Time, Mechanics and Zeno Undergo Revision (Forwarded)
Andrew Yee
Peter Lynds
0064 04 2338 164, Peter...@xtra.co.nz
Brooke Jones, Independent Communications Consultant
Wellington, New Zealand
Brooke...@australia.edu
Embargo: July 31, 2003, 07:00 EDT
Time, Mechanics and Zeno Undergo Revision
By Brooke Jones
A bold paper which has highly impressed some of the world's top physicists and
been published in the August issue of Foundations of Physics Letters <
http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0894-9875/current >, seems set to change the
way we think about the nature of time and its relationship to motion and
classical and quantum mechanics. Much to the science world's astonishment, the
work also appears to provide solutions to Zeno of Elea's famous motion
paradoxes, almost 2500 years after they were originally conceived by the ancient
Greek philosopher. In doing so, its unlikely author who originally attended
university for just 6 months, is drawing comparisons to Albert Einstein and
beginning to field incredulous 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.
In the paper, "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs.
Discontinuity", Peter Lynds, a 27 year old broadcasting school tutor from
Wellington, New Zealand, establishes that there is a necessary trade off of all
precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through
time, and in doing so, appears to throw age old assumptions about determined
instantaneous physical magnitude and time on their heads. A number of other
outstanding issues to do with time in physics are also addressed, including
cosmology and an argument against the theory of imaginary time by British
theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.
"Author's work resembles Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity", said a
referee of the paper, while Andrei Khrennikov, Prof. of Applied Mathematics at
Växjö University in Sweden and Director of ICMM, said, "I find this paper very
interesting and important to clarify some fundamental aspects of classical and
quantum physical formalisms. I think that the author of the paper did a very
important investigation of the role of continuity of time in the standard
physical models of dynamical processes." He then invited Lynds to take part in
an international conference on the foundations of quantum theory in Sweden.
Another impressed with the work is Princeton physics great, and collaborator of
both Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, John Wheeler, who said he admired
Lynds' "boldness", while noting that it had often been individuals Lynds' age
that "had pushed the frontiers of physics forward in the past."
In contrast, an earlier referee had a different opinion of the controversial
paper. "I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author's
arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis
and calculus. I'm afraid I am unwilling to waste any time reading further, and
recommend terminal rejection."
Lynds' solution to the Achilles and the tortoise paradox, submitted to
Philosophy of Science, helped explain the work. A tortoise challenges Achilles,
the swift Greek warrior, to a race, gets a 10m head start, and says Achilles can
never pass him. When Achilles has run 10m, the tortoise has moved a further
metre. When Achilles has covered that metre, the tortoise has moved 10cm ... and
so on. It is impossible for Achilles to pass him. The paradox is that in
reality, Achilles would easily do so. A similar paradox, called the Dichotomy,
stipulates that you can never reach your goal, as in order to get there, you
must firstly travel half of the distance. But once you've done that, you must
still traverse half the remaining distance, and half again, and so on. What's
more, you can't even get started, as to travel a certain distance, you must
firstly travel half of that distance, and so on.
According to both ancient and present day physics, objects in motion have
determined relative positions. Indeed, the physics of motion from Zeno to Newton
and through to today take this assumption as given. Lynds says that the
paradoxes arose because people assumed wrongly that objects in motion had
determined positions at any instant in time, thus freezing the bodies motion
static at that instant and enabling the impossible situation of the paradoxes to
be derived. "There's no such thing as an instant in time or present moment in
nature. It's something entirely subjective that we project onto the world around
us. That is, it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness."
Rather than the historical mathematical proof provided in the 19th century of
summing an infinite series of numbers to provide a finite whole, or in the case
of another paradox called the Arrow, usually thought to be solved through
functional mathematics and Weierstrass' at-at theory, Lynds' solution to all of
the paradoxes lay in the realisation of the absence of an instant in time
underlying a body's motion and that its position was constantly changing over
time and never determined. He comments, "With some thought it should become
clear that no matter how small the time interval, or how slowly an object moves
during that interval, it is still in motion and it's position is constantly
changing, so it can't have a determined relative position at any time, whether
during a interval, however small, or at an instant. Indeed, if it did, it
couldn't be in motion."
Lynds also points out that in all cases a time value represents an interval on
time, rather than an instant. "For example, if two separate events are measured
to take place at either 1 hour or 10.00 seconds, these two values indicate the
events occurred during the time intervals of 1 and 1.99999…hours and 10.00 and
10.0099999… seconds respectively." Consequently there is no precise moment where
a moving object is at a particular point. From this he is able to produce a
fairly straightforward resolution of the Arrow paradox, and more elaborate ones
for the others based on the same reasoning. A prominent Oxford mathematician
commented, "It's as astonishing, as it is unexpected, but he's right."
On the paradoxes Lynds said, "I guess one might infer that we've been a bit slow
on the uptake, considering it's taken us so long to reach these conclusions. I
don't think that's the case though. Rather that, in respect to an instant in
time, I don't think it's surprising considering the obvious difficulty of seeing
through something that you actually see and think with. Moreover, that with his
deceivingly profound paradoxes, I think Zeno of Elea was a true visionary, and
in a sense, 2500 years ahead of his time."
According to Lynds, through the derivation of the rest of physics, the absence
of an instant in time and determined relative position, and consequently also
velocity, necessarily means the absence of all other precisely determined
physical magnitudes and values at a time, including space and time itself. He
comments, "Naturally the parameter and boundary of their respective position and
magnitude are naturally determinable up to the limits of possible measurement as
stated by the general quantum hypothesis and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
but this indeterminacy in precise value is not a consequence of quantum
uncertainty. What this illustrates is that in relation to indeterminacy in
precise physical magnitude, the micro and macroscopic are inextricably linked,
both being a part of the same parcel, rather than just a case of the former
underlying and contributing to the latter."
Addressing the age old question of the reality of time, Lynds says the absence
of an instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process also illustrates
that there is no such thing as a physical progression or flow of time, as
without a continuous progression through definite instants over an extended
interval, there can be no progression. "This may seem somewhat
counter-intuitive, but it's exactly what's required by nature to enable time
(relative interval as indicated by a clock), motion and the continuity of a
physical process to be possible." Intuition also seems to suggest that if there
were not a physical progression of time, the entire universe would be frozen
motionless at an instant, as though stuck on pause on a motion screen. But Lynds
points out, "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would
be a precise static instant of time -- time would be a physical quantity."
Consequently Lynds says that it's due to nature's very exclusion of a time as a
fundamental physical quantity, that time as it is measured in physics, or
relative interval, and as such, motion and physical continuity are possible in
the first instance.
On the paper's cosmology content, Lynds says that it doesn't appear necessary
for time to emerge or congeal out of the quantum foam and highly contorted
space-time geometry's present preceding Planck scale just after the big bang, as
has sometimes been hypothesized. "Continuity would be present and naturally
inherent in practically all initial quantum states and configurations, rather
than a specific few, or special one, regardless of how microscopic the scale."
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."
Consequently it's meaningless for the order of a sequence of events to be
imaginary, or at right angles, relative to another sequence of events. When
approached about Lynds' arguments against his theory, Hawking failed to respond.
When asked how he had found academia and the challenge of following his ideas
through, Lynds said it had been a struggle and that he'd sometimes found it
extremely frustrating. "The work is somewhat unlikely, and that hasn't done me
any favours. If someone has been aware of it, my seeming lack of qualification
has sometimes been a hurdle too. I think quite a few physicists and philosophers
have difficulty getting their heads around the topic of time properly as well.
I'm not a big fan of quite a few aspects of academia, but I'd like to think that
what's happened with the work is a good example of perseverance and a few other
things eventually winning through. It's reassuring to know that happens."
Lynds said he had initially had discussions with Wellington mathematical
physicist Chris Grigson. Prof. Grigson, now retired, said he remembered Lynds as
determined. "I must say I thought the idea was hard to understand. He is
theorising in an area that most people think is settled. Most people believe
there are a succession of moments and that objects in motion have determined
positions." Although Lynds remembers being frustrated with Grigson, and once
standing at a blackboard explaining how simple it was and telling him to "hurry
up and get it". Lynds says that, unlike some others, Prof. Grigson was still
encouraging and would always make time to talk to him, even taking him into the
staff cafeteria so they could continue talking physics. Like another now retired
initial contact, the Australian philosopher of science and internationally
respected authority on time, Jack Smart, who would write Lynds "long thoughtful
letters", they have since become friends, and Prof. Grigson follows Lynds'
progress with great interest. "Academia needs more Chris Grigsons and Jack
Smarts", said Lynds.
Although still controversial, judging by the response it has already received
from some of science's leading lights, Lynds' work seems likely to establish him
as a groundbreaking figure in respect to increasing our understanding of time in
physics. It also seems likely to make his surname instantly associable with
Zeno's paradoxes and their remarkably improbable solution almost 2500 years later.
Lynds' plans for the near future the publication of a paper on Zeno's paradoxes
by themselves in the journal Philosophy of Science, and a paper relating time to
consciousness. He also plans to explore his work further in connection to
quantum mechanics and is hopeful others will do the same.
Pictures are available, as are all contact details. A shorter and slightly less
technical version of the release is also available.
If there's anything else you might like, please just ask, and we'll do our best
to help.
Story pitch ideas:
* Groundbreaking work in understanding of time
* Solution to Zeno's Paradoxes
* Drop-outs unlikely triumph
A copy of the paper is available at
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=624701
"Zeno's Paradoxes: A Timely Solution" available at
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001197/
For possible further reference, two very good articles about the work have very
recently appeared in Australasian Science Magazine, and the New Zealand
newspaper, the Dominion Post. For further details, please contact Brooke Jones.