theoretical justification comes from bastardized
GTR, wherein a black hole with, "Planck mass",
M = (h_bar*c / G)^(1 / 2) = 2.2 x 10^(-8) kg.
and with diameter of, "Planck length", decays (1/e) in "Planck
time". That "Planck mass" seems a little big for a quantum
of mass. [Old Man]
Mike Varney
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:IYzc9.1432$Nk3.5...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
What would "seem" a better mass for "Planck" mass?
Some people are under the mistaken impression that Planck time, distance,
mass are the smallest measurable units or are the quantized units,
indivisible.
This is not the case and is trivially obvious in the case of Planck mass.
A better way to think of "Planck units" is to base a fundamental property on
a limitation of a physical model. In this case breakdown of GR at a time
after the big bang of around 10^(-43) seconds.
From this and considerations of speed of light and Heisenberg uncertainty
relations we can define other Planck units.
The hierarchy problem can be partially solved by considering the
"Fundamental Planck unit" to be different and thus set Mp to a different
energy (Perhaps in the 10^3 GeV rather than 10^18 GeV)
Sci-fi likes to state things like "quantum foam" and "Planck length" and
misuse the concepts and thus the misconception continues.
The Planck time is not the smallest quanta of time, but rather is considered
to be the most fundamental time unit and has not been defined accurately nor
even measured. And from this the Planck mass is defined as around 10^(-8) kg
and is not to be confused as a quanta, but a unit.
This does not address if time is quantized (like, say electron charge) and
if it is what the value of this quantization turns out to be.
Jim
The following is what Spaceman *really* thinks about relitivity and
time rate change:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW: GPS people thought of it.
and.
It (removal of time dialtion and synching of all the clocks,
fixed GPS to work at all.
before that ,
it was a billion dollar waste.
You are a foll if you think any different.
different time showing clocks can't tell you where ANYTHING is.
DIPWAD!
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
sic.
Jim
josX
>"Walter E." wrote:
>>
>> Dumb question by a non-physicist:
>>
>> Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
>>
>> Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
>> stream of infinitely small packages?
>
>Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds. Anything smaller cannot be
>meaningfully handled by extant physical theory.
And where is the proof of this?
Let me guess: Planck figured that such a small time-measure would not
be broken by any equipment before he died, so he was safe with his theory.
>BTW, "quanta."
Still waiting for proof on:
relativity of simultaneity
lengthcontraction
timedilation
postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
relativistic addition of velocities
And an number of paradoxes, i throw you a well known one:
Twin paradox: 0->.99999c in 1.8 sec
Tripduration: 9*10^9 years
You may define a preferred frame-of-reference during the acceleration
if you prefer, but not afterwards, because to make frames remember
their acceleration and to use that to determine a preferred frame,
is to define the "frame that never accelerated in the history of the
universe" as the de-facto preferred frame (absolute reference frame),
and you would have defined relativity as absolutism.
--
jos
josX
So your car doesn't have a gas-tank, you simply hacked a clock in there
and it runs forever ?
Time and energy are not equivalent, and if they were, then that is only
to an extent. A ball can have color and mass, but color is paint and has
also mass. That is the extent they are "the same", but they are not really
"the same". Why do the brainwashers want to make everything 'equivalent' ??
--
jos
josX
<snip> ["energy and time are equivalent" -- Al]
>Planck distance implies wavelength, wavelength implies frequency, and
>frequency implies energy.
Color implies paint implies weight implies workload implies energy implies
sandwich.
Color and sandwich are equivalent!
The power of fuzzlogic...
<snip>
--
jos
josX
>Mike Varney wrote:
>"Sid Lanier" <lan...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:Lxxc9.22281$FJ1.3...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>>"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>>news:3D72998B...@hate.spam.net...
>>>"Walter E." wrote:
>>>> Dumb question by a non-physicist:
>>>> Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
>>>> Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
>>>> stream of infinitely small packages?
>>>
>>>Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds. Anything smaller cannot be
>>>meaningfully handled by extant physical theory.
>>>
>>>BTW, "quanta."
>>>
>>
>>Save that the original question was quantization in SR or GR.
>>
>><SNIP>
>
>SR and GR are continuous and absolutely deterministic, for sure, and
>GR is suffused with general covariance. GR is certainly incomplete
>vs. a quantum field theory. GR does not work at Planck dimensions and
>below. Nothing works there.
>
>That GR is rock solid continuous and covariant offers hope that
>assault with an intense *discrete* physical property (evolved from a
>*discrete* exernal variable through Noether's theorem) that initiates
>at a scale vastly larger than point dimensions will uncover anomalies,
>prediction vs. observation,
>
>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> (Do something naughty to physics)
Say, those are pretty clothes there, but shouldn't you get something warmer
for this time of the year?
Looks like summerdays are over for the S[RG]ists, just a hint.
Instead of mere blahblahblahing and "explaining what you mean (which will
take forever because it's irrational", you need to proof that what you say
makes sense, and is supported by physical evidence. Or are you with the other
SRists in claiming that physical evidence isn't necesary to build a theory
on, and that theories are free inventions of the mind, popping up from
nowhere as if by magic.
--
jos
josX
>"Donald G. Shead" <u10...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:T1xc9.52$yK1.21...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>news:aku1uk$pj4$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>In article <jPvc9.3481$0o5.1...@twister.socal.rr.com>, Walter E. wrote:
>>>>Dumb question by a non-physicist:
>>>>
>>>>Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
>>>>
>>>>Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
>>>>stream of infinitely small packages?
>>>
>>>Time is defined by the UTC standard, it uses quanta called seconds.
>>>Ask or search the web for SI (was'nt that 'standardization institute'?).
>>>
>>>Relativity has been proven false, many times over in fact. The twins
>>>are a good way to start learning why it's wrong, but you can start
>>>anywhere, because everything is wrong.
>>>
>>>"time" as set forth by Relativity is a failure, see 'relativity' of
>>>A.Einstein, chapter 9, where Einstein fails to produce a correct argument
>>>against absolute time, although he uses his erroneous logic to rave against
>>>it (against absolute time and straight space).
>>
>
>Idiot. Exactly what do you mean by "Time isn't incremental, but it's darned
>close to it!"
>You are stupid, SHead.
Getting nervous about losing the flock, mister University of Colorado ?
Time is an eternal increment of the chosen measure of time, but it's
not quantisized, it's "smooth"/gliding-scale/any-quanta-you-like-to-use.
--
jos
iirc
> >
> > Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
> >
> > Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
> > stream of infinitely small packages?
but time is a dimension, not a form of energy, so doesnt necessarily
imply quantization for the same reasons, if at all.
Quantization all started with electron transitions in atoms yielding
discrete photon energies, one could think about time in the context of
this simple phenomenon - does the electron take any 'time' to jump from
one orbital to another? How could one measure the orbital jump time?
If it takes no time whatsoever, can we still say that time per se
is continuous while the electron is in orbital 1, and then 'during' the jump
to orbital 2?
Anyway, as previously stated, no laws require quantization of time, yet their
is a Planck time smaller than which cannot be meaningfully measured/defined,
and afaik that is as much as you will ever learn about time from
physicists.
yet, check out Einstein and Deutsch views on time for some variety,
esp their belief that time per se 'DOES NOT FLOW' - e.g. all times coexist
as discrete 'moments':
Dirk Bruere
"iirc" <piet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cbec6b32.0209...@posting.google.com...
At base, all time is a relationship between quantum transitions.
Dirk
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Time and energy are not equivalent.
Quite so. Time and Energy are -conjugate- observables. The smaller the
time interval, the less certain the energy measurement. The more certain
the energy measurement, the more time is required.
This follows fairly easily from the Heisnenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> The power of fuzzlogic...
Did the Sun -paint- the sky blue, fuzzwit?
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>Did the Sun -paint- the sky blue, fuzzwit?
Did the "clock" age the twin dufus?
josX
It all depends upon the measuring equipment used.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is just classical error margins. One
day with different equipment we might be able to do things he didn't dream
possible. That is, if we ever break the strangle-hold the physicists have
on physics.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>
>> The power of fuzzlogic...
>
>Did the Sun -paint- the sky blue, fuzzwit?
Sortof, light must be coming from somewhere.
--
jos
Uncle Al
Of course I don't agree that time and energy are physically coupled,
not any more than the glut of particles created by colliding TeV
counter-rotating e+e- beams cares that they were leptons or hadrons
before collision. In both cases one has certain expectations of scale
and complexity dependent upon the setup - but not quantitative
physical coupling.
A crank is not merely boring perserverative psychosis. That was
Einstein pursuing a unified field theory while denying quantum
mechanics and without benefit of his awesomely clever first wife. A
crank is trivially, monstrously disproven for glaring errors and then
perversely ineducable. Lanier is a crank.
Spaceman
Uncle Al
[snip]
Hey, stooopid - have you come to terms with each of the 24 GPS
satellites carrying four cesium atomic clocks in orbit, with full
relativistic corrections being applied?
http://www.trimble.com/gps/satellites.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
This URL cures josX infections.
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Sortof, light must be coming from somewhere.
Glorio brioschi! You actually got something right!
Mirable dictu! Jesus Mary and Joseph. Holy Shit!
Bob Kolker
>
MasterCougar
news:3D7371E0...@hate.spam.net:
> Hey, stooopid - have you come to terms with each of the 24 GPS
> satellites carrying four cesium atomic clocks in orbit, with full
> relativistic corrections being applied?
>
>
Er, how often are you going to post this exact same post?
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
phobos
> "Walter E." wrote:
> >
> > Dumb question by a non-physicist:
> >
> > Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
> >
> > Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
> > stream of infinitely small packages?
>
> Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds. Anything smaller cannot be
> meaningfully handled by extant physical theory.
>
> BTW, "quanta."
It strikes me that time _ought_ to be quantised; if the uncertainty
principle allows a particle to obtain as much energy as it likes
provided it only does so for a sufficiently short time, and there is
no lower limit on the amount of time that can exist, then every
particle in the universe ought to tunnel into miniature black holes...
How much energy could a proton gain over one Planck time from the
uncertainty principle? How much would it need to become the universe's
smallest black hole? Is all this even meaningful?
Dirk Bruere
"phobos" <pho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:af26c87a.0209...@posting.google.com...
>
> It strikes me that time _ought_ to be quantised; if the uncertainty
> principle allows a particle to obtain as much energy as it likes
> provided it only does so for a sufficiently short time, and there is
> no lower limit on the amount of time that can exist, then every
> particle in the universe ought to tunnel into miniature black holes...
>
> How much energy could a proton gain over one Planck time from the
> uncertainty principle? How much would it need to become the universe's
> smallest black hole? Is all this even meaningful?
I assume it is the Planck Mass.
Dirk
Mike Varney
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:al0kga$1milmo$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
Your assumptions are meaningless, Djerk.
hanson
news:Lxxc9.22281$FJ1.3...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> news:3D72998B...@hate.spam.net...
> > "Walter E." wrote:
> > > stream of infinitely small packages?
> >
> > Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds.
> > [ t_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^5)]
> > Anything smaller cannot be meaningfully
> > handled by extant physical theory.
[Sid Lanier]
> I want to introduce another, sometimes overlooked,
> aspect of time,
> The time delay is given by t = (E*G)/c^5
> where E is the kinetic energy of the first marble at the time of the
> collision, G is Newton's gravitational constant, and c is the speed
> of light in vacuum. > Sid Lanier
[Old Man]
brings in the Planck Mass as
> M = (h_bar*c / G)^(1 / 2) = 2.2 x 10^(-8) kg. = 2.2e-5 gr
[Varney]
Mikey enters with his rather salient and heuristically correct remark
that "Planck mass is defined as around 10^(-8) kg and is not to be
confused as a quanta, but a unit."
[hanson]
... and then, in this thread, as usual the name calling began.
But I say let us have some fun instead with these units and let's play
a game with these fundamental physical constants, these light-house
beacons, these anchors or pillars of the universe, or nature if you
will, all born out of the heroic efforts of the experimentalists in
physics.
So then and therefore let's remember that Walter E. initially simply
asked: "Is time quantized, or a stream of infinitely small packages?"
Sid's attempt with t_s = (E*G)/c^5 will not produce, at first look, a
quantizied t_s because E is not defined as a quantisized participant.
If one quantifies E as E = hf and f = 1/ 2pi*t, then one gets with
E= h/2pi*t the classical t = (hbar/t *G)/c^5 =>
t^2 = hbar*G/c^5 or t = sqrt (hbar*G/c^5) = t_pl, the Plank time
mentioned by Al. --- So, Sid may be stuck with t_s = t_pl.
Then, Old Man came in to rescue the situation with
m_pl = sqrt(hbar*c/G)
but only aggravated the issue because m,t, & l connect at this Planck
unit level to each other by m_pl/t_pl = c^3/G, t_pl = l_pl/c, etc,
and hence we have a merry-go-round on Planck's carousel,
invented by Max in 1899, and hence Sid's equation would not allow an
escape into a potentially viable time quantum other than t_pl,
the Planck time unit.
In order to escape from Planck's carousel, caused by Sid's
undetermined E in his
t_s = (E*G)/c^5
formula, let us apply E to the smallest stable and manifest mass as
E = m_e*c^2, the energy equivalent of the electrons rest mass
and write
t_e = (m_e*c^2*G)/c^5) or
t_e = (m_e*G)/c^3) = 2.2E-66 sec
This t_e, which is a fixed size unit or quantum is constructed from
familiar fundamental physical constants in normal 3DT, is some 22
orders of magnitudes smaller than the Planck time unit, and doesn’t
produce negative times like
t_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^5) = +/- 5.4E-44 sec
**You** guys may go ahead now and interpret the meaning of this t_e
and DO NOT forget to call each other names. Crank the cranks who will
counter-crank the crankors who then do become the crankees themselves.
This crank ritual is of overriding importance because obviously that
alone WILL solve all problems, and to boot without the crank game
visiting this NG would be like a walk thru the grave yard.
Now, before you guys start with your fetish of cussing each other over
conjectures and believes which will bring you neither fame nor money,
let me get a bit wilder with this game of finding quantums of
quantified units for time and I’ll construct an even smaller time unit
then t_e at 2.2E-66 sec for you.
To get to an even smaller t_Min, we simply could ask:
"Wouldn't the traversing of the smallest distance, i.e. the Planck
length, l_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^3), with the maximum speed, v_Max,
yield a certain minimal time, t_ Min ?"
Barring infinities, for the maximum physically conceivable, maybe
possible, and perhaps one day observable speed we could argue, not
with Planck units, because l_pl/t_pl = c, but we need to be more
brazen and radical. Certainly, some brooding dick is now already
whining that “no speed >c is possible. Einstein said so”.
Ok, but fuck both of you…..this is a game, dick!. Especially because
of you, dick, we will now traverse the largest observable distance
(2*R_u), the diameter of the observable universe, from event horizon
to event horizon. And we do this in the shortest possible classical
time, taking us only Planck’s time quantum to do so and hence
we write
v_Max = 2 R_u/t_pl = 6.E+71 cm/sec, via
and from the cosmological 1234-skeleton
c = (G*M_u/R_u)^(1/2) = (G*M_u*H)^(1/3) = (G*M_u*br)^(1/4)
we get R_u = c/H, hence
v_Max = 2 * c/(H* t_pl)
Now, we have the length and the time required to say:
t_Min = l_pl / v_Max
t_Min = l_pl / [2 * c/(H* t_pl)]
t_Min = [l_pl * t_pl] *2 * H/c
and with (see above) t_pl = l_pl/c
t_Min = [l_pl ^2] *2 * H/c^2 or finally
t_Min = [t_pl ^2] *2 * H = 1.12E-104 sec
So, now we have chopped the time quantum evern further by another
38 magnitudes down from
t_e = (m_e*G)/c^3) = 2.2E-66 sec
or by a whopping 60 orders of magnitude down from Planck’s
t_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^5)] = +/- 5.4E-44 sec
Now, hasn't that been fun?
BTW, all that is not new. You guys in *.edu go and check into the old
dusty archives of the 1890 to 1930 period and I guarantee that you'll
find these very time units mentioned somewhere back then.
But all these and such avenues of inquiry were shelved because the
*.edu promoted relativity as the only gospel in town for the last 70
years, which the eminent Professor Carver Mead calls “the dark ages
of physics”. Well, such is the steamroller of history.
So, shall I make a grand exit now? Fuck no. I will keep cranking out
as many t_Min's for you as you wish in order to crank the shit out of
you guys.
It’s simple. You take now the smallest time we have t_Min at 1.12E-104
sec and call it humbly t_Min1. Because…. Take l_min, like l_pl, and
make l_pl/t_Min1 and construct a new larger v_Max1, which then
yields you of course an even smaller t_Min2.
Then keep continuing to crank this time-line ad infinitum……
So, have I cranked you sufficiently now, all you habitual crankors and
crankees?
Crank you, cordially,
hanson
PS: Find the proper algorithm, the reiterations for this time
fracturing and then construct a TOE based on such time-like
self-similarites.
That will crank EVERYBODY!
Sid Lanier
Would you believe that the Planck mass represents the maximum mass that an
"elementary particle" or resonance can have? As such, it would define the
interface (on a mass scale) between classical and quantum physics.
Mike Varney
Read a text.
www.google.com "how to use google"
Steve Carlip
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3D72998B...@hate.spam.net...
>> "Walter E." wrote:
>> > Is "time", as set forth in Relativity, also quantized, or is it a steady
>> > stream of infinitely small packages?
>> Planck time, 5.39056x10^(-44) seconds. Anything smaller cannot be
>> meaningfully handled by extant physical theory.
> No experimental backing for Uncle Al's "Planck time".
> The only theoretical justification comes from bastardized
> GTR, wherein a black hole with, "Planck mass",
> M = (h_bar*c / G)^(1 / 2) = 2.2 x 10^(-8) kg.
> and with diameter of, "Planck length", decays (1/e) in "Planck
> time". That "Planck mass" seems a little big for a quantum
> of mass.
You're both wrong. (Or, you're both right.)
It's certainly true that we don't have any experimental evidence
that the Planck time is the minimum time interval. It's also true
that we don't have a convincing quantum theory of gravity yet,
so a firm theoretical prediction isn't possible.
On the other hand, there are lots of ``thought experiments'' that
suggest that any reasonable quantum theory of gravity will have
a minimum time on the order of the Planck time. One nice one,
due to Baez and Olson, just appeared in Classical and Quantum
Gravity (CQG 19 (2002) L121; gr-qc/0201030).
Typical arguments show that when you try to measure a time
shorter than the Planck time, or a length shorter than the Planck
length, you end up with a measuring instrument that collapses
into a black hole before you can get an answer. There are also
some rather different arguments from string theory (where there
is typically a smallest size string with a length on the order of the
Planck length) and from loop quantum gravity (where areas, for
instance, are quantized, with the smallest value on the order of
the Planck area). It's not just numerology, and you certainly
don't need to say anything about Planck mass black holes.
Thought experiments aren't a substitute for a real theory, and a
theory isn't a substitute for experimental confirmation. Still,
though, I'd say we may be at a stage comparable to Heisenberg's
gamma ray microscope thought experiments in the 1920s---the
issue isn't at all settled, but we have some pretty good hints.
Steve Carlip
Jeremy Watts
>
> "Donald G. Shead" <u10...@snet.net> wrote in message
> news:T1xc9.52$yK1.21...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> > news:aku1uk$pj4$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> wrote:
> > > >Dumb question by a non-physicist:
> > > >
> > > >Many forms of energy come in quantums, governed by Quantum Mechanics.
> > > >
> steady
> > > >stream of infinitely small packages?
> > >
> > > Ask or search the web for SI (was'nt that 'standardization
institute'?).
> > >
> > > Relativity has been proven false, many times over in fact. The twins
> > > are a good way to start learning why it's wrong, but you can start
> > > anywhere, because everything is wrong.
> > >
> > > "time" as set forth by Relativity is a failure, see 'relativity' of
> > > A.Einstein, chapter 9, where Einstein fails to produce a correct
> argument
> > > against absolute time, although he uses his erroneous logic to rave
> > against
> > > it (against absolute time and straight space).
> > > jos
> > > (found you :)
> >
> > Time isn't incremental, but it's darned close to it!
>
> Idiot. Exactly what do you mean by "Time isn't incremental, but it's
darned
> close to it!"
> You are stupid, SHead.
he goes out of his way to deliberately confuse - this is his way of venting
anger after spending half of his life attermpting to understand basic
concepts that an average 14yr old could grasp in a few days
>
>
Peter F.
"Jeremy Watts" <jeremy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nnKd9.502$V33.67092@newsfep1-
> he goes out of his way to deliberately confuse - this is his way of
venting
> anger after spending half of his life attermpting to understand basic
> concepts that an average 14yr old could grasp in a few days
That symptom is called, "The philosopher's condition".
I have yet to see i person on the USENET who is not inEPT in one way or
another.
Say I, the least inEPT person of all.
P
tadchem
"Peter F." <fell_spa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:gibe9.2262$Sr6....@ozemail.com.au...
<snip repost>
> That symptom is called, "The philosopher's condition".
>
> I have yet to see i person on the USENET who is not inEPT in one way or
> another.
>
> Say I, the least inEPT person of all.
>
> P
One mark of superlative sarcasm is that it is often indistinguishable from
rampant stupidity, such as in Swift's essay "A Modest Proposal."
Giving you the benefit of doubt, allow me to congratulate you on your
superlative sarcasm.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO