- #1
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 [itex]t_0[/itex] the last time when the particle can be measured at rest, and [itex]t_1[/itex] the first time when it can be measured in motion, we must have [itex]t_0 \neq t_1[/itex]. It can not exist a time [itex]t[/itex] verifying [itex]t_0 < t <t_1[/itex], 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 [itex]\Delta t = t_1 - t_0[/itex].
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 ?
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 [itex]t_0[/itex] the last time when the particle can be measured at rest, and [itex]t_1[/itex] the first time when it can be measured in motion, we must have [itex]t_0 \neq t_1[/itex]. It can not exist a time [itex]t[/itex] verifying [itex]t_0 < t <t_1[/itex], 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 [itex]\Delta t = t_1 - t_0[/itex].
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 ?