Re: Some astro questions
- From: "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:33:59 -0500
"Lefty" <Ye@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:YI-dncfJ8exEGfreRVn-rA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[snip]
> >
> > The estimated age of my cat is 1800 days. This does not mean that
> > time is discrete and comes in units of days.
>
>
>
> No problem - then what about this interesting quote ?
>
> "When the universe was created, it was already 10^(-43) seconds old"
>
> This implies that time is graduated, and that the 1st graduation of time saw
> the very first instant of the big bang, 10^(-43) seconds after t_0.
>
> Otherwise, time is continuous and smaller chunks of time really do exist
> somehow. I think that we've arrived at a pivotal point in the argument. How
> do you explain that ?'
I'd say, consider the source and the intent of the writer. A
Wikipedia is no where near the last word on any subject. Can
you find a refereed paper that makes the same claim in that
form?
[snip]
> >
> > Crap. Just because things behave differently at small scales
> > and our models for larger scales break down, it does not mean
> > that things disappear or become unobservable, or become mystical,
> > or any other such thing. We just need a better model.
>
>
> There's nothing mystical about it. I did'nt invoke God. I invoked a
> triviality, which is very simple, that anything which exists for only zero
> seconds does not really exist. Alternatively, anything can be said to exist
> for zero seconds. It sounds stupid but it's true.
Now you're playing with zero in order to throw up a smoke screen.
No said anything about anything existing for zero seconds.
[snip]
>
> We're going in circles. How can you have a continuous coordinate system when
> there are smallest units of length and time ? There's only one way -
> relativity is incomplete, and relativity could make such a thing happen.
Just because what is being measured in some partucilar circumstance
is discrete does not mean that your ruler has to be calibrated in
only full centimeters. For example, if you measure the spectrum
of a light source you note its discrete structure (as it is produced
by quantum activities). Yet the source can be in relative motion
to the observer and produce a similar spectrum anywhere along the
continuum depending upon the relative motion.
>
> The problem is cultural, that there is no way you'll ever get scientists to
> agree that there is such a thing as a tangible nonexistence because it
> sounds too much like spooky ghosts and ESP stuff - and I personally dont
> believe all that goblin stuff, but it seems to drift in that direction and
> so no scientist wants to go near it.
I don't think it's prudent to declare that things cease
to exist beyond micro or macro limits simply because the
nature of the governing laws change from what we know and
are familiar with.
Tangible nonexistence is an oxymoron. Science will be most
eager to study *anything* that can be detected and measured,
particularly things that would seem to vanish with all trace
while you're looking at them.
.
- References:
- Re: Some astro questions
- From: Greg Neill
- Re: Some astro questions
- Prev by Date: Re: Probability of the universe
- Next by Date: Re: They're vectors, but they're not Cartesian.
- Previous by thread: Re: Some astro questions
- Next by thread: Re: Some astro questions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|