Must time require particle interaction (including decay)?

In summary, the conversation is about challenging the traditional understanding of time as a physical concept. The speaker hypothesizes that time is simply a manifestation of particles interacting with each other and that it may be meaningless in a one-particle system. However, particle decay suggests that time is still present in this system due to the interaction with virtual particles of the quantum vacuum state. The speaker concludes that time must always exist as long as the vacuum state is not zero, and that the conversation is ultimately about the nature of time and its relationship with particle interactions.
  • #1
skeleton
86
1
This is really about challenging the understanding of "Time" in the physical sense.

I would like to test the hypothesis that time is merely the manifestation of particles in their interaction to one another. It seems that time may be meaningless (and non-existent) in a one-particle system. If so, doesn't particle decay imply that time is manifested - but if so, then what is it interacting with? ...

First, I am trying to accept the premise that "Time" is merely the manifestation of the sequencing particles which undergo motion. This seems to be easy to fathom when consider:
1) a hypothetical closed but infinite system with a single point particle, for which time is meaningless since nothing is evolving in the system. Even its motion is meaningless, since there is no reference point to reveal motion of the particle. Given it is a point particle, then I assume it can not experience self-rotation, as that would be meaningless.
2) a hypothetical closed system with a two particles. If one particle is a reference point, then the moving position of the second particle can be considered coincident with its history (time and position). So rate of time could be sensed through the speed of the particle, and history of time could be reflected in the progression of positions of the particle.
3) From there, I can extrapolate to a real universe of a multitude of particles. It seems that this model of time is still consistent (if I haven't overlooked anything - YET).

Ah oh, what about particle decay. A particle by itself evidently still experiences, or reveals, time (within itself) as recognized by its characteristic particle decay. As I understand it, a particle will decay without any necessary external influence to induce the decay. Instead, it decays at a intrinsic rate (half life) which is irrespective of its environment. As such, the point-particle system above would still manifest time through its eventual particle decay.

Is it possible that the one-particle system is not really a one-particle system when it comes to decay? Perhaps decay occurs because of some stochastic process amongst its constituent quarks (or strings, etc) as they interact. The stochastic process might lead to decay when probability of a rare "interference" event between the constituents eventually experience the inevitable climax.

QUESTION
1) Are any of these premises flawed with regard to current knowledge?
2) Are the conclusions viable?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No replies yet - have I posted this in the wrong forum area?
 
  • #3
First, it is not reasonable to expect an answer in under 24 hours. People have other things to do than to patrol the boards, searching for a message from you.

Second, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I hope it's not a personal theory, as those are not something discussed on PF. But I don't understand what you are talking about.
 
  • #4
Vanadium 50:

I don't think your comment was necessary. If you don't have time for my question then you didn't need to spend your time criticizing it and me.

Fortunately, I have found most of the contributors on this forum to be informative and pleasant.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
I think I found the answer to my question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

"Such a collapse (a decay event) requires a specific activation energy. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations."

So, yes, the stochastic process can lead to decay, as the sole subject particle interacts with virtual particles of the (quantum) vacuum state. In that sense, the one-particle system is never really alone; instead it feels and thus interacts with the vacuum state.

As a corollary to the aforementioned premise: time - if defined as a manifestation of particle interaction - must always exist because the vacuum state is never zero and thus will always provide for the presence of some (virtual) particles.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the definition of time in particle interaction?

Time in particle interaction refers to the duration or interval between two events that involve particles interacting with each other. It is a fundamental concept in physics and is often measured using clocks.

2. Why must time require particle interaction?

In quantum mechanics, time is considered to be a fundamental aspect of the universe, and it is believed that it is intimately connected to the behavior of particles. Therefore, in order to understand the nature of time, it is necessary to study how particles interact with each other.

3. Can time exist without particle interaction?

According to the current understanding of physics, time cannot exist without particle interaction. This is because time is believed to be a property of the universe that is closely tied to the behavior of particles.

4. How does particle decay relate to time?

Particle decay is a process in which a particle breaks down into smaller particles, releasing energy in the process. This process is closely related to time because the rate of particle decay is affected by the passage of time. This relationship is described by the concept of half-life.

5. Are there any exceptions to the relationship between time and particle interaction?

There are some theories, such as loop quantum gravity, that propose alternative ways of understanding the relationship between time and particle interaction. However, these theories are still being researched and are not yet widely accepted in the scientific community.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
99
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
49
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
804
Back
Top