Could TIME or the age of matter be a factor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter boldriter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Age Matter Time
boldriter
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Could "TIME" or the age of matter be a factor?

From my very basic "understanding" of particle physics and our search for hidden particles something keeps nagging at me; is it possible that quantity/quality of particles/boson are tied to time? In other words can the absolute age of any particular piece of matter such as when that particle was actually formed after the big bang determine the strengths of force/bond? IE: "Matter" that we have in our area of the universe is "younger" than matter in the area/time of the center of the big bang. And could the ultimate "aging" of matter account for the matter/anti matter disparity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


No. Electrons do not know what time it is. Every indication is that the laws of physics, including the fundamental constants and the particle properties, are precisely the same today as they have always been, as far back in time as we can see.
 


so that's mean all of the particle as we know today.
have a same characteristic as long as it's form ?
 


Bill_K said:
No. Electrons do not know what time it is. Every indication is that the laws of physics, including the fundamental constants and the particle properties, are precisely the same today as they have always been, as far back in time as we can see.

So, you are saying that "everything" was created at what is called The Big Bang" and nothing ages? So "everything" just maybe changes states... energy to matter, matter to energy; around and around.

It seems to me that if what I think you are saying is true, then time or aging is not, was not and never will be a factor in the actual physicallity of particles of any types. Kinda makes me wonder what does time have to do with physics at all.
 

Thread 'Toponium Discovered'

Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
View full post »

Thread 'Dirac-Delta from Normalization of Continuous Eigenfunctions'

I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
View full post »

Similar threads

Surplus of matter over anti-matter
Replies
3
Views
3K
B Theories about light and time near a black hole
Replies
20
Views
2K
B Could Matter/Anti-Matter Annihilation Explain Dark Energy and Dark Matter?
Replies
7
Views
2K
B Does Roger Penrose's Big Bang cyclic-universe thing make sense?
Replies
5
Views
3K
B Age of Universe: How Gravity Affects Time
Replies
7
Views
2K
I New Paper Claims Primordial Black Holes Don't Explain Dark Matter
Replies
20
Views
3K
A Space time expnasion, age of universe.
Replies
4
Views
2K
A Dark matter and the fabric of space time,
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Big bang balloon?
Replies
5
Views
180
Anti-matter Creation Questions/ Discussion
Replies
11
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top