Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon

From your reference: "...many scientists take the notion of quantized time for granted..."

If modern physics holds that time is quantized, then you should be able to give me the name of this discrete measurement of time. What is it called Gulliver?

After you give me the name then we should be able to go to any encyclopedia and find an entry which says that it is the discrete unit of time.

This is the simplest way we can find out if modern physics thinks that there is a discrete measurement of time.

It is not particularly relevant whether or not time is quantized. Cosmic inflation says the universe did not undergo a finite -> infinite transition. End of story.

Edit: Knowing that time is quantized does not imply that we know how it is quantized. Just because you know something is made of little blocks doesn't mean you know what the blocks are or how big they are.

Why don't you just make up a name for it? Call it Brian. Or Gayer.

It is not particularly relevant whether or not time is quantized. Cosmic inflation says the universe did not undergo a finite -> infinite transition. End of story.

It is absolutely relevant. Current Cosmological Inflation states that the universe expanded eternally through space in a limited amount of time and then stopped. Your rebuttal was that "it is impossible to grow infinitely large in a finite amount of time." You are suggesting that time is quantized.

Yet, aside from Gulliver's lie, a discrete unit of time does not exist.

What is the discrete unit of time called, Gin? After you give me the name we should be able to go into an encyclopedia and confirm that it is indeed the discrete unit of time.

You say "end of story" but you did not even read the Wikipedia article about your own theory. Cosmic Inflation started, then stopped. It filled up space eternally as I provided a source for.

Where are the sources for any of your claims?

Quote

From your reference: "...many scientists take the notion of quantized time for granted..."

If modern physics holds that time is quantized, then you should be able to give me the name of this discrete measurement of time. What is it called Gulliver?

After you give me the name then we should be able to go to any encyclopedia and find an entry which says that it is the discrete unit of time.

This is the simplest way we can find out if modern physics thinks that there is a discrete measurement of time.

Okay, "time quanta". Happy now?

The universe expanded by a factor of at least 10²⁶ during inflation

Ref: This is usually quoted as 60 e-folds of expansion, where e⁶⁰ ≈ 10²⁶. It is equal to the amount of expansion since reheating, which is roughly E_inflation/T₀, where T₀ = 2.7 K is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background today. See, e.g. Kolb and Turner (1998) or Liddle and Lyth (2000).

Yes it is from Wikipedia, but its references are not. There's your reference Tom.

10²⁶ doesn't sound very infinite to me....

Time is quantized, Tom.  The google search proves it, right? 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 05:03:10 PM

Quote

From your reference: "...many scientists take the notion of quantized time for granted..."

If modern physics holds that time is quantized, then you should be able to give me the name of this discrete measurement of time. What is it called Gulliver?

After you give me the name then we should be able to go to any encyclopedia and find an entry which says that it is the discrete unit of time.

This is the simplest way we can find out if modern physics thinks that there is a discrete measurement of time.

Okay, "time quanta". Happy now?

I thought we agreed on calling it Gayer?

Is this another important argument like the "Dr" one?

Okay, "time quanta". Happy now?

That's hilarious, Gulliver. If we do a Google search we will find that "time quanta" is just a placeholder name for a future undiscovered discrete unit of time hypothesized under some theories which require it.

Yes it is from Wikipedia, but its references are not. There's your reference Tom.

That quote doesn't even make sense. It does not give a maximum, it only defines a minimum.

"The universe expanded by a factor of at least 1026 during inflation."

That's like saying "The Earth is at least 1,000 atoms big." Completely irrelevant.

Give a proper source, please.

Didja see my google search??!??

Your rebuttal was that "it is impossible to grow infinitely large in a finite amount of time." You are suggesting that time is quantized.

Not really. You see, for it to become infinite, there would need to be a point at which it stopped being finite. When would this occur exactly? If time is continuous, there still needs to be expansion at an INFINITE rate.

Cosmic inflation says that the universe expanded exponentially. That's a long word I know, but it basically means that it got faster, and the rate it was getting faster got faster as well...etc etc.

The value of y = e^x is finite for all finite values of x (time).

Edit: the same (sourced) article states that expansion was exponential.

Didja see my google search??!??

Yeah, I did. Your search results say that quantized time is purely hypothetical. There is no value attached. "We don't know what the discrete unit of time is."

Not really. You see, for it to become infinite, there would need to be a point at which it stopped being finite. When would this occur exactly? If time is continuous, there still needs to be expansion at an INFINITE rate.

The Universe became infinite in the moment of the Big Bang. It was never finite to begin with. All of space-time was contained within the Universe, remember?

All of space time being contained in the universe does not make it infinite. It is not known if the universe is infinite or not. All I was saying was that if it started out finite, it is still finite.

Quote

Didja see my google search??!??

Yeah, I did. Your search results say that quantized time is purely hypothetical. There is no value attached. "We don't know what the discrete unit of time is."

Well, it kind of contradicts your absolute proposition that there is no quantized unit of time, doesn't it?  I mean, if such a thing is theorized, then apparently it's believed to exist.

So, to state the current opinion on cosmic inflation:

The universe may or may not be infinite. It may not, however, transition from one state to the other. It has either always been infinite, or has always been finite. This will not change.

One of the fun things about Tom Bishop is that it's so easy to make him contradict himself! 

One of the fun things about Tom Bishop is that it's so easy to make him contradict himself! 

Good point!

Well, it kind of contradicts your absolute proposition that there is no quantized unit of time, doesn't it?  I mean, if such a thing is theorized, then apparently it's believed to exist.

All sorts of thing are "theorized to exist." I knew that quantized time has been theorized to exist. It's a theory from the turn of the 20th century.

However, since no one has found a discrete unit of time, you may as well be saying "aliens are theorized to exist."

The universe may or may not be infinite. It may not, however, transition from one state to the other. It has either always been infinite, or has always been finite. This will not change.

That's correct. The universe may or may not be infinite. That's a long ways away from your "the universe is finite. end of story." supposition.

As with much of science, there are always things which will forever be unknowable to mankind.

Haha 'forever unknowable'. I just disagreed with your assertion that the RE universe was infinite.

Haha 'forever unknowable'. I just disagreed with your assertion that the RE universe was infinite.

Game. Set. Match ---> Gin.

I just want to say that Tom's a great player, he played a good game and I wish him the best of luck for the future. It's always been my dream to win an FES debating match, and it's just...I'm so....


*overcome by emotion*

Game. Set. Match ---> Gin.

What's the matter, Gulliver? You looked like you were on a roll over there proving to us that time was quantized. I looked up that "time quanta" and found this from your beloved Wikipedia:

"Time quanta is a hypothetical concept. In the modern quantum theory (the Standard Model of particle physics) and in general relativity time is not quantized."

"A time quanta is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a theory that proposes that time is not continuous. While time is a continuous quantity in standard quantum mechanics, many physicists have suggested that a discrete model of time might work, especially when considering the combination of quantum mechanics with general relativity to produce a theory of quantum gravity."

How entirely odd! With proving to us that time is quantized, you entirely contradict General Relativity and modern Quantum Mechanics in one fell swoop. Your own Wikipedia states that the time quanta is quite unproven and highly disputed. It goes against Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity which defines time as a continuous quantity. It seems that your little "theory" goes against all of modern physics.

Yet, you come on these forums and claim that time is quantized!

Do you have any more pictures of Dark Matter or Black Holes for us? I didn't really get a good look at the previous ones you provided on these forums.

Yet, you come on here and claim the Earth is flat. I have clearly shown your model to be wrong repeatedly.

This little Tom vs. Gulliver thing is going a bit far don't you think? We weren't really talking about quantized time, and you bringing it up again just distracts attention from your sillyness.

I would leave, but owing to the roundness of the Earth it's too dark to go outside.

Quote

Game. Set. Match ---> Gin.

What's the matter, Gulliver? You looked like you were on a roll over there proving to us that time was quantized. I looked up that "time quanta" and found this from your beloved Wikipedia:

"Time quanta is a hypothetical concept. In the modern quantum theory (the Standard Model of particle physics) and in general relativity time is not quantized."

"A time quanta is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a theory that proposes that time is not continuous. While time is a continuous quantity in standard quantum mechanics, many physicists have suggested that a discrete model of time might work, especially when considering the combination of quantum mechanics with general relativity to produce a theory of quantum gravity."

How entirely odd! With proving to us that time is quantized, you entirely contradict General Relativity and modern Quantum Mechanics in one fell swoop. Your own Wikipedia states that the time quanta is quite unproven and highly disputed. It goes against Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity which defines time as a continuous quantity. It seems that your little "theory" goes against all of modern physics.

Yet, you come on these forums and claim that time is quantized!

Do you have any more pictures of Dark Matter or Black Holes for us? I didn't really get a good look at the previous ones you provided on these forums.

GR treats all things as continuous last I checked. It's a theory of the big. Quantum theory is a theory of the small. They haven't met up yet. There's not much of a conflict between them as they don't predict the same types of outcomes. So you're quite wrong, again.

Of course, I have to point out that your conclusions are not supported by your quote. You really need to review your inferences.

Feel free to come back anytime to make another incorrect, trolling statement. We've all come to expect the worst from you.

Bollocks, I can't believe I missed most of this debate...

Lucky man.

I sure hope Tom asking for pictures of back holes, is not implying that they aren't real. 

It's just his attempt to make Gulliver look silly. Tom is guilty above all others of association fallacy.

"The Greeks thought the Earth was Round, but they also though rotting meat created flies, therefore they are wrong about the shape of the Earth"

"Gulliver made an imprecise statement regarding black holes, so his opinions and assertions on other subjects must be wrong too."

Nothing like a big juicy association fallacy to start your day, with a dash of ad hominem for good measure.

Nothing like a big juicy association fallacy to start your day, with a dash of ad hominem for good measure.

Tom is the undisputed master of association fallacies, and he's getting better and better at ad hominem each day.

I'm starting to think his real identity may be... Sean Hannity!  Yes, it all makes sense now!

Who's Sean Hannity?