When do the world records stop

I guess what you mean is that it would be boring to watch races in which everyone appears to touch the wall at virtually the same time (to the naked eye)...my pardons! newmastersswimmer

“I still want to try and solve the puzzle of creating a timing system that has enough integrity and reliability to be able to give reasonably accurate times to the nearest 0.001 second.” This already exists… current timing systems (Colorado, Omega, etc.) could as easily record/display times to 0.001 seconds of precision, in fact back in the 70’s they were timed to the 0.001th of a second. The world swimming community decided to only record times to 0.01th of a second. As for the discussion about elite swimmers all approaching some mystical fastest time, you have a better chance of being struck by lightening or being eaten by sharks (see other forum posts on shark attacks for those odds), then you do of ever seeing an entire dead heat in a championship 50. But back to this fastest time argument, what few people seem to be taking into account is the fact that records are not broken on any schedule some records stand for decades (Mary T’s fly or Bob Beamon’s long jump) and many records from the 70’s 80’s and 90’s still stand. And aren’t all our records already the fastest any human can swim? That is until someone breaks it.

I'm not sure what the probability of a tie really is but I think the point stands that going to a higher precision doesn't solve the fundamental issue. If it turns out that too many ties are occurring the format of the race should be changed, either you eliminate the 50m race or you have a best of three (best time of three or best average or ...) or .... If you did ever get to the point where multiple competitors tied to within 0.01s the factors that led to one winning over another would be uninteresting, you might as well toss a coin. originally posted by Lindsay Well the probability of a tie could increase as the years go on if you beleive the theory that has been presented here that the world record times in any particular event are asymptotically approaching some mysterious "limitting time"........I definitely see your point though.....I still want to try and solve the puzzle of creating a timing system that has enough integrity and reliability to be able to give reasonably accurate times to the nearest 0.001 second....and solve every complaint about such a system I've been given on the board.....Why you might ask?....because I like challenges....I don't actually care one way or the other about whether or not something similar is actually ever used in a future Olympic Games......And I do agree with you that swim races in which many of the swimmers touch the wall at "virtually" the same time are a little boring to watch.....but I still think it is fun to try and see how to come up with a timing system that is "doable" enough...and reasonably affordable....just to see what is possible.....I hope I'm not annoying people too much though....I appreciate all the comments b/c they help me to realize the magnitude of engineering such a timing system with the right levels of reliability and integrity to be a relatively "meaningful" system for differentiating 1st, 2nd and 3rd place (in "most" situations) when the existing timing systems do not. newmastersswimmer p.s. I am working on a "refined" plan to my madness....just a warning!....sorry....I can't control the geeky dark side....it takes over and I must sucumb to it!!

This already exists… current timing systems (Colorado, Omega, etc.) could as easily record/display times to 0.001 seconds of precision, in fact back in the 70’s they were timed to the 0.001th of a second. The world swimming community decided to only record times to 0.01th of a second. originally posted by Rob Copeland Yaeh, I know these systems already exist....we already acknowledged that ealier in the thread....the concern is about the integrity and reliability of these already existing systems...that's what I want to "try" to tackle (as insane as it may seem??).....Several issues have been brought up that sort of prove that such existing systems are (well a joke to put it midly).....One excellent reason for this was brought up by Phil Arcuni (sp??)....who pointed out the fact that microscopic variations in the lengths of one lane in comparison to another lane in the same pool (say on the order of a mm or so) kind of defeat the purpose of the entire timing system from the get go!......Another issue has to do with the fact that the entire touch pad activation system "most likely" has natural flaws in it....(See Mattson's excellent post on that issue)...these timing systems can only make "electronic" differentiations between two different registered times from the touch pads that differ by no less than 0.001 seconds....that is NO guarantee, however, that the activation system (via the touch pad) that registered the times actually registered the fastest swimmer first and the slower swimmer second.....on such small time and distance scales, small scale diffferences in how the two swimmers activated thier respective touch pads comes into play as well....these pads work on pressure sensitivity....what if the fingernail of a swimmer makes contact with a touch pad 0.001 seconds before the fleshy part of a finger of another swimmer makes contact with thier touch pad...BUT the swimmer hitting with the fleshy part of the finger registers first before the fingernail of the other swimmer registers?....on time scales on the order of 0.001 seconds, this is a natural problem don't you think? But back to this fastest time argument, what few people seem to be taking into account is the fact that records are not broken on any schedule some records stand for decades (Mary T’s fly or Bob Beamon’s long jump) and many records from the 70’s 80’s and 90’s still stand. And aren’t all our records already the fastest any human can swim? That is until someone breaks it. also originally posted by Rob Copeland That is a very good point in my opinion (about "lulls" and "spurts" in progress when it comes to breaking records)....I was thinking more on the grand scheme of long time intervals (like maybe even thousands of years from now perhaps??).....I personally don't think any atheletes in any sports that are "timed" (except maybe the 40 yard dash or something very short like that) have come anywhere near (in relative terms) to approaching any mythical "limitting time" in any event....(limitting based on pure "natural" ability as others have put it here). And we're not refering to the current fastest times here when we refer to this so called "limitting time"...(which I don't really believe exists anyway for any event IMHO) ....I believe they are referring to some "fastest humanly possible time" that can be potentially accomplished without using special genetic engineering and/or enhanced human specimans through some other technology like steroids and peformance enhanceing drugs....At least that is what I think they are referring to here?? newmastersswimmer

coming in late to this conversation, but there is no way (well, at a reasonable cost) a 50 m pool can be built that can guarantee that two different lanes are within 1 mm of each other. That is why races are decided to the nearest .01 second, not .001. originally posted by Phil Arcuni That is a very good point......I think the reasoning for wanting timing systems with that kind of precision is to break the somewhat frequent ties that ocurr when the timing is only broken down to the 0.01 second mark. The problem is that in short races, this has a fairly high probability of occurring. Moreover, if the speculation that the elite swimmers will (and are) approaching some "limitting best possible time" asymptotically (as Lindsay put it) as the years progress, then the probability of multiple ties with the timing system broken down to only 0.01 seconds will increase over the years (or at least that's a theory based on the speculation of this thread).....Will people (fans) be willing to see all 8 swimmers in the Finals of the 50 meter freestyle in some later Olympics all share the gold medal for example?....(of course if that happens there's a high degree of probabilitythat at least two of the swimmers will also be within 0.001 seconds of one another??) ....totally hypothetical but not beyond reason. newmastersswimmer p.s. I think the underwater cameras I mentioned in my last posting would need to be a little deeper than 18 inches below the surface of the water also....(I wouldn't want anyone to cut thier feet on them while making a flip turn...ouch!!)

I'm not sure what the probability of a tie really is but I think the point stands that going to a higher precision doesn't solve the fundamental issue. If it turns out that too many ties are occurring the format of the race should be changed, either you eliminate the 50m race or you have a best of three (best time of three or best average or ...) or .... If you did ever get to the point where multiple competitors tied to within 0.01s the factors that led to one winning over another would be uninteresting, you might as well toss a coin.

Jim, I'll let you in on a dirty little secret about touch pads… Your right they don’t record when the swimmer touches the pad. They are activated when sufficient pressure is applied to activate the mechanism. So the fastest swimmer, applying sufficient force to the pad is timed as finishing first, by the electronic timing systems. I don’t have the technical specifications with me, but I can tell you that the manufacturers that I have dealt with (Omega and Colorado Timing) have exacting specifications for pad thickness and sensitivity, as well as timing console clock accuracy. So every swimming world record is slower by the amount of time needed to activate the pad, but every time is slower by that same timing delay. And I disagree with the assumption that microscopic variations in the lengths of one lane in comparison to another lane in the same pool kind of defeat the purpose of the entire timing system. There are many factors that vary from pool to pool and lane to lane beyond exact lane length (starting block height/spring, wind speed, air temp, water temp, air quality, water current, chemicals in the water, pool depth, lane line tension, gutter type, wall design and materials, lighting …). FINA and swimming national governing bodies have established standards to address many of these, however the reality is that no two lanes are exactly alike and even for a given lane the conditions change from heat to heat and even within a heat. But so what, just because no two baseballs are exactly alike does this defeat the purpose of baseball? And while "fastest humanly possible time" is a wonderful cocktail party or discussion forum topic, it presupposes the event of a genetically perfectly individual, perfectly trained from birth (or earlier), at the peak of their career, with perfect technique maintained for every nanosecond of the race, with a perfect taper, a perfectly timed start, in an absolutely perfect pool with a perfectly fast suit, expending every ounce of energy, etc. It also presupposes that no one will be able to learn from this person and figure out a better way. Based on these presuppositions, I would agree there is a fastest humanly possible time, but without more sophisticated modeling there is no way to exactly peg this time. I remember back in the day, when the experts stated absolutely that 15:00 was the absolute fastest time for the 1500M. Well, they missed that one. So with that, I’ll state unequivocally, that the fastest humanly possible time in the 50 Yard Free is 17.760704 seconds!

Originally posted by Rob Copeland They are activated when sufficient pressure is applied to activate the mechanism. That would imply that kung-fu masters have an advantage over the rest of us. I'm thinking about those action movies, where the guy can wave his arms, and set up an air shock-wave that blows out a candle from across the room. Seems like this same dude could probably focus a strong enough water wave to trip the touch pad (without touching it). :D From a discussion with Jim, timing gets even more complicated once you approach hypothetical limits. Special relativity tells us that simultaneity depends on your reference frame. It would be possible for observer A to see 1 happen before 2, and observer B to see 2 happen before 1. That would really mess up the swim standings! (The fact that observers A and B are traveling at near light speeds in opposite directions, is a minor technicality. ;) )

And I disagree with the assumption that microscopic variations in the lengths of one lane in comparison to another lane in the same pool kind of defeat the purpose of the entire timing system. There are many factors that vary from pool to pool and lane to lane beyond exact lane length (starting block height/spring, wind speed, air temp, water temp, air quality, water current, chemicals in the water, pool depth, lane line tension, gutter type, wall design and materials, lighting …). FINA and swimming national governing bodies have established standards to address many of these, however the reality is that no two lanes are exactly alike and even for a given lane the conditions change from heat to heat and even within a heat. But so what, just because no two baseballs are exactly alike does this defeat the purpose of baseball? originally posted by Rob Copeland Lets foucus on the "No two lanes are "exactly" alike" part of your quote above first:.....I'm not trying to create two lanes that are "exactly" alike.....I'm trying to create conditions that are reasonable on a "comparatively realtive" scale to the timing system I have in mind (Do you see the difference?).....Believe me, trying for "exact" is FAR beyond what is necessary here IMHO....I'm Not even taking into consideration anything that affects the outcome of a race that is considered "negligible" on a scale that is comparable to a scale that is compatible to the scales for the timing system I am proposing for example......So I think I'm not making myself clear enough or something perhaps??....What I am trying to say (and prove) is that it is possible to create an environment that is "exact enough" for the timing system I have in mind to have what I believe is sufficient reliability and integrity. I think the point is that while we can't control all the factors in any given race, ...None-the-less, "IF" we want to use timing systems that discern times that differ by as little as 0.001, then (for example) distance variation from lane to lane (on a "relevant" distance scale to the degree of accuracy desired by the system) "should" be an important factor for the system to have any "sufficient integrity"...(IMHO only of course!!)...It has already been calculated here by Knelson that at a constant race speed of 22 seconds per 50 meters (which is kinda arbitrary I admit...but as good as any other constant rate I suppose for the sake of this argument) one can travel approximately 2 mm in 0.001 seconds.....therefore if we want a precision timing system that registers times on the order of 0.001 seconds, then it seems reasonable to expect that the length of each lane (wall to wall) should be within a maximum distance of 1 mm apart from one another (actually I was thinking that 0.01 mm is a better criteria here) ....and YES, I also believe that the starting blocks also have to be engineered so that each block meets some minimal consistency criteria based on a lot of different things....so that one cannot argue that the small differences in the starting blocks (like one having a "significantly" higher amount of "spring" over another) can account for a "distance advantage" for one swimmer over another that can account for more than 1 mm ....(yaeh so pretty absurd in a way)...Also each starting block should also be positioned so that maximum variation in distance from each starting block to the opposite wall among starting blocks is also within a "sufficient range" lets say. To control wind and temperature and waves..etc....I would first suggest using an "indoor" facility (if you want to use this kind of timing system that I have in mind of course)....In track and field competitions, outdoor times are not counted as official (in terms of setting records) if the conditions (such as wind for example) do not meet some pre-specified criteria....Seems reasonable enough to overcome some of those obstacles by having the swim meet in an indoor facility (also this only makes sense for me if the meet had some "special significance" anyway ...such as the Olympics....This was the kind of meet I had in mind for a timing system like the one I am thinking about anyway).....I have "MANY " more ideas about controlling all kinds of other factors that you may also consider totally absurd ....and I will reveal them "all " in a long word document later...and leave you a link to it when it's done if you like? ......Together with my "semi"-detailed plan for how to deal with all of them to produce what I consider (and the "I consider" is important to note here!!) to be a timing system that has enough integrity and reliability to be worthy of distinguishing time differences as small as 0.001.....Do I really hope to see something like this put into practice?.....Not really.....I am just looking at it kind of like a math problem (semi-hypothetical) but still feasible and able to meet these insane requirements I have put forth as my set of minimal standards for such a system. We can't control all factors BUT (and now the "important point" ) we should attempt to control those factors that are "possible to control" (to within some degree of reliability) as best we can (IMHO) that "can" make a difference that is on a "compatible scale" with the system...(such as using distances of 1mm (or 0.01 mm), as guidelines for things like camera resolution, lane lenghts ..etc...since that's the distance scale that is "relevant" here)....Do you now kinda see my point (I hope)??? So every swimming world record is slower by the amount of time needed to activate the pad, but every time is slower by that same timing delay. I simply refuse to believe that no matter what the manufacturer says.....I do not believe that a pressure activated system is reliable enough to be able to always accurately differentiate one swimmer that actually "makes contact" in any way with the touch pad before another swimmer does when the time difference between the two swimmers is on the order of 0.001 seconds....why....I already addressed that and I don't think it's necessary to go back over the argument...see Mattson's comments and mine on the subject if you like. See my modified reply to this comment below for my "editted reply" newmastersswimmer

From a discussion with Jim, timing gets even more complicated once you approach hypothetical limits. Special relativity tells us that simultaneity depends on your reference frame. It would be possible for observer A to see 1 happen before 2, and observer B to see 2 happen before 1. That would really mess up the swim standings! (The fact that observers A and B are traveling at near light speeds in opposite directions, is a minor technicality. ) originally posted by Mattson Not to mention the fact that from ANY "fixed" perspective (as opposed to competing relative perspectives) you still have other barriers like Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle when you start moving into the time and distance scales that approach "quantum scales" (which is where relativity theory breaks down anyway in terms of being "compatible" with the laws of quantum mechanics)....But the point is (as Mattson puts it also)....The scales at which relativistic effects or quantum mechanical effects that create obstacles to precise measurement are WAY beyond the kind of scales that are relevent (no pun intended) to the kinds of timing systems that we are discussing here....i.e. the relativity thoery (and quantum mechanics related) postings here were (of course) only meant as jokes (just in case someone might not realize that...which I doubt....you guys all seem pretty intelligent to me anyway) newmastersswimmer