For the sake of argument, let's say the current world record for the 100 yard dash is 9.5 seconds. Let's also say that next year someone runs 100 yards in 9.4 seconds. Then let's say that every 25 years (pick any number you want), someone knocks one tenth of a second off the previous record.
Where does this end? If a human can run 100 yards in 8.8 seconds, how can we say it's impossible that no one will *ever* run it in 8.7 seconds? And then 8.6 seconds 50 years later, and so on.
If this premise is accepted, can we assume that at some point far in the future a subset of "super humans" (because surely not everyone will keep up with the speed records, just like today not everyone can run 100 yards in 9.5 seconds) will be able to "think" themselves (and anything they are wearing or holding) from one point to another? Would distance matter at that point, since you could just as easily "think" yourself 100 miles as 100 yards? What would this do to our concept of time?
Thanks.
QUOTE
What would this do to our concept of time?
Which concept of time were you referring? I myself have only a limited concept...it goes by FAST if I am focussed....and drags by slowly if I am bored...
And NOBODY can break the 4 minute mile!!!! 
Interesting question.
Interesting question.
I've also found it very interesting for quite a long time. I guess I'm a little surprised it hasn't gathered more interest here yet. I have quite a bit more on this subject regarding other questions it leads to and possible implications for philosophy, biology, physiology, evolution, etc..., but didn't want to go into too much yet and distract from the main question.
Is there a line of argument or facts that I may not be aware of (I am not a scientist by any means) that basically discounts or discredits my main premise: that given enough time, mankind will continually be able to run faster, and if followed to its logical conclusion, will some day be able to "think" themselves from one place to another. I also believe that the continued evolution of the human brain may make this even more likely, and it won't depend on only a physical evolution of the human body.
There are many offshoots to this idea, but again for now I would be interested in thoughts on just the main premise.
Is there a line of argument or facts that I may not be aware of (I am not a scientist by any means) that basically discounts or discredits my main premise: that given enough time, mankind will continually be able to run faster, and if followed to its logical conclusion, will some day be able to "think" themselves from one place to another. I also believe that the continued evolution of the human brain may make this even more likely, and it won't depend on only a physical evolution of the human body.
There are many offshoots to this idea, but again for now I would be interested in thoughts on just the main premise.
That's funny, i've often thought of the same question too : )
If someone runs a certain distance in 10 seconds how can it be totally impossible for someone else to run that distance in .0001 seconds faster, then so on and on and on and on. How can you ever draw a line?
I think an important factor to consider is that the chances of someone being born that is able to run faster than the record time probably decrease with each new record.
There may be a time held for 20 years until that person is born with that just bit more speed, longer legs, better stamina etc. Then they have to actually have the interest in running in the first place.
I just hope sports in the future do not allow modification of the human body in order to enhance performance. I hope better shoes and better swimsuits are the limit as to how far they go in modifications! I'm not even sure how much i agree with those in the first place. They should be standardised.
But good question anyway, i've often thought about that.
Note: If humans are still evolving, in which way will we evolve? Stronger/faster or weaker with better brains? Perhaps our sports performance will increase as time goes on by natural means : ) THOUGH it's obvious we are getting further away from our caveman days and strength is being needed less and less so maybe it will get harder for us to beat record times in the future. ( Assuming a few different theories of evolution are true here )
If someone runs a certain distance in 10 seconds how can it be totally impossible for someone else to run that distance in .0001 seconds faster, then so on and on and on and on. How can you ever draw a line?
I think an important factor to consider is that the chances of someone being born that is able to run faster than the record time probably decrease with each new record.
There may be a time held for 20 years until that person is born with that just bit more speed, longer legs, better stamina etc. Then they have to actually have the interest in running in the first place.
I just hope sports in the future do not allow modification of the human body in order to enhance performance. I hope better shoes and better swimsuits are the limit as to how far they go in modifications! I'm not even sure how much i agree with those in the first place. They should be standardised.
But good question anyway, i've often thought about that.
Note: If humans are still evolving, in which way will we evolve? Stronger/faster or weaker with better brains? Perhaps our sports performance will increase as time goes on by natural means : ) THOUGH it's obvious we are getting further away from our caveman days and strength is being needed less and less so maybe it will get harder for us to beat record times in the future. ( Assuming a few different theories of evolution are true here )
c?
I would think that at a certain point the human body would not be able to run any faster. Something-air resistance, g force, something-would tear it apart. Sure would be nice to think myself someplace tho. I'd go on vacations every day.... 
Technology certainly helps.
I bought a new pair of HI-TEC trainers and was clocked doing 38mph in a 30mph zone. I was fined £35.
I bought a new pair of HI-TEC trainers and was clocked doing 38mph in a 30mph zone. I was fined £35.
Do you mean kph, or what is that product exactly?
QUOTE (bw77+Jan 16 2006, 09:46 AM)
Is there a line of argument or facts that I may not be aware of (I am not a scientist by any means) that basically discounts or discredits my main premise: that given enough time, mankind will continually be able to run faster, and if followed to its logical conclusion, will some day be able to "think" themselves from one place to another[?]
I don't think that there's a problem with human's being able to run faster and faster, but I have a problem with the idea that this will eventually lead to people being able to think themselves from one place to another. The problem is that running faster and faster is a physical progression, while the thought-transportation is a mental evolution. While in this case both are concerned with motion, that would seem to be the end of their similarities. So, no, I don't think this progression of faster running times will lead to mental teleportation. I also think there is a limit on the 100 yard dash, and that we are close to it. It doesn't make sense that times would continue to improve to the point where, say, someone can run 100 yards in a second.
I don't think that there's a problem with human's being able to run faster and faster, but I have a problem with the idea that this will eventually lead to people being able to think themselves from one place to another. The problem is that running faster and faster is a physical progression, while the thought-transportation is a mental evolution. While in this case both are concerned with motion, that would seem to be the end of their similarities. So, no, I don't think this progression of faster running times will lead to mental teleportation. I also think there is a limit on the 100 yard dash, and that we are close to it. It doesn't make sense that times would continue to improve to the point where, say, someone can run 100 yards in a second.
Hi all,
There are no "magic powers" here. This is not the Justice League or X-Men. Humans will adapt to changing challenges. Computers are used to select sports people for obvious advantage. It stands to reason this will lead to continued improvements. Certain types of skills will depend on the human frame. Long legs and a big strong heart will probably always win over the most determined shorter legged lower stamina bodies in sports that favor these traits... etc. Some high performance athletes exhibiting many of these traits are involved in their own little "eugenics" programs to have children that will be world beaters by "breeding with their own kind". I question these kind of "adaptations" since humans are more than just wild beasts that can run fast or jump higher... in fact we are lesser creatures and for good reason... we can beat all animals using our minds and our technology.
I am sure that for battlefields, wars and under certain conditions... if you want "highly aggressive performance enhanced soldiers" then you can get your short term "athletes" using existing performance enhancing drugs... we all know that this is already the case. I am of the opinion that we should not go this way. What kind of future do you want for your children anyway?
Just observe how much the sports world already depends on sports enhancing drugs already. It is a war of finding the "stealthiest" drug and not being caught.
"Oh brave new world that has such people in it".
Cheers
There are no "magic powers" here. This is not the Justice League or X-Men. Humans will adapt to changing challenges. Computers are used to select sports people for obvious advantage. It stands to reason this will lead to continued improvements. Certain types of skills will depend on the human frame. Long legs and a big strong heart will probably always win over the most determined shorter legged lower stamina bodies in sports that favor these traits... etc. Some high performance athletes exhibiting many of these traits are involved in their own little "eugenics" programs to have children that will be world beaters by "breeding with their own kind". I question these kind of "adaptations" since humans are more than just wild beasts that can run fast or jump higher... in fact we are lesser creatures and for good reason... we can beat all animals using our minds and our technology.
I am sure that for battlefields, wars and under certain conditions... if you want "highly aggressive performance enhanced soldiers" then you can get your short term "athletes" using existing performance enhancing drugs... we all know that this is already the case. I am of the opinion that we should not go this way. What kind of future do you want for your children anyway?
Just observe how much the sports world already depends on sports enhancing drugs already. It is a war of finding the "stealthiest" drug and not being caught.
"Oh brave new world that has such people in it".
Cheers
The fallacy in this type of reasoning was actually realized a loonnggg time ago (around 500B.C.) It's called the "bearded man" argument.
It goes that if a man has a beard, then if you pull out one hair, then he must obviously still have a beard, if you take out one more, he still has a beard...and so on and so on. After a while one would be convinced that a man with only ONE hair on his chin has a beard, which is obviously wrong.
It can be used to argue pretty much anything. EG. If a man can be 6ft, then obviously a man can be 6ft 1" and so on and so on. Pretty soon your convinced that a person can be 100 ft tall.
As far as moving through thought is concerned, that isn't really related to running, more to teleporting, the only similarity is that they are both forms of movement, however a fast physical movement can't in any way lead to a fast mental movement.
It goes that if a man has a beard, then if you pull out one hair, then he must obviously still have a beard, if you take out one more, he still has a beard...and so on and so on. After a while one would be convinced that a man with only ONE hair on his chin has a beard, which is obviously wrong.
It can be used to argue pretty much anything. EG. If a man can be 6ft, then obviously a man can be 6ft 1" and so on and so on. Pretty soon your convinced that a person can be 100 ft tall.
As far as moving through thought is concerned, that isn't really related to running, more to teleporting, the only similarity is that they are both forms of movement, however a fast physical movement can't in any way lead to a fast mental movement.
A much more interesting question is "how fast can a human, unaltered by acticve drugs, hormones or surgury, propel him/herself (without using stored energy outside his body) across level ground with no wind?" -- Right now, speed skaters and cyclists are more efficient than runners.
The classic physics solution starts with equating human with a sphere of a certain cross-section and solve for the speed where the air resistance power equals the estimated peak power of the legs.
The classic physics solution starts with equating human with a sphere of a certain cross-section and solve for the speed where the air resistance power equals the estimated peak power of the legs.
I am no genius, but there are alot of factors that are really obvious.
Firstly, we have not seen the fastest humans yet. I am sure there is are thousands of people who are considerably faster then the fastest athletes of today.
Many of them don't care to show their true speed, have never really tried. Or have never taken their gift seriously enough to find their full potential (like star athletes).
Anyway, I do think that 8 seconds will be about the max a "real human" will perform. This human will be the freak accident, that guy with the perfect build, that finds himself in the perfect situation, with the right "documenting equipment". And just really goes for broke. But I won't be surprised when it happens. I would be surprised if it happened twice in 1,000 years. But then again, I really can't say what better nutrition, air, and exercise can do for humans in the next 200 years (Which is why I think 8 seconds is pretty possible possible.)
But basically the factors are as follows.
The guy is gonna reach a point where his leg weighs x amount. And for his muscle to move his leg 100 meters in 8 seconds, it will require that his muscle fibers, bones, and tendon's be exceedingly stronger and well constructed. Because they will have to move an ever increasing amount of x. There comes a point where no matter how strong and fit his muscles are, they need to be bigger to move faster, at which point they are too big to move 100 meters in 8 seconds.
It will also require that his nerves are capable of sending information to his brain just a little faster then average. And that his lungs absorb more oxygen, while his body makes more efficient use of it.
He will have to have good weather conditions, the right mind set, good balance, the perfect placement of his feet and alot of explosiveness.
At the end of the day, it just comes down to when a guy with the right combination of these (and more) qualities decides to kick it up a notch and show the world what he is made of. (Or she, but a woman running that fast may not qualify as female?)
Anyways after that guy finishes, he will probobly leave the race with pretty torn up muscles and have a hard time walking for a few days. Much faster and people will start tearing muscles off their bones.
I dunno what the limits would be with performance enhancing drugs, genetic manipulation, implants. Honestly, within a couple hundred years we will achieve alot. And if you take the time to research some of the amazing qualities that other lifeforms here on earth take for granted.
Look at the cat or rabit you tried to chase or how fast a humming bird beats it wings.
Size makes the big differance, but in 200 years, I think technology will exist that allows humans to have super light, super strong bio-mechanical leg implants.
Look at cheetas? ;p
I am done yappin now ;p
Firstly, we have not seen the fastest humans yet. I am sure there is are thousands of people who are considerably faster then the fastest athletes of today.
Many of them don't care to show their true speed, have never really tried. Or have never taken their gift seriously enough to find their full potential (like star athletes).
Anyway, I do think that 8 seconds will be about the max a "real human" will perform. This human will be the freak accident, that guy with the perfect build, that finds himself in the perfect situation, with the right "documenting equipment". And just really goes for broke. But I won't be surprised when it happens. I would be surprised if it happened twice in 1,000 years. But then again, I really can't say what better nutrition, air, and exercise can do for humans in the next 200 years (Which is why I think 8 seconds is pretty possible possible.)
But basically the factors are as follows.
The guy is gonna reach a point where his leg weighs x amount. And for his muscle to move his leg 100 meters in 8 seconds, it will require that his muscle fibers, bones, and tendon's be exceedingly stronger and well constructed. Because they will have to move an ever increasing amount of x. There comes a point where no matter how strong and fit his muscles are, they need to be bigger to move faster, at which point they are too big to move 100 meters in 8 seconds.
It will also require that his nerves are capable of sending information to his brain just a little faster then average. And that his lungs absorb more oxygen, while his body makes more efficient use of it.
He will have to have good weather conditions, the right mind set, good balance, the perfect placement of his feet and alot of explosiveness.
At the end of the day, it just comes down to when a guy with the right combination of these (and more) qualities decides to kick it up a notch and show the world what he is made of. (Or she, but a woman running that fast may not qualify as female?)
Anyways after that guy finishes, he will probobly leave the race with pretty torn up muscles and have a hard time walking for a few days. Much faster and people will start tearing muscles off their bones.
I dunno what the limits would be with performance enhancing drugs, genetic manipulation, implants. Honestly, within a couple hundred years we will achieve alot. And if you take the time to research some of the amazing qualities that other lifeforms here on earth take for granted.
Look at the cat or rabit you tried to chase or how fast a humming bird beats it wings.
Size makes the big differance, but in 200 years, I think technology will exist that allows humans to have super light, super strong bio-mechanical leg implants.
Look at cheetas? ;p
I am done yappin now ;p
I am no genius, but there are alot of factors that are really obvious.
Firstly, we have not seen the fastest humans yet. I am sure there is are thousands of people who are considerably faster then the fastest athletes of today.
Many of them don't care to show their true speed, have never really tried. Or have never taken their gift seriously enough to find their full potential (like star athletes).
Anyway, I do think that 8 seconds will be about the max a "real human" will perform. This human will be the freak accident, that guy with the perfect build, that finds himself in the perfect situation, with the right "documenting equipment". And just really goes for broke. But I won't be surprised when it happens. I would be surprised if it happened twice in 1,000 years. But then again, I really can't say what better nutrition, air, and exercise can do for humans in the next 200 years (Which is why I think 8 seconds is pretty possible.)
But basically the factors are as follows.
The guy is gonna reach a point where his leg weighs x amount. And for his muscle to move his leg 100 meters in 8 seconds, it will require that his muscle fibers, bones, and tendon's be exceedingly stronger and well constructed. Because they will have to move an ever increasing amount of x. There comes a point where no matter how strong and fit his muscles are, they need to be bigger to move faster, at which point they are too big to move 100 meters in 8 seconds.
It will also require that his nerves are capable of sending information to his brain just a little faster then average. And that his lungs absorb more oxygen, while his body makes more efficient use of it.
He will have to have good weather conditions, the right mind set, good balance, the perfect placement of his feet and alot of explosiveness.
At the end of the day, it just comes down to when a guy with the right combination of these (and more) qualities decides to kick it up a notch and show the world what he is made of. (Or she, but a woman running that fast may not qualify as female?)
Anyways after that guy finishes, he will probobly leave the race with pretty torn up muscles and have a hard time walking for a few days. Much faster and people will start tearing muscles off their bones.
I dunno what the limits would be with performance enhancing drugs, genetic manipulation, implants. Honestly, within a couple hundred years we will achieve alot. And if you take the time to research some of the amazing qualities that other lifeforms here on earth take for granted.
Look at the cat or rabit you tried to chase or how fast a humming bird beats it wings.
Size makes the big differance, but in 200 years, I think technology will exist that allows humans to have super light, super strong bio-mechanical leg implants.
Look at cheetas? ;p
I am done yappin now ;p
Firstly, we have not seen the fastest humans yet. I am sure there is are thousands of people who are considerably faster then the fastest athletes of today.
Many of them don't care to show their true speed, have never really tried. Or have never taken their gift seriously enough to find their full potential (like star athletes).
Anyway, I do think that 8 seconds will be about the max a "real human" will perform. This human will be the freak accident, that guy with the perfect build, that finds himself in the perfect situation, with the right "documenting equipment". And just really goes for broke. But I won't be surprised when it happens. I would be surprised if it happened twice in 1,000 years. But then again, I really can't say what better nutrition, air, and exercise can do for humans in the next 200 years (Which is why I think 8 seconds is pretty possible.)
But basically the factors are as follows.
The guy is gonna reach a point where his leg weighs x amount. And for his muscle to move his leg 100 meters in 8 seconds, it will require that his muscle fibers, bones, and tendon's be exceedingly stronger and well constructed. Because they will have to move an ever increasing amount of x. There comes a point where no matter how strong and fit his muscles are, they need to be bigger to move faster, at which point they are too big to move 100 meters in 8 seconds.
It will also require that his nerves are capable of sending information to his brain just a little faster then average. And that his lungs absorb more oxygen, while his body makes more efficient use of it.
He will have to have good weather conditions, the right mind set, good balance, the perfect placement of his feet and alot of explosiveness.
At the end of the day, it just comes down to when a guy with the right combination of these (and more) qualities decides to kick it up a notch and show the world what he is made of. (Or she, but a woman running that fast may not qualify as female?)
Anyways after that guy finishes, he will probobly leave the race with pretty torn up muscles and have a hard time walking for a few days. Much faster and people will start tearing muscles off their bones.
I dunno what the limits would be with performance enhancing drugs, genetic manipulation, implants. Honestly, within a couple hundred years we will achieve alot. And if you take the time to research some of the amazing qualities that other lifeforms here on earth take for granted.
Look at the cat or rabit you tried to chase or how fast a humming bird beats it wings.
Size makes the big differance, but in 200 years, I think technology will exist that allows humans to have super light, super strong bio-mechanical leg implants.
Look at cheetas? ;p
I am done yappin now ;p
Yes, this is an example of the "bearded man" argument. From a mathematical point of view, the reasoning also resembles Zeno's paradox. The basic fallacy is that a continuous upward trend must not have an upper bound. The counter example to this is very easy:
Suppose the maximum speed this year is 10m/s, next year 11, then 11.1, then 11.11, 11.111, etc. The sequence continues to increase forever, but clearly never gets past the limiting value 11.1111..... = 100/9.
Even if you could reach infinite speed, that would in no way be the same as "thinking yourself there" because running is a physical process of muscular movement. Even if you don't worry about that, the runner always must follow some specific path to the destination, encountering physical interactions along the way. The whole idea of teleportation is (in my opinion) supposed to be about moving from point A to point B instantaneously WITHOUT passing through the space between. Otherwise, you couldn't teleport through a hole too small to crawl through. This "magical" quality is what makes teleportation a fun fantasy, and this whole idea of running infinitely fast loses that. So I guess this is a criticism of the idea from a poetic point of view: it's just not COOL, makes teleportation into a boring fantasy.
--Stuart Anderson
Suppose the maximum speed this year is 10m/s, next year 11, then 11.1, then 11.11, 11.111, etc. The sequence continues to increase forever, but clearly never gets past the limiting value 11.1111..... = 100/9.
Even if you could reach infinite speed, that would in no way be the same as "thinking yourself there" because running is a physical process of muscular movement. Even if you don't worry about that, the runner always must follow some specific path to the destination, encountering physical interactions along the way. The whole idea of teleportation is (in my opinion) supposed to be about moving from point A to point B instantaneously WITHOUT passing through the space between. Otherwise, you couldn't teleport through a hole too small to crawl through. This "magical" quality is what makes teleportation a fun fantasy, and this whole idea of running infinitely fast loses that. So I guess this is a criticism of the idea from a poetic point of view: it's just not COOL, makes teleportation into a boring fantasy.
--Stuart Anderson
How this thread has come so far without mentioning biological constraints (the main determinant of the answer in this question) of the human body is beyond me.
First of all, all muscles have a contraction time, i.e. a time they require to go from no contraction to peak contraction, that is finite. The quickest muscle contraction times happen in the eye muscles, with a contraction time of around 43 ± 4.3 milliseconds. Seeing as it takes light, 1.25 * 10 -5 seconds or .0125 milliseconds to travel 100 metres, c is definitely not anywhere near what a person could manage under his own power.
OK, let's say all the leg muscles have the contraction time of your eye muscles (very very unlikely, but we're looking for the maximum velocity here). The time to fully contract a muscle, change muscle length and produce locomotion also takes time. Much more than just the contraction time itself. <Insert appropriate maths here>
Also, muscles have mass. It requires force to accelerate it. Acceleration takes time. For the finite amount of force able to be produced by the human body, this will take more time than the latter two put together. Square of the force produced by a muscle is directly proportional to its mass cubed, so that has to be optimised. Even when it is, it will still take some time to accelerate the entire body to the velocity that would have come out in the maths of the second point.
Even if those are taken out of the equation by some super-duper leg implants (by which time you have to ask yourself what the point is), there is still the speed at which you can voluntarily acitvate them. Even the knee-jerk reflex requires 50ms to activate. Voluntary response to stimulus is about 3 times this. So to just send a message down to your legs takes 75ms. This will also decrease the maximum velocity down the track.
This hypothetical situation doesn't take into account neural and muscular fatigue, nor refractory times of the nerves (the time it takes them to reset and be able to fire off again), wind resistance (which will play some little role in it) nor friction against the ground. All these will act to slow down to some time that will definitely be measured in seconds.
Burnt Toast
EDIT:
Well, that was silly of me. It would take light 1.25 * 10^-12 seconds, not 1.25 * 10^-5 I had said before. This is .00125 nanoseconds. Which makes it even more unlikely that humans can reach it.
First of all, all muscles have a contraction time, i.e. a time they require to go from no contraction to peak contraction, that is finite. The quickest muscle contraction times happen in the eye muscles, with a contraction time of around 43 ± 4.3 milliseconds. Seeing as it takes light, 1.25 * 10 -5 seconds or .0125 milliseconds to travel 100 metres, c is definitely not anywhere near what a person could manage under his own power.
OK, let's say all the leg muscles have the contraction time of your eye muscles (very very unlikely, but we're looking for the maximum velocity here). The time to fully contract a muscle, change muscle length and produce locomotion also takes time. Much more than just the contraction time itself. <Insert appropriate maths here>
Also, muscles have mass. It requires force to accelerate it. Acceleration takes time. For the finite amount of force able to be produced by the human body, this will take more time than the latter two put together. Square of the force produced by a muscle is directly proportional to its mass cubed, so that has to be optimised. Even when it is, it will still take some time to accelerate the entire body to the velocity that would have come out in the maths of the second point.
Even if those are taken out of the equation by some super-duper leg implants (by which time you have to ask yourself what the point is), there is still the speed at which you can voluntarily acitvate them. Even the knee-jerk reflex requires 50ms to activate. Voluntary response to stimulus is about 3 times this. So to just send a message down to your legs takes 75ms. This will also decrease the maximum velocity down the track.
This hypothetical situation doesn't take into account neural and muscular fatigue, nor refractory times of the nerves (the time it takes them to reset and be able to fire off again), wind resistance (which will play some little role in it) nor friction against the ground. All these will act to slow down to some time that will definitely be measured in seconds.
Burnt Toast
EDIT:
Well, that was silly of me. It would take light 1.25 * 10^-12 seconds, not 1.25 * 10^-5 I had said before. This is .00125 nanoseconds. Which makes it even more unlikely that humans can reach it.
QUOTE (Burnt toast+Jun 27 2006, 06:39 PM)
How this thread has come so far without mentioning biological constraints (the main determinant of the answer in this question) of the human body is beyond me.
On a similar note, there are also restraints due to physics, such as the speed of light. If humans could travel at the speed of light, traveling 100 yards would still take (100 yards) / (the speed of light) = 305.011009 nanoseconds (thanks, google calculator). I think that time is from the perspective of a stationary observer, but I may be wrong.
On a similar note, there are also restraints due to physics, such as the speed of light. If humans could travel at the speed of light, traveling 100 yards would still take (100 yards) / (the speed of light) = 305.011009 nanoseconds (thanks, google calculator). I think that time is from the perspective of a stationary observer, but I may be wrong.
A previous commenter brought up biological constraints, but I think there's a more basic, simpler way to find the limit. It's a system, with a certain amount of fuel, accelerating from point A to point B. If you determine the starting weight of the runner, come up with the "fuel" that it will burn during the race, and know the caloric value of the fuel, if you assume 100% efficiency at turning that fuel into kinetic energy, that would be the limit of how fast a person could conceivably run a race. If you really want to be conservative, giving the fastest possible time, determine the caloric value of the entire body as the amount of energy that could go into running the race. There's no possible way a person could run faster than that.
QUOTE (bw77+Jan 13 2006, 01:25 AM)
For the sake of argument, let's say the current world record for the 100 yard dash is 9.5 seconds. Let's also say that next year someone runs 100 yards in 9.4 seconds. Then let's say that every 25 years (pick any number you want), someone knocks one tenth of a second off the previous record.
Where does this end? If a human can run 100 yards in 8.8 seconds, how can we say it's impossible that no one will *ever* run it in 8.7 seconds? And then 8.6 seconds 50 years later, and so on.
If this premise is accepted, can we assume that at some point far in the future a subset of "super humans" (because surely not everyone will keep up with the speed records, just like today not everyone can run 100 yards in 9.5 seconds) will be able to "think" themselves (and anything they are wearing or holding) from one point to another? Would distance matter at that point, since you could just as easily "think" yourself 100 miles as 100 yards? What would this do to our concept of time?
Thanks.
It won't end. Man will get faster and faster and the time he can run 100Metres will reduce. To run fast one has to believe he can run fast in his mind. He will visualise himself winning the 100Metres and running very fast and visualise the world record being broken. Without this thought pattern he might as well not run.
Watch Rocky IV that Russian was faster and more powerful than Rocky but Rocky beat him. Why Rocky believed in himself. The Russian doubted he could beat him after Rocky cut him and so lost.
Welcome to the World of The Questioner.
Where does this end? If a human can run 100 yards in 8.8 seconds, how can we say it's impossible that no one will *ever* run it in 8.7 seconds? And then 8.6 seconds 50 years later, and so on.
If this premise is accepted, can we assume that at some point far in the future a subset of "super humans" (because surely not everyone will keep up with the speed records, just like today not everyone can run 100 yards in 9.5 seconds) will be able to "think" themselves (and anything they are wearing or holding) from one point to another? Would distance matter at that point, since you could just as easily "think" yourself 100 miles as 100 yards? What would this do to our concept of time?
Thanks.
It won't end. Man will get faster and faster and the time he can run 100Metres will reduce. To run fast one has to believe he can run fast in his mind. He will visualise himself winning the 100Metres and running very fast and visualise the world record being broken. Without this thought pattern he might as well not run.
Watch Rocky IV that Russian was faster and more powerful than Rocky but Rocky beat him. Why Rocky believed in himself. The Russian doubted he could beat him after Rocky cut him and so lost.
Welcome to the World of The Questioner.
The question is kind of interesting. There is definately a finite time that will be able to be acheived. But as science learns more about muscle functioning, body mechanics, and proper training techniques, one has to wonder what times humans can acheive. In the past 10 years almost a 10th of a second has been shaved off of the 100m time. That seems pretty incredible. I would say that one of the most important phases of the 100m dash is the acceleration phase, or the start. This is when maximum forces are going to be applied I think. Now, I don't know if it would be possible to get to this limit, but one limit would be when the bones can not handle the forces that are applied during the start. I have heard that during starts, high calibre sprinter's shin's bend slighty, enough to be seen in a picture. I have not been able to find any images though, and not sure if its true. Bone strength I am sure is very dependent on genetics, nutrition, and training, so I don't know what this limit is, but the limit of breaking bones with the forces would be one not able to be overcome.
Reaction time is crucial. If the mind could react quicker at the start gun then times would go down a lot.
A runner reaches top speed only after about 40-50 m of acceleration.
This could be improved.
A runner reaches top speed only after about 40-50 m of acceleration.
This could be improved.
If this continues, one day several centuries from now, someone will run 100mts in 0 seconds. 
Now we know how to achieve teleportation - Make our athlete run faster and faster.
Now we know how to achieve teleportation - Make our athlete run faster and faster.
QUOTE (vkamath+Jul 13 2006, 05:14 PM)
If this continues, one day several centuries from now, someone will run 100mts in 0 seconds. Now we know how to achieve teleportation - Make our athlete run faster and faster.
If you could freeze time then you could run the 100m in 0 seconds.
Now we know how to achieve teleportation - Make our athlete run faster and faster. If you could freeze time then you could run the 100m in 0 seconds.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 27 2006, 01:32 AM)
The classic physics solution starts with equating human with a sphere of a certain cross-section and ...
Did no one read into this a subtle slur upon Americans?
Did no one read into this a subtle slur upon Americans?
iv heard that the fastest time a human can run 100 metres is 9.20 secs and that the biomechanics wont budge from that point
I would think that there is a limit on how fast a human can run, at some point wind resistance will equal the max. output that a human passably generate.
This does not mean to say that in some far distant future, humans will evolve to a more physical state. However although I know little about formal theory in evolution it seems that humans as a species have had a trend to evolve mentally at the expense of physical traits. I see no reason for this to end.
So I will have to say yes, there is a limit to how fast a human can run.
This does not mean to say that in some far distant future, humans will evolve to a more physical state. However although I know little about formal theory in evolution it seems that humans as a species have had a trend to evolve mentally at the expense of physical traits. I see no reason for this to end.
So I will have to say yes, there is a limit to how fast a human can run.
Slower than the speed of a brick wall.
The "max" for a human running speed is past what many of you have written. You are not track and field fans.
Bob hayes ran his flying leg of the 100m dash in the 1964 Olympics in 8.6-8.9 seconds. The hand timed rec. for 100y is 9.0. All rec. in yrds. were stopped in 1977 and so were manual timed rec. All dis. are metric and times are electronic.
The current off. 100m= 9.77three time by Asafa Powell of Jam.
The fastest 10m split is .80s of that race (27.96mph). It could be safe to say the "max" speed for a human now is at most 30.5 mph. If one took the fastest ten 10m segments of all timed 10m seg. of 100m races, the seg. times would add to a time of 9.52 for the "perfect" 100m run.
It could be thus said that right now that fastest 100y would be c. 8.70s and 100m would be 9.52s. The first "official 100y and 100m times" by the IAAF were
10 1/5s (10.2) for 100y and 10.6 for 100m.
The first recorded times for 100y is from england during the 1850's. the 100y best was c. 11.0 and 100m in the 1870's c. 11 2/5s (11.4). If we can assume the that 10,000 yrs ago the rec. were thus: THEN WE CAN ASUME THE MAX IS 9.30S FOR 100M.
100 YARDS /100M
8,000BC-11.8/10.8
7,000BC-11.8/10.8
6,000BC-11.8/10.8
5,000BC-11.8/10.8
4,000BC-11.8/10/8
3,000BC-11.8/10.8
2,000BC-11.8/10.8
1,000BC-11.5/10.7
1AD -11.5/10.7
1000AD- 11.5/10.7
1977AD- 9.0 /9.77
Bob hayes ran his flying leg of the 100m dash in the 1964 Olympics in 8.6-8.9 seconds. The hand timed rec. for 100y is 9.0. All rec. in yrds. were stopped in 1977 and so were manual timed rec. All dis. are metric and times are electronic.
The current off. 100m= 9.77three time by Asafa Powell of Jam.
The fastest 10m split is .80s of that race (27.96mph). It could be safe to say the "max" speed for a human now is at most 30.5 mph. If one took the fastest ten 10m segments of all timed 10m seg. of 100m races, the seg. times would add to a time of 9.52 for the "perfect" 100m run.
It could be thus said that right now that fastest 100y would be c. 8.70s and 100m would be 9.52s. The first "official 100y and 100m times" by the IAAF were
10 1/5s (10.2) for 100y and 10.6 for 100m.
The first recorded times for 100y is from england during the 1850's. the 100y best was c. 11.0 and 100m in the 1870's c. 11 2/5s (11.4). If we can assume the that 10,000 yrs ago the rec. were thus: THEN WE CAN ASUME THE MAX IS 9.30S FOR 100M.
100 YARDS /100M
8,000BC-11.8/10.8
7,000BC-11.8/10.8
6,000BC-11.8/10.8
5,000BC-11.8/10.8
4,000BC-11.8/10/8
3,000BC-11.8/10.8
2,000BC-11.8/10.8
1,000BC-11.5/10.7
1AD -11.5/10.7
1000AD- 11.5/10.7
1977AD- 9.0 /9.77
Some very good counterpoints to the original question and some of its implications, and I accept the "teleportation" part of it (but the philosophical aspect remains), but don't agree that the "bearded man" argument is correct in this application.
However, centuries ago, didn't many of the most learned scientists of the time proclaim "limits" on human achievements (both physical and mental) that have now long been passed?
As human's bodies and brains continue to evolve in the centuries to come, surely in some ways we can't now foresee, many of the reasons to discount the premise may go away.
While the laws of physics may not change (although some may be understood differently in the future), how humans adapt to a deeper understanding of those laws, combined with enhanced physical and mental capabilities, makes many of the "it can never be faster than x.x" arguments less than complete.
If you assume any of the arguments stating that scientific facts prove that humans will never run 100m (to use but one example) faster than x.x are correct, and notice how they arrive at different numbers, then doesn't that mean that you are also saying that change can't continue to occur, change that will affect the dynamics of the whole argument? If the same arguments were made centuries ago using physical facts known at that time, wouldn't they have come to the conclusion that no one would ever run 100m faster than some number that was passed last century?
I continue to believe that the original premise holds important implications for many disciplines and how we think about time and its impact on the human experience.
However, centuries ago, didn't many of the most learned scientists of the time proclaim "limits" on human achievements (both physical and mental) that have now long been passed?
As human's bodies and brains continue to evolve in the centuries to come, surely in some ways we can't now foresee, many of the reasons to discount the premise may go away.
While the laws of physics may not change (although some may be understood differently in the future), how humans adapt to a deeper understanding of those laws, combined with enhanced physical and mental capabilities, makes many of the "it can never be faster than x.x" arguments less than complete.
If you assume any of the arguments stating that scientific facts prove that humans will never run 100m (to use but one example) faster than x.x are correct, and notice how they arrive at different numbers, then doesn't that mean that you are also saying that change can't continue to occur, change that will affect the dynamics of the whole argument? If the same arguments were made centuries ago using physical facts known at that time, wouldn't they have come to the conclusion that no one would ever run 100m faster than some number that was passed last century?
I continue to believe that the original premise holds important implications for many disciplines and how we think about time and its impact on the human experience.
Doesn't exactly prove the original premise of course, but the timing of this event and the article in today's NY Times is quite apropos:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/sports/o...cs/30track.html
In 100-Meter Win, Gay Pushes the Limits
"Because of a stiff tailwind, Tyson Gay did not shatter the limits of human possibility with his astounding time of 9.68 seconds in the 100 meters at the United States Olympic track and field trials on Sunday.
But consider those limits seriously dented...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/sports/o...cs/30track.html
In 100-Meter Win, Gay Pushes the Limits
"Because of a stiff tailwind, Tyson Gay did not shatter the limits of human possibility with his astounding time of 9.68 seconds in the 100 meters at the United States Olympic track and field trials on Sunday.
But consider those limits seriously dented...."
Something I haven't seen in this discussion so far is any mention of something that could be termed "Survival Overdrive". This is a state where a person can perform physical feats that are beyond normal limits, usually in times of crisis. This state isn't achieved by athletes, because a race is not a life and death situation. Certainly there is an adrenalin rush of some form, but the rush would be miniscule compared to that of a "Fight or Flight" reaction. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a person in peak physical shape were to go into a "Survival Overdrive". The aftermath could be rather painful, to say the least, but the data collected could be interesting. And such a test would truly tell the true limits of human performance.
And now just one year later:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfiel...tory?id=4402644
"Bolt lowers 100 meter mark to 9.58"
And from this page:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/...-possible-.html
comes quotes like this:
"...Bolt broke the mathematical model that had fit 100-meter record data for almost a century"
-------
"How fast will man eventually run? Will he ever run the 100 meters in five seconds flat?
"Not impossible," says one of the world's best known authorities on physiology and biomechanics. Professor Peter Weyand, of Southern Methodist University, known for his expertise in terrestrial locomotion and human and animal performance. Weyand said that humans would soon have the ''ability to modify and greatly enhance muscle fibre strength.'' This is would actually reduce the difference between the muscle properties of humans and the world's fastest animal, the cheetah, to almost zero. " "
------
"Despite the success of Mureika's model, Weyand, said that mathematical models could never predict how fast humans might eventually run."
------
" "We don't really know what the best form is and maybe Bolt is redefining that and showing us we missed something," said biomechanicist John Hutchinson of the Royal Veterinary College at the University of London, who studies how animals move.
Hutchinson also agreed with Weyand that the human speed limit will remain impossible to predict with any confidence."
-------
Although to repeat that I am leaving out the whole idea of "teleportation" as implied by the original question, this continues to be a fascinating subject and one worthy of further study and thought.
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfiel...tory?id=4402644
"Bolt lowers 100 meter mark to 9.58"
And from this page:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/...-possible-.html
comes quotes like this:
"...Bolt broke the mathematical model that had fit 100-meter record data for almost a century"
-------
"How fast will man eventually run? Will he ever run the 100 meters in five seconds flat?
"Not impossible," says one of the world's best known authorities on physiology and biomechanics. Professor Peter Weyand, of Southern Methodist University, known for his expertise in terrestrial locomotion and human and animal performance. Weyand said that humans would soon have the ''ability to modify and greatly enhance muscle fibre strength.'' This is would actually reduce the difference between the muscle properties of humans and the world's fastest animal, the cheetah, to almost zero. " "
------
"Despite the success of Mureika's model, Weyand, said that mathematical models could never predict how fast humans might eventually run."
------
" "We don't really know what the best form is and maybe Bolt is redefining that and showing us we missed something," said biomechanicist John Hutchinson of the Royal Veterinary College at the University of London, who studies how animals move.
Hutchinson also agreed with Weyand that the human speed limit will remain impossible to predict with any confidence."
-------
Although to repeat that I am leaving out the whole idea of "teleportation" as implied by the original question, this continues to be a fascinating subject and one worthy of further study and thought.
The limit on Earth would be different than on other places.
On the moon for example the fastest someone could run would be a lot slower than on Earth.
You can't lift the second foot untill you have fallen onto the first foot. And how fast that happens depends on how strong gravity is.
On the moon for example the fastest someone could run would be a lot slower than on Earth.
You can't lift the second foot untill you have fallen onto the first foot. And how fast that happens depends on how strong gravity is.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 17 2009, 09:16 PM)
The limit on Earth would be different than on other places.
On the moon for example the fastest someone could run would be a lot slower than on Earth.
On the moon for example the fastest someone could run would be a lot slower than on Earth.
Here are a couple of treadmill experiments that might give an indication of the speed of a human running on the moon.
QUOTE
Simulated reduced gravity did not substantially alter the movement pattern as locomotion kinematics were similar for all gravity levels. Stride frequency was independent of gravity during walking (P > 0.05) and decreased only slightly for the lower gravity levels during running (P < 0.01). Stride frequency was 0.93 ± 0.004 Hz for walking at 1.0 G and 0.90 ± 0.02 Hz for walking at 0.25 G (mean ±s.e.m.). For running, stride frequency decreased from 1.37 ± 0.03 Hz at 1.0 G to 1.12 ± 0.03 Hz at 0.25 G, an 18% reduction.
http://jp.physoc.org/content/530/1/167.full
At 1/4 g there is an 18% decrease in stride frequency, which translates into a 18% increase in speed. Extrapolating to the 1/6 g of the Moon yields a 20% increase in speed.http://jp.physoc.org/content/530/1/167.full
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Simulated reduced gravity did not substantially alter the movement pattern as locomotion kinematics were similar for all gravity levels. Stride frequency was independent of gravity during walking (P > 0.05) and decreased only slightly for the lower gravity levels during running (P < 0.01). Stride frequency was 0.93 ± 0.004 Hz for walking at 1.0 G and 0.90 ± 0.02 Hz for walking at 0.25 G (mean ±s.e.m.). For running, stride frequency decreased from 1.37 ± 0.03 Hz at 1.0 G to 1.12 ± 0.03 Hz at 0.25 G, an 18% reduction. http://jp.physoc.org/content/530/1/167.full |
At 1/4 g there is an 18% decrease in stride frequency, which translates into a 18% increase in speed. Extrapolating to the 1/6 g of the Moon yields a 20% increase in speed.
Butch Reynolds apparently recorded a speed of 28mph on the treadmill, which is way above the 23mph recorded by Maurice Green during his world-record run.
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0967.htm
Butch Reynolds apparently recorded a speed of 28mph on the treadmill, which is way above the 23mph recorded by Maurice Green during his world-record run.
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0967.htm
Butch Reynolds has run the second fastest time ever at 400 meters, and has run an average speed of 22 mph for 200 meters. His speed on the treadmill represents an 22% increase in speed in the absence of aerodynamic drag.
From the above examples, it appears that a world class sprinter would be capable of a 42% increase in speed under Lunar conditions.
From the above examples, it appears that a world class sprinter would be capable of a 42% increase in speed under Lunar conditions.
I don't see how that is accurate. I think they only did a partial simulation, and real lower gravity would be different.
Bipedal walking is falling forward and stopping yourself.
With lower gravity you fall slower.
Bipedal walking is falling forward and stopping yourself.
With lower gravity you fall slower.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 19 2009, 11:23 AM)
I don't see how that is accurate. I think they only did a partial simulation, and real lower gravity would be different.
Bipedal walking is falling forward and stopping yourself.
With lower gravity you fall slower.
Bipedal walking is falling forward and stopping yourself.
With lower gravity you fall slower.
I would consider bipedal locomotion an exercise of coordinated propulsion, which happens to include an element of falling. Just as a projectile would have an optimal angle of elevation for a given set of conditions, so would the act of running. With a low gravity condition, less of the effort is needed in the lifting phase of the stride, which allows more to be directed to a more forward trajectory. When all of the effort is vertical, the motion is a jump with no forward motion. If it's mostly horizontal, it results in a forward dive. With some adjustment for propulsive timing, I believe an efficient stride could be preformed in a 1/6 g environment.
QUOTE (Guest_Zorlont3+Jun 27 2006, 02:16 AM)
The guy is gonna reach a point where his leg weighs x amount. And for his muscle to move his leg 100 meters in 8 seconds, it will require that his muscle fibers, bones, and tendon's be exceedingly stronger and well constructed. Because they will have to move an ever increasing amount of x. There comes a point where no matter how strong and fit his muscles are, they need to be bigger to move faster, at which point they are too big to move 100 meters in 8 seconds.
A person running 100 yards in 9.5 seconds has his leg moving at twice that speed i.e. 200 yards in that time (9.5 seconds). So 100 yards in 8 seconds is pretty slow for this leg doing at least 168 yards in that time. Well the leg rests for exactly the same time it moves that is why the athlete is still in one peace.
On a more serious note there is a limit on how fast a person can run as you pointed out. If the limit is say 100 yards in 8 seconds, then those endowed with maths skills can give as all reasonable fractions between the current 9.5 and 8 secs for so many years up to that time [f(x)]?
A person running 100 yards in 9.5 seconds has his leg moving at twice that speed i.e. 200 yards in that time (9.5 seconds). So 100 yards in 8 seconds is pretty slow for this leg doing at least 168 yards in that time. Well the leg rests for exactly the same time it moves that is why the athlete is still in one peace.
On a more serious note there is a limit on how fast a person can run as you pointed out. If the limit is say 100 yards in 8 seconds, then those endowed with maths skills can give as all reasonable fractions between the current 9.5 and 8 secs for so many years up to that time [f(x)]?
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 19 2009, 12:14 PM)
I would consider bipedal locomotion an exercise of coordinated propulsion, which happens to include an element of falling. Just as a projectile would have an optimal angle of elevation for a given set of conditions, so would the act of running. With a low gravity condition, less of the effort is needed in the lifting phase of the stride, which allows more to be directed to a more forward trajectory. When all of the effort is vertical, the motion is a jump with no forward motion. If it's mostly horizontal, it results in a forward dive. With some adjustment for propulsive timing, I believe an efficient stride could be preformed in a 1/6 g environment.
But how much you can propel yourself forward is also dependant on friction which is less with less gravity.
But how much you can propel yourself forward is also dependant on friction which is less with less gravity.
Yous just need the average height and body mass to increase, so a longer stride with more torque is whats needed. I can definetly see more records broken in the future. Yay...
Running isn't just a matter of taking as many steps as fast as someone can. For each person, there should be an optimum stride before the next one. I remember reading a WILSON story many years ago (he was a super-athlete in a comic) where he ran down a mountain, then managed to translate that kind of running into running on the flat.
There is also the problem of oxygen starvation/overuse. Has there ever been a study to show if people who live at high altitudes have more endurance than the rest of us since they normally work with less oxygen?
Cod liver oil literally oils the joints. A good routine of this before a big race might help? (though you'd have to be careful as it contains vitamin A and too much of that can be harmful.)
There is also the problem of oxygen starvation/overuse. Has there ever been a study to show if people who live at high altitudes have more endurance than the rest of us since they normally work with less oxygen?
Cod liver oil literally oils the joints. A good routine of this before a big race might help? (though you'd have to be careful as it contains vitamin A and too much of that can be harmful.)
QUOTE (dakfe09+Aug 24 2009, 12:07 PM)
Yous just need the average height and body mass to increase, so a longer stride with more torque is whats needed. I can definetly see more records broken in the future. Yay...
I watched a Pakistani workmate on a treadmill. When it was sped up, he did not run faster but lengthened his stride so didn't have to overexert himself.
I watched a Pakistani workmate on a treadmill. When it was sped up, he did not run faster but lengthened his stride so didn't have to overexert himself.
no, there is no limit to how fast a human can run. simple for a 4 year old. Very simple. If person A can run 'x fast', then person A can push "just a little bit more"... and if not, then a 'person B' will be found who can push "just a little bit more"... there really is no limit in the mind of the 4 year old as long as there is an infinitesimal amount...
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.