Good morning all.
Quick query that has been bugging me for some time now, which I cannot really continue much further without an answer to:
Is there a name for the absolute smallest possible unit of time?
Further, are there any generally accepted theories on its measurement/size? (I am looking for an answer something like "10^-23 of 1 nanosecond" [not an actual guess, just an example of the TYPE of answer I am hoping for])
There is no generally accepted "absolute smallest unit of time" therefore nothing concrete to be named.
Hmmm... You'd think it could be described or defined, even if it can't be measured or accurately identified. I am stalled in my work until I have a name or representation for it. If there is no generally accepted standard, I can do it myself, but it seems like it would be a fairly important unit for use in several subjects.
Thanks for the reply.
Thanks for the reply.
QUOTE (lightandtime+Apr 25 2012, 04:50 AM)
Hmmm... You'd think it could be described or defined, even if it can't be measured or accurately identified. I am stalled in my work until I have a name or representation for it. If there is no generally accepted standard, I can do it myself, but it seems like it would be a fairly important unit for use in several subjects.
Thanks for the reply.
Thanks for the reply.
Thank you! That works perfectly 
QUOTE (brucep+Apr 25 2012, 01:47 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
Time it takes light to cross one Planck Length.
FYI, another interesting clue indicating time appears to require a change of position in space.
Maxila
Time it takes light to cross one Planck Length.
FYI, another interesting clue indicating time appears to require a change of position in space.
Maxila
QUOTE (Maxila+Apr 25 2012, 03:44 PM)
FYI, another interesting clue indicating time appears to require a change of position in space.
Maxila
What you think 'is apparent', about the dimension of time, probably isn't. Based on kindergarden arguments you made and all the discussion you ignored in the process.
Maxila
What you think 'is apparent', about the dimension of time, probably isn't. Based on kindergarden arguments you made and all the discussion you ignored in the process.
Thank you for all of the replies. Planck time is actually the EXACT measurement/unit I needed. It perfectly fits into my equations, surprisingly/happily enough. I am delighted with the immediate results I am coming up with when I plug it in, and the initial implications are fascinating. My thesis looks to be in the bag already, and I have just started here at MIT.
Again, thanks for the information. If I could beg one favor, please lock this thread, or let it die, now. I see the trolling/anger/namecalling/etc that is going on in so many other fascinating threads on these boards, and I do not want mine to degenerate the same way. Please, there are plenty of others to hate each other in, so please leave this one be?
Again, thanks for the information. If I could beg one favor, please lock this thread, or let it die, now. I see the trolling/anger/namecalling/etc that is going on in so many other fascinating threads on these boards, and I do not want mine to degenerate the same way. Please, there are plenty of others to hate each other in, so please leave this one be?
QUOTE (brucep+Apr 25 2012, 05:15 PM)
What you think 'is apparent', about the dimension of time, probably isn't. Based on kindergarden arguments you made and all the discussion you ignored in the process.
I have always respected your knowledge of physics and I still do; however your many "brain farts" in the forums over the years have shown me there is a large gap between your, knowledge, ability to regurgitate it, and comprehension.
I mention this lack of being able to understand and equate what you know outside the scope in which you know it, in order to set the record straight and because your rudeness is getting tiresome. Others who read the forum might learn they can rely on your facts and figures but should not misconstrue that as good comprehension for a real world physical meaning of those facts and figures.
I can save you a reply by acknowledging that you'll tell me you could care less what I say and so on (you''d insert more nasty remarks here)... I'm not going to get into a verbal brawl with you on this, don’t expect another reply; I would have been more delicate but your rude, arrogant-ignorant personality traits (you are your own worst enemy) got the best of me today.
Maxila
I have always respected your knowledge of physics and I still do; however your many "brain farts" in the forums over the years have shown me there is a large gap between your, knowledge, ability to regurgitate it, and comprehension.
I mention this lack of being able to understand and equate what you know outside the scope in which you know it, in order to set the record straight and because your rudeness is getting tiresome. Others who read the forum might learn they can rely on your facts and figures but should not misconstrue that as good comprehension for a real world physical meaning of those facts and figures.
I can save you a reply by acknowledging that you'll tell me you could care less what I say and so on (you''d insert more nasty remarks here)... I'm not going to get into a verbal brawl with you on this, don’t expect another reply; I would have been more delicate but your rude, arrogant-ignorant personality traits (you are your own worst enemy) got the best of me today.
Maxila
QUOTE (Maxila+Apr 25 2012, 09:44 AM)
FYI, another interesting clue indicating time appears to require a change of position in space.
Maxila
Quite aside from anyone's rudeness...
Even if you can postulate a space, you cannot verify it without traversing it, which takes time. Motion takes time, not vice versa. This is why there is a distinction between motion and teleportation.
Maxila
Quite aside from anyone's rudeness...
Even if you can postulate a space, you cannot verify it without traversing it, which takes time. Motion takes time, not vice versa. This is why there is a distinction between motion and teleportation.
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.