Time can't exist without matter (mass) and motion

[Lakshya]

Hey guys, today I found a great thought experiment to prove that time can't exist without mass and motion. It can be found by proving photon's rest mass = 0. I don't know the actual derivation. So, I have made my own derivation (this is the one I made to prove photon's m = 0 to my friend). Let's start:
E=mc^2 (Rest energy equation)
E/c^2=m=0 (To prove)
We know that c^2 is a constant so if we want to prove m=0, we will have to prove E=0. Let's take another formula:
E=hv
So, we can prove it by this equation. As we are taking the photon to be at rest, there is no frequency at rest. It will have no frequency. So, we will get E=h*0=0. Putting it in the previous equation, we get m=0. That's how I proved it. But today I thought that in this way everything at rest will vanish from the universe.
Okay let's take this experiment. Suppose we stop every matter in the universe. Then everything will vanish according to the above proof. So, anybody outside the universe will never be able to sense that there's a thing like time.
And this state of stopping everything can be achieved by stopping time. Everything will come to rest and will vanish from the universe.

Hence, we can derive that mass and motion can only exist when time exists or conversely time only exists when mass and motion exist. If time exists and mass and motion don't exist, then we can never feel time. We get that feeling when anything comes into motion. So, both are true.

Thouhts please.

 

[cristo]

Hey guys, today I found a great thought experiment to prove that time can't exist without mass and motion. It can be found by proving photon's rest mass = 0. I don't know the actual derivation. So, I have made my own derivation (this is the one I made to prove photon's m = 0 to my friend). Let's start:
E=mc^2 (Rest energy equation)
E/c^2=m=0 (To prove)
We know that c^2 is a constant so if we want to prove m=0, we will have to prove E=0. Let's take another formula:
E=hv
So, we can prove it by this equation. As we are taking the photon to be at rest[...]

You can't do this, since the photon is never at rest. It always moves at precisely the speed of light.

 

[Garth]

But nevertheless Lakshya a good try!

Keep asking questions and finding of new ways of thinking about things and you will soon advance in your understanding. Perhaps, who knows, one day you might discover that Theory of Everything!

(Lakshya is only 13 years old!)

Garth

 

[cristo]

But nevertheless Lakshya a good try!

Indeed.

Welcome to the forums Lakshya (although I note you've been around a while, I've not noticed any of your posts, especially in cosmology). I hope you enjoy it here; there are many knowledgeable people who will help you learn.

[As an aside, you may wish to take your address out of your profile.]

 

[marcus]

[As an aside, you may wish to take your address out of your profile.]

I know what you mean. It is the usual thing, for privacy sake. Anonymity is the usual fashion.
But if someone does not intend to get into heated arguments I see no particular
reason for anonymity.

As I recall from seeing photographs, Chandigarh is one of the most beautiful cities in the world architecturally, so for someone to live on "Chandigarh Road" is kind of nice. It has a certain style.

Also the Punjab is a famous region---which has been the home of successful merchants and great fighters.

I would at least hope that this young person would keep the "in the Punjab" part of his public profile location.
============

Come to think of it, can you beat "Police Colony Lane" for a distinguished historical patina? To me it has a kind of British Empire sound to it. Damned if I wouldn't keep the whole thing as it is, if it was my address!

 

[cristo]

I know what you mean. It is the usual thing, for privacy sake. Anonymity is the usual fashion.
But if someone does not intend to get into heated arguments I see no particular
reason for anonymity.

I agree that there is no need to be anonymous (I imagine many people could find out who I am if they really want to). However, I was more thinking that, due to Lakshya's age, it would be a lot safer for him not to publish his address in his profile. I would not advise any young person to divulge such information over the internet.

 

[Lakshya]

Now, you all guys are making me angry. You are conversing about my address. This is not a place to discuss addresses. I know that you all are appreciating me but I posted it here just to find anomalies in it. I want to correct them. So, I request you all to find anomalies in it or some instances where it doesn't apply or find some mistakes in it.

 

[cristo]

I told you in my first post how the proof breaks down. There is nothing more to discuss.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Calma, Lakshya!

Shouldn't this thread be in the "relativity" forum?

Hey guys, today I found a great thought experiment to prove that time can't exist without mass and motion. It can be found by proving photon's rest mass = 0. I don't know the actual derivation. So, I have made my own derivation (this is the one I made to prove photon's m = 0 to my friend).

This doesn't make any sense. I think you meant to say: "What do you guys think of the following attempt to prove that the rest mass of a photon is zero?"

Let's start:
E=mc^2 (Rest energy equation)
E/c^2=m=0 (To prove)

Unfortunately, the first equation only applies to a body at rest wrt some inertial observer, not to a photon, which can never be at rest wrt any inertial observer.

See Taylor & Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, first edition (which covers k-calculus) for clear explanations of special relativity. I realize that you say you are 13; what matters more is what math you already know. But in any case, this textbook requires only minimal background. Enjoy!

 

[Lakshya]

This is athought experiment so we can say a photon to be at rest as in a thought experiment we can do anything. The observer in this thought experiment is outside the universe which you can consider to be God.

Shouldn't this thread be in the "relativity" forum?



This doesn't make any sense. I think you meant to say: "What do you guys think of the following attempt to prove that the rest mass of a photon is zero?"



Unfortunately, the first equation only applies to a body at rest wrt some inertial observer, not to a photon, which can never be at rest wrt any inertial observer.

See Taylor & Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, first edition (which covers k-calculus) for clear explanations of special relativity. I realize that you say you are 13; what matters more is what math you already know. But in any case, this textbook requires only minimal background. Enjoy!

 

[FunkyDwarf]

Using God as a scapegoat is poor science. These theories appear to be contrived in such a way as to stop experiments like this one from taking place, but its just how it is :) If in a thought experiment you are able to do anything there is no point in conducting them as they have no bearing on reality. They might be interesting but ultimately irrelevant.

 

[Garth]

FunkyDwarf I don't think Lakshya was using God as a scapegoat, just using an "outside the universe" point of view, such as might be ascribed to God, to conduct his thought experiment.

As a thirteen year old Lakshya's basic premise that "time can't exist without mass and motion" is a pretty mature one and not unlike Einstein's foundational concepts.

He should be encouraged to think creatively, here at PF we can also help him to think critically with the discipline of the insight and knowledge of the subject.

Lakshya let us take your initial suggestion:

When you say "taking the photon to be at rest" you are treating the observer as if she were 'travelling on a light beam', this is called a "null-like" point-of-view. It was also Einstein's own thought experiment at the age of sixteen. (so you have beaten him to it by three years! ) You can read about it here.

We begin by considering the “Aarau Question” posed by Einstein when he was a young man (Einstein 1956, 1949):
During that year (sometime between October 1895 and the early fall of 1896) in Aarau the question came to me: If one runs after a light wave with (a velocity equal to the) light velocity, then one would encounter a time-independent wavefield. However, something like that does not seem to exist! This was the first juvenile thought experiment which has to do with the special theory of relativity.
Further, in his more extensive autobiographical notes, published in 1949, Einstein remarked that “after ten years of reflection, such a principle (special relativity) resulted from (this) paradox upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen”. As is well known, ten years after “the Aarau Vision” special relativity was born; yet it took the mature Einstein another decade to confess to Pauli “Für den Rest meines Lebens will ich darüber nachdenken, was das Licht ist!”(in translation: “For the rest of my life I shall reflect on what light is!”)

In fact objects with rest-mass cannot travel at the speed of light so it is only a thought experiment.

What you have shown is that if a photon were stationary then it would have no energy and therefore it would not exist. You might want to go on to show that if photons have no rest mass then they have to travel at c.

When you say "But today I thought that in this way everything at rest will vanish from the universe." you are extending the E = h\nu equation to atomic particles as well as photons. This is a quantum mechanical treatment of particles and is called the de Broglie hypothesis. And indeed one way of looking at it would be that if there were no frequency, no time, then nothing could exist.

Keep it up, I shall be waiting to read about that Theory of Everything!

Garth

 

[Lakshya]

You know that I am taking the out of universe point of view as like God. So, if we are God then we can stop a photon and analyze it, although, I am an atheist. Thanks for your kind support and telling them the main idea I am using here.

FunkyDwarf I don't think Lakshya was using God as a scapegoat, just using an "outside the universe" point of view, such as might be ascribed to God, to conduct his thought experiment.

As a thirteen year old Lakshya's basic premise that "time can't exist without mass and motion" is a pretty mature one and not unlike Einstein's foundational concepts.

He should be encouraged to think creatively, here at PF we can also help him to think critically with the discipline of the insight and knowledge of the subject.

Lakshya let us take your initial suggestion:

When you say "taking the photon to be at rest" you are treating the observer as if she were 'travelling on a light beam', this is called a "null-like" point-of-view. It was also Einstein's own thought experiment at the age of sixteen. (so you have beaten him to it by three years! ) You can read about it here.

In fact objects with rest-mass cannot travel at the speed of light so it is only a thought experiment.

What you have shown is that if a photon were stationary then it would have no energy and therefore it would not exist. You might want to go on to show that if photons have no rest mass then they have to travel at c.

When you say "But today I thought that in this way everything at rest will vanish from the universe." you are extending the E = h\nu equation to atomic particles as well as photons. This is a quantum mechanical treatment of particles and is called the de Broglie hypothesis. And indeed one way of looking at it would be that if there were no frequency, no time, then nothing could exist.

Keep it up, I shall be waiting to read about that Theory of Everything!

Garth

 

[Chronos]

The analogy is not inconsistent with Einstein's view. To a photon, the universe has no spatial dimensions. So, by it's own 'watch', a photon is stationary [a d/t thing].

 

[Lakshya]

The analogy is not inconsistent with Einstein's view. To a photon, the universe has no spatial dimensions. So, by it's own 'watch', a photon is stationary [a d/t thing].

For photon the universe is a single point. By it's own view no thing like space-time exists. In its world, only the photon that is himself exists. So there's no matter on discussing on rest of photon by it's own perspective.

 

[Garth]

Hi Lahshya!

I have shown how your line of 'gedanken' or 'thought experiment' was similar to Einstein's as a sixteen year old, there was some 'mileage' in that line of reasoning, but it is limited.

I suggest you reflect on Einstein's conclusion that it was a 'paradox'; light is a wave and waves need time to oscillate. However, in Einstein's Aarau vision he realized that if he traveled on a light ray traveling out and away from the village clock and 'looked back' the clock would appear to be stopped for the light ray carrying that information to him would be the one he was riding on! If time was stopped how could a oscillating wave exist? It cannot, you cannot have a photon at rest, it would cease to exist.

You cannot stop a photon and keep it 'at rest', and you cannot catch up by traveling a light speed, as in Einstein's 'gedanken'. These conclusions are all consequences of the Special Theory of Relativity that Einstein developed by thinking on this paradox.

Now we have to be serious and start again from first principles. It is because the other posters here are using those principles that they have said your argument in post #1 does not make sense, you are actually using the wrong equation for the energy of a moving particle/photon, it should be:

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2,

where p is the relativistic momentum p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}.

If the 'rest' mass m=0, as for a photon, this simplifies to E=pc which is the photon's energy. A photon therefore has momentum, p, but not rest mass,m, the equation for relativistic momentum here becomes singular as v = c and so a photon's momentum is simply defined as
p = \frac{E}{c} = \frac{h\nu}{c}.

On the other hand, consider a particle with mass that is traveling at a velocity v, let an observer travel with that particle so the particle's velocity is zero in her frame of reference. Consequently in that frame p=0, so the rest energy simplifies to E=mc².

I could go on to reproduce many of the excellent textbooks on the subject, but it is up to you to read them for yourself and learn. You can start with Ned Wright's tutorial on the internet here.

Note when you said,

You know that I am taking the out of universe point of view as like God.

you are adopting the standard space-time perspective of relativity in which the four dimensions of space and time are presented together as a continuum. In this perspective there is no 'passing of time', for time is already included in the space-time diagram, the continuum is seen to be static from a 'beyond space' and 'beyond time' perspective.

It may be a relativist's perspective but it is not our normal human temporal experience perspective. So long as we are consistent as to which perspective we are using there is no paradox; paradoxes happen only when we confuse perspectives.

I hope this helps,
Garth

 

[nicky nichols]

time can't exist without...

fascinating! astrophysicist zeldovich reckowned something like this. he was a great believer in the construction of mathematical parody in order to divide up complex problem senarios into simple regimes. particularly see in stars and relativity book.

 

[Lakshya]

found an answer to explain to u what Iwant to say

Look, suppose we are trying to know the mass of photon at rest. We don't know it's rest mass. So we put it in a thought experiment at rest and then examine the situation. And in my explanation, when we put it at rest, then we receive it's mass=0 and it can't be at rest what you gus are saying.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Right, a massless particle can't be at rest, so it cannot have and does not have a "rest mass", but it can and does have energy and momentum.

 

[Lakshya]

Right, a massless particle can't be at rest, so it cannot have and does not have a "rest mass", but it can and does have energy and momentum.

But the E and p at rest are 0.

 

[Garth]

But the E and p at rest are 0.

Chris meant to add "when it is moving at c". I think that was taken as read.

i.e. 'a massless particle can't be at rest, so it cannot have and does not have a "rest mass", but it can and does have energy and momentum when it is moving at c'.

Garth

 

[nicky nichols]

instead to say does time cease to exist if it cannot be measured or observed because surely all clocks require to be made of mass and energy

 

[Lakshya]

instead to say does time cease to exist if it cannot be measured or observed because surely all clocks require to be made of mass and energy

Nice argument nicky. I am looking 4ward to carry a research on it.

 

[Lakshya]

Is it going to rest in peace? Is there nobody out there to reply?

 

[Garth]

Is it going to rest in peace? Is there nobody out there to reply?

We have answered your post, have you taken in and understood what we have said?

You may appreciate the quote from the fourth century:

What then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled.

St. Augustine of Hippo (He was a bishop in N.Africa). Confessions XI 14 (AD 354-430)

In that same chapter he also said , as a prayer to God, amongst other sayings:

It is therefore true to say that when you had not made anything, there was not time, because time itself was of your making.

( i.e. time 'began' when the universe did - not bad for the fourth century!)
and

How can the past and future be when the past no longer is and the future is not yet? As for the present, if it were always present and never moved on to become the past, it would not be time but eternity.

You may find the discussion of this old thread useful to read: The Nature of Time?.

What other questions do you want to ask?
We will do our best to answer them.

Garth

 

[hejin]

Depends

Is it going to rest in peace? Is there nobody out there to reply?

This is a basic question so basic that the basic interpretation of GR would have to be changed and those theories like BB would fail.

The existence of time is the sole requirement of the assumption that spacetime is really a curved matter. Gauss studied curved surface, very realistic. Based on Gauss forms of curved surface, Riemann proposed curved `surface` of whatever dimension. These are math!

GR, a physical theory, considers the math to be reality. So the universe based on BB (big bang) must be the curved entity in the meaning of Gauss but 4-dimensional. This is the standard interpretation of GR.

Another interpretation is based on real matter and is consistent to Quantum Mechanics: Physical measurements give an impression of curved spacetime. Based on this interpretion, cosmic redshift is Doppler redshift. The physical universe is infinite but physical constants may change and the corresponding physical measurements give an impression of `Big Bang`. And time does not exist as you suggest!

Please do not ban me!

Jin He

 

[Pippo]

According to me "no mass and not motion" , so no observers as well, means nothing, so why the time should exist?

 

[Lakshya]

And y do u think so? I think the answer is c.

 

[Pippo]

And y do u think so? I think the answer is c.

I could fully agree about C, but we are supposing no observers, no masses, so where C is originated from ?

 

[Lakshya]

I could fully agree about C, but we are supposing no observers, no masses, so where C is originated from ?

Bcoz light takes some time to reach our eyes and we can never be sure if anything exists at present. We can be sure of past. Sorr I am writing it too shortly.

 

[Pippo]

Bcoz light takes some time to reach our eyes and we can never be sure if anything exists at present. We can be sure of past. Sorr I am writing it too shortly.

Yes but even the light travel through the space, so the question is : can the light reach
a "no place" ? (no space, no time , no everything)

 

[Lakshya]

Yes but even the light travel through the space, so the question is : can the light reach
a "no place" ? (no space, no time , no everything)

The answer is holes (black, white and worm).

 

[EssentialNature]

I believe the line of reasoning that a photon has zero rest mass is this:

According to Special Relativity as an object with mass approaches the speed of light its mass increases. The limit equation is that as an object with mass approaches the speed of light its mass approaches infinity. So if an object is moving at the speed of light it cannot have any rest mass.

One must understand the purpose of an equation and from what I have seen many explanations are not very good at getting into explaining the full essence of such equations. That is because typically a large amount of background is assumed. There are non-mathematical books that explain physics, like Brian Green books. These are good for gaining some insights into physics. There are textbooks with strong mathematical books. These usually assume you took all the prerequisites, i.e. they assume a strong background. There are technical papers that almost always assume a strong background. There are articles like those in wiki that run the gambit. The in between books and especially articles which show the math and do a detailed explanation of each term with simple explanations are more harder to find.

Let me explain the equation . This is a composite equation. The energy contained in “rest mass of matter” is the value m2c4. The motional energy and photonic energy is the p2c2. The following web page has some good information about energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
An except from this is:
2. On the other hand, in the key equation m2c4 = E2 − p2c2, the contribution mc2 is called the rest energy, and all other contributions to the energy are called kinetic energy. For a particle that has mass, this implies that the kinetic energy is 0.5p2 / m at speeds much smaller than c, as can be proved by writing E = mc2 √(1 + p2m − 2c − 2) and expanding the square root to lowest order. By this line of reasoning, the energy of a photon is entirely kinetic, because the photon is massless and has no rest energy. This expression is useful, for example, when the energy-versus-momentum relationship is of primary interest.
Technically speaking, this paragraph does not explain why a photon has zero rest mass. It simply states it. So I do not like the wording in this document about why the photon rest mass is zero.

Always remember there is a big difference between photons and particles. When you look at equations you must ask two questions: does this apply to particles, if so then how; does this apply to photons, if so then how. You will likely get different perspectives depending on whether it is a particle or a photon. One other thing to note is to always be careful about rest mass energy verses relativistic energy of a particle due to motion.

Let me explain my point by discussing the wave equation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

When one uses the wave equation especially for matter realize that it deals with the interaction of objects. The is explained as follows:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
“the greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength”

So now ask yourself, what energy are they talking about?
Another question, are we talking about particles or photons?
By the earlier principle, differentiate particles and photons.
It does apply to both. So let me simply discuss the application to particles.
Is the energy dealing with the rest mass, motion, or both?
When you split apart the statement into more detailed questions like this you begin to better understand the nature of the statement and the equations.

This energy is the energy of motion not in rest mass because the equation uses the mass and velocity of a particle. Higher velocity is higher energy is a shorter wavelength.

Principle: motion has no meaning for a single isolated particle. It must be with respect to two or more. A simple statement but remembering it can help clarify.

The energy of motion is in relative velocity. Something moving toward you, which increases its velocity, will increase its energy with respect to you. This will increase this frequency factor. However, you can also increase the energy by accelerating towards this object. If you accelerate towards the object you increase the relative velocity. This increases the relative motional energy and increases this frequency factor also. Your increase in speed effect your view of this objects “frequency”. This frequency factor is what is used on calculating how any interactions between you and this other object will happen.

It is an equation used to help compute outcomes for interactions.

So I hope this helps. I tried to add some principles for understanding what you are reading on physics and how to explore thoughts on physics.

If you might guess these days I do like wiki articles on Physics. They are a nice resource for reference and look up.

 

[Pippo]

The answer is holes (black, white and worm).

My question is : if holes are something can they be compared with a "no place" (a nothing) ?

 

[Lakshya]

My question is : if holes are something can they be compared with a "no place" (a nothing) ?

Yes, bcoz there mechanism is undetectable. BHs tend to go for a singularity or nospace. WHs appearr from a singularity or noplace. And WoHs are a tunnel between BHs and WHs or they travel between no places.

 

[Himanshu]

Yes, bcoz there mechanism is undetectable. BHs tend to go for a singularity or nospace. WHs appearr from a singularity or noplace. And WoHs are a tunnel between BHs and WHs or they travel between no places.

I won't call Black Holes as 'no place'. Its really a place that we don't understand at all. Its a region of space that we cannot describe completely. And today to describe a Black Hole completely has become the holy grail of modern physics (that's an indirect way of talking about 'unification').

To EssentialNature.

That was a great article!
I have always been curious to know where did E=M_0C2 came from. I know the derivation of E=MC2 but it uses on its way M_0C2 as a term that represents the rest mass energy of an object. How do we know this? Is there a concrete derivation of this or did this come to Einstein as a dream?

 

[Lakshya]

I won't call Black Holes as 'no place'. Its really a place that we don't understand at all. Its a region of space that we cannot describe completely. And today to describe a Black Hole completely has become the holy grail of modern physics (that's an indirect way of talking about 'unification').

To EssentialNature.

That was a great article!
I have always been curious to know where did E=M_0C2 came from. I know the derivation of E=MC2 but it uses on its way M_0C2 as a term that represents the rest mass energy of an object. How do we know this? Is there a concrete derivation of this or did this come to Einstein as a dream?

Look, I will talk aboutthe present scientific beliefs here. I will not argue philosophy here. So, BHs have a singularity, where GR and QM both fail. So, v can't call it ordinary space.

And also I think the proof of E=mc^2 is given in Beiser.

 

[Garth]

I have always been curious to know where did E=M_0C2 came from. I know the derivation of E=MC2 but it uses on its way M_0C2 as a term that represents the rest mass energy of an object. How do we know this? Is there a concrete derivation of this or did this come to Einstein as a dream?

Himanshu, did you not read my post #16?

Of course Einstein did not dream it up, there is a sound mathematical derivation of this formula for total energy. It involves rewriting the normal equations for momentum in 4 dimensional space-time coordinates.

Define proper time by the SR metric:

d\tau^2 = dt^2 - \frac{1}{c^2}(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

which is invariant i.e. constant for all observers, so
d\tau = \sqrt{1 - (\frac{v}{c})^2}dt

and the \alpha component of four-momentum is given by:

P^{\alpha} = mc^2 \frac{dx^{\alpha}}{d\tau}

so
P^2 =m^2c^4[(\frac{dt}{d\tau})^2 -(\frac{1}{c} \frac{dx}{d\tau})^2 - (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dy}{d\tau})^2 - (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dz}{d\tau})^2]

which is also an invariant. Then the energy of a particle, E, is given by the P^0 component of four-momentum, where the 'zeroth' component is time, and the space components form the normal 'three-'momentum vector p,

E = mc^2 \frac{dt}{d\tau}

p = m\frac{v}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}

Manipulation of the above gives

E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

so in the rest frame of the particle, where p = 0, we are left with:

E = mc^2

Garth

 

[Himanshu]

Look, I will talk aboutthe present scientific beliefs here. I will not argue philosophy here. So, BHs have a singularity, where GR and QM both fail. So, v can't call it ordinary space.

Lakshya it is not that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity fail. It is the very nature of the Black Hole that compels us to encorporate both the theories at once. And the unification of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity has not yet been achieved. The predictions are nonsensical and do not make sense anymore. The same problem applies to the theory of Big Bang. Scientist are still not able to reverse the clock to the time when t=0. So we cannot talk confidently about the big bang singularity. Laws of physics, as we know, works only upto the Planck scale.

There is nothing philosophical about this. String Theory may actually prove to be the key to achieve this goal. However, how much of the theory is correct is yet to be seen.

Thank You Garth. Now I think I feel E=M_0C^2 in my bones to some extent. However I am stuck at the sixth equation. How did you obtain the expression for momentum from the previous results.

 

[Garth]

How did you obtain the expression for momentum from the previous results.

It is the three-vector constructed from the four-vector momentum:
P^2 =m^2c^4[(\frac{dt}{d\tau})^2 -(\frac{1}{c} \frac{dx}{d\tau})^2 - (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dy}{d\tau})^2 - (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dz}{d\tau})^2]
where
E = mc^2 \frac{dt}{d\tau}
so
P^2 = E^2 - m^2c^4[(\frac{1}{c} \frac{dx}{d\tau})^2 + (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dy}{d\tau})^2 + (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dz}{d\tau})^2]
thus
P^2 = E^2 - p^2 c^2

where
p = m\sqrt{[(\frac{dx}{dt})^2 + (\frac{dy}{dt})^2 + (\frac{dz}{dt})^2]} \frac{dt}{d\tau} = mv\frac{dt}{d\tau}

The total 'Energy' of a particle is the component of four-momentum in the 'time' dimension and ordinary momentum is the three-vector component of the four-momentum of the particle in the space dimensions.

Garth

 

[Himanshu]

Ok. Now I am comfortable with. Thank you Garth.

 

[Lakshya]

Lakshya it is not that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity fail. It is the very nature of the Black Hole that compels us to encorporate both the theories at once. And the unification of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity has not yet been achieved. The predictions are nonsensical and do not make sense anymore. The same problem applies to the theory of Big Bang. Scientist are still not able to reverse the clock to the time when t=0. So we cannot talk confidently about the big bang singularity. Laws of physics, as we know, works only upto the Planck scale.

There is nothing philosophical about this. String Theory may actually prove to be the key to achieve this goal. However, how much of the theory is correct is yet to be seen.

Thank You Garth. Now I think I feel E=M_0C^2 in my bones to some extent. However I am stuck at the sixth equation. How did you obtain the expression for momentum from the previous results.

Hey, please don't involve BBT in the discussion. It's no a well proved theory and there are man problems in it. In fact, it contradicts itself.

 

[Archimedes546]

Hey guys, today I found a great thought experiment to prove that time can't exist without mass and motion. It can be found by proving photon's rest mass = 0. I don't know the actual derivation. So, I have made my own derivation (this is the one I made to prove photon's m = 0 to my friend). Let's start:
E=mc^2 (Rest energy equation)
E/c^2=m=0 (To prove)
We know that c^2 is a constant so if we want to prove m=0, we will have to prove E=0. Let's take another formula:
E=hv
So, we can prove it by this equation. As we are taking the photon to be at rest, there is no frequency at rest. It will have no frequency. So, we will get E=h*0=0. Putting it in the previous equation, we get m=0. That's how I proved it. But today I thought that in this way everything at rest will vanish from the universe.
Okay let's take this experiment. Suppose we stop every matter in the universe. Then everything will vanish according to the above proof. So, anybody outside the universe will never be able to sense that there's a thing like time.
And this state of stopping everything can be achieved by stopping time. Everything will come to rest and will vanish from the universe.

Hence, we can derive that mass and motion can only exist when time exists or conversely time only exists when mass and motion exist. If time exists and mass and motion don't exist, then we can never feel time. We get that feeling when anything comes into motion. So, both are true.

Thouhts please.

Personally I think that the universe COULD exist without time, (I like to think of it sort of as a painting). That is, with compromise of motion time would be rendered 'non-existant' (but the universe might be as a painting that is 'finished', in that instance).
I'm a huge fan of cause & effect though, which is why I think that if time was taken out of the equation that it would be a step backwards, as opposed to the universe imploding ;).

 

[Garth]

Personally I think that the universe COULD exist without time, (I like to think of it sort of as a painting). That is, with compromise of motion time would be rendered 'non-existant' (but the universe might be as a painting that is 'finished', in that instance).
I'm a huge fan of cause & effect though, which is why I think that if time was taken out of the equation that it would be a step backwards, as opposed to the universe imploding ;).

Archimedes546 it's not so much that time is"taken out of the equation", more that it is completely accounted for within the equation.

The 4D space-time description of physics already includes time as one of the coordinates, so a space-time diagram is static, a 'Block Universe' that might indeed be seen as a "painting".

Cause and effect are perfectly determined by the laws of physics built into that space-time continuum. The presence of a singularity at the BB itself does introduce a discontinuity into that cause and effect web, however, in terms of pure GR this could be seen as a genuine beginning of time.

In this scenario if we then ask "What happened before the BB?" The answer would be that there was no 'before' because the BB was the beginning of time itself.

There is no confidence, however, in the assumption that pure GR, and nothing else, gives a true description of the singularity and most believe quantum effects would take over in these most extreme regimes.

The 4D block space-time perspective is one very effective way of doing physics, however it is not our experience of reality for we are temporal beings whose conscious experience of the world is one of past-present-future, where we experience the 'now', the past is written in stone and cannot be changed and we wait for the unformed future.

We have to be consistent in the use of the perspective, and particularly in the use of temporal/atemporal language when describing the universe of space and time. Most confusion about the nature of time arises from such inconsistency. (Such as when we are tempted to talk about the 'rate of time passing').

Garth

 

[krom]

Yes but even the light travel through the space, so the question is : can the light reach
a "no place" ? (no space, no time , no everything)

NO place? you mean no mass

theres no such thing as time without mass, the distortion of space by mass is gravity and time is a product of this, without the mass there's no gravity and therefore no time.

Light carries it's time into space, is there time in space without mass of any kind?, No. to measure time takes mass, and therefore is effected by the measurement itself.

Time is a measurement of the interaction of mass and space, without the mass, time does not exist, therefore nothing has to vanish, as nothing is there, that's if you think that there's such a thing as nothingness, because if this is true, then it can be labelled and therefore is something, infact nothing is something in this case.
Its timeless, unless to add mass and then you displace space, and gravity is in effect and time starts.

When the universe was the size of almost nothing (seconds before the big flash)time passed faster as the effect was greater, with space trying to occupy the area of mass gravity snaps, and throws mass all over the universe and time was scattered far and wide, that's if you believe time is simply the interaction of space and mass.

I'm not a smart person, in fact I'm what you people would call dumb, so don't take anything I say as anything more than a dumb man's thinking.Im really here to learn from you.I'm dyslexic so please understand I'm not good at explaining myself well.

 

[Alex48674]

Umm I pretty much know nowt about nowt

so

"E=mc^2 (Rest energy equation)
E/c^2=m=0 (To prove)
We know that c^2 is a constant so if we want to prove m=0, we will have to prove E=0. Let's take another formula:
E=hf"

(I use f for frequency and v for velocity)
but then if you go
v=fw
f=v/w
v=d/t
f=dw/t

So time has to exist because t can't = 0, but d could = 0 and then you can reverse back, but I think time has to exist but mass doesn't. Let me know if I said something actually right there =], though I doubt I did because I think time coexists with matter or something like that.

 

[Pippo]

NO place? you mean no mass

theres no such thing as time without mass, the distortion of space by mass is gravity and time is a product of this, without the mass there's no gravity and therefore no time.

Light carries it's time into space, is there time in space without mass of any kind?, No. to measure time takes mass, and therefore is effected by the measurement itself.

Time is a measurement of the interaction of mass and space, without the mass, time does not exist, therefore nothing has to vanish, as nothing is there, that's if you think that there's such a thing as nothingness, because if this is true, then it can be labelled and therefore is something, infact nothing is something in this case.
Its timeless, unless to add mass and then you displace space, and gravity is in effect and time starts.

When the universe was the size of almost nothing (seconds before the big flash)time passed faster as the effect was greater, with space trying to occupy the area of mass gravity snaps, and throws mass all over the universe and time was scattered far and wide, that's if you believe time is simply the interaction of space and mass.

I'm not a smart person, in fact I'm what you people would call dumb, so don't take anything I say as anything more than a dumb man's thinking.


Im really here to learn from you.


I'm dyslexic so please understand I'm not good at explaining myself well.

Krom,
I fully agree on your detailed explanation of my sentence, it's exactly what I meant.
Thank you
Pippo

 

[AceHack]

Look I know very little on this subject but I wanted to put an idea out there an see what people think. Is it possible that time is a race between matter and anti-matter? From our observations it looks like there is a little more matter than anti-matter and that's why stuff exists. Is it possible that much like gravity can curve light something else is curving matter\anti-matter but at a different rate causing the difference that we experience as time and space. I know I probably haven't explained this well but it's a thought. Any input is appreciated.

 

[sLeeping_bEauti]

You can't do this, since the photon is never at rest. It always moves at precisely the speed of light.

I havnt covered this bit yet but can you ever in any instance stop a photon moving?

katii x

 

[Pippo]

I havnt covered this bit yet but can you ever in any instance stop a photon moving?

katii x

No, I would say that photon' behaviour strictly depends by the space geometry and properties, and C is a limit given by the space (our space) as well.
So C=0 means there is no space for a photon to travel, but this is a nosense in our dimensions.