Re: How many things can happen in a single instant?

From: Mike Helland (mobydikc_at_gmail.com)
Date: 12/25/04 

Date: 25 Dec 2004 02:35:41 -0800

jgreen@seol.net.au wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:
> > This seems to be a standard assumption people have:
> >
> > "If time did not exist, no event occurred."
>
> >
> > As you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I
> would
> > say:
> >
> > "If no event occured, time does not exist."
> >
> > So time is not a medium for change. It is not a continuum, and its
> not
> > even really a dimension. It is the analysis that something has
> changed.
> > It exists in the subjective conscious experience of an observer.
This
> > is consistent with special relativity's definition that "time is
what
> a
> > clock measures", with the implications of quantum mechanics and
> string
> > theory, and with what recent developments in the field have
> suggested.
> >
> > In other words, time is not a prerequisite for something happening,
> it
> > is a result of something happening.
> >
> > There's an easy way to wrap your head around this.
> >
> > Let's take the following situation with bleacher seats. Imagine you
> > have a stadium, and there are four people (A1-A4) sitting in a
single
> > row:
> >
> > ___A1_A2_A3_A4
> >
> > And in the next row, are four more people (B1-B4), but sitting one
> seat
> > to the left, so we have:
> >
> > ___A1_A2_A3_A4
> > B1_B2_B3_B4
> >
> > Finally, there is a third row, and those people (C1-C4) are sitting
> one
> > seat to the right of the original row. This is our picture:
> >
> > ___A1_A2_A3_A4
> > B1_B2_B3_B4
> > ______C1_C2_C3_C4
> >
> > We now make the following rules:
> >
> > 1. Consider that movement and time in the stadium is discrete
> >
> > We know that from quantum mechanics and Planck's Constant, such a
> > suggestion might actually apply to nature
> >
> > 2. Since time is discrete, consider that the smallest, indivisible
> > interval of time is the time it takes to move one seat, and this
> > interval is called an instant
> >
> > Ok. Now, in our picture, our row B will move one seat to the right,
> and
> > C one seat to the left, so that after an instant we have:
> >
> > ___A1_A2_A3_A4
> > ___B1_B2_B3_B4
> > ___C1_C2_C3_C4
> >
> > In this instant of time, if we were sitting in row A, you would
have
> > seen row B and row C move one seat. Which makes sense, because our
> > rules say that in one instant, the smallest indivisible interval of
> > time, only movement from one seat to the next will occur.
> >
> > But what if you were sitting in row B? You would have seen row A
move
> a
> > single seat, but row C would have moved 2 seats! How can, in the
> > smallest indivisible interval of time where only movement by one
seat
> > is possible, can this be true? And doesn't that mean that if the
> > smallest indivisible unit of time corresponds to the movement of
one
> > seat, that by moving two seats, we've actually managed to divide
the
> > indivisible unit of time?
> >
> > There is an assumption here that all eight seats (four from row B,
> and
> > four from row C) can move in a single instant. The assumption is
> > multiple things may happen in a single instant.
> >
> > What if that assumption is not correct? In fact, let us assume it
is
> > wrong.
> >
> > Remember what I said at the top about time?
> >
> > If something moves, there is time. Not the other way around.
> >
> > That means that when a single seat moves in its smallest allowed
> > motion, there is an instant of time. In our example eight seats are
> > moving, so, based on this new view of time, there should be eight
> > instants, not just one, which was the previous assumption.
> >
> > Therefore, the rules are not violated, since the seats would look
> like
> > this after one instant:
> >
> > ___A1_A2_A3_A4
> > B1_B2_B3____B4
> > ______C1_C2_C3_C4
> >
> > and this after two:
> >
> > ___A1_A2_A3_A4
> > B1_B2_B3____B4
> > ___C1____C2_C3_C4
> >
> > If you follow this scheme, you will never observe a seat moving
more
> > than one seat away from you in a single instant, even when relative
> > motion is involved.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Right now our leading theory of mechanics is Relativistic Quantum
> Field
> > Theory. A brief history of the idea is that we found Newtonian
> > mechanics, we updated Newtonian mechanics and made it special
> > relativity. Then we found quantum mechanics, something totally
> > different from Newtonian mechanics. Making a field theory out of QM
> > gave us QFT. And finally we combobulated special relativity, which
is
> > an evolution of Newtonian mehanics, with QFT as an afterthought.
> >
> > I suggest that the reason this path to a theory of everything has
> > failed is because we made QFT relativistic by pairing it with old
and
> > incompatible Newtonian mechanics.
> >
> > What I've described in this post is the foundations for a brand new
> > version of mechanics well suited for quantum phenomena that
> implicitly
> > contains the effects of special relativity, eliminating the need to
> > force QM and the old Newtonian mechanics into the same hole, and
> taking
> > a new path to a theory of everything. We also avoid postulating
into
> > existence a speed limit, something that might come in handy since
> > Newtonian mechanics and general relativity assume that changes to
the
> > force of gravity are propogated throughout space-time much faster
> than
> > the speed of light, making it difficult to find a workable theory
of
> > quantum gravity with a graviton that may only move at c.
> >
> > I've done this by asking a simple question "what can happen in an
> > instant?"
> >
> > By the way, this puzzle is Zeno's fourth puzzle on time and motion.
> In
> > 2500 years it seems that no one has questioned the assumption that
> > "many things can happen in one instant of time." By questioning
that
> > assumption, and postulating the antithesis, we have an extremely
> > elegant solution, and an interpretation of mechanics that
implicitly
> > contains the effects of special relativity.
> >
> > If you disagree with me, you are essentially saying that "more than
> one
> > thing may happen in one instant of time."
> >
> > I see no reason to accept that as a fact (nor, as a consequence,
any
> of
> > the physics that is built on that assumption).
> >
> > That leaves me with one question:
> >
> > Why do you accept the fact that many things may occur in a single
> > instant?
> >
> > --
> > http://www.techmocracy.net
>
> "Nothing" happens in a "single instant".
> An "instant" is a marker in time, so DURATION occurs BETWEEN
> "instants".

Fine, from one instant to the next.

If you review how the word instant was defined in the system, you'll
see that is cleary what is meant:

> 1. Consider that movement and time in the stadium is discrete

> 2. Since time is discrete, consider that the smallest, indivisible
> interval of time is the time it takes to move one seat, and this
> interval is called an instant