Untitled

The Fundamental Importance of Discourse in Theoretical Physics

“…Thus, it is exact ly due to there not being a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process, and the relative motion of body in relat ive motion or a physical magn itude not being precisely determined at any time, that motion and variation in physical magnitudes is possible: there is a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time , fo r their continuity through time." [12] This simple, but very counter-intuitive conclusion has been developed in subsequent papers [20] [21][22] [23]. The following section exp lores some of these results, and one might also wish to keep in mind Julian Barbour's maxim that "had duration been properly studied in classical physics, its disappearance in the conjectured quantum universe would have appeared natural."…”

“…Unfortunately, when scientific research attempts to refute such commonly experienced and widely held notions, like those of temporal instants or instantaneous transformation, the exposition is often met with knee-jerk criticis m. The Lynds paper in Foundations of Physics Letters was initially rejected by many readers as a case of not understanding differential calculus. [12] On the contrary, the differential calculus is an excellent and useful abstraction, working very much in the same way that "classes of colors" are described as a "logical fict ion" in "The Problems of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell. [23] In short, it's not that instantaneous transformat ions are not useful as an approximation of the behavior of physical systems, but at some more fundamental level it beco mes important to understand that in the limiting case they are mere approximations and that, in fact, "time does not flow" nor is there any quantizable or otherwise dimensionless, static instant in time.…”

“…[23] In short, it's not that instantaneous transformat ions are not useful as an approximation of the behavior of physical systems, but at some more fundamental level it beco mes important to understand that in the limiting case they are mere approximations and that, in fact, "time does not flow" nor is there any quantizable or otherwise dimensionless, static instant in time. [12] [13] As Lynds exp lains, "Time enters mechanics as a measure of interval, relat ive to the clock complet ing the measurement.…”

“…Thus, it is then due to natures very exclusion of a time as a fundamental physical quantity, that time as it is measured in physics (relative interval), and as such, motion and physical continuity are indeed possible. [12] Similarly Lynds argues, "It might also be argued in a more philosophical sense that a general definit ion of static would entitle a certain physical magnitude as being unchanging for an extended interval of time. But if this is so, how then could time itself be said to be fro zen static at a precise instant if to do so also demands it must be unchanging for an extended interval of time?…”

The nature of physical motion and Zeno's paradox

“…Still, however, for some reason it has always disappointed researchers' expectations and somehow eluded the researchers for more than 2500 years, despite almost all great physicists and mathematicians engaging in its study and the countless arguments on the subject by writers and poets. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Generally its numerous ''refutations'' of paradox (without considering manipulations with terminology) were reduced to the argument that a convergent infinite sequence of decreasing time and spatial intervals forms a finite value in total. Nevertheless, none of these arguments could demonstrate that the distance between Achilles and the tortoise could be reduced to exactly zero, which is ''a must.''…”