- Jun 15, 2001
- 34,072
- 1,227
- 126
My cousin and I are in disagreement.
He says that time is continuous. By this I mean that he thinks that there is no smallest amount of time. He admits that he has no evidence for his argument, except for intuition, which is good enough for me.
I say that it is granular, and here is why:
A) Space must be granular at some level (according to String Theory it's about 10^-33 cm). The reason is that if it weren't there would be infinitely strong forces at infinitely small distances. Even gravity would become powerful at 10^-999 cm. So whatever the minimim distance is, it's there. We'll say 10^-33 cm.
B) Assuming that A is true, the smallest amount of time that has meaning is the amount of time that it would take light to travel 10^-33cm, which is 3.33564095*10^-44 seconds.
What are your thoughts?
He says that time is continuous. By this I mean that he thinks that there is no smallest amount of time. He admits that he has no evidence for his argument, except for intuition, which is good enough for me.
I say that it is granular, and here is why:
A) Space must be granular at some level (according to String Theory it's about 10^-33 cm). The reason is that if it weren't there would be infinitely strong forces at infinitely small distances. Even gravity would become powerful at 10^-999 cm. So whatever the minimim distance is, it's there. We'll say 10^-33 cm.
B) Assuming that A is true, the smallest amount of time that has meaning is the amount of time that it would take light to travel 10^-33cm, which is 3.33564095*10^-44 seconds.
What are your thoughts?
Facebook
Twitter