Re: [asa] Thermodynamics & Eternal Universe - A Question

From my point of view, it doesn't matter. From your point of view, it
strikes me that 10^-43 is not commensurate with 1/2^x, whatever x may be.
Does close enough count? From what I understand of physics, 10^-43 is the
limit of current theory, although there are other limitations on
measurement. This does not tell me what the limit in future theory may
be, but it says that I cannot now scientifically go to the origin of time
in the Big Bang, for example. The zero point singularity is not within
the scope of science, but I've just noted it. Either I've written
nonsense or we can talk of matters outside the realm of the sciences.

Also, thanks to Gordon for correcting my error about the number of
numbers.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:09:06 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 8:41 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Thermodynamics & Eternal Universe - A Question
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:00:15 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:17 PM
> > To: Dehler, Bernie
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Thermodynamics & Eternal Universe - A Question
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:58:49 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > ...........
> >
> > Dave- let me ask you a clarifying question. Can you take a
> > measurement of 1 second and divide it in half until infinity, or
> do
> > you stop at a point called planck time where time can no longer be
> > divided? Same with starting with 1 inch- can you divide that by 2
> > until infinity, or do you hit a limit when you hit the smallest
> > possible length called planck length, which can't be divided
> > anymore?
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> >
> In answer to your question, I have a problem going beyond the 0.1
> second
> of my mechanical stopwatch. However, scientists with the proper
> apparatus
> are now at the attosecond, I believe. At least they are producing
> some
> mighty short pulses. This is still a long way from 10^-43. I have no
> idea
> how far they can go with measurement, but there is a theoretical
> limit in
> current physical theory. I do not know if this is the ultimate
> theory, or
> if some future model will change this. However, whichever detectable
> interval may be picked, it is possible to label the intervals
> sequentially, for there are enough ordinal numbers to do the job.
> Recall
> that it is impossible in principle to reach the last number by
> counting.
> Also, within the "observable" sequence, the assignment of numerals
> is
> arbitrary.
>
> As to length, I suspect that the smallest layer is an atom thick.
> The
> only unsupported film that thin seems to be that of carbon--I forget
> the
> name given to what is equivalent to a single layer of graphite. But
> that
> is a long way from the Planck length, which applies to certain
> theoretical relationships. But, if one can distinguish the lengths,
> one
> can label them sequentially. It doesn't matter the size, in
> principle,
> though there is going to be a grave problem in practice.
>
> I contend that my claim that, if the intervals can be numbered, we
> can
> distinguish a previous and successive interval, always holds. This
> principle holds even if I begin: imagine that we can divide the
> second
> into 10^100 equal divisions, and we number a sequence of them from
> 1-50.
> The one numbered 24 (or 24th) must immediately precede the one
> numbered
> 25. "It's impossible to subdivide second that fine" is no counter to
> imagination. Of course, if someone says that the divisions must be
> labeled modulo-12, there aren't any 24 and 25.
> Dave (ASA)
> ..........................
> Sorry to say that did not clearly answer my attempt at a clarifying
> question- I still don't know your answer. Does dividing a length by
> two go on for infinity or stop at the planck length? There's only
> two choices, or feel free to add another.
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Love Music? Get a degree in Musical Education. Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oLWtjCxRZEpU6USIVslp9NiwBMHVofCnhlHpIffvrw5h6w1/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu, 2 Oct 2008 14:05:00 -0700