Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Revolutionary New Theory of Jibber-Jabber?

  1. Aug 20, 2003 #1
    Has anyone heard about this (see the following)?

    '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.'

    Personally, I think the whole thing's much-ado-about nothing--or just outright quackery--but I'd like to hear what others think. I'm including links to the full article quoted above, as well as to the paper the article refers to.

    Article: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php

    Paper: http://users.skynet.be/kurtgode/ext-2003-045.pdf
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 20, 2003 #2
    Yes we have heard of this before. In fact there are several threads on it. Just look for any thread about time near the top or Peter Lynds. Nothing very new, but still there are some points I am sure that will be fleshed out by someone.
     
  4. Aug 20, 2003 #3

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Quick point on the "Einstein" comparison...

    The full quote in which the comparison is made was: (quoting from memory)

    "Like Einstein's famous 1906 paper, the validity of this hypothesis is not immediately destroyed by the circular basis of his argument."

    Not quite as impressive, no?
     
  5. Aug 22, 2003 #4
    Fz+

    Erm...here's the quote I read:

    "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 Växjö University 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..."
     
  6. Aug 22, 2003 #5

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Yes, there's where the misunderstanding stemmed from.

    The first part of the sentence:

    "Author's work resembles Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity", said a referee of the paper

    has nothing to do with the second part of the sentence.

    while Andrei Khrennikov, Prof. of Applied Mathematics at Växjö University 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..."

    The first sentence refered only to the style of argument used, not to the actual quality of the paper.

    The full first quote read... (proper quote this time. From http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1017995,00.html)


    The whole thing is a case of scientific over-hyping.
     
  7. Aug 22, 2003 #6
    So, you don't feel he has solved
    those ancient paradoxes?
     
  8. Aug 22, 2003 #7

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    I think he thought some nice thoughts, and that the ancient paradoxes have many answers, but he has not really proved anything, tested anything or justified the earth-shattering impression he is trying to make.
     
  9. Aug 22, 2003 #8
    I agree. Like the one guy in the
    first story said what this guy has
    to say is very interesting.
     
  10. Aug 31, 2003 #9
    There are a few words mentioned about how the paper does this and that and a bit of explanation and people are real impressed with it, but I don't see this mysterious and grand paper anywhere.
     
  11. Sep 4, 2003 #10
    I think his paper is very important...You should read it.. It's avaliable on his website along with two other papers....one on Zeno's paradoxes and another on time and consciousness....As for it being the solution to Zeno's paradoxes, I think that it very obviously is

    http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Revolutionary New Theory of Jibber-Jabber?
  1. New theory? (Replies: 3)

  2. New theory of gravity? (Replies: 3)

  3. New physics theory? (Replies: 1)

Loading...