Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: [B]Quantum Time[/B]

  1. #1 [B]Quantum Time[/B] 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Quantum Time

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (Redirected from Quantum time)
    A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous.

    To explain this conceptually rather than mathematically, what is meant by time is not continuous, would be as follows:

    Endurantism and perdurantism

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    An endurantist holds that for an object to persist through time is for it to exist completely at different times (each instance of existence we can regard as somehow separate from previous and future instances, though still numerically identical with them). A perdurantist on the other hand holds that for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality, and that when we consider the thing as a whole we must consider an aggregate of all its "temporal parts" or instances of existing. Endurantism is seen as the conventional view.

    Endurantism is a version of the “blanket moment” view that established physics is based on where the entire universe exists completely at different times as opposed to a Perdurantism version or “point moment” view where every point exists at a completely different time.

    The classical view of time is where time is a fourth dimension that covers the three dimensions of space and can be measured by clocks, where the universe does not continually exist.

    The quantum view of time is where each three dimensional point continually exists at different times, clocks measure the movement of individual points but not time itself.

    The word “point” is being used here to describe a 3 dimensional object but just to be clear science describes a point as 0 dimension, a line having 1 dimension and so on. An accurate description of a chronon might be the moment now is a point and the space between points is a line, seen from every angle a chronon is three dimensional.

    When Wikipedia says the chronon hypothesis is proposing that time is not continuous it does not mean that the moment now does not exist continually, albeit at different times, but rather it clumsily refers to the comparison with the classic view of time moving moment to moment. It is explaining both views from only one perspective.

    I am slowly learning to not arrogantly suggest alternative hypothesis that are a dime a dozen (if that) to a weary community whom have seen this movie countless times before so I am not, I am simply asking you, if you would be so kind, to explain the power required to support these opposing views that are published already.

    The established science supports the idea that there is a power source that can completely destroy and then recreate an entire universe moment by moment just to facilitate movement and on the other hand only the energy to have a single moment exist is required. One interesting point here is the established view requires creation where now always exists.

    I can think of nothing in established science that this less established alternative to time would disagree with, that said I believe it could be the basis for a new theory which would replicate all of the successes of the old, while also going beyond. At no point anywhere in this post am I suggesting any such theory and am only interested in discussing the the massive flaws of this particular view, not the advantages of some other alternative that is no represented here.

    I am no expert on this matter and it may have been the mere expression of just one person but I was accused of taking a philosophical position, or what is a statement of one's personal aesthetics, but if the classical view not regarded as doing exactly that, then why?

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    This is the same crackpot stuff that you posted in Personal Theories, please stop spamming the forum.

  3. #3  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Ad hominem

  4. #4  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by firebird View Post
    Ad hominem
    Nope. An ad hominem is an attack on the person, but "the same crackpot stuff" is attacking only your words.

    And seeing as you have already posted this in the personal theories sub-forum, it is spamming when you post the same thing elsewhere.

    It is against the rules to post non-established science in the main forums.

    Thread locked.

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts