Physics Forums

Physics Forums (http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   'There is no time' - Wired magazine (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=83865)

Pengwuino Aug1-05 06:00 PM

'There is no time' - Wired magazine
 
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ics&topic_set=

Has anyone read this? If so, whats your take on it.

Tony11235 Aug1-05 09:55 PM

Humm....I'm not sure what to say. Regardless, it takes alot of gutts for somebody who has not even completed college to come out and say that Hawking is wrong.

Pengwuino Aug1-05 10:22 PM

Quote:

Quote by Tony11235
Humm....I'm not sure what to say. Regardless, it takes alot of gutts for somebody who has not even completed college to come out and say that Hawking is wrong.

or stupidity...

One journal said that he didn't have a basic understanding of calculus, thats what made me kinda laugh. I really don't know if i should continue to read Wired if this stuff turns out to be as stupid as it seems and it gets published.

Ivan Seeking Aug1-05 10:23 PM

Quote:

Quote by Tony11235
Humm....I'm not sure what to say. Regardless, it takes alot of gutts for somebody who has not even completed college to come out and say that Hawking is wrong.

Most people who make such statements never finished college. :biggrin:

Pengwuino Aug1-05 10:36 PM

So whats your take on this ivan :D

Who are these "time theorists"?

Tony11235 Aug1-05 11:34 PM

Why are people, including recognized physicsts like David Deutsch, even taking interest in this guy? There must have been a spark of some sort that sets him apart from other so called "time theorists" and others with similar claims. I'm not saying I think theres anything to this guy.

Ivan Seeking Aug2-05 12:17 AM

Quote:

Quote by Pengwuino
So whats your take on this ivan :D

Who are these "time theorists"?

I have no idea as yet. I plan to read up a little when I have more time and a working brain [~1.5 hrs of sleep last night]. But if DD is interested, then I'm interested.

Zantra Aug3-05 03:00 AM

Quote:

Quote by Tony11235
Humm....I'm not sure what to say. Regardless, it takes alot of gutts for somebody who has not even completed college to come out and say that Hawking is wrong.

True.

But so was a lowly patent clerk once judged.

Not making comparisons, just pointing out some biases.

At the very least he's thinking outside of the box.

More people should do that.

Pengwuino Aug3-05 03:02 AM

Quote:

Quote by Zantra
At the very least he's thinking outside of the box.

More people should do that.

If it makes any sense....

Otherwise, it shouldn't be taking up magazine space :P

Integral Aug3-05 05:47 AM

Quote:

But so was a lowly patent clerk once judged.
LOL!

That lowly patent clerk had just completed a PhD in physics at one of the better universites in the world. This is not even similar to the topic of this thread.

Quote:

At the very least he's thinking outside of the box.
If you have no idea where the box is, how can you think outside of it?

chronon Aug3-05 06:38 AM

I guess everyone philosophises about space, time and the universe. Some people know enough physics to take this further. I'm not sure how much physics Peter Lynds knows, but he does seem phenomenally good at publicity. e.g. Physicists Yahoo! considers to be worth a mention in their directory. http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Physics/Physicists/

I've written more about Peter Lynds and his work at http://www.chronon.org/articles/ZenoLynds.html

kcballer21 Aug3-05 08:51 AM

Quote:

Quote by chronon
It is interesting to look at some of the response to Lynds' paper. Some people seem to be arguing about whether he is right or wrong. This seems to be a sterile argument - I would say that he is right but not saying anything new.

I don't know if Lynd is right or not, but I agree that he isn't saying anything new. Let's give Parmenides some credit here. There is nothing shocking or new about saying some aspect (or all) of reality is an illusion, even though such talk still makes me squirm.

jma2001 Aug3-05 10:31 AM

Quote:

Quote by chronon
I've written more about Peter Lynds and his work at http://www.chronon.org/articles/ZenoLynds.html

Interesting web site you have there! But, is there an About page somewhere that tells a little about yourself and your background? I generally like to know something about an author before I spend a lot of time reading his or her articles.

chronon Aug3-05 10:53 AM

Quote:

Quote by jma2001
Interesting web site you have there! But, is there an About page somewhere that tells a little about yourself and your background? I generally like to know something about an author before I spend a lot of time reading his or her articles.

No, I've been meaning to do such a page, but haven't got round to it yet. But I take your point, so I'll try to give it higher priority.

zoobyshoe Aug3-05 02:26 PM

I don't think Lynds ideas make any sense. He says there is no time, only sequences of events. How can "sequences" take place in any medium but time?

chronon Aug3-05 02:59 PM

Quote:

Quote by zoobyshoe
I don't think Lynds ideas make any sense. He says there is no time, only sequences of events. How can "sequences" take place in any medium but time?

I'm not sure that the 'sequences of events' are really part of Lynds' philosophy, this seems to be just the summary of the writer of the Wired article. They seem more like Julian Barbour's idea, which I think is the opposite of Lynds - I'm not surprised that the two fell out.

kcballer21 Aug3-05 03:16 PM

Quote:

Quote by zoobyshoe
I don't think Lynds ideas make any sense. He says there is no time, only sequences of events. How can "sequences" take place in any medium but time?

Right, I can picture Parmenides and Zeno mulling over a similiar question only to determine that, well, sequences don't take place. But, maybe he thinks all sequences of events have already occurred, and our consciousness creates 'time', or the illusory sequence aspect of reality.

zoobyshoe Aug3-05 03:18 PM

Quote:

Quote by chronon
I'm not sure that the 'sequences of events' are really part of Lynds' philosophy, this seems to be just the summary of the writer of the Wired article.

If this is the case, then the only other idea he seems to be proposing to respond to is that time isn't quantized, that it is a smooth, continuous flow. I don't find that to be objectionable. As far as I know physics doesn't assert the existence of any quanta of time.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014 Physics Forums