Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A New Theory of Time

  1. May 17, 2004 #1
    My Theory is based on the notation that the reason we experince time in a smooth motion is because we are also travelling in a smooth motion. if we took the centre of our galaxy as the origin of a scale and calculated our speed relative to it then we could design a scale of relativity, and calculate a the time for everything within our galaxy just according to its velocity. SO time is not a dimension, it is a velocity.

    Time is affected by your speed relative to something else. The speed limit is the speed of light. But what is the minimum speed limit? If you were to travel at the speed of light, time would stop. I also beleive that if you could travel approximately 0ms-1 relative to everything else then time would also stop. But where would this place be?

    Imagine the Earth, people at the north pole travels slower than people at the equator but they have the same day. This is a flaw, becasue time is affected by tiny amounts we just dont notice it. The interesting thing is that a sphere is the only object where you cant experience the same time (velocity) at any 2 points at any one time, you have to take into account the velocity that the earth is travelling around the sun and the velocity that the sun is travelling around the milky way and possibly the velocity the milkly way is travelling around an axis of the universe.

    The minimium speed limit came from thinking where could i physically travel slower so i thought the slowest point on the earth relative to the centre of the milky way must be the centre or the earth. Then i thought goto the centre of the sun and your velocity is even slower, then the galaxy and eventually the universe. My idea is that times minimum speed limit is at the centre of the universe. Experiment: If we were to travel to the centre of the universe and you were to experience time ( at 0ms-1 time stops like at lightspeed) then you could argue that your still in motion therefore there must be a larger body exterior to our universe in which we rotate around. So this experiement could tell you if there was anything beyond our universe without actually going there. But it will be a long time before anyone will be able to carry out this experiment.

    I hope this theory makes sense, and i appreciate any flaws anyone can find from it.
    This is all my original work.

    Christopher Hatchard
    Last edited: May 17, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. May 17, 2004 #2
    time dilation has never been tested at relativistic speeds

    the only way to conclusively test the theory - is to build a spacecraft capable of speeds up to 99% c with an atomic clock onboard and measure the time dilation compared to a stationary atomic clock

    then check the time dilation at all velocities (in discreet incrememnts) up to 99% c (ideally) or at least 80% c

    if the dilation at all velocities match the predicted values of SR then relativistic time dilation is a fact
    Last edited: May 23, 2004
  4. May 17, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Energia - Erm, what about muon decay?
  5. May 17, 2004 #4
    Not true. How else do you explain the observed lifetime of a muon?

    edit: hehe jcsd beat me to it!

    Well, thankfully they do so far.

  6. May 17, 2004 #5
    My theory is based upon his, so if he was right would that make my theory more possibly valid?
  7. May 22, 2004 #6
    muon decay is not proof of the dilation scale predicted by Relativity Theory
    where c = 100 dilation

    it may be proof that muons do not like being accelerated to 99% c

    but muons are not the basis of time

    the only way to validate the claim conclusively is with mutiple chronometres
    one stationary and one accelerating to near c

    (yes that's right, real physical clocks)
    Last edited: May 23, 2004
  8. May 22, 2004 #7
    Velocity is the ratio of distance,r, over time, t, [itex] v = \frac{r}{t}[/itex]. In infinitesimal calculus it is given by.

    [tex] v= \lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \frac{\Delta r}{\Delta t}[/tex]

    In special relativity, this v has a maximum value of c, the speed of light in vacuum. And c implies that the spacetime interval must be zero.

    [tex] ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2 = 0 [/tex]

    where [itex] dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 [/itex]

    [tex] c = \frac{dr}{dt}[/tex]
    Last edited: May 22, 2004
  9. May 23, 2004 #8
    I'm not disputing the mathematical model

    I'm simply stating that time dilation has never been proven or even tested onboard a spacecraft accelerating to near c

    since no such spacecraft exists

    in fact the fastest spacebucket we've got only goes 8000 m/s

    which is 0027% c

    at this velocity time dilation is predicted to be only 000364501%
    losing 36 µs per second

    I would accept the theory as conclusive fact as soon as this test has been performed at least up to 1% c (375 x faster than the space shuttle), until then I will accept it as a viable theory and not a proven fact
    Last edited: May 23, 2004
  10. May 23, 2004 #9
    But why bother testing time dilation onboard spacecraft? Time dilation has been tested in subatomic processes and it agrees with the theory.

    But Einstein did use the idea of an accelerating elevator(or spacecraft) for thought experiments that led to his Principle of Equivalence.
    Last edited: May 23, 2004
  11. May 23, 2004 #10
    energia.........i thought spacecrafts at the moment travel at 0.1% of c?

    or do i have the wrong end of the stick?
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2004
  12. May 23, 2004 #11
    now that I've read your theory over a few times

    what you are suggesting is that if the universe has an absolute centre of mass, like a huge sphere for lack of a better analogy, then time at this centre of mass would in effect stop

    so if a crew onboard the spaceship - 'HMS Deathwish' were to travel to this central point of mass - they would be frozen in time (a great mission objective)

    your reasoning is quite logical, however if the theory is correct, then it would take longer and longer to reach the centre of the universe the closer the ship got to the centre, since time would be slowing down proportionately with proximity of cosmic central point (if that makes any sense)

    so it would take an enternity to finally reach this centre

    all of this is assuming that the universe even has a centre or a boundary of any kind, which i do not believe it does

    the definition of universe being 'all that exists' including space and anything beyond space; the term universe is often used to mean 'visible universe'
    or 'local universe'

    in the 15th century the term 'universe' refered to the known world (earth)

    it's quite easy to test your theory without digging to the centre of the earth
    or to the centre of the sun, where it's very hot indeed (especially in the summer) :tongue2:

    all you would need to do is drag an atomic clock to the south pole
    and another atomic clock to the equator

    and measure the dilation between the 2 clocks

    according to SR there should be no dilation (0%) since the 2 points on the earth are stationary relative to one another

    if any dilation what-so-ever is measured, then you're theory would be validated :smile:
  13. May 23, 2004 #12

    the space shuttle has a top speed of 8000 m/s

    the speed of light is 299792458 m/s

    1% of 299792458 m/s = 2997924 m/s or 10 million km per hour

    Speed of a Space Shuttle
  14. May 23, 2004 #13
    subatomic particles don't wear wrist watches

    and Einstein's ideas were thought experiments - not real life experiments

    it's real life experiments that provide conclusive evidence

    thought experiments provide theories
    Last edited: May 23, 2004
  15. May 23, 2004 #14
    Wrist watches are made of thousands and thousands and thousands of subatomic particles. That's is why they called such thing as atomic clock (the most accurate clock in existence by modern technology standard).
  16. May 23, 2004 #15
    atomic clocks use frequency dividers to count periods of caesium 133 radiation

    1 second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

    to my knowledge the period of caesium 133 radiation has never been altered in a particle accelerator

    a clock is a machine - it's not the particles or components that make 'time'

    time is a temporal dimension of spacetime

    and no one has ever proved that time itself changes relative to an observer in motion as predicted by SR through all velocites up to c

    the most obvious way to test it conclusively is (as I said) to compare a stationary clock to a clock travelling at velocities approaching c

    a whole working clock, not just the particles in the clock
    Last edited: May 24, 2004
  17. May 23, 2004 #16
    if you were to compare a clock travelling at the velocity of c, to a stationary clock, the stationary clock must be slower.but it depends where the stationary clock is.

    the clock has been made for humans to use. nature will not see the seconds which humans termed themselves.

    second = 1/86,400 of a day= 9,192,631,770 beats of a cesium 113 atom.
  18. May 23, 2004 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor


    "Relativistic speed" is any speed at which the effects of relativity are measurable. Clearly this is different for different types of measurements - an astronaut on the space shuttle won't notice it on his/her wristwatch from launch to landing, but to a GPS satellite, accounting for it is critical to its operation.
  19. May 23, 2004 #18
    While it's true that a muon is not a clock, its decay can be used to measure a time interval. And as such, it has confirmed relativity.
  20. May 24, 2004 #19
    this is not in dispute

    the only issue im raising is that time dilation has never been proven to match the scale predicted by Relativity Theory

    someone posted a time dilation table in this forum
    if you look at the table and go down the list of percentage points

    time dilation has never been verified percentage point by percentage point
    all the way up the scale from 0% to 100% c by a set of real clocks

    clocks are not time itself - but they do a good job of measuring time
    in a precisely quantized format

    it's not so easy to measure the age of an astronaut
    or measure the exact age of a particle to the last decimal point

    and so far dilation has only been tested at slow speeds (satellites)
    far below even 001% c

    and at super high speeds (particles) in the range of 99% c

    but nothing in between

    now do you see my point?

    please say that you do, or I will have to bang my head on the table :cry:
  21. May 24, 2004 #20
    ^ i would b truly amazed if any physical clock can withstand c.
    "time dilation has never been verified percentage point by percentage point
    all the way up the scale from 0% to 100% c by a set of real clocks

    clocks are not time itself - but they do a good job of measuring time
    in a precisely quantized format"

    it has been constructed for humans to define a certain moment of time. without the clock it would be very hard to guess the precise measurement of time ourselves.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: A New Theory of Time
  1. New theory? (Replies: 3)

  2. New physics theory? (Replies: 1)