It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

# A Minimum Time Interval - Implication From the Universe's Very Existence?

page: 3
7
share:

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 01:21 PM
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Except that each "tick" varies in length relative to all others due, for example, to velocity (Special Relativity) and gravitational fields (General Relativity). So they would have become unsynchronized almost immediately.

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:37 PM

originally posted by: CLPrime
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Except that each "tick" varies in length relative to all others due, for example, to velocity (Special Relativity) and gravitational fields (General Relativity). So they would have become unsynchronized almost immediately.

How would the smallest 'tick' not depend on smaller 'ticks'? I guess this is where plancks length comes in and the solution of zenos paradox. Eventually the thing that is ticking, and the space it is ticking over, and that speed it takes for the thing to tick over the space, is all set to the smallest theoretical and practical and possible quantities, and thats how you have the minimums in all those categories (though I suppose it would be a maximum for velocity).

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 07:08 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

How would the smallest 'tick' not depend on smaller 'ticks'?

In the same way each frame in a movie doesn't depend on smaller frames.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 07:18 AM

originally posted by: CLPrime

originally posted by: ImaFungi

How would the smallest 'tick' not depend on smaller 'ticks'?

In the same way each frame in a movie doesn't depend on smaller frames.

But its theoretically possible to have 'faster' frame rates, meaning 'smaller units of time'?

And take any frame itself, it can be theoretically 'tinier'.

So if a planck length, is 'an area' with dimension at all. How is there not half a planck length?

I know it must be the case, an ultimate finitude.

But I guess its just weird maybe thinking that the smallest quanta of possible area, is 3d, but without area. Meaning the smallest possible quanta of area is 2 2d quantas maybe? And that creates the thickness, that if it were to be 'halved' or incremented in any way, would be fated to yield no smaller 2 3d areas.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 07:34 AM
a reply to: ImaFungi

In terms of the universe, the "frame rate" at a given point would be determined by the Relativistic effects acting on that point. The frame rate slows/speeds up according to the presence of velocity, a gravitational field, etc. So, actually, the frame rate at every point would be free to slow or speed up - thereby getting shorter or longer, independent of all other frame rates for all other points.

And this would apply to any sort of spatial quantum as well.

Also, I would describe the temporal quantum in this way: the shortest interval over which change happens. Time is change. Take, for example, a moving particle. As it moves through the universe, its motion is divided up into distinct chunks, with "jump"-like movements happening at every smallest-time-interval. The bigger the jump at each interval, the faster the velocity. There would be no smooth motion, only tiny, imperceptible jumps.

This is one consequence of having a minimal time interval.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 10:28 AM
a reply to: CLPrime

it is not defined but not zero !

and this is the quanta of time you are talking about.

we should maybe define what time actually is as it's not numbers you applying mathematical rules for

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 11:03 AM
a reply to: CLPrime

What do you think about my thought that in order to have a 'smallest possible spatial region' (potentially planck length) it needs to verge onto being 2d?

Do you get what I mean, any 3d object would have height,width and depth and there fore would be able to be 'halved in theory'. Though this smallest area of possible space perhaps not being a true unit or quanta, would be expressing that a 'smaller distance of space' does exist? So the smallest unit of space is pretty much, imagine a physical line made of the tiniest possible points, but they still exist, and then the length of this line starts out one inch long, and then the line starts retracting, getting shorter and shorter, eventually you will be left with two points, and then maybe you take one away, and then you just have a point.

So I suggested that is it possible that multiple, or maybe even two, 2d quantas together, would make the smallest possible 3d quanta? How does the planck length fit into that, is it thought to be a 3d area?

I personally think time is continuous, so there is no such thing as time itself being fastest or smallest, only objects 'moving' and conglomerating or decaying in varying spatial trajectories at different speeds, this says nothing about the truest capital T time that binds it all, that is always a churning. Though I understand 'this cant be knowable, computable, or useful', which is why our use of time in relativity is defined and used as it is, though that ultimate time may related to quantitative and qualitative figures regarding the big bang and age of the universe.

Anyway, I think because energy is always smoothly, moving, this is to say the total direction of time, and entropy, that time itself the fact it exists is always the shortest interval, its undefinable really I think. So I think the time you are discussing, is relative time, which is how comparatively quickly objects travel from one landmark in space point A to another point B. This isnt really time itself having interval. This is physical quanta, having restrictions of velocity over distances of space.
edit on 10-5-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

7