i need a detailed explanation regarding how time physics-quantum mechanics works.?

Answer 1

Ground-breaking work in understanding of time
July 31, 2003 - 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 V͸j᠕niversity 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.

Independent Communications Consultant

Answer 2

Hi Nuff; I personally feel, with absolutely no scientific proof, that each and every decision we make every day presents an opportunity for an alternate ( or parallel universe). I subscribe to the Robert A. Heinlein theory, Probably before your time but, a great fiction writer. Try "The Number Of The Beast" or "Stranger In A Strange Land"Good light fun reads. But time is a serious subject, and one I'm afraid I have very fixed notions upon. As I believe God created it,and holds it until, as you might say the time is right, and man must go forward only, living each moment to the fullest, as there is no going back. "The past is history, the future a mystery, we can only live in the now." But to punch a hole into an alternate universe, will probably happen one day, what happens next? Well that will be a whole different universe again. LOL Have fun with this one! Bob

Answer 3

Sounds like a random word generator gag.

Answer 4

Good luck, take a PHD from Princeton

Answer 5

Me, too.