Is time discrete? (split from time does not have a speed)

[elfmotat]

the most basic unit of time is the planck time.

...

it IS the smallest unit we have of time and is calculated with c.

 

How about half a Planck time? That's smaller.

[davidivad]

i think you break pretty much every rule in the book when it comes to effective communication strange.

just incase you ran out of fingers, lets try this one more time.

everything is quantized... i am assuming real things here as i do not include imaginary things.

if you cannot count at least to one (using discrete units), then you do not have a thing period.

this is not rocket science, it is a fact we all deal with on a daily basis.

you argued that there are several things unrelated to distance and time which is what the planck unit is for. it is the base unit.

every instace you gave is quantizable and must have a unit in which you do work.

a unit... is a volt an object? of course not! its a freakin unit of measure man...

if you cannot measure it, then you cant crunch the numbers as they would not be there without deciding what units to use.

yes, you can count between numbers. yay, i can do that too, but i recognize the fact that a value needs to have a unit of measure (a quantity) to use it.

therefore everything must be quantized into useable units.

this is what planck lenght is. the smallest unit or quantity of length.

why are you arguing this?

surely you understand what i say is obviously true.

i am not making a toe here... i am saying that you need to quantize before you can do the math.

quantize....

give it a number.

quantization is not a unicorn.

its how you start the process of counting.

Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

everything is quantized...

 

So you are going to ignore the half a pig, and a cut of beef as examples of how animals are not quantized?

 

Or, again, you are using the word "quantized" in a non-standard way.

 

i am assuming real things here as i do not include imaginary things.

 

What do you mean by "real"? Just physical objects? In which case it doesn't include length and time.

 

if you cannot count at least to one (using discrete units), then you do not have a thing period.

 

Is water real? What is "one water"?

 

you argued that there are several things unrelated to distance and time which is what the planck unit is for. it is the base unit.

 

Are distance and time "real" by your definition? Because there is no evidence that they are quantized, even at the Planck scale.

 

And what about the Planck mass? Are you saying that mass should be quantized in Planck units as well? Because there are many things with less mass than the Planck mass?

 

every instace you gave is quantizable and must have a unit in which you do work.

a unit... is a volt an object? of course not! its a freakin unit of measure man...

 

So you agree that voltage can be measured but is not quantised? There is a Planck voltage; so why isn't voltage quantized in Planck units as well, if you think that length and time are?

 

if you cannot measure it, then you cant crunch the numbers as they would not be there without deciding what units to use.

yes, you can count between numbers. yay, i can do that too, but i recognize the fact that a value needs to have a unit of measure (a quantity) to use it.

therefore everything must be quantized into useable units.

 

That is not what "quantized" means.

 

this is what planck lenght is. the smallest unit or quantity of length.

why are you arguing this?

 

Because it isn't true.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Strange

[davidivad]

the idea of planck time is to create units you can work with.

i would suggest using the number one as much as possible. the math is easier that way.

Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad

[elfmotat]

the idea of planck time is to create units you can work with.

i would suggest using the number one as much as possible. the math is easier that way.

 

So work in units where half a Planck time = 1.

[Strange]

i would suggest using the number one as much as possible. the math is easier that way.

 

That doesn't answer the question that half a Planck time is smaller than 1 Planck time.

[davidivad]

i would suggest smaller units that will be usefull for describing the smallest part. that is the point.

 

give yourself a hand. that is equal to one hand.

 

one water? easy... use the molecule as a unit...

 

in my opinion, distance and time are effects of interactions in the quantum world. this is not standard and can be debated clearly considering lawrence.

 

while you do not like it, my observation about quantization is literal and true. i gave my definition for it via online definition. this is my usage of the word and what i am concerned with. other use of the word does not invalidate how i used it as it is a clearly supported definition.

 

may i ask what the smallest unit is then?

Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad

[davidivad]

plank time is not measured in halves.

everyone knows that.

moved

Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad

[elfmotat]

plank time is not measured in halves.

everyone knows that.

 

That makes no sense. Planck time isn't measured at all, it is a defined unit.

[davidivad]

yes!

eureka!

you are a smart man.

Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad

[swansont]

plank time is not measured in halves.

everyone knows that.

 

That's like saying that everyone knows that meters are not measured in halves. Which is patently ridiculous. Planck time is simply a scale of convenience; it's no different than using seconds vs minutes vs hours. Of course you can divide it in half.

[davidivad]

i have never seen someone use half a planck time.

why?

its already small enough.

just being curious what is half a planck time?

i imagine putting a one half in front of the h would do the trick...

plank units are what is used. this was my point in the other section.

you can divide the number of course, but it is still the base unit used.

Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

i have never seen someone use half a planck time.

why?

its already small enough.

just being curious what is half a planck time?

i imagine putting a one half in front of the h would do the trick...

plank units are what is used. this was my point in the other section.

you can divide the number of course, but it is still the base unit used.

 

Why are Planck units different from metres, seconds, volts, newtons or any other unit?

[davidivad]

they all measure different things.

[swansont]

you can divide the number of course, but it is still the base unit used.

 

 

Yes, precisely. It's a base unit. You can modify it all you want to describe a length of time. Its existence carries no implication that time is discrete.

[Strange]

they all measure different things.

 

Yes, but you are treating them differently by saying that metres and volts can be subdivided but Planck units can't.

 

Why is that?

 

And do you claim that only Planck length and Planck time cannot be subdivided?

 

Why isn't that true for Planck mass or Planck voltage?

 

As well as being wrong, you are being inconsistent.

[ajb]

therefore everything must be quantized into useable units.

Picking sensible units does not by itself mean we have quantised anything.

 

I may decide to measure a length using meters, but that does not mean that every length comes in discrete lumps.

 

this is what planck lenght is. the smallest unit or quantity of length.

The standard interpretation is that a Planck length is the smallest measurement of length that we could possibly make in principle. It is a slight jump to the statement that space-time is quantised, but this is often how it is interpreted; space-time will come in lumps of fuzzy Planck-cells.

 

The Planck scale really gives you a scale for which we cannot ignore the quantum effects of gravity. However, as we don't have a fully working model here it is hard to be much more specific. However, I don't think that it is automatic that the Planck scale necessarily means quantisation of time and space as we know it.

[davidivad]

 

Yes, but you are treating them differently by saying that metres and volts can be subdivided but Planck units can't.

 

Why is that?

 

And do you claim that only Planck length and Planck time cannot be subdivided?

 

Why isn't that true for Planck mass or Planck voltage?

 

As well as being wrong, you are being inconsistent.

 

i really am having a hard time with your tone and antics.

perhaps if you had a better attitude we could get somewhere.

you can clearly cut a finger and get two halves.

i will not deny you this so long as you realize a finger is a finger.

we can beat around the bush all day about this.

everything comes in countable units.

you cannot change this fact.

if you cannot count at least to one, then you have nothing.

the fact is you have to use a number system to do any work at all.

perhaps a quick look at GUP or another similar theory may enlighten you on my perspective.

maybe seeing that there are more people out there in the community that feel this way will encourage you to ask questions in a way that is not quite as offensive.

im sure it is clear to some that i understand the concepts you are stating.

im also pretty sure there are no 76% hydrogen atoms or 28% electrons.

half the planck length is still half of a whole unit.

and no there is nothing smaller at that scale.

it is the smallest unit.

count to one. that is the smallest unit.

right now, we cannot prove or disprove granularity.

i choose granularity over a continuous bottomless pit.

it makes more sense to me.

if you would like to better understand my points, a look at GUP and the likes will give a slight hint.

these are newer papers that try to tackle some of our current issues.

are they correct, who knows? but the fact that it is getting attention should get yours at least momentarily.

this is because we really do not know if it is the bottom or not.

nobody has a real answer.

either one could be right.

 

as it stands...

light's constant is used to measure the planck time.

the planck time is the smallest unit of time.

Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad

[ajb]

half the planck length is still half of a whole unit.

and no there is nothing smaller at that scale.

it is the smallest unit.

It is a convenient unit of length for certain things. There is no reason fundamentally why we could not use any fraction or multiple of a Planck length as a new unit of length. Your objection to this is that space-time is quantised into Planck-cells? If so this is another separate issue.

 

If your objection is that we cannot in principal measure anything smaller than the Planck length, then again this is really a separate issue to the quantisation.

 

 

count to one. that is the smallest unit.

But this is not true. Again in the standard topology there are many numbers in between any two given numbers. If you are talking about positive integers only, then okay.

[Strange]

encourage you to ask questions in a way that is not quite as offensive.

 

I'm not sure why you think the questions are offensive. Let me try and rephrase them in a way that is more acceptable.

 

1. You appear to treat Planck units differently from other units when you say that metres and volts can be subdivided but Planck units can't.

 

Would it be possible for you to explain why you think that Planck units are different from other units in that respect?

 

2. And, unless I have misunderstood you, you also appear to say that only Planck length and Planck time cannot be subdivided, while other Planck units (e.g. Planck mass or Planck voltage) can be.

 

Would you be able to explain in a little more detail why some Planck units can be subdivided but others cannot?

 

Is that any better? I am simply trying to understand why you are stating the opinions you do.

 

perhaps a quick look at GUP or another similar theory may enlighten you on my perspective.

 

I'm afraid I don't know what GUP is. Could you explain.

 

Gup or GUP may refer to:

• Gup, Pakistan, village in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan
• Geup, Korean term of rank
• Gup (village chief), headman of a gewog in Bhutan
• Grace Under Pressure, the tenth studio album by progressive rock band Rush
• Girls und Panzer, anime by studio Actas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gup

 

 

it makes more sense to me.

...

either one could be right.

 

That is fine; you are of course entitled to your opinion. But I think you should refrain from stating them as facts, until there is some evidence to support them.

 

For example:

 

the planck time is the smallest unit of time.

 

There is no evidence for that. We could define a new unit, the nanoplanck which is 1 billionth of the Planck time. If we do that, would you say that was the smallest unit of time instead?

[swansont]

 

i really am having a hard time with your tone and antics.

perhaps if you had a better attitude we could get somewhere.

you can clearly cut a finger and get two halves.

i will not deny you this so long as you realize a finger is a finger.

we can beat around the bush all day about this.

everything comes in countable units.

you cannot change this fact.

if you cannot count at least to one, then you have nothing.

the fact is you have to use a number system to do any work at all.

perhaps a quick look at GUP or another similar theory may enlighten you on my perspective.

maybe seeing that there are more people out there in the community that feel this way will encourage you to ask questions in a way that is not quite as offensive.

im sure it is clear to some that i understand the concepts you are stating.

im also pretty sure there are no 76% hydrogen atoms or 28% electrons.

half the planck length is still half of a whole unit.

and no there is nothing smaller at that scale.

it is the smallest unit.

count to one. that is the smallest unit.

right now, we cannot prove or disprove granularity.

i choose granularity over a continuous bottomless pit.

it makes more sense to me.

if you would like to better understand my points, a look at GUP and the likes will give a slight hint.

these are newer papers that try to tackle some of our current issues.

are they correct, who knows? but the fact that it is getting attention should get yours at least momentarily.

this is because we really do not know if it is the bottom or not.

nobody has a real answer.

either one could be right.

 

as it stands...

light's constant is used to measure the planck time.

the planck time is the smallest unit of time.

 

An electron or hydrogen atom is a physical object. A unit is not. You can't treat them the same.

 

You can't just assert that a planck unit implies quantization, especially at the size of the unit. It clearly does not — the planck energy is around 10²² eV, which is 22 orders of magnitude above the quantization we see in atoms. The planck mass is similarly larger in comparison to fundamental particle masses — it's around 10¹⁹ GeV/c², so it's also 22 orders of magnitude larger than the mass of an electron. Obviously not the size of any quantization of either. Baldly asserting that time is quantized simply because the unit exists is an empty argument, as is "it makes sense to me", and blaming others for calling you on it is bogus.

[davidivad]

Quantization is the procedure of constraining something from a continuous set of values (such as the real numbers) to a relatively small discrete set (such as the integers).

this is my usage.

i hope that helps you see where i am coming from.

other than that you can argue amongst yourselves.

i wont feed the flames.

Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad

[ajb]

Quantization is the procedure of constraining something from a continuous set of values (such as the real numbers) to a relatively small discrete set (such as the integers).

this is my usage.

That is fine, but again quite separate from the units that you decide to employ.

[Strange]

i hope that helps you see where i am coming from.

 

It has always been pretty clear.

 

other than that you can argue amongst yourselves.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing, other than pointing out your errors.

 

i wont feed the flames

 

There are no flames, just an attempt to discuss your claims. But you won't answer questions. And you won't even attempt to address the many ways in which you have been shown to be wrong.

 

Why is that?

[ydoaPs]

i have never seen someone use half a planck time.

Well, the plank time is the time it takes for a photon to cross a plank length. In string theory, there is a relationship between the plank length and the length of a string. The plank length is equal to the fourth root of the coupling constant times the string length: l_p=g^1/4_sl_s. This means that strongly coupled strings are smaller than the plank length. Thus, the time it takes for a photon to cross that string is less than the plank time. So, if we have a coupling constant of 16, then the time it takes a photon to cross the string is half a plank time.

 

Congratulations, you've seen someone use half a plank time.