Is time quantum at the microscopic level?

[SinghRP]

Time has always baffled me. I have two questions for you.
1. What's the genesis of time?
2. Is time quantum at the microscopic level?
Thank you.

 

[phinds]

Time is discussed here frequently. I suggest a forum search.

 

[SinghRP]

I did the search. Nothing except my questions and your answer!
Any takers?

 

[ghwellsjr]

I think your first question belongs on the philosophy forum (if it still exists) and your second question belongs on the QM forum.

 

[nitsuj]

What the heck is "what is the Genesis of time?" asking? (googled - beginning/origin)
it would be same as space.

"Quanta" of time Planck time

but seriously do a better search for interpretations of time. This is a forum of fact, not so much interpretation.

 

[SinghRP]

I have already done an extensive search of the literature. Will do so more.
"Genesis" means origin/beginning/creation/... as you said.
So, Planck time is a fact!
I have come to realize that I am not going to understand gravity without time and its origin.
Thank you.

 

[nitsuj]

So, Planck time is a fact!

No it's a theory. Sorry for saying this is a forum for facts, that's a little far fetched. But it is in fact a theory,

 

[Dale]

So, Planck time is a fact!

"Plank time" is a unit, like "second" or "hour".

 

[nitsuj]

Is it proved to be the smallest unit of time?

 

[phinds]

Is it proved to be the smallest unit of time?

No, it is HYPOTHESIZED to be the smallest unit of time. There is no evidence that time is quantized and if it is there is no evidence that the Plank Time is the quanta ... I have heard it stated that the quanta would be MUCH less than the Plank Time, though I have no idea of the validity of that statement.

 

[Dale]

Is it proved to be the smallest unit of time?

No. I have just invented a new unit, the flubnubitz, which is equal to 1/2 of a Planck time.

 

[OCR]

I did the search. Nothing except my questions and your answer!
Any takers?

Try doing a search this way...

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&...eaed9fac54bfaee&bpcl=40096503&biw=836&bih=623

Or...

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partne...00&ie=UTF-8&q=&sa=Search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=time



OCR

 

[bobc2]

Time has always baffled me. I have two questions for you.
1. What's the genesis of time?
2. Is time quantum at the microscopic level?
Thank you.

SinghRP, thanks for your inquiry. Your probing into the understanding of time at the fundamental level reflects the kind of curiosity and inquisitiveness that has propelled physics throughout its development. You are in good company with the attitude reflected in your posts.

I wish I could help you understand time. At the fundamental level physicists do not comprehend what accounts for our notion of time--the "passage of time." It's psychological, but also it's something that physicists have been able to account for in some sense as a parameter in their mathematical equations. With the advent of special relativity, time becomes even more mysterious in the way it is incorporated into the space-time concept. This removes us even further from the understanding of time at a fundamental level--although, in a mathematical sense, the space-time theory enhanced the advancement of physics and even gave us a deeper insight into the universe. Many of those aspects would be considered too philosophical for discussion here, although some of these discussions have been given much latitude and flexibility by the forum monitors.

Some would say that time is a value read on a clock. The problem is that clocks themselves are not time, they are physical objects that occupy space. We can put numbers on the clock and talk about the rate of rotation of the hands of the clock, but that is not time, intrinsically. Yes, physics can calibrate the clock and assign a definitional meaning to the readings on a clock, but that is not the same as providing a fundamental understanding of time.

I don't think there will be much help for you here, but you might search the topic on amazon.com where you will find books like "About Time", "The Fabric of Time", "The Labyrinth of Time", and "The End of Time." Much of the discussions found in those books are not appropriate for this forum, since the kind of probing you are doing is not found in the formal scientific journals of physics, and much of it is considered speculative by the standards of this forum.

Kurt Godel (one of the great logicians of mathematics and colleague of Einsteins at Princeton) once presented what he felt was a logical proof that time in physics was invalid. But, his arguments would be considered speculative and philosophical--not appropriate for this type of forum where we emphasize help in understanding physics based on concepts in the main stream, universally accepted concepts with support from peer-reviewed literature. You should particularly avoid discussions here that seem to fall into the philosophical category rather than physics.

 

[Vandam]

When we talk about time we have to be careful with the semantics. And indeed some philosophical and ontological aspects have to be taken into consideration. Even mathematicians have to face these issues in order to understand what the measured / observed numbers stand for.

As far as relativity is concerned in this forum section it is interesting to notice the difference of time interpretation between Lorentz and Einstein.
Lorentz had to face the problem that his local time didn't make sense in his own ether theory. It was Einstein who solved that problem by considering his local time as physical real instead of only mathematical fictions. Lorentz admited his 'error': quote
<<The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t' plays the same part as t; if we want to describe phenomena in terms of x'; y'; z'; t' we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x; y; z; t.>>
Einstein made the t' a physical time. This lead to the existence of the physical 4D (block) spacetime.

Unfortunately I sometimes have the impression that many mathematicians/physicists interpret the issue the other way around: instead of accepting t' as a physical time, they reduce Einstein's t to a mathematical number for not having to deal with any physical interpretation. And hence -to put it bluntly- the 4D Spacetime becomes only a mathematical model to organize mathematical numbers. It then becomes irrelevant to for example deal with the physical significance of the time-coordinate of a space-like event.
Lorentz Tranformations and time coordinates only really make sense in Einstein's Special Relativity, not in an ether theory (LET). Therefore it is a misconception that both LET theory and SR are equally valid theories because they deal with the same mathematics of the Lorentz Transormations. That's refuting the difference between physics and mathematics.
Richard Feynman quote: <<... Physics is not mathematics, and mathematics is not physics. One helps the other. But you have to have some understanding of the connection of the words with the real world..>> (at minute 45:42:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kd0xTfdt6qw )

 

[Dale]

Some would say that time is a value read on a clock.

I think you are accidentally mischaracterizing a legitimate definition of time. An operational definition of time would be: "time is the thing measured by a clock". Note that this is different from your definition because it points beyond the clock to the thing that the clock measures, which is defined to be "time". Operational definitions like this are very important since they keep physics definitions from being circular.

 

[nitsuj]

No. I have just invented a new unit, the flubnubitz, which is equal to 1/2 of a Planck time.

Is it proved to be the smallest [STRIKE]unit[/STRIKE] bit of time?

 

[Neandethal00]

Richard Feynman quote: <<... Physics is not mathematics, and mathematics is not physics. One helps the other. But you have to have some understanding of the connection of the words with the real world..>> (at minute 45:42:

Many physicists do not realize current mathematics will never lead to the absolute
truth of nature. Because mathematics lack human factors.

 

[phinds]

Many physicists do not realize current mathematics will never lead to the absolute
truth of nature. Because mathematics lack human factors.

Huh? What does that even MEAN ?

 

[andrien]

Is time quantum at the microscopic level?

No,it is not possible to define time operator which has a usual commutation relation with hamiltonian like [T,H]=ih^-.this implies no minimum of energy i.e. no ground state.

 

[detective]

hello all .. if a massless object doesn't have to recognise time as a component of its existence, we seem to be all on a road to nowhere, as the instant our universe went from pure energy (but no mass) to the state where matter formed and expanded (quantum fluctuation/s?) we have to invoke time because of the limitations set out by Einsteins equations and the ''impurity'' that mass brings with it...

...we are all looking in the rear view mirror for why physics is what it is...all at the same time having to recognise our conscious needs for answers in an ''impure'' environment...

 

[HallsofIvy]

hello all .. if a massless object doesn't have to recognise time as a component of its existence, we seem to be all on a road to nowhere, as the instant our universe went from pure energy (but no mass)

What instant was this? You understand that "pure energy" itself has mass, don't you?

to the state where matter formed and expanded (quantum fluctuation/s?) we have to invoke time because of the limitations set out by Einsteins equations and the ''impurity'' that mass brings with it...

...we are all looking in the rear view mirror for why physics is what it is...all at the same time having to recognise our conscious needs for answers in an ''impure'' environment...

 

[Neandethal00]

Huh? What does that even MEAN ?

It is not very easy to see what I meant by the statement.

a) Current mathematical equations do not have a mind, as the solution progresses it can not change its original form, can not add anything new, like our minds can.

b) Solutions of current mathematical equations are included into the problems. In other words, solutions are embedded into the problem, as a result , the outcome of the solutions in a way are predetermined.

c) Current mathematical equations are like Robots. A robot can not do anything outside its program, same as a mathematical equation.

d) Just as we need intelligent robots which can make its own decisions beyond its program, we need a form of intelligent Math, which can evolve as the solution progresses.

I don't know if this would make any sense to anyone, but sorry, I can't elaborate more. Time as we know from current mathematical equations will always create problem for us if we want to know absolute truth about nature.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't know if this would make any sense to anyone, but sorry, I can't elaborate more. Time as we know from current mathematical equations will always create problem for us if we want to know absolute truth about nature.

Nonsense. Math is both a language and a tool for us. Even the most advanced program, capable of learning and changing, still comes down to extremely basic mathematical procedures like adding and multiplying. Similarly our own bodies are simply the build up of millions of simple tasks combined together in different ways.

a) Current mathematical equations do not have a mind, as the solution progresses it can not change its original form, can not add anything new, like our minds can.

You are comparing apples to helicopters here. It's like comparing the rules of football to a computer. It just doesn't make sense.

b) Solutions of current mathematical equations are included into the problems. In other words, solutions are embedded into the problem, as a result , the outcome of the solutions in a way are predetermined.

Of course. If you have a math problem, and have all the available data necessary to figure it out, it's just a process of putting the data in and doing the work. But...so what? That's the way it's supposed to work. If it didn't, we wouldn't use it. If X=2Y, and Y=3, then according to the math X=6. I can only find this out because I already have Y. If I didn't know Y, then the equation would be useless to me! And no amount of changing it around will fix that. One MUST have the data necessary to do the math, otherwise it cannot work.

c) Current mathematical equations are like Robots. A robot can not do anything outside its program, same as a mathematical equation.

Equations don't DO anything. They are rules to figure out something. A robot is not a list of rules.

d) Just as we need intelligent robots which can make its own decisions beyond its program, we need a form of intelligent Math, which can evolve as the solution progresses.

This has nothing to do with math itself. You are talking about programming.

 

[flatmaster]

It is not very easy to see what I meant by the statement.

a) Current mathematical equations do not have a mind, as the solution progresses it can not change its original form, can not add anything new, like our minds can.

b) Solutions of current mathematical equations are included into the problems. In other words, solutions are embedded into the problem, as a result , the outcome of the solutions in a way are predetermined.

c) Current mathematical equations are like Robots. A robot can not do anything outside its program, same as a mathematical equation.

d) Just as we need intelligent robots which can make its own decisions beyond its program, we need a form of intelligent Math, which can evolve as the solution progresses.

I don't know if this would make any sense to anyone, but sorry, I can't elaborate more. Time as we know from current mathematical equations will always create problem for us if we want to know absolute truth about nature.

I think Neandethal is trying to say something like...

"The equations of physics can’t be solved for complicated, real-world problems, therefore physics equations don’t explain the real world. "

This is not the case. We may not be able to write an expression that describes the motion of a football bouncing chaotically down a hill, but we still think that F=ma is sufficient to explain it's motion.

 

[Neandethal00]

Nonsense. Math is both a language and a tool for us. Even the most advanced program, capable of learning and changing, still comes down to extremely basic mathematical procedures like adding and multiplying. Similarly our own bodies are simply the build up of millions of simple tasks combined together in different ways.



You are comparing apples to helicopters here. It's like comparing the rules of football to a computer. It just doesn't make sense.



Of course. If you have a math problem, and have all the available data necessary to figure it out, it's just a process of putting the data in and doing the work. But...so what? That's the way it's supposed to work. If it didn't, we wouldn't use it. If X=2Y, and Y=3, then according to the math X=6. I can only find this out because I already have Y. If I didn't know Y, then the equation would be useless to me! And no amount of changing it around will fix that. One MUST have the data necessary to do the math, otherwise it cannot work.



Equations don't DO anything. They are rules to figure out something. A robot is not a list of rules.



This has nothing to do with math itself. You are talking about programming.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against current Math. It can make better and better cell phones, locate us precisely by GPS, it even can take us to Mars and bring back. But question is can we uncover the truth of nature by applying math to physical objects only?

I once had a high hope about Genetic Algorithm, but later I found it also rely on 'human knowledge' in each iteration. I'm not giving up on GA yet.
My next attempt will be on Cellular Automaton. I'm open for suggestions.

 

[Vorde]

What could you possibly mean by "the truth of nature?".

Without even trying to think your statement though, I'd note that both any 'Genetic Algorithm' or 'Cellular Automaton' would be math in some form.

 

[Dale]

I once had a high hope about Genetic Algorithm, but later I found it also rely on 'human knowledge' in each iteration. I'm not giving up on GA yet.
My next attempt will be on Cellular Automaton. I'm open for suggestions.

I developed genetic algorithms in my dissertation research, so I am quite familiar with them. However, I must say that I am completely at a loss as to what you mean by "human knowledge" at each iteration as well as how you think they would ever have anything to do with "absolute truth". A genetic algorithm is nothing more than an optimization routine.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Many physicists do not realize current mathematics will never lead to the absolute
truth of nature. Because mathematics lack human factors.

It is not very easy to see what I meant by the statement.

a) Current mathematical equations do not have a mind, as the solution progresses it can not change its original form, can not add anything new, like our minds can.

b) Solutions of current mathematical equations are included into the problems. In other words, solutions are embedded into the problem, as a result , the outcome of the solutions in a way are predetermined.

c) Current mathematical equations are like Robots. A robot can not do anything outside its program, same as a mathematical equation.

d) Just as we need intelligent robots which can make its own decisions beyond its program, we need a form of intelligent Math, which can evolve as the solution progresses.

I don't know if this would make any sense to anyone, but sorry, I can't elaborate more. Time as we know from current mathematical equations will always create problem for us if we want to know absolute truth about nature.

The problem, then, appears to be that you know neither mathematics nor physics. You assert, to begin with, that "mathematics lack human factors". To the contrary, mathematics is purely a human endeavor while physics, the attempt to understand the physical universe, is not. But every physicist knows that, while we can use mathematics to simplify statements about the universe, no mathematics, not just "current mathematics", can "lead to the absolute truth of nature". Indeed, most, if not all, physicists believe that there is NO "absolute truth of nature", only succesive approximations.

I strongly suggest that you actually take some (preferably graduate college) courses in mathematics and physics before making such flat statements about what is essentially the philosophy of both mathematics and physics.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Like the innumerable threads before it, this thread has degenerated into woo. Closed.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Good call!