World Records

[ll_billym]

Myself and a mate had an argument about world records in sport, running mostly. My opinion is that records will always be broken as 100th of a second is a very short space of time and someone will always be able to do 100th of a second faster than the current record. His argument was that the human body has a finite ability and therefore someone will reach it one day, break the record with the bodys limit, and that will never be broken. Then this story was on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4417322.stm

What is your opinion?

[ll_billym]

Ok then, this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4417322.stm

[kempie]

If you extend the argument that the record can always be broken by a 100th of a second then at some time in the future the record would be 100m run in a 100th of a second, which in itself is broken by 100th of a second i.e. run in 0 seconds.

Since this is blatantly untrue a finite limit must exist.

[ll_billym]

I take your point but you have to agree that if one human being can do something in a certain time then another could potentially do it in 100th of a second faster. Obviously no-one is going to run the 100m in 100th of a second but I seriously need convincing that one human being is going to be able to do something in a certain time and no-one is ever going to live without being able to do it faster.

[kempie]

I think your argument fails because you have set the interval at 100ths of a second.

As we approach the limit of human ability each 'breakthrough' will be in smaller and smaller intervals i.e 1000ths then 10,000ths of a second etc. until we are no longer able to differentiate the difference because our timers will not be accurate enough.

[the>one]

world record attempts put bums on seats.....thats why records are help by the constantly changing things like track surfaces, shoe design, race stratergies... ie pace setters in longer races....but there has to become a point where (especially over shorter distances) an athlete breaks the record and that record will stand for many years

[january_bug]

I wonder, given what Kempie and the>one have said (I agree with both of them by the way), if they'll just change the distances once the limit has been met at one thing. e.g., make it 150m and 250m instead of 100m and 200m.

Another thought, is that, given the limit, it ight be possible for women to catch up with men, and then we could actually have sprint racing where man and women compete in the same race. Could be interesting!

But I do agree with Kempie - that because the 100m cannot be run in 0.00s, then there must be a finite limit somewhere. As we near the limit though, as he said, people will shave 0.01s off each time, rather than smashing records like in the "good old days"!!

[Loosehead]

Records will continue to fall but in ever smaller chunks. In the sprint distances they'll start using 1000ths. In the longer distances 100ths should be enough for a while.

[jno]

I think it's a question of what you can measure, as kempie says. But at 1/1000th of a second you're talking about the thickness of an eyelash. Even if you could measure that at speed, what would be the point?

[stevie21]

I agree with kempie - the only major improvements will be improvements in our ability to accurately measure miniscule amounts of time.
Technology will improve and people might become better athletes (although, right now, the top athletes dedicate everything they possibly can to running 100m - there isn't really any major scope for improvement there!) so the actual times might drop a tiny bit. However, two guys currently finishing in 10 seconds flat may in future be distinguished by millionths of a second so that they're not classed as tie-ing.

No matter what improvements (technology or athleticism) take place, it will never be possible to run the 100m in 5 seconds so a finite limit DOES exist, in that sense.