Mixing
If reality were frame-rate based, how could we detect it?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
Inspired by this question regarding reality as simulation and this question about a continuous time line, it made me wonder: if our time were indeed like a high frame-rate simulation, how could we detect it, if at all?
So, assumptions are, of course - yes, time is discrete. And the "frame-rate" is high enough to not contradict what we already know in physics/science. What evidence could we find that time is discrete?
science-based physics time simulation
edited 7 mins ago
jdunlop
5,60211035
asked 2 hours ago
Alma Do
1514
New contributor
Alma Do is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
Inspired by this question regarding reality as simulation and this question about a continuous time line, it made me wonder: if our time were indeed like a high frame-rate simulation, how could we detect it, if at all?
So, assumptions are, of course - yes, time is discrete. And the "frame-rate" is high enough to not contradict what we already know in physics/science. What evidence could we find that time is discrete?
science-based physics time simulation
edited 7 mins ago
jdunlop
5,60211035
asked 2 hours ago
Alma Do
1514
New contributor
Alma Do is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
None. If true, the frame rate of reality is too high for elements in that reality to detect. Nyquist-Shannon theorem
– nzaman
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
Inspired by this question regarding reality as simulation and this question about a continuous time line, it made me wonder: if our time were indeed like a high frame-rate simulation, how could we detect it, if at all?
So, assumptions are, of course - yes, time is discrete. And the "frame-rate" is high enough to not contradict what we already know in physics/science. What evidence could we find that time is discrete?
science-based physics time simulation
edited 7 mins ago
jdunlop
5,60211035
asked 2 hours ago
Alma Do
1514
New contributor
Alma Do is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Inspired by this question regarding reality as simulation and this question about a continuous time line, it made me wonder: if our time were indeed like a high frame-rate simulation, how could we detect it, if at all?
So, assumptions are, of course - yes, time is discrete. And the "frame-rate" is high enough to not contradict what we already know in physics/science. What evidence could we find that time is discrete?
science-based physics time simulation
science-based physics time simulation
edited 7 mins ago
jdunlop
5,60211035
asked 2 hours ago
Alma Do
1514
New contributor
Alma Do is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 7 mins ago
jdunlop
5,60211035
asked 2 hours ago
Alma Do
1514
New contributor
Alma Do is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 7 mins ago
jdunlop
5,60211035
edited 7 mins ago
jdunlop
5,60211035
edited 7 mins ago
jdunlop
5,60211035
5,60211035
asked 2 hours ago
Alma Do
1514
New contributor
Alma Do is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Alma Do
1514
asked 2 hours ago
Alma Do
1514
1514
New contributor
Alma Do is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Alma Do is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Alma Do is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
None. If true, the frame rate of reality is too high for elements in that reality to detect. Nyquist-Shannon theorem
– nzaman
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
None. If true, the frame rate of reality is too high for elements in that reality to detect. Nyquist-Shannon theorem
– nzaman
2 hours ago
None. If true, the frame rate of reality is too high for elements in that reality to detect. Nyquist-Shannon theorem
– nzaman
2 hours ago
None. If true, the frame rate of reality is too high for elements in that reality to detect. Nyquist-Shannon theorem
– nzaman
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
15
down vote
Reality does seem to be based on a rate of 10 million billion billion billion billion frames per second. We discovered that many decades ago.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm
The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the "quantum of length", the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.
And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.
The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the "quantum of time", the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.9k12766
4
Plank values have to do with the amount of energy needed to measure not the discreetness of the universe. Otherwise no object could travel slower than the speed of light because it would move less than a plank's length in one plank time
– Andrey
2 hours ago
4
Love this answer, however it should be noted that Planck time is (for now) a purely theoretical construct as there is no known way to conduct experiments at these timescales.
– Douwe
2 hours ago
8
The Planck time is not a quantum of time, and the Plank length is not a quantum of space. They are the smallest differences in space and time of which is it meaningful to speak; but it does not follow that all time values are integer multiples of the Planck time, or that all spatial coordinate values are integer multiples of the Planck length. And the linked document does not pretend that space and time are quantised.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
1
Simplifying what Andrey and AlexP said, given that the Planck-time is 10^-43 seconds, nothing stops you from waiting 10^-43 * PI, so try quantizing that
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
4
@RonJohn: The scare quotes are there for a reason. If spacetime was quantized then by necessity energy would have to be quantized too, because action (which is energy × time) is known to be quantized. (it was Planck who discovered the quantum of action.) Energy being quantized means that photons would come only in discrete wavelengths, because $E = hnu$, and we would notice that a black body spectrum is made up of discrete lines. Which it isn't.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
Collision penetration by velocity.
This is a classic problem in video-games. If physics is checked by frames and if objects are overlapping, then if something travels fast enough it can be before an object one frame, and past the object next frame. Collision never triggers and it goes flying by. Too bad they knew so we got that pesky speed of light to deal with. Instead we just need to make our objects small enough.
Cool part is that physics almost supports this. There is only a probability that two objects will collide. Now by using the width of objects and how often they collide we can calculate the frame rate of the universe. At least the physics loop frame-rate.
answered 2 hours ago
Andrey
2,877726
Hmmmm... so hypervelocity particles acting like weird radiation then?
– Joe Bloggs
2 hours ago
This has some interesting implications on LHC experiments :D
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
2
Unless it uses swept collision detection. That can be calculated exactly and still be frame based.
– ratchet freak
57 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The Arrow of Time, or macro system temporal asymmetry, is the observable irreversibility of chemical and mechanical reactions, it forms the basis of entropy. It is also a demonstration of time's passage in that to reverse reactions effected by it one would have to turn back time.
If we establish that there is a minimum time frame over which such asymmetry can be observed to occur this would demonstrate a minimum duration for the definite forward movement of time, proof that time only moves in one direction and in discrete parcels as well. Actually getting experimental proofs concerning events that occur so quickly is however impossible, by definition, if time is discrete since we couldn't measure the time it takes for time to happen in increments smaller than itself.
answered 1 hour ago
Ash
23.1k462136
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
High speed cameras would not only allow us to detect that reality is frame-based, but it would also allow us to record what the framerate is. Between each frame any number of things can happen(i.e., you can move 5ft or 1000ft), but the results of what happened in one frame is only visible on the next frame.
Answers to this Physics SE question suggest that there is no upper-limit to the maximum framerate of a camera, and some cameras available today are already capable of 200 million FPS. That's about one picture every 5ns!
So, if reality was frame-based then as high-speed cameras achieved higher and higher framerates, eventually we'd begin to see the discreteness of the universe as the pictures look more and more like a slowed-down stop-motion film. Eventually, we'd be unable to take unique pictures in between two very small moments of time, as there is nothing to view between one frame and the next.
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
10.5k42534
4
The cameras themselves are governed by the theoretical frame rate of the universe. Does this mechanism allow you to detect whether you have reached a limit on the camera's time resolution versus the universe's time resolution?
– pojo-guy
2 hours ago
@pojo-guy: Maybe you notice that things moved between frames and when you double the framerate they move only half as much?
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@pojo-guy: Since this theoretical universe is based on concrete frames rather than anything more abstract like distance or time, any number of things can happen in between the frames since the 'CPU' of the universe is must allow multiple things to happen per frame. The camera would be able to take as many pictures as it wants per frame, and every picture taken during one frame would show up on the next frame.
– Giter
1 hour ago
1
...and now I'm wondering about the exponential increase in storage and processing power required for that
– nzaman
1 hour ago
@nzaman: There are about 10^86 particles in the visible universe, so just storing a single 8-bit pixel in some database for each one would require 100 trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion 1TB harddrives!
– Giter
38 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Yes, possibly.
Relativistic time dilation effect may help us to detect time quantization.
In the world of video production, there is a longstanding problem of converting the frame rate when a video is converted from one media to another. In classic film, frame rate is 24 fps. In PAL video, it's 25 fps. In NTSC, it's 30 fps. Individual frames are too short for humans to take notice, but when we have to convert frame by frame, the resulting artifacts are becoming visible to an untrained eye.
Similarly, if we have two very precise clocks moving with respect to each other, or one in a strong field of gravity, and one away from it, the time will be running at different speeds for them. If time is continuous, the "slow" clock will measure time exactly as Einstein's theory had predicted. But if time is discrete, and the "slow" clock has to actually run in a "fast" timescale world, we would be able to see some weird effects, like some seconds will be shorter, and some longer than others.
The "slow" clock and its attendants would not be able to notice that without referring to the "fast" clock, and vice versa.
answered 20 mins ago
Alexander
17k42967
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
15
down vote
Reality does seem to be based on a rate of 10 million billion billion billion billion frames per second. We discovered that many decades ago.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm
The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the "quantum of length", the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.
And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.
The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the "quantum of time", the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.9k12766
4
Plank values have to do with the amount of energy needed to measure not the discreetness of the universe. Otherwise no object could travel slower than the speed of light because it would move less than a plank's length in one plank time
– Andrey
2 hours ago
4
Love this answer, however it should be noted that Planck time is (for now) a purely theoretical construct as there is no known way to conduct experiments at these timescales.
– Douwe
2 hours ago
8
The Planck time is not a quantum of time, and the Plank length is not a quantum of space. They are the smallest differences in space and time of which is it meaningful to speak; but it does not follow that all time values are integer multiples of the Planck time, or that all spatial coordinate values are integer multiples of the Planck length. And the linked document does not pretend that space and time are quantised.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
1
Simplifying what Andrey and AlexP said, given that the Planck-time is 10^-43 seconds, nothing stops you from waiting 10^-43 * PI, so try quantizing that
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
4
@RonJohn: The scare quotes are there for a reason. If spacetime was quantized then by necessity energy would have to be quantized too, because action (which is energy × time) is known to be quantized. (it was Planck who discovered the quantum of action.) Energy being quantized means that photons would come only in discrete wavelengths, because $E = hnu$, and we would notice that a black body spectrum is made up of discrete lines. Which it isn't.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
Reality does seem to be based on a rate of 10 million billion billion billion billion frames per second. We discovered that many decades ago.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm
The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the "quantum of length", the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.
And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.
The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the "quantum of time", the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.9k12766
4
Plank values have to do with the amount of energy needed to measure not the discreetness of the universe. Otherwise no object could travel slower than the speed of light because it would move less than a plank's length in one plank time
– Andrey
2 hours ago
4
Love this answer, however it should be noted that Planck time is (for now) a purely theoretical construct as there is no known way to conduct experiments at these timescales.
– Douwe
2 hours ago
8
The Planck time is not a quantum of time, and the Plank length is not a quantum of space. They are the smallest differences in space and time of which is it meaningful to speak; but it does not follow that all time values are integer multiples of the Planck time, or that all spatial coordinate values are integer multiples of the Planck length. And the linked document does not pretend that space and time are quantised.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
1
Simplifying what Andrey and AlexP said, given that the Planck-time is 10^-43 seconds, nothing stops you from waiting 10^-43 * PI, so try quantizing that
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
4
@RonJohn: The scare quotes are there for a reason. If spacetime was quantized then by necessity energy would have to be quantized too, because action (which is energy × time) is known to be quantized. (it was Planck who discovered the quantum of action.) Energy being quantized means that photons would come only in discrete wavelengths, because $E = hnu$, and we would notice that a black body spectrum is made up of discrete lines. Which it isn't.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
up vote
15
down vote
Reality does seem to be based on a rate of 10 million billion billion billion billion frames per second. We discovered that many decades ago.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm
The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the "quantum of length", the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.
And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.
The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the "quantum of time", the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.9k12766
Reality does seem to be based on a rate of 10 million billion billion billion billion frames per second. We discovered that many decades ago.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm
The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the "quantum of length", the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.
And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.
The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the "quantum of time", the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.9k12766
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.9k12766
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.9k12766
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.9k12766
13.9k12766
4
Plank values have to do with the amount of energy needed to measure not the discreetness of the universe. Otherwise no object could travel slower than the speed of light because it would move less than a plank's length in one plank time
– Andrey
2 hours ago
4
Love this answer, however it should be noted that Planck time is (for now) a purely theoretical construct as there is no known way to conduct experiments at these timescales.
– Douwe
2 hours ago
8
The Planck time is not a quantum of time, and the Plank length is not a quantum of space. They are the smallest differences in space and time of which is it meaningful to speak; but it does not follow that all time values are integer multiples of the Planck time, or that all spatial coordinate values are integer multiples of the Planck length. And the linked document does not pretend that space and time are quantised.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
1
Simplifying what Andrey and AlexP said, given that the Planck-time is 10^-43 seconds, nothing stops you from waiting 10^-43 * PI, so try quantizing that
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
4
@RonJohn: The scare quotes are there for a reason. If spacetime was quantized then by necessity energy would have to be quantized too, because action (which is energy × time) is known to be quantized. (it was Planck who discovered the quantum of action.) Energy being quantized means that photons would come only in discrete wavelengths, because $E = hnu$, and we would notice that a black body spectrum is made up of discrete lines. Which it isn't.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
4
Plank values have to do with the amount of energy needed to measure not the discreetness of the universe. Otherwise no object could travel slower than the speed of light because it would move less than a plank's length in one plank time
– Andrey
2 hours ago
4
Love this answer, however it should be noted that Planck time is (for now) a purely theoretical construct as there is no known way to conduct experiments at these timescales.
– Douwe
2 hours ago
8
The Planck time is not a quantum of time, and the Plank length is not a quantum of space. They are the smallest differences in space and time of which is it meaningful to speak; but it does not follow that all time values are integer multiples of the Planck time, or that all spatial coordinate values are integer multiples of the Planck length. And the linked document does not pretend that space and time are quantised.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
1
Simplifying what Andrey and AlexP said, given that the Planck-time is 10^-43 seconds, nothing stops you from waiting 10^-43 * PI, so try quantizing that
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
4
@RonJohn: The scare quotes are there for a reason. If spacetime was quantized then by necessity energy would have to be quantized too, because action (which is energy × time) is known to be quantized. (it was Planck who discovered the quantum of action.) Energy being quantized means that photons would come only in discrete wavelengths, because $E = hnu$, and we would notice that a black body spectrum is made up of discrete lines. Which it isn't.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
4
4
Plank values have to do with the amount of energy needed to measure not the discreetness of the universe. Otherwise no object could travel slower than the speed of light because it would move less than a plank's length in one plank time
– Andrey
2 hours ago
Plank values have to do with the amount of energy needed to measure not the discreetness of the universe. Otherwise no object could travel slower than the speed of light because it would move less than a plank's length in one plank time
– Andrey
2 hours ago
4
4
Love this answer, however it should be noted that Planck time is (for now) a purely theoretical construct as there is no known way to conduct experiments at these timescales.
– Douwe
2 hours ago
Love this answer, however it should be noted that Planck time is (for now) a purely theoretical construct as there is no known way to conduct experiments at these timescales.
– Douwe
2 hours ago
8
8
The Planck time is not a quantum of time, and the Plank length is not a quantum of space. They are the smallest differences in space and time of which is it meaningful to speak; but it does not follow that all time values are integer multiples of the Planck time, or that all spatial coordinate values are integer multiples of the Planck length. And the linked document does not pretend that space and time are quantised.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
The Planck time is not a quantum of time, and the Plank length is not a quantum of space. They are the smallest differences in space and time of which is it meaningful to speak; but it does not follow that all time values are integer multiples of the Planck time, or that all spatial coordinate values are integer multiples of the Planck length. And the linked document does not pretend that space and time are quantised.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
1
1
Simplifying what Andrey and AlexP said, given that the Planck-time is 10^-43 seconds, nothing stops you from waiting 10^-43 * PI, so try quantizing that
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
Simplifying what Andrey and AlexP said, given that the Planck-time is 10^-43 seconds, nothing stops you from waiting 10^-43 * PI, so try quantizing that
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
4
4
@RonJohn: The scare quotes are there for a reason. If spacetime was quantized then by necessity energy would have to be quantized too, because action (which is energy × time) is known to be quantized. (it was Planck who discovered the quantum of action.) Energy being quantized means that photons would come only in discrete wavelengths, because $E = hnu$, and we would notice that a black body spectrum is made up of discrete lines. Which it isn't.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@RonJohn: The scare quotes are there for a reason. If spacetime was quantized then by necessity energy would have to be quantized too, because action (which is energy × time) is known to be quantized. (it was Planck who discovered the quantum of action.) Energy being quantized means that photons would come only in discrete wavelengths, because $E = hnu$, and we would notice that a black body spectrum is made up of discrete lines. Which it isn't.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
Collision penetration by velocity.
This is a classic problem in video-games. If physics is checked by frames and if objects are overlapping, then if something travels fast enough it can be before an object one frame, and past the object next frame. Collision never triggers and it goes flying by. Too bad they knew so we got that pesky speed of light to deal with. Instead we just need to make our objects small enough.
Cool part is that physics almost supports this. There is only a probability that two objects will collide. Now by using the width of objects and how often they collide we can calculate the frame rate of the universe. At least the physics loop frame-rate.
answered 2 hours ago
Andrey
2,877726
Hmmmm... so hypervelocity particles acting like weird radiation then?
– Joe Bloggs
2 hours ago
This has some interesting implications on LHC experiments :D
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
2
Unless it uses swept collision detection. That can be calculated exactly and still be frame based.
– ratchet freak
57 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
Collision penetration by velocity.
This is a classic problem in video-games. If physics is checked by frames and if objects are overlapping, then if something travels fast enough it can be before an object one frame, and past the object next frame. Collision never triggers and it goes flying by. Too bad they knew so we got that pesky speed of light to deal with. Instead we just need to make our objects small enough.
Cool part is that physics almost supports this. There is only a probability that two objects will collide. Now by using the width of objects and how often they collide we can calculate the frame rate of the universe. At least the physics loop frame-rate.
answered 2 hours ago
Andrey
2,877726
Hmmmm... so hypervelocity particles acting like weird radiation then?
– Joe Bloggs
2 hours ago
This has some interesting implications on LHC experiments :D
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
2
Unless it uses swept collision detection. That can be calculated exactly and still be frame based.
– ratchet freak
57 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
Collision penetration by velocity.
This is a classic problem in video-games. If physics is checked by frames and if objects are overlapping, then if something travels fast enough it can be before an object one frame, and past the object next frame. Collision never triggers and it goes flying by. Too bad they knew so we got that pesky speed of light to deal with. Instead we just need to make our objects small enough.
Cool part is that physics almost supports this. There is only a probability that two objects will collide. Now by using the width of objects and how often they collide we can calculate the frame rate of the universe. At least the physics loop frame-rate.
answered 2 hours ago
Andrey
2,877726
Collision penetration by velocity.
This is a classic problem in video-games. If physics is checked by frames and if objects are overlapping, then if something travels fast enough it can be before an object one frame, and past the object next frame. Collision never triggers and it goes flying by. Too bad they knew so we got that pesky speed of light to deal with. Instead we just need to make our objects small enough.
Cool part is that physics almost supports this. There is only a probability that two objects will collide. Now by using the width of objects and how often they collide we can calculate the frame rate of the universe. At least the physics loop frame-rate.
answered 2 hours ago
Andrey
2,877726
answered 2 hours ago
Andrey
2,877726
answered 2 hours ago
Andrey
2,877726
answered 2 hours ago
Andrey
2,877726
2,877726
Hmmmm... so hypervelocity particles acting like weird radiation then?
– Joe Bloggs
2 hours ago
This has some interesting implications on LHC experiments :D
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
2
Unless it uses swept collision detection. That can be calculated exactly and still be frame based.
– ratchet freak
57 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Hmmmm... so hypervelocity particles acting like weird radiation then?
– Joe Bloggs
2 hours ago
This has some interesting implications on LHC experiments :D
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
2
Unless it uses swept collision detection. That can be calculated exactly and still be frame based.
– ratchet freak
57 mins ago
Hmmmm... so hypervelocity particles acting like weird radiation then?
– Joe Bloggs
2 hours ago
Hmmmm... so hypervelocity particles acting like weird radiation then?
– Joe Bloggs
2 hours ago
This has some interesting implications on LHC experiments :D
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
This has some interesting implications on LHC experiments :D
– quetzalcoatl
1 hour ago
2
2
Unless it uses swept collision detection. That can be calculated exactly and still be frame based.
– ratchet freak
57 mins ago
Unless it uses swept collision detection. That can be calculated exactly and still be frame based.
– ratchet freak
57 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The Arrow of Time, or macro system temporal asymmetry, is the observable irreversibility of chemical and mechanical reactions, it forms the basis of entropy. It is also a demonstration of time's passage in that to reverse reactions effected by it one would have to turn back time.
If we establish that there is a minimum time frame over which such asymmetry can be observed to occur this would demonstrate a minimum duration for the definite forward movement of time, proof that time only moves in one direction and in discrete parcels as well. Actually getting experimental proofs concerning events that occur so quickly is however impossible, by definition, if time is discrete since we couldn't measure the time it takes for time to happen in increments smaller than itself.
answered 1 hour ago
Ash
23.1k462136
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The Arrow of Time, or macro system temporal asymmetry, is the observable irreversibility of chemical and mechanical reactions, it forms the basis of entropy. It is also a demonstration of time's passage in that to reverse reactions effected by it one would have to turn back time.
If we establish that there is a minimum time frame over which such asymmetry can be observed to occur this would demonstrate a minimum duration for the definite forward movement of time, proof that time only moves in one direction and in discrete parcels as well. Actually getting experimental proofs concerning events that occur so quickly is however impossible, by definition, if time is discrete since we couldn't measure the time it takes for time to happen in increments smaller than itself.
answered 1 hour ago
Ash
23.1k462136
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The Arrow of Time, or macro system temporal asymmetry, is the observable irreversibility of chemical and mechanical reactions, it forms the basis of entropy. It is also a demonstration of time's passage in that to reverse reactions effected by it one would have to turn back time.
If we establish that there is a minimum time frame over which such asymmetry can be observed to occur this would demonstrate a minimum duration for the definite forward movement of time, proof that time only moves in one direction and in discrete parcels as well. Actually getting experimental proofs concerning events that occur so quickly is however impossible, by definition, if time is discrete since we couldn't measure the time it takes for time to happen in increments smaller than itself.
answered 1 hour ago
Ash
23.1k462136
The Arrow of Time, or macro system temporal asymmetry, is the observable irreversibility of chemical and mechanical reactions, it forms the basis of entropy. It is also a demonstration of time's passage in that to reverse reactions effected by it one would have to turn back time.
If we establish that there is a minimum time frame over which such asymmetry can be observed to occur this would demonstrate a minimum duration for the definite forward movement of time, proof that time only moves in one direction and in discrete parcels as well. Actually getting experimental proofs concerning events that occur so quickly is however impossible, by definition, if time is discrete since we couldn't measure the time it takes for time to happen in increments smaller than itself.
answered 1 hour ago
Ash
23.1k462136
answered 1 hour ago
Ash
23.1k462136
answered 1 hour ago
Ash
23.1k462136
answered 1 hour ago
Ash
23.1k462136
23.1k462136
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
High speed cameras would not only allow us to detect that reality is frame-based, but it would also allow us to record what the framerate is. Between each frame any number of things can happen(i.e., you can move 5ft or 1000ft), but the results of what happened in one frame is only visible on the next frame.
Answers to this Physics SE question suggest that there is no upper-limit to the maximum framerate of a camera, and some cameras available today are already capable of 200 million FPS. That's about one picture every 5ns!
So, if reality was frame-based then as high-speed cameras achieved higher and higher framerates, eventually we'd begin to see the discreteness of the universe as the pictures look more and more like a slowed-down stop-motion film. Eventually, we'd be unable to take unique pictures in between two very small moments of time, as there is nothing to view between one frame and the next.
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
10.5k42534
4
The cameras themselves are governed by the theoretical frame rate of the universe. Does this mechanism allow you to detect whether you have reached a limit on the camera's time resolution versus the universe's time resolution?
– pojo-guy
2 hours ago
@pojo-guy: Maybe you notice that things moved between frames and when you double the framerate they move only half as much?
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@pojo-guy: Since this theoretical universe is based on concrete frames rather than anything more abstract like distance or time, any number of things can happen in between the frames since the 'CPU' of the universe is must allow multiple things to happen per frame. The camera would be able to take as many pictures as it wants per frame, and every picture taken during one frame would show up on the next frame.
– Giter
1 hour ago
1
...and now I'm wondering about the exponential increase in storage and processing power required for that
– nzaman
1 hour ago
@nzaman: There are about 10^86 particles in the visible universe, so just storing a single 8-bit pixel in some database for each one would require 100 trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion 1TB harddrives!
– Giter
38 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
High speed cameras would not only allow us to detect that reality is frame-based, but it would also allow us to record what the framerate is. Between each frame any number of things can happen(i.e., you can move 5ft or 1000ft), but the results of what happened in one frame is only visible on the next frame.
Answers to this Physics SE question suggest that there is no upper-limit to the maximum framerate of a camera, and some cameras available today are already capable of 200 million FPS. That's about one picture every 5ns!
So, if reality was frame-based then as high-speed cameras achieved higher and higher framerates, eventually we'd begin to see the discreteness of the universe as the pictures look more and more like a slowed-down stop-motion film. Eventually, we'd be unable to take unique pictures in between two very small moments of time, as there is nothing to view between one frame and the next.
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
10.5k42534
4
The cameras themselves are governed by the theoretical frame rate of the universe. Does this mechanism allow you to detect whether you have reached a limit on the camera's time resolution versus the universe's time resolution?
– pojo-guy
2 hours ago
@pojo-guy: Maybe you notice that things moved between frames and when you double the framerate they move only half as much?
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@pojo-guy: Since this theoretical universe is based on concrete frames rather than anything more abstract like distance or time, any number of things can happen in between the frames since the 'CPU' of the universe is must allow multiple things to happen per frame. The camera would be able to take as many pictures as it wants per frame, and every picture taken during one frame would show up on the next frame.
– Giter
1 hour ago
1
...and now I'm wondering about the exponential increase in storage and processing power required for that
– nzaman
1 hour ago
@nzaman: There are about 10^86 particles in the visible universe, so just storing a single 8-bit pixel in some database for each one would require 100 trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion 1TB harddrives!
– Giter
38 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
High speed cameras would not only allow us to detect that reality is frame-based, but it would also allow us to record what the framerate is. Between each frame any number of things can happen(i.e., you can move 5ft or 1000ft), but the results of what happened in one frame is only visible on the next frame.
Answers to this Physics SE question suggest that there is no upper-limit to the maximum framerate of a camera, and some cameras available today are already capable of 200 million FPS. That's about one picture every 5ns!
So, if reality was frame-based then as high-speed cameras achieved higher and higher framerates, eventually we'd begin to see the discreteness of the universe as the pictures look more and more like a slowed-down stop-motion film. Eventually, we'd be unable to take unique pictures in between two very small moments of time, as there is nothing to view between one frame and the next.
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
10.5k42534
High speed cameras would not only allow us to detect that reality is frame-based, but it would also allow us to record what the framerate is. Between each frame any number of things can happen(i.e., you can move 5ft or 1000ft), but the results of what happened in one frame is only visible on the next frame.
Answers to this Physics SE question suggest that there is no upper-limit to the maximum framerate of a camera, and some cameras available today are already capable of 200 million FPS. That's about one picture every 5ns!
So, if reality was frame-based then as high-speed cameras achieved higher and higher framerates, eventually we'd begin to see the discreteness of the universe as the pictures look more and more like a slowed-down stop-motion film. Eventually, we'd be unable to take unique pictures in between two very small moments of time, as there is nothing to view between one frame and the next.
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
10.5k42534
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
10.5k42534
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
10.5k42534
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
10.5k42534
10.5k42534
4
The cameras themselves are governed by the theoretical frame rate of the universe. Does this mechanism allow you to detect whether you have reached a limit on the camera's time resolution versus the universe's time resolution?
– pojo-guy
2 hours ago
@pojo-guy: Maybe you notice that things moved between frames and when you double the framerate they move only half as much?
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@pojo-guy: Since this theoretical universe is based on concrete frames rather than anything more abstract like distance or time, any number of things can happen in between the frames since the 'CPU' of the universe is must allow multiple things to happen per frame. The camera would be able to take as many pictures as it wants per frame, and every picture taken during one frame would show up on the next frame.
– Giter
1 hour ago
1
...and now I'm wondering about the exponential increase in storage and processing power required for that
– nzaman
1 hour ago
@nzaman: There are about 10^86 particles in the visible universe, so just storing a single 8-bit pixel in some database for each one would require 100 trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion 1TB harddrives!
– Giter
38 mins ago
add a comment |Â
4
The cameras themselves are governed by the theoretical frame rate of the universe. Does this mechanism allow you to detect whether you have reached a limit on the camera's time resolution versus the universe's time resolution?
– pojo-guy
2 hours ago
@pojo-guy: Maybe you notice that things moved between frames and when you double the framerate they move only half as much?
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@pojo-guy: Since this theoretical universe is based on concrete frames rather than anything more abstract like distance or time, any number of things can happen in between the frames since the 'CPU' of the universe is must allow multiple things to happen per frame. The camera would be able to take as many pictures as it wants per frame, and every picture taken during one frame would show up on the next frame.
– Giter
1 hour ago
1
...and now I'm wondering about the exponential increase in storage and processing power required for that
– nzaman
1 hour ago
@nzaman: There are about 10^86 particles in the visible universe, so just storing a single 8-bit pixel in some database for each one would require 100 trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion 1TB harddrives!
– Giter
38 mins ago
4
4
The cameras themselves are governed by the theoretical frame rate of the universe. Does this mechanism allow you to detect whether you have reached a limit on the camera's time resolution versus the universe's time resolution?
– pojo-guy
2 hours ago
The cameras themselves are governed by the theoretical frame rate of the universe. Does this mechanism allow you to detect whether you have reached a limit on the camera's time resolution versus the universe's time resolution?
– pojo-guy
2 hours ago
@pojo-guy: Maybe you notice that things moved between frames and when you double the framerate they move only half as much?
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@pojo-guy: Maybe you notice that things moved between frames and when you double the framerate they move only half as much?
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@pojo-guy: Since this theoretical universe is based on concrete frames rather than anything more abstract like distance or time, any number of things can happen in between the frames since the 'CPU' of the universe is must allow multiple things to happen per frame. The camera would be able to take as many pictures as it wants per frame, and every picture taken during one frame would show up on the next frame.
– Giter
1 hour ago
@pojo-guy: Since this theoretical universe is based on concrete frames rather than anything more abstract like distance or time, any number of things can happen in between the frames since the 'CPU' of the universe is must allow multiple things to happen per frame. The camera would be able to take as many pictures as it wants per frame, and every picture taken during one frame would show up on the next frame.
– Giter
1 hour ago
1
1
...and now I'm wondering about the exponential increase in storage and processing power required for that
– nzaman
1 hour ago
...and now I'm wondering about the exponential increase in storage and processing power required for that
– nzaman
1 hour ago
@nzaman: There are about 10^86 particles in the visible universe, so just storing a single 8-bit pixel in some database for each one would require 100 trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion 1TB harddrives!
– Giter
38 mins ago
@nzaman: There are about 10^86 particles in the visible universe, so just storing a single 8-bit pixel in some database for each one would require 100 trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion 1TB harddrives!
– Giter
38 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Yes, possibly.
Relativistic time dilation effect may help us to detect time quantization.
In the world of video production, there is a longstanding problem of converting the frame rate when a video is converted from one media to another. In classic film, frame rate is 24 fps. In PAL video, it's 25 fps. In NTSC, it's 30 fps. Individual frames are too short for humans to take notice, but when we have to convert frame by frame, the resulting artifacts are becoming visible to an untrained eye.
Similarly, if we have two very precise clocks moving with respect to each other, or one in a strong field of gravity, and one away from it, the time will be running at different speeds for them. If time is continuous, the "slow" clock will measure time exactly as Einstein's theory had predicted. But if time is discrete, and the "slow" clock has to actually run in a "fast" timescale world, we would be able to see some weird effects, like some seconds will be shorter, and some longer than others.
The "slow" clock and its attendants would not be able to notice that without referring to the "fast" clock, and vice versa.
answered 20 mins ago
Alexander
17k42967
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Yes, possibly.
Relativistic time dilation effect may help us to detect time quantization.
In the world of video production, there is a longstanding problem of converting the frame rate when a video is converted from one media to another. In classic film, frame rate is 24 fps. In PAL video, it's 25 fps. In NTSC, it's 30 fps. Individual frames are too short for humans to take notice, but when we have to convert frame by frame, the resulting artifacts are becoming visible to an untrained eye.
Similarly, if we have two very precise clocks moving with respect to each other, or one in a strong field of gravity, and one away from it, the time will be running at different speeds for them. If time is continuous, the "slow" clock will measure time exactly as Einstein's theory had predicted. But if time is discrete, and the "slow" clock has to actually run in a "fast" timescale world, we would be able to see some weird effects, like some seconds will be shorter, and some longer than others.
The "slow" clock and its attendants would not be able to notice that without referring to the "fast" clock, and vice versa.
answered 20 mins ago
Alexander
17k42967
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Yes, possibly.
Relativistic time dilation effect may help us to detect time quantization.
In the world of video production, there is a longstanding problem of converting the frame rate when a video is converted from one media to another. In classic film, frame rate is 24 fps. In PAL video, it's 25 fps. In NTSC, it's 30 fps. Individual frames are too short for humans to take notice, but when we have to convert frame by frame, the resulting artifacts are becoming visible to an untrained eye.
Similarly, if we have two very precise clocks moving with respect to each other, or one in a strong field of gravity, and one away from it, the time will be running at different speeds for them. If time is continuous, the "slow" clock will measure time exactly as Einstein's theory had predicted. But if time is discrete, and the "slow" clock has to actually run in a "fast" timescale world, we would be able to see some weird effects, like some seconds will be shorter, and some longer than others.
The "slow" clock and its attendants would not be able to notice that without referring to the "fast" clock, and vice versa.
answered 20 mins ago
Alexander
17k42967
Yes, possibly.
Relativistic time dilation effect may help us to detect time quantization.
In the world of video production, there is a longstanding problem of converting the frame rate when a video is converted from one media to another. In classic film, frame rate is 24 fps. In PAL video, it's 25 fps. In NTSC, it's 30 fps. Individual frames are too short for humans to take notice, but when we have to convert frame by frame, the resulting artifacts are becoming visible to an untrained eye.
Similarly, if we have two very precise clocks moving with respect to each other, or one in a strong field of gravity, and one away from it, the time will be running at different speeds for them. If time is continuous, the "slow" clock will measure time exactly as Einstein's theory had predicted. But if time is discrete, and the "slow" clock has to actually run in a "fast" timescale world, we would be able to see some weird effects, like some seconds will be shorter, and some longer than others.
The "slow" clock and its attendants would not be able to notice that without referring to the "fast" clock, and vice versa.
answered 20 mins ago
Alexander
17k42967
answered 20 mins ago
Alexander
17k42967
answered 20 mins ago
Alexander
17k42967
answered 20 mins ago
Alexander
17k42967
17k42967
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Alma Do is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Alma Do is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Alma Do is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Alma Do is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127623%2fif-reality-were-frame-rate-based-how-could-we-detect-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
None. If true, the frame rate of reality is too high for elements in that reality to detect. Nyquist-Shannon theorem
– nzaman
2 hours ago