The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Is there a minimum-sized unit of time?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Is there a minimum-sized unit of time?

  • 41 Replies
  • 31598 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LeeE

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3382
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • Spatial
Is there a minimum-sized unit of time?
« Reply #40 on: 26/03/2010 15:05:57 »
Hmm... yup, it's definitely not the best of explanations.

When I get around to writing it up I'll post a link to it.
Logged
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!
 



Offline Geezer

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 8314
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • "Vive la résistance!"
Is there a minimum-sized unit of time?
« Reply #41 on: 26/03/2010 22:13:32 »
Quote from: LeeE on 26/03/2010 01:57:54
No, I don't think it's gibberish, but at the same time, I don't think it's possible to say that it's definitely one or the other.  It seems to me, to be both (or either), depending upon your own properties i.e. how you look at it, and where you look at it from.

Imagine that I give you an apple, and then another apple.  Before I gave you any apples you had no apples, and after I gave you one apple you had one apple, and then when I gave you the second apple you had two apples.  At no point though, did you ever have a fraction of an apple; you either had no apples, one apple, or two apples.

So you are now holding an apple in each of your hands, and then you drop one.  Under the force of gravity, the apple starts to accelerate down towards the Earth and will continue to do so until it finally hits the ground, bounces and stops.  It was stationary, while you were holding it, as is the apple still clasped in your other hand, but the dropped apple, now it has left your hand is now moving.  Moreover, it is moving at a constantly changing speed, momentarily traveling at every possible speed in the infinite range of possible speeds between zero, whilst you were still holding it, and whatever speed it achieves before it hits the ground.

So, you receive the apples, when I give them to you, in discrete steps, but when you drop them they move smoothly and continuously.

Coming back to movement through space and time, we've seen that the dropped apple does not appear to move in discrete steps but moves smoothly and continuously while it accelerates.  However light, as far as we can tell, does not seem to accelerate but immediately starts moving at 'c' and this is analogous to me giving you apples, one apple at a time.  Note that it's not the speed with which I give you the apples that I'm referring to here but the number of apples you end up holding; you start with none, but then have 1, 2, 3, 4... and so on...  But there is only ever one apple difference between the number of apples I've given you; you never have half an apple and so there is no acceleration or change in that rate.

Hmm... probably not the best of explanations, but it is a bit late here, and I have had a bit to drink.  There's also a more explicit and specific explanation of the possible whys and wherefores but it would be a bit too lengthy for a forum reply.  I hope though, that you might be able to see how what may seem to be two mutually exclusive phenomena/explanations/reasons can actually, and indeed need to, co-exist.

LOL! I really enjoyed it though. It reminded of a Tommy Cooper act.

Logged
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.329 seconds with 27 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.