Hi,
I haven't studied Lynds' paper yet, and from the linked article not much of use can be determined, so I'll wait to comment on that.
However, two thing you said brought comments to my mind:
and so Heisenberg might also apply to time and space in fixing a particles position or velocity.
There are a number of quantities that do not commute in the mathematics of matrix mechanics. By that I mean that the product {A,B} is not equal to the product {B,A}. This lack of commutation gives rise to relationships of the form delta_A X delta_B >= kh where k is a small geometric constant that depends on A and B and h is Plank's constant. The {position, momentum} commutation relationship is the one best known to the general public as the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" along with its (nonsensical, IMO) Copenhagen Interpretation. However, a similar relationship exists between {time, energy}. So, if this is all that Lynds is saying, then he is not saying anything new and would hardly be causing a ripple.
In "classical" quantum theory, both time and space are still thought of as continuous. More advanced theories consider space to be quantized at the Plank length and, by the Lorentz transformations, then so is time. This has been "known" (i.e., postulated) for well over a decade, maybe more. So, again, if what Lynds is saying is that time is not continuous, then again that is nothing new.
So, while what he is saying may be a breakthrough or may be nonsense (Occhi phrased it well :) ), for sure it isn't as simple as the posts in this thread (or the linked article) make it out to be. The concept of time in modern physics is little like Newton's continuous, uniform and universal flow.
I for one, am somewhat jaded now in my belief of these solutions, as it seems they only describe limited problem domains and are constantly being debunked or reworked to accomodate new observations. But, then again, its all we have.
All I can do is to quote (I've forgotten the source. If anyone can supply it, I would be grateful): "Progress in Physics isn't made by replacing a wrong theory with a right theory. It is made by replacing a wrong theory with one more subtly wrong." Unlike Pallas Athena, physicists did not spring forth from Zeus' head fully mature, with all knowledge, crying out the Hamiltonian of the Universe. They've had to make slow progress, with each new development giving rise to a new technology that allowed observations to be made in a new regime, giving rise to new phenomena that required a revision of the theories that led there. To expect anything else is to fall into the hubris of the Greek philosophers who thought that TRUTH could be achieved by thought.
So, by all means be "jaded now in my belief of these solutions" for no rational person believes that these are the ultimate solutions (indeed, internal paradoxes indicate strongly that they are not). But do not become jaded with the *process* by which we have arrived at what limited understanding of the universe we have. The scientific method may not, probably isn't, the best method for obtaining knowledge, but (paraphrasing Churchill), it is the best we've found so far.
--Pete
I haven't studied Lynds' paper yet, and from the linked article not much of use can be determined, so I'll wait to comment on that.
However, two thing you said brought comments to my mind:
and so Heisenberg might also apply to time and space in fixing a particles position or velocity.
There are a number of quantities that do not commute in the mathematics of matrix mechanics. By that I mean that the product {A,B} is not equal to the product {B,A}. This lack of commutation gives rise to relationships of the form delta_A X delta_B >= kh where k is a small geometric constant that depends on A and B and h is Plank's constant. The {position, momentum} commutation relationship is the one best known to the general public as the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" along with its (nonsensical, IMO) Copenhagen Interpretation. However, a similar relationship exists between {time, energy}. So, if this is all that Lynds is saying, then he is not saying anything new and would hardly be causing a ripple.
In "classical" quantum theory, both time and space are still thought of as continuous. More advanced theories consider space to be quantized at the Plank length and, by the Lorentz transformations, then so is time. This has been "known" (i.e., postulated) for well over a decade, maybe more. So, again, if what Lynds is saying is that time is not continuous, then again that is nothing new.
So, while what he is saying may be a breakthrough or may be nonsense (Occhi phrased it well :) ), for sure it isn't as simple as the posts in this thread (or the linked article) make it out to be. The concept of time in modern physics is little like Newton's continuous, uniform and universal flow.
I for one, am somewhat jaded now in my belief of these solutions, as it seems they only describe limited problem domains and are constantly being debunked or reworked to accomodate new observations. But, then again, its all we have.
All I can do is to quote (I've forgotten the source. If anyone can supply it, I would be grateful): "Progress in Physics isn't made by replacing a wrong theory with a right theory. It is made by replacing a wrong theory with one more subtly wrong." Unlike Pallas Athena, physicists did not spring forth from Zeus' head fully mature, with all knowledge, crying out the Hamiltonian of the Universe. They've had to make slow progress, with each new development giving rise to a new technology that allowed observations to be made in a new regime, giving rise to new phenomena that required a revision of the theories that led there. To expect anything else is to fall into the hubris of the Greek philosophers who thought that TRUTH could be achieved by thought.
So, by all means be "jaded now in my belief of these solutions" for no rational person believes that these are the ultimate solutions (indeed, internal paradoxes indicate strongly that they are not). But do not become jaded with the *process* by which we have arrived at what limited understanding of the universe we have. The scientific method may not, probably isn't, the best method for obtaining knowledge, but (paraphrasing Churchill), it is the best we've found so far.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?