gib wrote:Note that the article states: "A trio of theoretical physicists at the Pennsylvania State University has calculated the upper limit for the
possible quantization of time..." <-- my emphasis on "possible". IOW, they still don't know. And neither do you.
It also talks about the conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which you supported), which requires space and time to be smooth and continuous. This tells me they still don't know which one it is. The article presents one "possible" solution to this problem but as such it is only theoretical at this time. Which again means they don't know.
Besides, I'm not even sure I understand what a quantization of time is supposed to mean? And neither do you. For instance, saying that time is made up of chunks 10^-33 seconds long, doesn't that mean that time still goes by within that 10^-33 seconds? Exactly 10^-33 seconds worth? Imagine you had a really, really, really accurate watch that could measure time down to 10^-34 seconds. It could tell you whether that 10^-33 seconds was 1 tenth up (10^-34 seconds had gone by), half over (50^-34 seconds had gone by), 90% done (only 10^-33 seconds remaining). So it's like saying: time comes in units of 1 minute. Well, 1 minute, by definition, means that 1 minute of time is going by during those units. So what would be the difference between a continuous stream of time, and a series of 1 minute consecutive chunks of time? What would be the difference between a continuous stream of time, and a series of 10^-33 second consecutive chunks of time?
JohnJBannan wrote:If time is quantized, then there would be a finite number of units of time before the creation of the universe. That means the universe began. We just don’t know the number of steps yet.
Why does the quantization of time mean there is a finite number of units? Why can't there be an infinite number of such units?
Gib,
According to wiki-
"General relativity becomes special relativity at the limit of a weak field. At very small scales, such as at the Planck length and below, ..."
What we have come to at this stage of the argument is to qualify in simplest forms of logarithmic sequencing yo transvalue quantifiable reduction into the 'singular' logic related to Leibnitz' proof, (one cosmological among the 14)-into the limit where such proof becomes imperceptible in the second theory of relativity.
What this indicates is, a need to eliminate understanding through a limitless uncertainty, again in purely logical means.
Which begs the question of logical spatial-temporal relation, as simple as that.
The implication of this was that the idea leads to the variable question of whether the relation between the first and second theories of relativity are continuous discreet, and came to Einstein' formulation that god does not play with dice.
Im
nterjection and conception are mutually.recripocative, and finally the level of uncertainty may change the character of space time . similar to the famois cat in the box uncertainty experiment.
At the point of.singularity , all logically derived uncertainty becomes absolutely certain.
This was Cantor's ultimate uncertainty , I think with interjection into sequential gaps. On my,or perhaps on our part, I am assuming it as a conjecture.
