Could Dark Energy and Dark Matter be .?

[acitizenofearth]

Could Dark Energy and Dark Matter be ...?

Time?

I am sure that there is hundreds of reasons why this could not be possible but, it seems to me that there is some kind of synergy in this hypothesis.

Imagine for a moment that time is a form of energy that we have not yet managed to quantify, but it stands to reason that if time occurs it must be something and have some "footprint". Further to this if time had a form of energy that we have not been able to quantify, could time (and perhaps gravity itself) also have mass that we have not been able to quantify?

Seeing as time occurs everywhere in the universe, then that means there is a LOT of it and if it had energy and mass, it would be a LOT.

Could it be that "time energy" could account for almost three-quarters of the total energy of the universe? And could it be possible that the "time's mass" could be the "dark matter" that we are missing?

If anyone can explain in simple terms for me, why this is not possible, I would appreciate the feedback.

Thanks.

 

[cristo]

But time isn't a "form of energy"; it is a dimension. If I were you, I'd give up on wild speculation, and learn some physics! I should also point out that overly speculative posts are not allowed here on PF (see the global guidelines)

 

[acitizenofearth]

Hi Christo

It is a question, not an overly speculative post. Time is a dimension, yes, but does that mean it cannot have a physical manifestation? Surely we must think outside the box and sometimes question our fundamental beliefs? If everything we think we know is absolute, then why do we still have questions?

I appreciate that you may see this as a speculative post and you make the assumption that I have no knowledge of any physics, I probably have much less than yourself, but surely we must all have the right to question?

Is there any scientific reason why a dimension cannot have energy and/or mass?

Perhaps we have not investigated the entity of time enough, saying that we have means that there is nothing further we can learn about time.

Is it possible that our pigeonholing time solely as a dimension has detracted us from evaluating time in different ways and effectively blinkered us into not thinking it could have any other possible attributes?

Regards

 

[Garth]

Okay, you make the hypothesis, "time is a form of energy".

Define what you mean by time and energy.

How would you measure both concepts to test this hypothesis?

Garth

 

[cristo]

I appreciate that you may see this as a speculative post and you make the assumption that I have no knowledge of any physics, I probably have much less than yourself, but surely we must all have the right to question?

Of course you have the right to question, but surely asking such questions without learning "standard" physics will not enable you to provide a solid argument will it?

There also appear to be some contradictions in your post. Firstly you say that "time is energy" then you say "time has energy" and "time has mass." These are clearly two different statements! It also depends on your definitions of the words. In general relativity, the language which we use to describe the universe, one must define what one means by energy very carefully. Also, in GR "time" on its own does not exist, but is part of a four dimensional spacetime.

So, in order for your post to make any sense, you need to explain more of what you actually mean!

 

[acitizenofearth]

OK, fair enough, however, I hope I can explain this in a concrete manner, it is fairly difficult to explain being abstract.

Firstly, seeing time as a dimension makes sense from a mathematical standpoint definitely and we have proof that that this view of time accurately describes phenomena in the universea and it is correct.

However, let us consider for one moment that we take time out of the equation or stop it (which I will come back to). Everything in the universe would cease to exist, the universe and nothing in it can exist without time.

So, let us say hypothecially we could stop time and energy and matter froze in-state, everything would stop "moving", reacting, being. For change to occur a force/energy has to be applied, if time is removed then change cannot occur and nothing can exist. If time is reapplied change can occur therefore time must have a force that allows other forces to occur. Therefore time must have energy, maybe not energy that interacts with matter per se but energy that allow all other energy and matter to exist, activation energy, maybe a dark energy.

If this were true, then it may have implications that explain some quantum phenomenon as well. For instance, quantum superposition exists until it is measured. The problem with this is, that if this is essentially true then the universe is anthropocentric. The universe only exists because we observe it. I personally do not believe that, therefore I believe there must be another explanation. It is the age old adage, if a tree falls in the forest and no one there to hear it does it make a sound? Could it be that time creates reality, the passage and "time energy" causes the quantum superposition to take a state, not the measurement itself. That we measure it, causes time energy to force the quantum state to A or B, our measurement is incidental. Because we measure the state, the state must be subjected to the energy of time and therefore fix itself into a state. Superposition can only exist without being subjected to time. Once a quantum state has been subjected to time it is fixed, our experimentation by its very nature exposes quantum phenomena to time. That we can manipulate the process is not necessarily relevant, except for the fact that it indicates that we can influence the universe, which we already know.

Our whole evolutionary perception of time is defined by moving and travelling, our language describes us moving/travelling through time, we relate to the passage of time. These are instinctive feelings that we and all our ancestors have had. With this in mind perhaps then is some truth in our perception of time, time is a force, it has force, we are not moving through time, time is constantly working all around us. This would explain why moving back through time is perhaps not possible (maybe it is, but definitely not easy), it is a bit like unlighting a fire. Once the energy is transferred it cannot be untransfered. Once time's energy has been exerted it cannot be unexerted. If our instinctive perceptions are correct then time may be more than just a dimension without a force, it is the very driver of existence, the engine driving the universe and an engine by it's very nature transfers energy. Time has a constant activation energy that allows all other energy to exist.

Is it possible that we have not wholly described time?

If any this is true, then considering time as an energy and dimension, allows one to make an analogy to a star, if time is giving off an energy that drives and allows all energy and hence matter in the universe to exist, could dark energy be the fuel of time and dark matter be the result of time or could space itself be the remnants of spent time, hence it continually expands as time occurs space expands?

It will be interesting to find out if there is any correlation between dark energy and dark matter. Does one decrease and the other increase?

I hope that there is some logic and food for thought in this is not a total waste of your time.

Regards

 

[cristo]

OK, fair enough, however, I hope I can explain this in a concrete manner, it is fairly difficult to explain being abstract.

Firstly, seeing time as a dimension makes sense from a mathematical standpoint definitely and we have proof that that this view of time accurately describes phenomena in the universea and it is correct.

However, let us consider for one moment that we take time out of the equation or stop it (which I will come back to). Everything in the universe would cease to exist, the universe and nothing in it can exist without time.

So, let us say hypothecially we could stop time and energy and matter froze in-state, everything would stop "moving", reacting, being. For change to occur a force/energy has to be applied, if time is removed then change cannot occur and nothing can exist. If time is reapplied change can occur therefore time must have a force that allows other forces to occur.

This still doesn't make much sense to me. Clearly if one destroys ("pauses") a dimension, then a particle cannot move in that dimension. This doesn't mean that by putting the dimension back in that one needs a force to be acting.

Therefore time must have energy, maybe not energy that interacts with matter per se

But dark energy does interact with matter, both baryonic and dark.

Is it possible that we have not wholly described time?

I don't disagree with this point, as we do not understand the nature of time fully. However, this is a philosophical question to which physicists do not need an answer.

I'll return to the point I made in my first post. You are clearly not just "asking a question," but have some sort of wild theory that you are trying to develop. Now, there is nothing wrong with people with a solid background in conventional physics attempting to think up new theories-- this is the nature of advancement of science. However, there are suitable places to do this, and a public forum is not the place.

 

[realcreation]

Good idea, but

Time?

I am sure that there is hundreds of reasons why this could not be possible but, it seems to me that there is some kind of synergy in this hypothesis.

Imagine for a moment that time is a form of energy that we have not yet managed to quantify, but it stands to reason that if time occurs it must be something and have some "footprint". Further to this if time had a form of energy that we have not been able to quantify, could time (and perhaps gravity itself) also have mass that we have not been able to quantify?

Seeing as time occurs everywhere in the universe, then that means there is a LOT of it and if it had energy and mass, it would be a LOT.

Could it be that "time energy" could account for almost three-quarters of the total energy of the universe? And could it be possible that the "time's mass" could be the "dark matter" that we are missing?

If anyone can explain in simple terms for me, why this is not possible, I would appreciate the feedback.

Thanks.

Good idea. Julian Barbour, Robert A Close have similar ideas. But the mainstream idea, General Relativity, requires that space and time are combined to be marble curved-body. Many people do not understand what curved marble means but live on the assumption. Therefore, you have no other choice.

 

[Garth]

Good idea. Julian Barbour, Robert A Close have similar ideas.

References?

But the mainstream idea, General Relativity, requires that space and time are combined to be marble curved-body. Many people do not understand what curved marble means but live on the assumption. Therefore, you have no other choice.

What?? :uhh:

Garth

 

[Integral]

Sorry but we do not allow discussions of personal theories. This thread is locked for that reason.