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

[davidivad]

good point yoda

[imatfaal]

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.

 

I am pretty sure most of the posters in this thread understand the idea of quantisation. I will repeat what I and others have said above; both standard Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity rely on time being treatable as continuous - this is the opposite of quantised.

[Bignose]

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 still think you are using it as a synonym for quantified, however.

 

quantification: to determine, express, or measure the quantity of.

[davidivad]

I still think you are using it as a synonym for quantified, however.

 

quantification: to determine, express, or measure the quantity of.

i am using a literary technique to get attention.

i was taught to do this during my educational "tour".

i am ponting to a very basic concept of math.

it is incremental in nature.

to look at things this way may feel a bit uncomfortable.

but it leads to a serious implication.

whether or not we percieve something as real or quantized , we must give it units in order to do the math. this is a natural consequence.

i will answer the thread more later when i have got reenforcement.

Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

 

i am not making a statement. i am asking a question.

 

You are not asking a question. You are making a series of assertions. Most of them false or unsupported.

[davidivad]

could you do me a favor and use a different tactic for once?

perhaps this could be something that teaches everyone involved something new or interesting.

you leave the impression that this is a third world conflict or something.

i will not carry a gun or grenade for you.

sugar will get you more than salt...

Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

could you do me a favor and use a different tactic for once?

 

Daviddavid 様へ,

 

I would respectfully refer you to post 95 where I very politely and carefully ask a number of questions intended to gain a better understanding of your ideas. I would be most grateful if you could spend a little time answering those questions as I am sure I have not properly understood what you are trying to say. These two questions might be a first step towards me gaining some insight. As such, I would be immensely grateful for any clarification you feel able to offer.

 

Thank you very much in advance for your time and trouble.

 

I remain, sir, your humble and obedient servant.

[Bignose]

whether or not we percieve something as real or quantized , we must give it units in order to do the math. this is a natural consequence.

there is no argument with this.

 

The argument is with your statement here:

 

it is well known that things are quantized and happen in discrete units.

because 'things' was never defined and seemed to mean 'everything' based on your following statements.

 

and you used 'real' here:

 

i define real as measureable.

this must be calculated with math which is unitary and is solved in discrete packages.

to again support the idea that all things (as in all things that are measurable) must be quantizable.

 

Again, why I think you are mixing up quantizable and quantifiable is because if you put 'quantifiable' in the above statements, they are perfectly true. But insisting on the word 'quantized' and similar is in error here.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Bignose

[davidivad]

Strange.

thank you for the attempt.

i actually do appreciate the gesture.

your still fired...

lol

 

i will answer your questions after the holiday as i am very busy right now with visits and the likes.

just to let you know though, i understand your point that not everything is quantized. i even understand your use of it as i have passed all my classes a while ago.

the concept tends to be important.

i used this to creat a juxtaposition and thus draw attention.

it worked quite well.

this is a literary technique.

i used it to point at a rule of nature we often overlook.

we have to use numbers to do any actual calculations beyond simplification.

we have to use units of measure. the macroscopic world we inhabit is a result of interaction or "measurement."

while we can split a unit up into seemingly as many parts as we want, we still lose the ability to measure it completely with accuracy.

in other words, it can only be so useful to do so.

either way, we still have to use units of measure for the system to work.

if you cannot measure it, then you have nothing to work with.

why is this the only successful way to do math?

while one could say to use another math, they all work with numbers.

this is a consequence brought upon us by nature herself.

while what i say may seem like a farce, it is undeniable that math requires numbers to work. anything else is just formatting which is how you handle operations.

common thought might be that it is inconsequential. i say it is a result of the way nature works.

no matter how many time you divide something, you always need to assign it a value.

math must resemble the real world to calculate within it and get a result.

i mentioned GUP because it is an attempt at answering that uncomfortable question that none of us here have an answer to despite how well it has been argued on this site.

here is a pdf of a 2010 paper on GUP which is truly only in its infancy but a sign of what is to come.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.2642v2.pdf

we are obviously looking for granularity right now.

like i said, i will post a response to #95 for you after vacation.

i appreciate your effort.

i give you a point.

happy holidays all.

Edited November 26, 2014 by davidivad

[MigL]

How about we stop talking about unmeasurable things at the Planck scale.

Lets talk about things that have to be counted, like you suggest.

 

Pi is not a ratio any more than 100 cm is the ratio of a meter to a centimeter.

2PI is a count of how many radians add up to the circumference of a circle.

The units are radians. How many are there ? Can you count them for us ?

And if you can't, does that mean there cannot be radii or diameters ?

Or does this just apply to cows ?

 

Six pages of silliness and counting. I believe you've set a record.

Keep it up and you'll be mentioned by name in that thread in the Lounge subforum.

Edited November 26, 2014 by MigL

[Strange]

thank you for the attempt.

 

You're welcome. I have no idea why you find my usual style of asking questions so offensive. I assume you don't like brevity, in which case I will try to more verbose. But as a professional writer that comes very hard to me.

 

i will answer your questions after the holiday

 

Does that mean January?

 

But that's OK. I can wait. (I am highly impressed you managed to write 400 words repeating the same statements, but were unable to find time to write 3 or 4 sentences answering my questions. Nor problem, though. I am not impatient.)

[davidivad]

hmm...

my appologies.

i felt compelled to at least give you some material on GUP per your request.

i am on my phone right now so i will keep it short.

post 95

1. & 2.

"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."

 

here you are not asking a question. i assure you that i handle the math in the same way you do. i hope this statement resolves any implied question.

 

"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."

 

here is another statement posed as a question. we have already decided that yes, you can divide as many times as you want as a consequence of the math involved. i think what the deal is is that you would prefer me to say such a thing so you can beat me with it. this is not the case. no matter what, the fact that you must create units to work with is my actual destination. i use the term units loosely. please do not extend the meaning beyond the scope.

 

i feel the argument you would like to support is the continuous side of nature while i believe it is granular. we cannot prove it either way yet. your argument is that space tis not treated as granular so it must therefore be smooth. my argument is that we must still use units in the form of a number system and this requirement of math is a consequence of mother natures inner workings. even if numbers are precise locations or pointers instead of units, you must still use them in light of the unit of difference. the community is trying to solve the issue right now. this is why i brought up GUP. i left a link to the pdf of the paper as an example to show the action of the scientific community within such areas of research. as i said with the link, this is in its infancy but we realize we need an answer.

if the universe ends up continuous then i will be happy to have learned the truth.

untill then, i stick to my original post on the original topic.

the smallest unit of time is calculated with the speed of light.

this is the planck time.

it is considered by the scientific community to be the smallest amount no matter if you can divide it or not.

 

 

pi...

it is roughly 3.14 TIMES the unit used. it can be described using a fraction of 22 over 7. this fraction carries the information of 3.14 units for each unit used.

 

 

 

[swansont]

 

i am ponting to a very basic concept of math.

it is incremental in nature.

to look at things this way may feel a bit uncomfortable.

but it leads to a serious implication.

whether or not we percieve something as real or quantized , we must give it units in order to do the math. this is a natural consequence.

i will answer the thread more later when i have got reenforcement.

 

Math is replete with continuous functions. To imply it is discrete is uncomfortable to some because it's wrong.

 

i feel the argument you would like to support is the continuous side of nature while i believe it is granular. we cannot prove it either way yet. your argument is that space tis not treated as granular so it must therefore be smooth. my argument is that we must still use units in the form of a number system and this requirement of math is a consequence of mother natures inner workings.

 

If we cannot prove it either way you have no business asserting one is right. But that wasn't the only part of your argument, to which people were objecting. You claimed that quantized time was part of quantum mechanics, and you have yet to demonstrate this.

[davidivad]

yes, but you still have to use numbers to do work.

this is my point.

a function is different than a number while it may contain one.

you cannot get a numerical answer unless you have a number.

 

if i remember correctly, we had a different usage of the word.

i was using this to get attention as i said before.

 

under your definition it would be wrong. this is true.

i am not using the same definition.

Edited November 26, 2014 by davidivad

[swansont]

yes, but you still have to use numbers to do work.

this is my point.

a function is different than a number while it may contain one.

you cannot get a numerical answer unless you have a number.

 

But that was not your claim. You said math in incremental in nature. Manipulation of numbers (arithmetic) is a branch of mathematics, not the entirety of it. So even if the claim about numbers being incremental has merit, it is insufficient to support the overall claim.

 

if i remember correctly, we had a different usage of the word.

i was using this to get attention as i said before.

 

under your definition it would be wrong. this is true.

i am not using the same definition.

 

Your admission of trolling is noted for the record.

[Strange]

here you are not asking a question. i assure you that i handle the math in the same way you do. i hope this statement resolves any implied question.

 

That was a statement of my understanding of what you have said, in order to provide context for the following question (the one with a question mark at the end).

 

I am reassured that you handle the math in the same way, but that wasn't really the question.

 

we have already decided that yes, you can divide as many times as you want as a consequence of the math involved. i think what the deal is is that you would prefer me to say such a thing so you can beat me with it. this is not the case. no matter what, the fact that you must create units to work with is my actual destination. i use the term units loosely.

 

OK. This sounds quite different from what you said previously.

 

You seem now to be saying that any units (volts, metres, Planck units, etc) can be subdivided as necessary to do any measurements or calculations required.

 

Is that correct?

 

If so, then your focus on the use of units of measurement is nothing to do with quantization. The meaning of this word may be the only point of difference. You appear to be using it to mean quantification.

 

If something is quantized, then it means you cannot divide it into parts. So photons are quantized, energy levels of electrons in an atom are quantized, electrons are quantized.

 

But, as far as we know, length, time and voltage are not quantised. We measure them in appropriate units (whether metres, seconds, volts or Planck units) but any of those units can be subdivided as necessary in order to measure smaller quantities.

 

Can we agree on that?

 

 

your argument is that space tis not treated as granular so it must therefore be smooth. my argument is that we must still use units in the form of a number system and this requirement of math is a consequence of mother natures inner workings.

 

You seem to confusing maths and numbers. Maths, especially the mathematics of GR is not just continuous because we think space might be continuous, the mathematics of GR must be smooth and continuous or it doesn't work. The fact that it does work as well as it does, suggests it is an accurate description of the nature of space and time (i.e. smooth and continuous).

 

 

the smallest unit of time is calculated with the speed of light.

this is the planck time.

 

So, after appearing to agree, maybe we don't after all.

 

There is no evidence that this is the smallest unit of time. You could choose a different units that was smaller. You can subdivide the units of Planck time.

 

 

it is considered by the scientific community to be the smallest amount no matter if you can divide it or not.

 

If you can divide it, I don't understand in what sense it is the smallest unit. The milliplanck is smaller (even if not widely used).

 

 

pi...

it is roughly 3.14 TIMES the unit used. it can be described using a fraction of 22 over 7. this fraction carries the information of 3.14 units for each unit used.

 

It can be approximated, not described, by 22/7. It cannot be described by any fraction.

if i remember correctly, we had a different usage of the word.

i was using this to get attention as i said before.

 

under your definition it would be wrong. this is true.

i am not using the same definition.

 

I assume you are referring the word "quantized".

 

So this entire argument is due to you deliberately misusing a word to cause confusion? Well, thanks a bunch. That is most kind of you. (Where I am not using the usual definition of the word "kind".)

[ydoaPs]

i feel the argument you would like to support is the continuous side of nature while i believe it is granular. we cannot prove it either way yet.

Except, as others and myself have previously pointed out to you, we've done just that. Quantized spacetimes predict that the speed of light will be determined by its energy over cosmological scales. This prediction is well within the sensitivity of our equipment and the discrepancy between c and the predicted value has never been observed even when we were looking for it specifically. We've shown experimentally that spacetime is continuous.

 

we must still use units in the form of a number system and this requirement of math is a consequence of mother natures inner workings.

And that in no way implies anything is quantized.

 

the smallest unit of time is calculated with the speed of light.

this is the planck time. it is considered by the scientific community to be the smallest amount no matter if you can divide it or not.

This is not true. You've been given an example and made a point to say that you saw it. So, now you're just saying things you know aren't true. That's called 'lying'.

[davidivad]

ok, i have given my use of the term and you guys refuse its use and declare a different definition for it.

i realize that standard use of the word is dfferent and that i cannot argue my point due to this.

therefore i am dropping the issue due to my improper use of the term.

 

here is my mistake...

 

1. Vocabulary

Crackpots misuse terminology, especially terms like theory, or dogma. You don't want to be the one who proclaims "it's only a theory" or "you're being dogmatic" and make it clear you don't know the definitions of the words. Unless your posts actually get redacted, don't claim "censorship," either, unless you want peoples' irony meters to explode. You also don't want to get caught making up new jargon, especially not terms you've named after yourself.

 

i redact my arguments due to word usage error.

after a further study to find proof of granularity i discovered an article that i feel is important to this topic. as a person who loves good science, i cannot, in good consciousness, consider granularity of spacetime.

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-spacetime-smoother-brew-knew.html

here is an article that explains results of scattering of photons.

it goes as such:

if spacetime is granular, then certain photons of a particular length should show scattering due to interactions at the planck scale.

this should be measureable at distance.

it is not.

i have qustion still about whether spacetime is a real strucure or an image cast from the quantum realm but that deserves a different thread.

i appreciate the candor of most of the responses and the considerations that took place which were an honest effort to help.

i appreciate that effort and can in only in good effort accept current views on the topic.

thanks guys.

 

for anyone curios about the appoach i was looking at, here is a wiki article that expains the approach i was planning to take.

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

Edited November 27, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

Thanks for your polite conclusion to the discussion.

 

for anyone curios about the appoach i was looking at, here is a wiki article that expains the approach i was planning to take.

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

 

Well, yes. We knew that! The problem was not with the idea (it seems likely that a successful theory of quantum gravity will require space-time to be quantised; or at least, for continuous space-time to be emergent from some underlying quantised structure).

[davidivad]

well, hopefully others will see this and realize that there are rules for a reason.

once i saw that everyone was saying the same thing i had to put down my ego and face what i had done.

i was not observing the rules of the forum as much as i hate to say it (not purposely).

note to all.

what is science without a submission?

yup, theres the prob.

good to read, bad for science.

[MigL]

Your assertions may not be required or provable with current accepted theory, yet you may get the last laugh.

LQG certainly considers space at the Planck level 'granular', or a 'fabric' of interlocking loops.

And the reference to Witten and string theory/non-commutative geometry in your Wiki link suggests string/M theory may have a degree of quantization also.

 

I look foreward to the day when I offer you my apologies.

[JustinW]

the unit of measure for time is relative to each participant in that it is measured by a constant shared by each viewer equally. i reject the idea of those who view time as a physical entity that turns the hands of the clock or has any bearing on reality other than human social organization.

[ajb]

i reject the idea of those who view time as a physical entity that turns the hands of the clock or has any bearing on reality other than human social organization.

Maybe we should think of time as a useful mathematical concept in physics that allows us to model reality and agree on when to have lunch.

[MigL]

Is it lunch time already ?

[hoola]

it would seem that the smallest fundamental increment of time in the physical universe is the flux frequency/sec. of a virtual particle as it appears and then annialates. So, time informationaly dependent on the harmonic oscillators at each point of space, whirling chunks of PI. I see the particle fluxing delivering the dark energy on the macro scale...

Edited December 14, 2014 by hoola