When do the world records stop

Actually it doesn't really have to have any "real" end.....the logic behind 2 seconds as a lower boundary for any single event doesn't really prove there will be an ultimate "end" to setting new world records. To break an existing world record you only have to break it by one hundreth of a second or so (maybe in the future with more sophisticated timing technology (i.e. devices)....this can be even less....like one ten thousandth of a second??).....BUT If every world record had to be beat by a second or more to be legitimate I can almost agree with your assessment......As it stands now though, you can give an ultimate lower boundary for any event (like 2 seconds for example).....then nobody would ever reach that lower boundary...BUT when you look at the gap of possible times that lies between that ultimate lower boundary and the existing world record, there will always be enough room (with sophisticated enough timing technology) for such a large number of "legitimate" possible times that lie within that gap of time that the number of legitimate possibilites might as well be infinite ......It's "similar" to saying something like: What if I can never reach the wall over there but I can always go half way to the wall....then half way again...then half way again....Is there a limit then to how close I can get to the wall?....the only difference is that there really are then an infinite number of possible legitimate "closer" distances I can get to the wall in that hypothetical scenario. Sorry (I'm a geek please forgive me) newmastersswimmer

That's an interesting concept to think about. I had never thought about that before, so of course it got me thinking and this is what I came up with (just in case anyone wanted to know my 2 cents). I think that eventually "natural" records will cease to exsist. Times will become so unbreakable they won't be able to be beaten without some sort of enhancement. Your right, the human body can only be pushed so far without help. I hate to think of that being the case. But I think as long as the records can be broken naturally, they will be. ~Kyra p.s. and of course, the math prof. baffles all of us with logic:eek:

Looks like we both replied to the initial question at "almost" the exact same time. So I won't hold it against you that you didn't take my argument into consideration....(i.e. I will forgive you) newmastersswimmer

I agree that they will probably come up with more sophisticated ways of timing to make breaking a record easier rather than allowing enhancement chemicals, but people will only to break it down so far. I don't think that they are willing to go to the millionith or billionith of a second just for the sake of a record. I think that eventually you will either have to be using something to enchance yourself or you may never be able to break a record...assuming that they allow performance enhancing materials...which I don't think they will any time soon so I think we're all same from "drugged up super humans." Or people and our technology will become so advanced that is will come 360 and destroy the world and then we can all just start over again. :D ~Kyra

How about a quadrillionth of a nano-second?....(just kidding of course!)....Actually I did just find an interesting article about the smallest possible length of an interval of time (i.e. a smallest possible unit of time) according to the laws of quantum mechanics.....it is around 3.3 times 10 to the negative 44 I believe (if I just read that correctly??...I do have a short term memory problem....and a long term memory problem too now that I mention it!)......so 0.00000.....000033 seconds (where there are 43 zeros before the first nonzero digit of "3" appears).....It would be physically impossible, however, to develop a mechanism to actually differentiate two times that differ by an amount this small however (and utterly rediculuous to even consider).....But I do think that it will be a LONG time before we reach a point in which the only legitimate possible speeds faster than what has already been accomplished is any where near that small.....i.e. I believe there will be room for improvement in any event for a long time to come. www.physlink.com/.../ae598.cfm newmastersswimmer

Originally posted by Seagurl51 I hate to think of that being the case. But I think as long as the records can be broken naturally, they will be. ~Kyra p.s. and of course, the math prof. baffles all of us with logic:eek: I do not think we see a lot of natural records even these days, we just hope they are natural, but I am sure that natural limit was broken some time ago, now it is the battle of doctors and drugs ...

Originally posted by newmastersswimmer Actually it doesn't really have to have any "real" end.....the logic behind 2 seconds as a lower boundary for any single event doesn't really prove there will be an ultimate "end" to setting new world records. To break an existing world record you only have to break it by one hundreth of a second or so (maybe in the future with more sophisticated timing technology (i.e. devices)....this can be even less....like one ten thousandth of a second??).....BUT If every world record had to be beat by a second or more to be legitimate I can almost agree with your assessment......As it stands now though, you can give an ultimate lower boundary for any event (like 2 seconds for example).....then nobody would ever reach that lower boundary...BUT when you look at the gap of possible times that lies between that ultimate lower boundary and the existing world record, there will always be enough room (with sophisticated enough timing technology) for such a large number of "legitimate" possible times that lie within that gap of time that the number of legitimate possibilites might as well be infinite ......It's "similar" to saying something like: What if I can never reach the wall over there but I can always go half way to the wall....then half way again...then half way again....Is there a limit then to how close I can get to the wall?....the only difference is that there really are then an infinite number of possible legitimate "closer" distances I can get to the wall in that hypothetical scenario. Sorry (I'm a geek please forgive me) newmastersswimmer Aren't you sorry you asked this question.:D

I think measuring to the hundredth might be too fine a measurement if you're looking at swims in different pools at different times, but you need to get that kind of precision sometimes to find out who won a particular heat. Heck, look at the men's 50 in Athens. The three medalists were within a tenth of a second. Now, we don't know exactly what distance each swimmer had to swim, but we can tell from video that Gary Hall, Jr. touched the wall first. If the timing only went to 0.1 second, there would have been a tie for first unless a judge's decision could be used.

You know this scenario has actually occurred before. In the 1984 LA Olympics Nancy Hogshead and Carrie Steinseifer tied in the 100 meter free. The timing system used actually measured to 0.001 second, but FINA uses 0.01, so the tie stood. I don't think it was ever revealed who truly "won" according to the timing system. I know there have been other ties, too, but this one sticks out in my mind. EDIT: yeah, in the 50 if you run the numbers 22 seconds for 50 meters is 2.27 m/s, so in .01 seconds the swimmers travel .02 meters, or 2 cm. That's close to an inch for the metrically challenged :)

There's really no point in developing timing systems that return more significant digits. Why? Think about the tolerance in pool design. If one swim was done in a pool a couple millimeters different in length from another, why bother going to .001 seconds in time? You see what I'm getting at? originally posted by knelson The main problem I have with that argument is that the same argument can be used to discard differentiating times that differ by 0.01 seconds as well.....But they already do differentiate times that differ by 0.01....If you were to swim a race at a USS sanctioned meet and turn in a time that was 0.01 seconds faster than an existing record (World Records included), then you would officially be the new world record holder....Correct?....What's is the significant difference between a difference of 0.001 and a difference of 0.01 then? newmastersswimmer