# Intriguing question about Time, Physics and SRT in general

Maybe you could ask: How long did it take to stop running as well?

That was my next question.

The "zero duration" to which you refer in the Minkowsky space-time diagram is not really meant to indicate a zero duration amount of time, but rather an "event" happening at a particular point in space-time.

The thing I find significant about such diagrams is that such an event CANNOT BE SIMULTANEOUS with any other event that can be reached from that event. More hourglass shaped cones would be needed for other events occurring at other places, the vast majority of which cannot be connected in that way.

That would be more spheres of gravity, which only contain light to transfer momentum to an alternative sphere of gravity, which indicate an event.

The "zero duration" to which you refer in the Minkowsky space-time diagram is not really meant to indicate a zero duration amount of time, but rather an "event" happening at a particular point in space-time.
Thank you for posting to this topic.
I guess what is part of the question stems from the "issue" of how a line of finite length consists of an infinite number of zero dimensional points, with the paradox of d0+d0 = d0 being a part of the situation. The same applies to time, in that a finite duration of time consists of an infinite number of zero duration points. Again invoking the conundrum of delta 0 + delta 0 = delta zero yet when done an infinite number of times equals delta t of a finite duration.
This led to the question:
At exactly 10 am (a zero point on a time line) what actually exists?
then
with delta t= 10 minutes, how does something exist if any zero point taken as reference (ie. 10 am or 10:05 am) is zero duration and essentially non-existent. [thus highlighting paradox of zero both existing and not existing simultaneously.]
If something is in 3 dimensional motion then it could be said that an infinite number of events are occurring as time passes, yet at any given single point nothing exits.

lf you are to consider a zero you also have to consider an inequality of density like the kiode forumula which represents "half" the weak force. Or h bar over K.

lf you are to consider a zero you also have to consider an inequality of density like the kiode forumula which represents "half" the weak force. Or h bar over K.
perhaps you could explain the relevance...?

A zero is like an error. An absolute zero or two is an error that occurs over and over again until the difference between an inflow and outflow turns into a cube or sphere.

... a finite duration of time consists of an infinite number of zero duration points. Again invoking the conundrum of delta 0 + delta 0 = delta zero yet when done an infinite number of times equals delta t of a finite duration. If something is in 3 dimensional motion then it could be said that an infinite number of events are occurring as time passes, yet at any given single point nothing exits.

This is Zeno's paradox. About a decade ago, a young New Zealander named Peter Lynds came up with an alternative view of time that was all the rage:

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/physics.html

In Lynd's formulation of Zeno's paradox, a single moment in time does not exist; only system behavior over a time INTERVAL makes any sense at all. Freezing a moment of time to zero duration is the equivalent of reducing momentum to zero, after which, nothing intelligible will happen, and so Zeno's paradox is possible without any real solution because time infinitely subdivided makes no sense.

This is Zeno's paradox. About a decade ago, a young New Zealander named Peter Lynds came up with an alternative view of time that was all the rage:

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/physics.html

In Lynd's formulation of Zeno's paradox, a single moment in time does not exist; only system behavior over a time INTERVAL makes any sense at all. Freezing a moment of time to zero duration is the equivalent of reducing momentum to zero, after which, nothing intelligible will happen, and so Zeno's paradox is possible without any real solution because time infinitely subdivided makes no sense.
Ahh Peter Lynd yes... offered some intriguing insights.

One of such was that he concluded that we as humans perceive from the vantage point of absolute rest suggesting this is the only way we could perceive movement as non-inertial (sum:The ability to perceive movement requires a state of relativity with non-movement)

However it has been contended in this thread that the logic that we humans use inevitably leads to a paradox, where zero both exists and not exists in 4d space simultaneously.

That at absolutely and exactly "mark 10 am" distance universally is zero. That distance therefore movement exist only as a temporal phenomena. (which extends on Peter Lynd's controversial postulation]
This paradox leads on to allow our humble "photon" to have two states, one that has distance being both relevant and irrelevant depending on perspective. I also believe that an argument could be made to include the wave particle duality as well as being one of many such paradoxical outcomes stemming from the primary paradox of zero both existing and not existing simultaneously. IMO Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is also one such outcome of this paradox.

I also have stated a belief earlier in this thread, that the paradoxes suggested by Zeno have been seriously misinterpreted, originally by the Socratic School of the ancient Greeks and carried forward to contemporary times. Failing to grasp the sheer brilliance of Zeno of Elia and what he was attempting to demonstrate.

"Movement is indeed impossible unless experienced as temporal."

This fundamental point indicates a physical reality that is usually met with significant discomfort to those who wish the universe's "physical" reality to be more tangible than merely temporal and is typically way sided to the realm of abstraction and hypothesis only.

Further, IMO the inability of contemporary math to adequately justify how (0*infinity) can equal a finite value be it length or time, with out invoking further confusion with the use of an infinitesimal also demonstrates the veracity of Zeno's claims.
It appears we are left only with "defined" rather than "calculated" outcomes as demonstrated with 1 = 0.999... using a system of limits and other methods as we attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable.

The paradox remains and MUST always remain a paradox, to maintain the perpetuity of a closed system, and I believe science needs ultimately to accept the fact that a genuine and real paradox is one of the founding principles behind this universes existence.

It could be suggested that the universes existence is, in itself, a physical attempt to resolve the unresolvable. ie. "If the hare beats the tortoise to the tortoise's own position, the game is over"

just an unqualified opinion..

Last edited:
One of Edward Witten's claims to fame (and he has a few to his credit) was consolidating ideas in various string theories into M theory as workarounds for a few such infinities.

I was fortunate enough to attend one of his colloquia on this topic at the University of Maryland, some time in the 1980's (near the beginning of his saga). He gave the example of Newton's law of gravity with the radius = zero as an example of one of the infinities he was trying to overcome. This was a general audience he was making his case to.

A proton is possibly the best example of something that is "timeless from infinity to infinity". One infinity is related to its own existence without decay or substantive change over time since it coalesced in a young universe. The other infinity derives from vacuum energy and the Higgs field which constantly gives its quarks mass from the repository where the literally limitless energy needed to hold together atomic structure and time itself originates. These are the two infinities. Notice they involve only energy and time.

Infinities have a deeper meaning for mathematicians as limits beyond which their mathematics become nonsense. In the Standard Model, this evidently happens quite a lot.

What I am trying to point out here is that if these two infinities are missing in the mathematics of a theory, then something has also not been captured by the model.

Sean Carroll, among others, has pointed out that gravity, unique among the physical forces, is also one in which energy is not deemed to be conserved. There is a reason for that, and the reason is that the Standard Model is not a theory of vacuum energy, which is where the energy derived of imparting inertial mass and slowing down electrons, quarks, their antiparticles, W and Z bosons, gets continuously and unceremoniously dumped. This is a discrepancy in accounting and a violation of the conservation of energy, besides which, an important symmetry has been missed or not captured in the theory.

I would like to see this situation fixed, and I don't think that string theory or parts of the SM that strip time out of quantum dynamics is going to have very much to do with crafting a solution.

Time cannot stop anywhere there is virtual energy in the vacuum because it is from there which time itself originates. Vacuum energy and time is also everywhere matter is. You cannot completely understand the dynamics of one without understanding the dynamics of the other.

Time cannot stop anywhere there is virtual energy in the vacuum because it is from there which time itself originates. Vacuum energy and time is also everywhere matter is. You cannot completely understand the dynamics of one without understanding the dynamics of the other.
There is a key to this conundrum and the solution I believe is alluded to in this thread when one considers that d=0 when delta t=0.

Briefly:
Vaccummous space is actually non dimensional or to say that dimension is only granted by the mass (energy) with in that space.
Take all the mass out of the universe and all you have left is zero dimension.

It doesn't take too much nous to realize with the above in mind that hypothetically the energy of the vacuum is only derived from the energy of "all mass" held by this universe and not the space itself persee... space being only an expanded void volume due to mass being present. Thus energy derived from the vacuumous space is totally conserved.

A Kline bottle could be useful in attempting to understand the dimensionality of energy being derived from the vacuum, using any point with in the vacuumous space as a "medium or gateway" to universal 4d mass in a conserved manner IMO

I only mention the above because you (danshawen) have demonstrated a capacity to possibly understand what I am saying [ re: your earlier posts in other fora]
The key, I believe, is to consider "space" as being pure volume and nothing else. It has no dimension in itself other than that granted by a mass metric or in other words mass that is suspended within it's volume.
Thus this controversial image posted a few times in this thread has greater founding:

the distance only exits as a positive value if taking a "mass or delta t= >0" perspective.

(Using a metric derived from 4d mass)

There is a key to this conundrum and the solution I believe is alluded to in this thread when one considers that d=0 when delta t=0.

Briefly:
Vaccummous space is actually non dimensional or to say that dimension is only granted by the mass (energy) with in that space.
Take all the mass out of the universe and all you have left is zero dimension.

It doesn't take too much nous to realize with the above in mind that hypothetically the energy of the vacuum is only derived from the energy of "all mass" held by this universe and not the space itself persee... space being only an expanded void volume due to mass being present. Thus energy derived from the vacuumous space is totally conserved.

Yes!!!!!! You found it first. Everywhere you run into an infinity that involves a dimension of space, you simply replace it with a unit of time referent to a light travel time.

It's so simple. The speed of light is a constant even in the vacuum, applies as well to vacuum virtual energy as it does to energy that propagates in space.

You simply recast physics without the referents to space, and the infinities all go away.

This makes perfect sense. Read Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong" about the training Witten received before becoming a physics guru. He missed the lesson everyone else got with relativity where space and time were simply related by the speed of light. So he proceeded to run physics off the rails with string theory as a workaround. Ooooppps!

Congratulations!

thank you...

You simply recast physics without the referents to space, and the infinities all go away.
Can you explain this bit a little?

Anywhere you see something like a radius in the denominator of an expression, simply replace it by c/t. The speed of light is never vanishingly small, and the light travel time goes to the numerator. The infinity disappears, along with the stupid workarounds.

This should get physics back on track for quantifying what the Higgs mechanism does to space; one application that immediately comes to mind.

String theory tried to eliminate the infinity in another way, which truth be told, made no sort of physical sense.

Of course, one must also apply Peter Lynd's formulation to avoid the Zeno paradox. Makes sense?