B Time quantization in classical physics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of time in classical physics, questioning its continuity due to the inability to measure a particle as both at rest and in motion simultaneously. The argument suggests that this leads to the conclusion that time must be quantized, with a defined interval between measurements. However, responses clarify that this scenario resembles Zeno's Paradox and can be resolved through calculus, emphasizing that in classical mechanics, time remains continuous despite the discrete measurements. Ultimately, the consensus is that there is no paradox, as time can be infinitely subdivided, allowing for continuous measurement. The thread concludes with the assertion that the original question does not present a genuine paradox.
hclatomic
Hello,

It is considered that the time is continuous in classical physics, but it sounds paradoxal to me, let me explain.

Let a particle inside a galilean frame of reference. This particle can only be measured either at rest, either in motion, but never simultaneously at rest and in motion. Therefore calling t_0 the last time when the particle can be measured at rest, and t_1 the first time when it can be measured in motion, we must have t_0 \neq t_1. It can not exist a time t verifying t_0 < t <t_1, because at such a time the particle would be simultaneously at rest and in motion. We are then led to consider that the time must be quantized in classical mechanics, the quantum of time being \Delta t = t_1 - t_0.

Of course the situation is different in quantum mechanics, but my point is only concerning the classical mechanics for which it is usually accepted that the time is continuous.

Don't you think there is a paradox here ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hclatomic said:
Don't you think there is a paradox here ?
No. It's a variant on Zeno's Paradox, and is therefore thoroughly answered by stopping using verbal reasoning and starting using calculus.
 
Ibix said:
No. It's a variant on Zeno's Paradox, and is therefore thoroughly answered by stopping using verbal reasoning and starting using calculus.
As far as I can read I used the calculation in my question. I am talking about physics and you tell me about philosophy, stated 500 BC. I am aware of the differential calculation, I think you refer to this, but there are the mathematics and the philosophy, and there is the physics.

So in practice, not in mathematics nor in philosophy, can a particle be at the same time at rest and in motion, in classical mechanics ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your reasoning can be summed as: what is the next real number in increasing order after 2? Good luck finding it. :)
 
  • Like
Likes arpon and fresh_42
dextercioby said:
Your reasoning can be summed as: what is the next real number in increasing order after 2? Good luck finding it. :)
In mathematics you would be right, but I am talking about classical physics.
So my question stands, not in mathematics nor in philosophy, but in clasical physics : can a particle be at the same time at rest and in motion ?
Did anyone measure such thing ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
##\Delta{t}=t_1-t_0## can be made arbitrarily small. This implies that ##t## is continuous even though ##t_1## is never equal to ##t_0## and even though (as you point out above) an object cannot be moving and not moving at the same time.

Thus, the answer to your original question is that there is no paradox here. This thread is closed.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top