Is time quantum at the microscopic level?


by SinghRP
Tags: microscopic, quantum, time
andrien
andrien is offline
#19
Dec21-12, 01:02 AM
P: 987
Is time quantum at the microscopic level?
No,it is not possible to define time operator which has a usual commutation relation with hamiltonian like [T,H]=ih-.this implies no minimum of energy i.e. no ground state.
detective
detective is offline
#20
Dec21-12, 01:56 AM
P: 13
hello all .. if a massless object doesn't have to recognise time as a component of its existence, we seem to be all on a road to nowhere, as the instant our universe went from pure energy (but no mass) to the state where matter formed and expanded (quantum fluctuation/s?) we have to invoke time because of the limitations set out by Einsteins equations and the ''impurity'' that mass brings with it...

...we are all looking in the rear view mirror for why physics is what it is...all at the same time having to recognise our conscious needs for answers in an ''impure'' environment....
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#21
Dec21-12, 07:17 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,904
Quote Quote by detective View Post
hello all .. if a massless object doesn't have to recognise time as a component of its existence, we seem to be all on a road to nowhere, as the instant our universe went from pure energy (but no mass)
What instant was this? You understand that "pure energy" itself has mass, don't you?

to the state where matter formed and expanded (quantum fluctuation/s?) we have to invoke time because of the limitations set out by Einsteins equations and the ''impurity'' that mass brings with it...

...we are all looking in the rear view mirror for why physics is what it is...all at the same time having to recognise our conscious needs for answers in an ''impure'' environment....
Neandethal00
Neandethal00 is offline
#22
Dec21-12, 04:39 PM
P: 168
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
Huh? What does that even MEAN ???
It is not very easy to see what I meant by the statement.

a) Current mathematical equations do not have a mind, as the solution progresses it can not change its original form, can not add anything new, like our minds can.

b) Solutions of current mathematical equations are included into the problems. In other words, solutions are embedded into the problem, as a result , the outcome of the solutions in a way are predetermined.

c) Current mathematical equations are like Robots. A robot can not do anything outside its program, same as a mathematical equation.

d) Just as we need intelligent robots which can make its own decisions beyond its program, we need a form of intelligent Math, which can evolve as the solution progresses.

I don't know if this would make any sense to anyone, but sorry, I can't elaborate more. Time as we know from current mathematical equations will always create problem for us if we want to know absolute truth about nature.
Drakkith
Drakkith is offline
#23
Dec21-12, 05:19 PM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,057
Quote Quote by Neandethal00 View Post
I don't know if this would make any sense to anyone, but sorry, I can't elaborate more. Time as we know from current mathematical equations will always create problem for us if we want to know absolute truth about nature.
Nonsense. Math is both a language and a tool for us. Even the most advanced program, capable of learning and changing, still comes down to extremely basic mathematical procedures like adding and multiplying. Similarly our own bodies are simply the build up of millions of simple tasks combined together in different ways.

a) Current mathematical equations do not have a mind, as the solution progresses it can not change its original form, can not add anything new, like our minds can.
You are comparing apples to helicopters here. It's like comparing the rules of football to a computer. It just doesn't make sense.

b) Solutions of current mathematical equations are included into the problems. In other words, solutions are embedded into the problem, as a result , the outcome of the solutions in a way are predetermined.
Of course. If you have a math problem, and have all the available data necessary to figure it out, it's just a process of putting the data in and doing the work. But...so what? That's the way it's supposed to work. If it didn't, we wouldn't use it. If X=2Y, and Y=3, then according to the math X=6. I can only find this out because I already have Y. If I didn't know Y, then the equation would be useless to me! And no amount of changing it around will fix that. One MUST have the data necessary to do the math, otherwise it cannot work.

c) Current mathematical equations are like Robots. A robot can not do anything outside its program, same as a mathematical equation.
Equations don't DO anything. They are rules to figure out something. A robot is not a list of rules.

d) Just as we need intelligent robots which can make its own decisions beyond its program, we need a form of intelligent Math, which can evolve as the solution progresses.
This has nothing to do with math itself. You are talking about programming.
flatmaster
flatmaster is offline
#24
Dec21-12, 07:22 PM
P: 502
Quote Quote by Neandethal00 View Post
It is not very easy to see what I meant by the statement.

a) Current mathematical equations do not have a mind, as the solution progresses it can not change its original form, can not add anything new, like our minds can.

b) Solutions of current mathematical equations are included into the problems. In other words, solutions are embedded into the problem, as a result , the outcome of the solutions in a way are predetermined.

c) Current mathematical equations are like Robots. A robot can not do anything outside its program, same as a mathematical equation.

d) Just as we need intelligent robots which can make its own decisions beyond its program, we need a form of intelligent Math, which can evolve as the solution progresses.

I don't know if this would make any sense to anyone, but sorry, I can't elaborate more. Time as we know from current mathematical equations will always create problem for us if we want to know absolute truth about nature.
I think Neandethal is trying to say something like...

"The equations of physics canít be solved for complicated, real-world problems, therefore physics equations donít explain the real world. "

This is not the case. We may not be able to write an expression that describes the motion of a football bouncing chaotically down a hill, but we still think that F=ma is sufficient to explain it's motion.
Neandethal00
Neandethal00 is offline
#25
Dec22-12, 05:41 PM
P: 168
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
Nonsense. Math is both a language and a tool for us. Even the most advanced program, capable of learning and changing, still comes down to extremely basic mathematical procedures like adding and multiplying. Similarly our own bodies are simply the build up of millions of simple tasks combined together in different ways.



You are comparing apples to helicopters here. It's like comparing the rules of football to a computer. It just doesn't make sense.



Of course. If you have a math problem, and have all the available data necessary to figure it out, it's just a process of putting the data in and doing the work. But...so what? That's the way it's supposed to work. If it didn't, we wouldn't use it. If X=2Y, and Y=3, then according to the math X=6. I can only find this out because I already have Y. If I didn't know Y, then the equation would be useless to me! And no amount of changing it around will fix that. One MUST have the data necessary to do the math, otherwise it cannot work.



Equations don't DO anything. They are rules to figure out something. A robot is not a list of rules.



This has nothing to do with math itself. You are talking about programming.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against current Math. It can make better and better cell phones, locate us precisely by GPS, it even can take us to Mars and bring back. But question is can we uncover the truth of nature by applying math to physical objects only?

I once had a high hope about Genetic Algorithm, but later I found it also rely on 'human knowledge' in each iteration. I'm not giving up on GA yet.
My next attempt will be on Cellular Automaton. I'm open for suggestions.
Vorde
Vorde is offline
#26
Dec22-12, 06:11 PM
Vorde's Avatar
P: 784
What could you possibly mean by "the truth of nature?".

Without even trying to think your statement though, I'd note that both any 'Genetic Algorithm' or 'Cellular Automaton' would be math in some form.
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#27
Dec23-12, 06:28 AM
Mentor
P: 16,488
Quote Quote by Neandethal00 View Post
I once had a high hope about Genetic Algorithm, but later I found it also rely on 'human knowledge' in each iteration. I'm not giving up on GA yet.
My next attempt will be on Cellular Automaton. I'm open for suggestions.
I developed genetic algorithms in my dissertation research, so I am quite familiar with them. However, I must say that I am completely at a loss as to what you mean by "human knowledge" at each iteration as well as how you think they would ever have anything to do with "absolute truth". A genetic algorithm is nothing more than an optimization routine.
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#28
Dec23-12, 07:10 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,904
Quote Quote by Neandethal00 View Post
Many physicists do not realize current mathematics will never lead to the absolute
truth of nature. Because mathematics lack human factors.
Quote Quote by Neandethal00 View Post
It is not very easy to see what I meant by the statement.

a) Current mathematical equations do not have a mind, as the solution progresses it can not change its original form, can not add anything new, like our minds can.

b) Solutions of current mathematical equations are included into the problems. In other words, solutions are embedded into the problem, as a result , the outcome of the solutions in a way are predetermined.

c) Current mathematical equations are like Robots. A robot can not do anything outside its program, same as a mathematical equation.

d) Just as we need intelligent robots which can make its own decisions beyond its program, we need a form of intelligent Math, which can evolve as the solution progresses.

I don't know if this would make any sense to anyone, but sorry, I can't elaborate more. Time as we know from current mathematical equations will always create problem for us if we want to know absolute truth about nature.
The problem, then, appears to be that you know neither mathematics nor physics. You assert, to begin with, that "mathematics lack human factors". To the contrary, mathematics is purely a human endeavor while physics, the attempt to understand the physical universe, is not. But every physicist knows that, while we can use mathematics to simplify statements about the universe, no mathematics, not just "current mathematics", can "lead to the absolute truth of nature". Indeed, most, if not all, physicists believe that there is NO "absolute truth of nature", only succesive approximations.

I strongly suggest that you actually take some (preferably graduate college) courses in mathematics and physics before making such flat statements about what is essentially the philosophy of both mathematics and physics.
Vanadium 50
Vanadium 50 is offline
#29
Dec23-12, 07:46 AM
Mentor
Vanadium 50's Avatar
P: 15,627
Like the innumerable threads before it, this thread has degenerated into woo. Closed.
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#30
Dec23-12, 08:37 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,904
Good call!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Numerical: Shortest Time of Travel of a Particle experiencing a Time-Varying Force Advanced Physics Homework 0
Difference between position time, velocity time and acceleration time graph General Physics 6
how do black holes merge when the singularity infinite density slows time to no time Special & General Relativity 11
"Speed of time": temperature tells thermal time/proper time (Smerlak Rovelli) Beyond the Standard Model 1
Calculating Gravitational Time Dilation in black hole/Future Time Travel Special & General Relativity 5