-Prof Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Chad Baker <chadb@photodisc.com>
To: 'Professor Tim' <proftim@speakeasy.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 9:08 AM
Subject: RE: virus: v
>Another, somewhat iconoclastic perspective on this question comes from
>William G. Tifft, a professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona:
>
>"There are several ways to answer this question. 1) There is no conclusive
>evidence that time is quantized, but 2) certain theoretical studies suggest
>that in order to unify general relativity (gravitation) with the theories
of
>quantum physics that describe fundamental particles and forces, it may be
>necessary to quantize space and perhaps time as well. Time is always a
>1-dimensional quantity in this case. 3) My own work, which combines new
>theoretical ideas with observations of the properties of galaxies,
>fundamental particles and forces, does suggest that in a certain sense time
>may indeed be quantized. To see this we need some background information;
in
>this scenario, time is no longer 1-dimensional!
>
>"My colleagues and I have observed that the 'redshifts' of galaxies seems
to
>be quantized. The redshift is the apparent shift in the frequency of light
>from distant galaxies. This shift is toward the red end of the spectrum and
>its magnitude increases with distance. If redshifts were due to a simple
>stretching of light caused by the expansion of the universe, as is
generally
>assumed, then they should take on a smooth distribution of values. In fact,
>I find that redshifts appear to take on discrete values, something that is
>not possible if they are simply due to the cosmic expansion. This finding
>suggests that there is something very fundamental about space and time
which
>we have not yet discovered.
>
>"The redshifted light we observe is consists of photons, discrete
>'particles' of light energy. The energy of a photon is the product of a
>physical constant (Planck's constant) times the frequency of the light.
>Frequency is defined as the reciprocal of time, so if only certain
redshifts
>are possible, then only certain energies are present, and hence only
certain
>frequencies (or, equivalently, time intervals) are allowed. To the extent
>that redshifts of galaxies relate to the structure of time, then, it
>suggests an underlying quantization.
>
>"In our newest theoretical models we have learned to predict the energies
>involved. We find that the times involved are always certain special
>multiples of the 'Planck time,' the shortest time interval consistent with
>modern physical theories. The model we are working with not only predicts
>redshifts but also permits a calculation of the mass energies of the basic
>fundamental particles and of the properties of the fundamental forces. The
>model implies that time, like space seems to be three dimensional. We now
>think that three-dimensional time may be the fundamental matrix of the
>universe. In this view, fundamental particles and objects--up to the scale
>of whole galaxies--can be represented as discrete quantized structures of
>3-d time embedded within a general matrix of 3-D time. The structures seem
>to be spraying radially outward from an origin point (time = 0): a big-bang
>in 3-D time. Any given chunk, say our galaxy, is flowing outward in 3-D
time
>along its own 1-dimensional track, a 1-D timeline. Inside our (quantized)
>chunk we sense only ordinary 3-D space, and the single 1-dimension time
flow
>of our chunk of 3-D time.
>
>"Now we can finally attempt to answer the original question, whether time
is
>quantized. The flow of time that you sense corresponds to the flow of our
>chunk of 3-D time through the general matrix of 3-D time. This time is
>probably not quantized. Both ordinary space and ordinary 'operational' time
>can be continuous. On the other hand, the structure of the time intervals
>(frequencies and energies) that make up the 3-D chunks of time which we
call
>galaxies (or fundamental particles) does appear to be quantized in units
>connected to the Planck scale. In the 3-D time model, space is a local
>entity. Galaxies are separated in 3-D time, which we have misinterpreted as
>separation in space.
>
>"What matters in 3-D time is the time intervals needed to send signals
>between galaxies; separation of galaxies in time, not space, is
fundamental.
>The general matrix of 3-D time appears to contain discrete 'particles' of
>3-D 'time.' These particles are the galaxies. When photons travel between
>galaxies, the result is a quantized structure that we see as quantized
>redshifts. When photons travel within a single 3-D temporal structure, we
>see only ordinary 3-D spatial dynamics and continuous flowing time. Believe
>it or not, it seems that we can have it both ways--the underlying structure
>of time can be 3-D and quantized, but structures in time can flow
>continuously."
>
>> ----------
>> From: Tim Rhodes[SMTP:proftim@speakeasy.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 3:49 AM
>> To: Chad Baker; Stacey Lester
>> Subject: Fw: virus: v
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Plante <danp@CS347838-A.gvcl1.bc.wave.home.com>
>> To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
>> Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 4:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: virus: v
>>
>>
>> >
>> >At 12:18 PM 5/24/98 -0700, Tracy Yucikas wrote:
>> >
>> >>if the time for each
>> >>infinitesimal is epsilon(>0) seconds,
>> >
>> >Remember your supposition. There are (by definition), an /infinite/
>> >number of infiniitesimals (arbitrarily identifiable points) along
>> >the path. If "epsilon" (I believe you meant small-"tau", but let's
>> >drop the jargon) is some finite amount of time, however minute, then
>> >you have an infinite number of "non-zero units of time". That adds
>> >up to an "infinite" length of time to move the cup some arbitrary
>> >finite distance.
>> >
>> >>and distance traversed
>> >>delta inches, then see:
>> >>delta = 0.765(in/sec)*epsilon(sec).
>> >>(at constant speed)
>> >>Now see that this relation holds
>> >>for an infinite # of transits.
>> >
>> > This is what I mean about assuming we can use a mathematical
>> >tool as a /literal representation/ of objective reality.
>> >Mathematics can only be what we created it to be: an arbitrarily-
>> >ordered symbolic system to /describe/ what we have /perceived/,
>> >whether what we have perceived are phenomena around us (e.g. motion),
>> >or abstract constructs in our minds (e.g. geometry).
>> >
>> > Take the equation above. Someone (say, Newton) observes a
>> >phenomenon (constant motion, for example), and perceives a pattern
>> >in it (distance traveled bears a direct relationship with the
>> >object's speed and its travel time). So far, so good. But the
>> >conclusion, presented this way, isn't very /useful/, is it?
>> >So why don't we formalize it; make it into a tool that we can use.
>> >But how? Well, that's easy. We'll just translate this relationship
>> >using the symbology of mathematical operators already invented
>> >(equality, division, multiplication, etc.).
>> >
>> > So, the conclusion goes from the verbal representation of the
>> >logical relationship described above, to: d(m)=s(m/s)*t(s).
>> >Great! So, now we have a formal representation of objective
>> >reality......or do we?
>> >
>> > Mathematics has come a long way. It used to be nothing more
>> >than hunters counting possible prey in a herd on their fingers.
>> >This manifestation of mathematics (arithmetic) accurately
>> >represented objective reality /in that context/, because it
>> >didn't attempt to do anything more than ascribe a "whole number"
>> >to an arbitrary grouping of uniquely identifiable objects in their
>> >environment.
>> >
>> > Then the concept of real and rational numbers was invented, along
>> >with tools like number lines, and what-not. These things are useful,
>> >because they help us to /model/, and therefore predict, what
>> >happens around us. But they also do something else. They introduce
>> >the concept of factionalism, and infinity. Again, these concepts
>> >make the corresponding mathematical tools useful, in certain contexts,
>> >but (and this is the important part), they therefore imbue, as a
>> >result, the characteristics of zero and infinity into everything
>> >they are used on.
>> >
>> > No one would say that it makes sense to hunt a herd of 35.5538
>> >water buffalo, but when we are quantifying and qualifying things
>> >below the level of our immediate perception, it is easy to lose
>> >sight of the built-in assumptions that mathematical treatments
>> >bring with them. Is space quantized? We can't perceive any
>> >quantization directly. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. But as
>> >soon as you say "Space must be continuous, rather than discrete,
>> >because I can model it using real numbers on a number line.", then
>> >you've inadvertently applied to the "real world" an assumption,
>> >intrinsic to that mathematical tool, of zero and infinity. It's
>> >easy to do without even realizing it, because the inference is so
>> >automatic, so subtle.
>> >
>> >>(no paradox here)
>> >>"Infinity " may be a reality,
>> >>but it isn't a "real number".
>> >
>> > Is space and/or time continuous or discrete? Well, before you can
>> >try to answer that logically, you have to realize that the question
>> >contains another baseless assumption. Are there any other alternatives?
>> >Maybe space is partly discrete and partly continuous, and the
>> >distribution of each is random, or maybe patterned, and we haven't
>> >measured or deduced it yet. Who's to say? It /could/ be, because it's
>> >easy to work out a logical (not mathematical) formalization that is
>> >consistent with all the known laws (and all the cutting-edge theories
>> >for that matter).
>> >
>> > But the /context/ of the current discussion is not whether those
>> >two possibilities are the only ones, just whether or not space/time
>> >is quantized, and whether or not space/time is continuous. Answering
>> >these questions does not assume there isn't any other alternative.
>> >
>> > So, then, what are the /logical/ alternatives? Well, we have space,
>> >time, quantum and continuum, that's two variables with binary values:
>> >
>> > - space is continuous and time is quantized
>> > - space is quantized and time is continuous
>> > - space is continuous and time is continuous
>> > - space is quantized and time is quantized
>> >
>> > If space is continuous and time is quantized, you have the problem
>> >where you have an infinity of uniquely identifiable positions to
>> >travel through, and a finite (non-zero) time for each transition,
>> >making any travel from A to B take forever.
>> >
>> > If space is quantized and time is continuous, you have the problem
>> >where you have an infinity of uniquely identifiable points of time
>> >between any two discrete spatial points, making any travel from A to B
>> >(indeed, any trip from one discrete spatial point to another) take
>> >forever.
>> >
>> > If space is continuous and time is continuous, you have the problem
>> >where one trip from A to B might take 7.34129... seconds, and another
>> >trip from A to B might take 2.2227714.... seconds, so you have one
>> >instance where infinity and infinitely-small work out to one value
>> >in one instance, and infinity and infinitelty-small work out to a
>> >completely different value in another instance, etc, etc. Unless the
>> >values of one or both of the infinities changes from one trip to the
>> >next, how can the trip be shorter or longer each time?
>> >
>> > However, if space is quantized and time is quantized, the trip
>> >will never take "forever", and you avoid the paradox where "infinity"
>> >has to "change its value" every trip. The difference in trip time in
>> >each case (difference in average speed) is explained as the difference
>> >in the "whole number" of space quanta transitioned per unit time, or
>> >vice-versa.
>> >
>> >>George Cantor gave his
>> >>sanity so that we could be free
>> >>from the confusion.
>> >
>> > And Jesus gave his life so we could "live" forever.
>> >Lament the tortured mind of Cantor (whoever he was),
>> >but don't let that stop you from thinking for yourself.
>> >I don't. Hell, I'm still reading over my reply, and
>> >thinking "Did I miss something? Are the conclusions
>> >logically consistent?". Oh, well. I'm sure someone will
>> >tell me if I goofed. That's how the dynamics of the memetic
>> >construct called "peer review" weeds out ideas that are
>> >inconsistent with objective reality from human discourse.
>> >
>> >>"alas poor George, we hardly knew ye."
>> >>
>> >>...home for non-verbal memes, ty
>> >
>> >Dan
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>