|
On June 09 2017 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
In most cases philosophy can be understood as giant glass towers sitting on shakey foundations. Zeno's paradoxes for instance is an interesting mental diversion for those who aren't mathematically grounded and simply a solvable expression for those who are. Other times, philosophy doesn't follow reality, as it has no need to do so.
Philosophy only cares about reality. The issue is that it focuses on the logic of observed reality as opposed to deriving conclusions from the observed reality.
An artists replicates nature, a scientists studies nature, but a philosopher attempts to define what is natural, what is unnatural, and if we are actually being true about how we experience or ignore the natural.
|
On June 07 2017 23:07 xM(Z wrote:you dudes, i swear ... evolution doesn't go through baubles; you need to break yours. this has nothing to do with language and its semantics. fucking hell men, i didn't invent it: Show nested quote +In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth, held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." is really difficult to argue anything in here so i'll leave you with some basic concepts from “Forget time” - Essay written for the FQXi contest on the Nature of Time - Carlo Rovelli (Dated: August 2008) Show nested quote +Following a line of research that I have developed for several years, I argue that the best strategy for understanding quantum gravity is to build a picture of the physical world where the notion of time plays no role at all. I summarize here this point of view, explaining why I think that in a fundamental description of nature we must “forget time”, and how this can be done in the classical and in the quantum theory. The idea is to develop a formalism that treats dependent and independent variables on the same footing. In short, I propose to interpret mechanics as a theory of relations between variables, rather than the theory of the evolution of variables in time. ... Show nested quote +VII. CONCLUSION
I have presented a certain number of ideas and results:
1. It is possible to formulate classical mechanics in a way in which the time variable is treated on equal footings with the other physical variables, and not singled out as the special independent variable. I have argued that this is the natural formalism for describing general relativistic systems.
2. It is possible to formulate quantum mechanics in the same manner. I think that this may be the effective formalism for quantum gravity.
3. The peculiar properties of the time variable are of thermodynamical origin, and can be captured by the thermal time hypothesis. Within quantum field theory, “time” is the Tomita flow of the statistical state ρ in which the world happens to be, when described in terms of the macroscopic parameters we have chosen.
4. In order to build a quantum theory of gravity the most effective strategy is therefore to forget the notion of time all together, and to define a quantum theory capable of predicting the possible correlations between partial observables.
Before concluding, I must add that the views expressed are far from being entirely original. I have largely drawn from the ideas of numerous scientists, and in particular Bryce DeWitt, John Wheeler, Chris Isham, Abhay Ashtekar, Jorge Pullin, Rodolfo Gambini, Don Marolf, Don Page, Bianca Dittrich, Julian Barbour and Karel Kuchar, William Wootters, Jean-Marie Souriau, Lee Smolin, John Baez, Jonathan Halliwell, Jim Hartle, Alain Connes, and certainly others that I forget here. I have here attempted to combine a coherent view about the problem of time in quantum gravity, starting from what others have understood.
On the other hand, I also see well that the view I present here is far from being uncontroversial. Several authors maintain the idea that the notion of time is irreducible, and cannot be eliminated from fundamental physics. See for instance [26]. I could of course be wrong, but my own expectation is that the notion of time is extremely natural to us, but only in the same manner in which other intuitive ideas are rooted in our intuition because they are features of the small garden in which we are accustomed to living (for instance: absolute simultaneity, absolute velocity, or the idea of a flat Earth and an absolute up and down). Intuition is not a good guide for understanding natural regimes so distant from our daily experience. The best guide is provided by the theories of the world that have proven empirically effective, and therefore summarize the knowledge we have about Nature. In particular, general relativity challenges strongly our intuitive notion of a universal flow of time. I think we must take its lesson seriously. there are more papers, proposals, thesis on this out there so look it up if you want/need 'cause i'm done here. when something supposedly enjoyable becomes a chore, it's not worth it anymore(note: that was supposed to be the first part which i assumed to be at least heard of, then you'd have the oscillations/waves part but fuck that now, lol; it's even more unconventional than that).
It's ok to not understand quantum gravity. It's very common. It is however not ok to pretend that it supports your claims when you don't understand it. I could explain why it doesn't, and I normally would, but you wouldn't accept it unless it fits with your ideas, so I won't bother. Yet another loss for science outreach.
|
If somebody owns 51 percent of the company and someone else owns 49 percent what can the person who ons 51 percent do to try to force the minority owner out of the business? Can you actually force a stockholder out of a company if they refuse to leave?
|
|
|
On June 09 2017 14:06 IgnE wrote:
Buy their stock
what if they refuse to sell though?
|
what does it matter practically speaking? they get out voted
|
On June 09 2017 14:07 IgnE wrote:
what does it matter practically speaking? they get out voted
thats what I'm asking. So you can force someone to sell their stock if your the majority owner?
|
There are a lot of things you can do. But I'm asking why you even care whether they have stock. Practically speaking they are always outvoted.
|
On June 09 2017 14:11 IgnE wrote:
There are a lot of things you can do. But I'm asking why you even care whether they have stock. Practically speaking they are always outvoted.
I don't know I was just curious. But I guess the best answer is just ignore them and do whatever you want.
|
Seems like it'd allow for a lot of exploits if you could. If you could force buy them, I guess it'd be to market price? So then the 51% could vote something stupid through, tank the stock value, force buy cheap, and then revert stupid decision. There would be regulations against that but how could you enforce it?
But I really have no knowledge and I'm frequently surprised when I hear how the stock market works.
|
Don't think there's an electoral college to protect the minority when it comes to Wall Street.
|
On June 09 2017 10:29 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 23:07 xM(Z wrote:you dudes, i swear ... evolution doesn't go through baubles; you need to break yours. this has nothing to do with language and its semantics. fucking hell men, i didn't invent it: In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth, held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." is really difficult to argue anything in here so i'll leave you with some basic concepts from “Forget time” - Essay written for the FQXi contest on the Nature of Time - Carlo Rovelli (Dated: August 2008) Following a line of research that I have developed for several years, I argue that the best strategy for understanding quantum gravity is to build a picture of the physical world where the notion of time plays no role at all. I summarize here this point of view, explaining why I think that in a fundamental description of nature we must “forget time”, and how this can be done in the classical and in the quantum theory. The idea is to develop a formalism that treats dependent and independent variables on the same footing. In short, I propose to interpret mechanics as a theory of relations between variables, rather than the theory of the evolution of variables in time. ... VII. CONCLUSION
I have presented a certain number of ideas and results:
1. It is possible to formulate classical mechanics in a way in which the time variable is treated on equal footings with the other physical variables, and not singled out as the special independent variable. I have argued that this is the natural formalism for describing general relativistic systems.
2. It is possible to formulate quantum mechanics in the same manner. I think that this may be the effective formalism for quantum gravity.
3. The peculiar properties of the time variable are of thermodynamical origin, and can be captured by the thermal time hypothesis. Within quantum field theory, “time” is the Tomita flow of the statistical state ρ in which the world happens to be, when described in terms of the macroscopic parameters we have chosen.
4. In order to build a quantum theory of gravity the most effective strategy is therefore to forget the notion of time all together, and to define a quantum theory capable of predicting the possible correlations between partial observables.
Before concluding, I must add that the views expressed are far from being entirely original. I have largely drawn from the ideas of numerous scientists, and in particular Bryce DeWitt, John Wheeler, Chris Isham, Abhay Ashtekar, Jorge Pullin, Rodolfo Gambini, Don Marolf, Don Page, Bianca Dittrich, Julian Barbour and Karel Kuchar, William Wootters, Jean-Marie Souriau, Lee Smolin, John Baez, Jonathan Halliwell, Jim Hartle, Alain Connes, and certainly others that I forget here. I have here attempted to combine a coherent view about the problem of time in quantum gravity, starting from what others have understood.
On the other hand, I also see well that the view I present here is far from being uncontroversial. Several authors maintain the idea that the notion of time is irreducible, and cannot be eliminated from fundamental physics. See for instance [26]. I could of course be wrong, but my own expectation is that the notion of time is extremely natural to us, but only in the same manner in which other intuitive ideas are rooted in our intuition because they are features of the small garden in which we are accustomed to living (for instance: absolute simultaneity, absolute velocity, or the idea of a flat Earth and an absolute up and down). Intuition is not a good guide for understanding natural regimes so distant from our daily experience. The best guide is provided by the theories of the world that have proven empirically effective, and therefore summarize the knowledge we have about Nature. In particular, general relativity challenges strongly our intuitive notion of a universal flow of time. I think we must take its lesson seriously. there are more papers, proposals, thesis on this out there so look it up if you want/need 'cause i'm done here. when something supposedly enjoyable becomes a chore, it's not worth it anymore(note: that was supposed to be the first part which i assumed to be at least heard of, then you'd have the oscillations/waves part but fuck that now, lol; it's even more unconventional than that). It's ok to not understand quantum gravity. It's very common. It is however not ok to pretend that it supports your claims when you don't understand it. I could explain why it doesn't, and I normally would, but you wouldn't accept it unless it fits with your ideas, so I won't bother. Yet another loss for science outreach. one was not suppose to follow from the other; you'd need to have read the things in between.
like, for Ex: https://phys.org/news/2016-02-physicists-implications-quantum-mechanics-philosophy.html (Phys.org)—Although in theory it may seem possible to divide time up into infinitely tiny intervals, the smallest physically meaningful interval of time is widely considered to be the Planck time, which is approximately 10-43 seconds. This ultimate limit means that it is not possible for two events to be separated by a time smaller than this.
But now in a new paper, physicists have proposed that the shortest physically meaningful length of time may actually be several orders of magnitude longer than the Planck time. In addition, the physicists have demonstrated that the existence of such a minimum time alters the basic equations of quantum mechanics, and as quantum mechanics describes all physical systems at a very small scale, this would change the description of all quantum mechanical systems.
The researchers, Mir Faizal at the University of Waterloo and University of Lethbridge in Canada, Mohammed M. Khalil at Alexandria University in Egypt, and Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge, have recently published a paper called "Time crystals from minimum time uncertainty" in The European Physical Journal C. ... Motivated by several recent theoretical studies, the scientists further delved into the question of the structure of time—in particular, the long-debated question of whether time is continuous or discrete.
"In our paper, we have proposed that time is discrete in nature, and we have also suggested ways to experimentally test this proposal," Faizal said.
One possible test involves measuring the rate of spontaneous emission of a hydrogen atom. The modified quantum mechanical equation predicts a slightly different rate of spontaneous emission than that predicted by the unmodified equation, within a range of uncertainty. The proposed effects may also be observable in the decay rates of particles and of unstable nuclei.
Based on their theoretical analysis of the spontaneous emission of hydrogen, the researchers estimate that the minimum time may be orders of magnitude larger than the Planck time, but no greater than a certain amount, which is fixed by previous experiments. Future experiments could lower this bound on the minimum time or determine its exact value.
The scientists also suggest that the proposed changes to the basic equations of quantum mechanics would modify the very definition of time. They explain that the structure of time can be thought of as a crystal structure, consisting of discrete, regularly repeating segments.
On a more philosophical level, the argument that time is discrete suggests that our perception of time as something that is continuously flowing is just an illusion.
"The physical universe is really like a movie/motion picture, in which a series of still images shown on a screen creates the illusion of moving images," Faizal said. "Thus, if this view is taken seriously, then our conscious precipitation of physical reality based on continuous motion becomes an illusion produced by a discrete underlying mathematical structure."
"This proposal makes physical reality platonic in nature," he said, referring to Plato's argument that true reality exists independent of our senses. "However, unlike other theories of platonic idealism, our proposal can be experimentally tested and not just be argued for philosophically." things are happening; whether you accept/or agree with them, is irrelevant. at this point, if you call time discrete or nonexistent is semantics.
time is a unit of measure for clocks.
|
You just made a 3 lines post and just copy pasting a vague article (about the matter at hand here), not emphasising anything.
On June 09 2017 16:02 xM(Z wrote:
things are happening; whether you accept/or agree with them, is irrelevant.(1) at this point, if you call time discrete or nonexistent is semantics.(2)
time is a unit of measure for clocks.(3)
Also I don't see the link between (1), (2) and (3).
|
On June 09 2017 16:41 AbouSV wrote:You just made a 3 lines post and just copy pasting a vague article (about the matter at hand here), not emphasising anything. Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 16:02 xM(Z wrote:
things are happening; whether you accept/or agree with them, is irrelevant.(1) at this point, if you call time discrete or nonexistent is semantics.(2)
time is a unit of measure for clocks.(3) Also I don't see the link between (1), (2) and (3).
Thanks. I was about to say the same.
Why would something being discrete mean that it is not existing? Do you also belief that space is not existent, because there is also a planck length, that theoretically describes the smallest meaningful separation of space. Shitloads of things are discrete, but still exist. Do you think that light doesn't exist, because it consists of discrete photons? Do you think that matter doesn't exist, because it consists of discrete subatomic particles?
And the unit of measurement for clocks is numbers. One clock, two clocks, three clocks.
(Also, i am quite certain that you need to expound on what you mean with "clocks", which you seem to think are way more elemental than time)
|
On June 09 2017 16:02 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 10:29 Cascade wrote:On June 07 2017 23:07 xM(Z wrote:you dudes, i swear ... evolution doesn't go through baubles; you need to break yours. this has nothing to do with language and its semantics. fucking hell men, i didn't invent it: In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth, held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." is really difficult to argue anything in here so i'll leave you with some basic concepts from “Forget time” - Essay written for the FQXi contest on the Nature of Time - Carlo Rovelli (Dated: August 2008) Following a line of research that I have developed for several years, I argue that the best strategy for understanding quantum gravity is to build a picture of the physical world where the notion of time plays no role at all. I summarize here this point of view, explaining why I think that in a fundamental description of nature we must “forget time”, and how this can be done in the classical and in the quantum theory. The idea is to develop a formalism that treats dependent and independent variables on the same footing. In short, I propose to interpret mechanics as a theory of relations between variables, rather than the theory of the evolution of variables in time. ... VII. CONCLUSION
I have presented a certain number of ideas and results:
1. It is possible to formulate classical mechanics in a way in which the time variable is treated on equal footings with the other physical variables, and not singled out as the special independent variable. I have argued that this is the natural formalism for describing general relativistic systems.
2. It is possible to formulate quantum mechanics in the same manner. I think that this may be the effective formalism for quantum gravity.
3. The peculiar properties of the time variable are of thermodynamical origin, and can be captured by the thermal time hypothesis. Within quantum field theory, “time” is the Tomita flow of the statistical state ρ in which the world happens to be, when described in terms of the macroscopic parameters we have chosen.
4. In order to build a quantum theory of gravity the most effective strategy is therefore to forget the notion of time all together, and to define a quantum theory capable of predicting the possible correlations between partial observables.
Before concluding, I must add that the views expressed are far from being entirely original. I have largely drawn from the ideas of numerous scientists, and in particular Bryce DeWitt, John Wheeler, Chris Isham, Abhay Ashtekar, Jorge Pullin, Rodolfo Gambini, Don Marolf, Don Page, Bianca Dittrich, Julian Barbour and Karel Kuchar, William Wootters, Jean-Marie Souriau, Lee Smolin, John Baez, Jonathan Halliwell, Jim Hartle, Alain Connes, and certainly others that I forget here. I have here attempted to combine a coherent view about the problem of time in quantum gravity, starting from what others have understood.
On the other hand, I also see well that the view I present here is far from being uncontroversial. Several authors maintain the idea that the notion of time is irreducible, and cannot be eliminated from fundamental physics. See for instance [26]. I could of course be wrong, but my own expectation is that the notion of time is extremely natural to us, but only in the same manner in which other intuitive ideas are rooted in our intuition because they are features of the small garden in which we are accustomed to living (for instance: absolute simultaneity, absolute velocity, or the idea of a flat Earth and an absolute up and down). Intuition is not a good guide for understanding natural regimes so distant from our daily experience. The best guide is provided by the theories of the world that have proven empirically effective, and therefore summarize the knowledge we have about Nature. In particular, general relativity challenges strongly our intuitive notion of a universal flow of time. I think we must take its lesson seriously. there are more papers, proposals, thesis on this out there so look it up if you want/need 'cause i'm done here. when something supposedly enjoyable becomes a chore, it's not worth it anymore(note: that was supposed to be the first part which i assumed to be at least heard of, then you'd have the oscillations/waves part but fuck that now, lol; it's even more unconventional than that). It's ok to not understand quantum gravity. It's very common. It is however not ok to pretend that it supports your claims when you don't understand it. I could explain why it doesn't, and I normally would, but you wouldn't accept it unless it fits with your ideas, so I won't bother. Yet another loss for science outreach. one was not suppose to follow from the other; you'd need to have read the things in between. like, for Ex: https://phys.org/news/2016-02-physicists-implications-quantum-mechanics-philosophy.html Show nested quote +(Phys.org)—Although in theory it may seem possible to divide time up into infinitely tiny intervals, the smallest physically meaningful interval of time is widely considered to be the Planck time, which is approximately 10-43 seconds. This ultimate limit means that it is not possible for two events to be separated by a time smaller than this.
But now in a new paper, physicists have proposed that the shortest physically meaningful length of time may actually be several orders of magnitude longer than the Planck time. In addition, the physicists have demonstrated that the existence of such a minimum time alters the basic equations of quantum mechanics, and as quantum mechanics describes all physical systems at a very small scale, this would change the description of all quantum mechanical systems.
The researchers, Mir Faizal at the University of Waterloo and University of Lethbridge in Canada, Mohammed M. Khalil at Alexandria University in Egypt, and Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge, have recently published a paper called "Time crystals from minimum time uncertainty" in The European Physical Journal C. ... Show nested quote +Motivated by several recent theoretical studies, the scientists further delved into the question of the structure of time—in particular, the long-debated question of whether time is continuous or discrete.
"In our paper, we have proposed that time is discrete in nature, and we have also suggested ways to experimentally test this proposal," Faizal said.
One possible test involves measuring the rate of spontaneous emission of a hydrogen atom. The modified quantum mechanical equation predicts a slightly different rate of spontaneous emission than that predicted by the unmodified equation, within a range of uncertainty. The proposed effects may also be observable in the decay rates of particles and of unstable nuclei.
Based on their theoretical analysis of the spontaneous emission of hydrogen, the researchers estimate that the minimum time may be orders of magnitude larger than the Planck time, but no greater than a certain amount, which is fixed by previous experiments. Future experiments could lower this bound on the minimum time or determine its exact value.
The scientists also suggest that the proposed changes to the basic equations of quantum mechanics would modify the very definition of time. They explain that the structure of time can be thought of as a crystal structure, consisting of discrete, regularly repeating segments.
On a more philosophical level, the argument that time is discrete suggests that our perception of time as something that is continuously flowing is just an illusion.
"The physical universe is really like a movie/motion picture, in which a series of still images shown on a screen creates the illusion of moving images," Faizal said. "Thus, if this view is taken seriously, then our conscious precipitation of physical reality based on continuous motion becomes an illusion produced by a discrete underlying mathematical structure."
"This proposal makes physical reality platonic in nature," he said, referring to Plato's argument that true reality exists independent of our senses. "However, unlike other theories of platonic idealism, our proposal can be experimentally tested and not just be argued for philosophically." things are happening; whether you accept/or agree with them, is irrelevant. at this point, if you call time discrete or nonexistent is semantics. time is a unit of measure for clocks.
You're just doing more of the same. Still linking things you don't understand and pretend they support whatever you decided to believe. It's ok to just admit that you don't understand quantum gravity. Very few people do.
Just look at my post above. I made some theory crafting about stock market stuff, but as I'm not an expert, I add a note on my ignorance, and acknowledge that I may be completely off. You should try that as well sometime, it's awesome.
|
On June 09 2017 17:05 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 16:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 09 2017 10:29 Cascade wrote:On June 07 2017 23:07 xM(Z wrote:you dudes, i swear ... evolution doesn't go through baubles; you need to break yours. this has nothing to do with language and its semantics. fucking hell men, i didn't invent it: In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth, held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." is really difficult to argue anything in here so i'll leave you with some basic concepts from “Forget time” - Essay written for the FQXi contest on the Nature of Time - Carlo Rovelli (Dated: August 2008) Following a line of research that I have developed for several years, I argue that the best strategy for understanding quantum gravity is to build a picture of the physical world where the notion of time plays no role at all. I summarize here this point of view, explaining why I think that in a fundamental description of nature we must “forget time”, and how this can be done in the classical and in the quantum theory. The idea is to develop a formalism that treats dependent and independent variables on the same footing. In short, I propose to interpret mechanics as a theory of relations between variables, rather than the theory of the evolution of variables in time. ... VII. CONCLUSION
I have presented a certain number of ideas and results:
1. It is possible to formulate classical mechanics in a way in which the time variable is treated on equal footings with the other physical variables, and not singled out as the special independent variable. I have argued that this is the natural formalism for describing general relativistic systems.
2. It is possible to formulate quantum mechanics in the same manner. I think that this may be the effective formalism for quantum gravity.
3. The peculiar properties of the time variable are of thermodynamical origin, and can be captured by the thermal time hypothesis. Within quantum field theory, “time” is the Tomita flow of the statistical state ρ in which the world happens to be, when described in terms of the macroscopic parameters we have chosen.
4. In order to build a quantum theory of gravity the most effective strategy is therefore to forget the notion of time all together, and to define a quantum theory capable of predicting the possible correlations between partial observables.
Before concluding, I must add that the views expressed are far from being entirely original. I have largely drawn from the ideas of numerous scientists, and in particular Bryce DeWitt, John Wheeler, Chris Isham, Abhay Ashtekar, Jorge Pullin, Rodolfo Gambini, Don Marolf, Don Page, Bianca Dittrich, Julian Barbour and Karel Kuchar, William Wootters, Jean-Marie Souriau, Lee Smolin, John Baez, Jonathan Halliwell, Jim Hartle, Alain Connes, and certainly others that I forget here. I have here attempted to combine a coherent view about the problem of time in quantum gravity, starting from what others have understood.
On the other hand, I also see well that the view I present here is far from being uncontroversial. Several authors maintain the idea that the notion of time is irreducible, and cannot be eliminated from fundamental physics. See for instance [26]. I could of course be wrong, but my own expectation is that the notion of time is extremely natural to us, but only in the same manner in which other intuitive ideas are rooted in our intuition because they are features of the small garden in which we are accustomed to living (for instance: absolute simultaneity, absolute velocity, or the idea of a flat Earth and an absolute up and down). Intuition is not a good guide for understanding natural regimes so distant from our daily experience. The best guide is provided by the theories of the world that have proven empirically effective, and therefore summarize the knowledge we have about Nature. In particular, general relativity challenges strongly our intuitive notion of a universal flow of time. I think we must take its lesson seriously. there are more papers, proposals, thesis on this out there so look it up if you want/need 'cause i'm done here. when something supposedly enjoyable becomes a chore, it's not worth it anymore(note: that was supposed to be the first part which i assumed to be at least heard of, then you'd have the oscillations/waves part but fuck that now, lol; it's even more unconventional than that). It's ok to not understand quantum gravity. It's very common. It is however not ok to pretend that it supports your claims when you don't understand it. I could explain why it doesn't, and I normally would, but you wouldn't accept it unless it fits with your ideas, so I won't bother. Yet another loss for science outreach. one was not suppose to follow from the other; you'd need to have read the things in between. like, for Ex: https://phys.org/news/2016-02-physicists-implications-quantum-mechanics-philosophy.html (Phys.org)—Although in theory it may seem possible to divide time up into infinitely tiny intervals, the smallest physically meaningful interval of time is widely considered to be the Planck time, which is approximately 10-43 seconds. This ultimate limit means that it is not possible for two events to be separated by a time smaller than this.
But now in a new paper, physicists have proposed that the shortest physically meaningful length of time may actually be several orders of magnitude longer than the Planck time. In addition, the physicists have demonstrated that the existence of such a minimum time alters the basic equations of quantum mechanics, and as quantum mechanics describes all physical systems at a very small scale, this would change the description of all quantum mechanical systems.
The researchers, Mir Faizal at the University of Waterloo and University of Lethbridge in Canada, Mohammed M. Khalil at Alexandria University in Egypt, and Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge, have recently published a paper called "Time crystals from minimum time uncertainty" in The European Physical Journal C. ... Motivated by several recent theoretical studies, the scientists further delved into the question of the structure of time—in particular, the long-debated question of whether time is continuous or discrete.
"In our paper, we have proposed that time is discrete in nature, and we have also suggested ways to experimentally test this proposal," Faizal said.
One possible test involves measuring the rate of spontaneous emission of a hydrogen atom. The modified quantum mechanical equation predicts a slightly different rate of spontaneous emission than that predicted by the unmodified equation, within a range of uncertainty. The proposed effects may also be observable in the decay rates of particles and of unstable nuclei.
Based on their theoretical analysis of the spontaneous emission of hydrogen, the researchers estimate that the minimum time may be orders of magnitude larger than the Planck time, but no greater than a certain amount, which is fixed by previous experiments. Future experiments could lower this bound on the minimum time or determine its exact value.
The scientists also suggest that the proposed changes to the basic equations of quantum mechanics would modify the very definition of time. They explain that the structure of time can be thought of as a crystal structure, consisting of discrete, regularly repeating segments.
On a more philosophical level, the argument that time is discrete suggests that our perception of time as something that is continuously flowing is just an illusion.
"The physical universe is really like a movie/motion picture, in which a series of still images shown on a screen creates the illusion of moving images," Faizal said. "Thus, if this view is taken seriously, then our conscious precipitation of physical reality based on continuous motion becomes an illusion produced by a discrete underlying mathematical structure."
"This proposal makes physical reality platonic in nature," he said, referring to Plato's argument that true reality exists independent of our senses. "However, unlike other theories of platonic idealism, our proposal can be experimentally tested and not just be argued for philosophically." things are happening; whether you accept/or agree with them, is irrelevant. at this point, if you call time discrete or nonexistent is semantics. time is a unit of measure for clocks. You're just doing more of the same. Still linking things you don't understand and pretend they support whatever you decided to believe. It's ok to just admit that you don't understand quantum gravity. Very few people do.
I'll be the first: I don't understand quantum gravity.
And i study physics. It is pretty obvious that xmz doesn't.
I am not even sure if at this point, one can really understand quantum gravity, because afaik the theory isn't even finished yet.
|
On June 09 2017 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
In most cases philosophy can be understood as giant glass towers sitting on shakey foundations. Zeno's paradoxes for instance is an interesting mental diversion for those who aren't mathematically grounded and simply a solvable expression for those who are. Other times, philosophy doesn't follow reality, as it has no need to do so. Philosophy only cares about reality. The issue is that it focuses on the logic of observed reality as opposed to deriving conclusions from the observed reality. An artists replicates nature, a scientists studies nature, but a philosopher attempts to define what is natural, what is unnatural, and if we are actually being true about how we experience or ignore the natural. I didn't say philosophy doesn't care about the nature of reality, only that it has no need to follow reality. If tomorrow, science can prove that we have no free will, the same philosophers will ignore all that and continue to put forth the same arguments as centuries past.
___
On June 09 2017 14:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 14:07 IgnE wrote:
what does it matter practically speaking? they get out voted thats what I'm asking. So you can force someone to sell their stock if your the majority owner? No you cannot, but conversely, for the purpose of control of the direction of the company, the majority shareholder will have full control. So there is no business reason to try to do so, and there is no legal recourse to do so.
The only problem would be that you will have other voices which can be ignored. True egomaniacs will turn a majority into total shareholding simply becuase they don't want to see the other guys face. The worth of a minority against a majority shareholding would be the dividend.
|
On June 09 2017 19:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 14:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 09 2017 14:07 IgnE wrote:
what does it matter practically speaking? they get out voted thats what I'm asking. So you can force someone to sell their stock if your the majority owner? No you cannot, but conversely, for the purpose of control of the direction of the company, the majority shareholder will have full control. So there is no business reason to try to do so, and there is no legal recourse to do so. The only problem would be that you will have other voices which can be ignored. True egomaniacs will turn a majority into total shareholding simply becuase they don't want to see the other guys face. The worth of a minority against a majority shareholding would be the dividend.
If defined from the start, you can have clauses that allow such actions. For example a "shotgun clause" : you activate the clause and set a price. The other shareholder has the obligation to either sell his shares at that price or buy yours at that price. Double edged, it also means you cannot refuse to sell if they accept to buy at the price you set.
There are also a few cases where you can go to court and have the sell enforced, for example if you prove the minority shareholder through his actions puts the company at risk.
|
I am not sure about the details, but Czech law has some provisions where if you by a lot of stocks, you must offer to buy out the small shareholders at the same price, protecting them from price decline as their shares become irrelevant.
|
Why does the TL horse have the colors of the lgbt flag, did i miss something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
