5 ms·

To be fair, you keep using words like “measure” and “compare” which implies an interval or something more than space right there. Without time how can you take

To be fair, you keep using words like “measure” and “compare” which implies an interval or something more than space right there. Without time how can you take a measurement or make a comparison? If I throw a ball to you and we both nite a change in distance occurring, over what is that change occurring? It’s baked right into something as basic as the formula for velocity = d/t. Time is difficult to define without reference to space, and measurements of the evolution of a system, which may be the problem I guess? What would time be in a purely static, closed system? What would time be after the complete heat death of the universe? The article seems to suggest But as the balloon blows up, the curvature of its surface grows shallower and shallower. “The changing geometry,” explains Kucha, “allows you to see that you are at one instant of time rather than another.” In other words, it can function as a clock. Then goes on to point out that any given clock has limitations when applied to different regimes. I’m a little concerned though, because the author seems to be under the somewhat common misapprehension that the Planck scale is some kind of limit on quantization, so the whole article might be... well... not fantastic. It is theorized thst below that you might get a spacetime foam, but the truth is that may or may not be the case, and spacetime may not even be quantized. As in the case of so much regarding the base nature of spacetime, and the union of QM and GTR, we just don’t know.

nyc111 8y ago
> velocity = d/t. Thanks for the example. Here d/t is a proportionality. Or at least half of a proportionality. But the terms of a proportianality must be of the same type. And here they both must be distance. Because we compare what is measured (distance d) to the unit distance, here denoted with the letter t. I'm not denying the existence of time. I'm saying that we are not measuring time but comparing two distances. You are saying that if time did not exist the oscillator would not oscillate. Maybe. But we are not measuring time but comparing two distances. We are counting how many unit distance there are in the distance to be measured. > Time is difficult to define without reference to space, and measurements of the evolution of a system, which may be the problem I guess? Same with the concept of space. What you call "space" is the distance between two points. > What would time be in a purely static, closed system? The system maybe static but this does not mean time is not passing. Time is still passing but there is no oscillator. Without an oscillator to define the unit distance you cannot count the distance to be measured. > What would time be after the complete heat death of the universe? This is the philosophic time and it is independent of our ability to measure it. So I'm not talking about the existence of time but about the measurement of time. Because I observe that what we do is compare two distances. I don't understand how comparing two distances is interpreted as "measuring time." I also observe that no one else have any doubts that what is measured is time. So the problem must with me:)
- empath75 8y ago
  > But the terms of a proportianality must be of the same type. This is flat wrong. Pressure is measured in pounds per square inch. Are you suggesting weight and area are the same thing?
  - canhascodez 8y ago
    Reading the parent's comment history, I would characterize them as a physics crank.
    - expected_line 8y ago
      First i thought to "say something about 'energy, maybe osscilating -and as well, there are some 'conditions' of energy', '...a perspective, to see energy as a wave with a known length , which shortend 'by time'" -but now i feel to tell you 'to see science as the mustard to a sausage in terms of change' ^^
      - canhascodez 8y ago
        It's certainly easier to be patronizing when you are being obscure, but if you suggest that my perspective is flawed without explanation, I really have no alternative but to dismiss that opinion.
        expected_line 8y ago
        Tryed to answer your patronizing problem: > hint://deviantart.com/conversation-culture/gallery/ the comic-strips are 'named' 1...2...3 - hope that will help Maybe... i am drunken enough ('Frühschoppen') to expand my forgone lines with: "To see energy as a wave with a fixed start- and endpoint, 'shorten by time'" (-: Edited: i thought my original posting was 'too offensive, and rejecting' in terms of HN-Guidelines.
  - Reinisch 8y ago
    I’m not the parent commenter, but I think I can help clear up this confusion. Seems like you may have missed: > Or at least half a proportionality. I think their idea is that in the proportion A = B, where A = w/x and B = y/z, A and B must be “of the same type.” Applied to your example, I think PC might say that in a proportionality of pressures, A and B must be of the same type—-it is not the case that w and x must be of the same type.
pdkl95 8y ago
> the author seems to be under the somewhat common misapprehension that the Planck scale is some kind of limit on quantization The Planck length may not limit quantization, but it is a hard limit on measurement. Due to Heisenberg uncertainty, a photon that with a position small enough to do the measurement has a momentum so large the photon would collapse into a black hole (which would immediately evaporate).
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  I don't think this is right. Measuring a photons position to the plank length or below (probably not possible) would just mean the photon has a very large uncertainty in momentum. But that's no different than saying if you take a single slice of a 44.1khz PWM data stream you'd have 100% certainty of amplitude and 100% uncertainty of frequency.

nyc111 8y ago

> velocity = d/t. Thanks for the example. Here d/t is a proportionality. Or at least half of a proportionality. But the terms of a proportianality must be of the same type. And here they both must be distance. Because we compare what is measured (distance d) to the unit distance, here denoted with the letter t. I'm not denying the existence of time. I'm saying that we are not measuring time but comparing two distances. You are saying that if time did not exist the oscillator would not oscillate. Maybe. But we are not measuring time but comparing two distances. We are counting how many unit distance there are in the distance to be measured. > Time is difficult to define without reference to space, and measurements of the evolution of a system, which may be the problem I guess? Same with the concept of space. What you call "space" is the distance between two points. > What would time be in a purely static, closed system? The system maybe static but this does not mean time is not passing. Time is still passing but there is no oscillator. Without an oscillator to define the unit distance you cannot count the distance to be measured. > What would time be after the complete heat death of the universe? This is the philosophic time and it is independent of our ability to measure it. So I'm not talking about the existence of time but about the measurement of time. Because I observe that what we do is compare two distances. I don't understand how comparing two distances is interpreted as "measuring time." I also observe that no one else have any doubts that what is measured is time. So the problem must with me:)

empath75 8y ago
> But the terms of a proportianality must be of the same type. This is flat wrong. Pressure is measured in pounds per square inch. Are you suggesting weight and area are the same thing?
- canhascodez 8y ago
  Reading the parent's comment history, I would characterize them as a physics crank.
  - expected_line 8y ago
    First i thought to "say something about 'energy, maybe osscilating -and as well, there are some 'conditions' of energy', '...a perspective, to see energy as a wave with a known length , which shortend 'by time'" -but now i feel to tell you 'to see science as the mustard to a sausage in terms of change' ^^
    - canhascodez 8y ago
      It's certainly easier to be patronizing when you are being obscure, but if you suggest that my perspective is flawed without explanation, I really have no alternative but to dismiss that opinion.
      - expected_line 8y ago
        Tryed to answer your patronizing problem: > hint://deviantart.com/conversation-culture/gallery/ the comic-strips are 'named' 1...2...3 - hope that will help Maybe... i am drunken enough ('Frühschoppen') to expand my forgone lines with: "To see energy as a wave with a fixed start- and endpoint, 'shorten by time'" (-: Edited: i thought my original posting was 'too offensive, and rejecting' in terms of HN-Guidelines.
- Reinisch 8y ago
  I’m not the parent commenter, but I think I can help clear up this confusion. Seems like you may have missed: > Or at least half a proportionality. I think their idea is that in the proportion A = B, where A = w/x and B = y/z, A and B must be “of the same type.” Applied to your example, I think PC might say that in a proportionality of pressures, A and B must be of the same type—-it is not the case that w and x must be of the same type.

pdkl95 8y ago

> the author seems to be under the somewhat common misapprehension that the Planck scale is some kind of limit on quantization The Planck length may not limit quantization, but it is a hard limit on measurement. Due to Heisenberg uncertainty, a photon that with a position small enough to do the measurement has a momentum so large the photon would collapse into a black hole (which would immediately evaporate).

furgooswft13 8y ago
I don't think this is right. Measuring a photons position to the plank length or below (probably not possible) would just mean the photon has a very large uncertainty in momentum. But that's no different than saying if you take a single slice of a 44.1khz PWM data stream you'd have 100% certainty of amplitude and 100% uncertainty of frequency.