[wordup] Everything You Know is Wrong: No absolute time?

[Adam Shand]

Via: The Eristocracy <Eristocracy at merrymeet.com>
From: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php

Public release date: 31-Jul-2003
Contact: Brooke Jones <Brooke.Jones at australia.edu>
Independent Communications Consultant

Ground-breaking work in understanding of time
Mechanics, Zeno and Hawking undergo revision

A bold paper which has highly impressed some of the world's top 
physicists and been published in the August issue of Foundations of 
Physics Letters, seems set to change the way we think about the nature 
of time and its relationship to motion and classical and quantum 
mechanics. Much to the science world's astonishment, the work also 
appears to provide solutions to Zeno of Elea's famous motion paradoxes, 
almost 2500 years after they were originally conceived by the ancient 
Greek philosopher. In doing so, its unlikely author, who originally 
attended university for just 6 months, is drawing comparisons to Albert 
Einstein and beginning to field enquiries from some of the world's 
leading science media. This is contrast to being sniggered at by local 
physicists when he originally approached them with the work, and once 
aware it had been accepted for publication, one informing the journal of 
the author's lack of formal qualification in an attempt to have them 
reject it.

In the paper, "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy 
vs. Discontinuity", Peter Lynds, a 27 year old broadcasting school tutor 
from Wellington, New Zealand, establishes that there is a necessary 
trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for 
their continuity through time, and in doing so, appears to throw age old 
assumptions about determined instantaneous physical magnitude and time 
on their heads. A number of other outstanding issues to do with time in 
physics are also addressed, including cosmology and an argument against 
the theory of Imaginary time by British theoretical physicist Stephen 
Hawking.

"Author's work resembles Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity", 
said a referee of the paper, while Andrei Khrennikov, Prof. of Applied 
Mathematics at Växjö University in Sweden and Director of ICMM, said, "I 
find this paper very interesting and important to clarify some 
fundamental aspects of classical and quantum physical formalisms. I 
think that the author of the paper did a very important investigation of 
the role of continuity of time in the standard physical models of 
dynamical processes." He then invited Lynds to take part in an 
international conference on the foundations of quantum theory in Sweden.

Another impressed with the work is Princeton physics great, and 
collaborator of both Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, John Wheeler, 
who said he admired Lynds' "boldness", while noting that it had often 
been individuals Lynds' age that "had pushed the frontiers of physics 
forward in the past."

In contrast, an earlier referee had a different opinion of the 
controversial paper. "I have only read the first two sections as it is 
clear that the author's arguments are based on profound ignorance or 
misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus. I'm afraid I am 
unwilling to waste any time reading further, and recommend terminal 
rejection."

Lynds' solution to the Achilles and the tortoise paradox, submitted to 
Philosophy of Science, helped explain the work. A tortoise challenges 
Achilles, the swift Greek warrior, to a race, gets a 10m head start, and 
says Achilles can never pass him. When Achilles has run 10m, the 
tortoise has moved a further metre. When Achilles has covered that 
metre, the tortoise has moved 10cm...and so on. It is impossible for 
Achilles to pass him. The paradox is that in reality, Achilles would 
easily do so. A similar paradox, called the Dichotomy, stipulates that 
you can never reach your goal, as in order to get there, you must 
firstly travel half of the distance. But once you've done that, you must 
still traverse half the remaining distance, and half again, and so on. 
What's more, you can't even get started, as to travel a certain 
distance, you must firstly travel half of that distance, and so on.

According to both ancient and present day physics, objects in motion 
have determined relative positions. Indeed, the physics of motion from 
Zeno to Newton and through to today take this assumption as given. Lynds 
says that the paradoxes arose because people assumed wrongly that 
objects in motion had determined positions at any instant in time, thus 
freezing the bodies motion static at that instant and enabling the 
impossible situation of the paradoxes to be derived. "There's no such 
thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something 
entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is, 
it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness."

Rather than the historical mathematical proof provided in the 19th 
century of summing an infinite series of numbers to provide a finite 
whole, or in the case of another paradox called the Arrow, usually 
thought to be solved through functional mathematics and Weierstrass' 
"at-at" theory, Lynds' solution to all of the paradoxes lay in the 
realisation of the absence of an instant in time underlying a bodies 
motion and that its position was constantly changing over time and never 
determined. He comments, "With some thought it should become clear that 
no matter how small the time interval, or how slowly an object moves 
during that interval, it is still in motion and it's position is 
constantly changing, so it can't have a determined relative position at 
any time, whether during a interval, however small, or at an instant. 
Indeed, if it did, it couldn't be in motion."

Lynds also points out that in all cases a time value represents an 
interval on time, rather than an instant. "For example, if two separate 
events are measured to take place at either 1 hour or 10.00 seconds, 
these two values indicate the events occurred during the time intervals 
of 1 and 1.99999...hours and 10.00 and 10.0099999...seconds 
respectively." Consequently there is no precise moment where a moving 
object is at a particular point. From this he is able to produce a 
fairly straightforward resolution of the Arrow paradox, and more 
elaborate ones for the others based on the same reasoning. A prominent 
Oxford mathematician commented, "It's as astonishing, as it is 
unexpected, but he's right."

On the paradoxes Lynds said, "I guess one might infer that we've been a 
bit slow on the uptake, considering it's taken us so long to reach these 
conclusions. I don't think that's the case though. Rather that, in 
respect to an instant in time, I don't think it's surprising considering 
the obvious difficulty of seeing through something that you actually see 
and think with. Moreover, that with his deceivingly profound paradoxes, 
I think Zeno of Elea was a true visionary, and in a sense, 2500 years 
ahead of his time."

According to Lynds, through the derivation of the rest of physics, the 
absence of an instant in time and determined relative position, and 
consequently also velocity, necessarily means the absence of all other 
precisely determined physical magnitudes and values at a time, including 
space and time itself. He comments, "Naturally the parameter and 
boundary of their respective position and magnitude are naturally 
determinable up to the limits of possible measurement as stated by the 
general quantum hypothesis and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but 
this indeterminacy in precise value is not a consequence of quantum 
uncertainty. What this illustrates is that in relation to indeterminacy 
in precise physical magnitude, the micro and macroscopic are 
inextricably linked, both being a part of the same parcel, rather than 
just a case of the former underlying and contributing to the latter."

Addressing the age old question of the reality of time, Lynds says the 
absence of an instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process 
also illustrates that there is no such thing as a physical progression 
or flow of time, as without a continuous progression through definite 
instants over an extended interval, there can be no progression. "This 
may seem somewhat counter-intuitive, but it's exactly what's required by 
nature to enable time (relative interval as indicated by a clock), 
motion and the continuity of a physical process to be possible." 
Intuition also seems to suggest that if there were not a physical 
progression of time, the entire universe would be frozen motionless at 
an instant, as though stuck on pause on a motion screen. But Lynds 
points out, "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this 
would be a precise static instant of time - time would be a physical 
quantity." Consequently Lynds says that it's due to natures very 
exclusion of a time as a fundamental physical quantity, that time as it 
is measured in physics, or relative interval, and as such, motion and 
physical continuity are possible in the first instance.

On the paper's cosmology content, Lynds says that it doesn't appear 
necessary for time to emerge or congeal out of the quantum foam and 
highly contorted space-time geometrys present preceding Planck scale 
just after the big bang, as has sometimes been hypothesized. "Continuity 
would be present and naturally inherent in practically all initial 
quantum states and configurations, rather than a specific few, or 
special one, regardless of how microscopic the scale."

Lynds continues that the cosmological proposal of imaginary time also 
isn't compatible with a consistent physical description, both as a 
consequence of this, and secondly, "because it's the relative order of 
events that's relevant, not the direction of time itself, as time 
doesn't go in any direction." Consequently it's meaningless for the 
order of a sequence of events to be imaginary, or at right angles, 
relative to another sequence of events. When approached about Lynds' 
arguments against his theory, Hawking failed to respond.

When asked how he had found academia and the challenge of following his 
ideas through, Lynds said it had been a struggle and that he'd sometimes 
found it extremely frustrating. "The work is somewhat unlikely, and that 
hasn't done me any favours. If someone has been aware of it, my seeming 
lack of qualification has sometimes been a hurdle too. I think quite a 
few physicists and philosophers have difficulty getting their heads 
around the topic of time properly as well. I'm not a big fan of quite a 
few aspects of academia, but I'd like to think that whats happened with 
the work is a good example of perseverance and a few other things 
eventually winning through. It's reassuring to know that happens."

Lynds said he had initially had discussions with Wellington mathematical 
physicist Chris Grigson. Prof. Grigson, now retired, said he remembered 
Lynds as determined. "I must say I thought the idea was hard to 
understand. He is theorising in an area that most people think is 
settled. Most people believe there are a succession of moments and that 
objects in motion have determined positions." Although Lynds remembers 
being frustrated with Grigson, and once standing at a blackboard 
explaining how simple it was and telling him to "hurry up and get it", 
Lynds says that, unlike some others, Prof. Grigson was still encouraging 
and would always make time to talk to him, even taking him into the 
staff cafeteria so they could continue talking physics. Like another now 
retired initial contact, the Australian philosopher of Science and 
internationally respected authority on time, Jack Smart, who would write 
Lynds "long thoughtful letters", they have since become friends, and 
Prof. Grigson follows Lynds' progress with great interest. "Academia 
needs more Chris Grigsons and Jack Smarts", said Lynds.

Although still controversial, judging by the response it has already 
received from some of science's leading lights, Lynds' work seems likely 
to establish him as a groundbreaking figure in respect to increasing our 
understanding of time in physics. It also seems likely to make his 
surname instantly associable with Zeno's paradoxes and their remarkably 
improbable solution almost 2500 years later.

Lynds' plans for the near future the publication of a paper on Zeno's 
paradoxes by themselves in the journal Philosophy of Science, and a 
paper relating time to consciousness. He also plans to explore his work 
further in connection to quantum mechanics and is hopeful others will do 
the same.