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

Minimum time

  1. Dec 11, 2003 #1

    koi

    User Avatar

    Hi guys, I am new here. Just finished reading Brian Greene's book and I wrote this paper. I have no idea if it makes good sense but it sounded right at the time. I am a medical doctor and I know no physicists to review it. If I'm violating some sort of rule, please tell me. Thanks.

    The Minimum Time

    By Edsel Salvana, MD

    String theory has generated a minimum size in terms of
    physical distance. Planck length is the smallest
    possible distance and is purported to be the size of a
    string. However, there has been no postulated minimum
    time. Since time itself is a dimension, the question
    arises as to whether there is a minimum amount of time
    beyond which the string becomes undefined.

    To tackle this problem, we return to the definition of
    matter in light of the string theory. In essence,
    matter (and energy, for that matter) is merely a
    manifestation of the vibrations of a string as
    modified by a Calabi-Yau space. Yet a vibrating object
    has a period during which it makes a complete
    vibration. If the characteristics of matter are
    inherent in the vibration pattern, then the period in
    which one vibration is manifested determines the
    character of that matter and no less.

    As an example, we look at light. Light is made up of
    photons. A photon is a string with a distinct
    vibration pattern. The speed of light is 300,000 km/s.
    The time in which light traverses the Planck distance
    is the Planck time. Yet a photon can only fit in a
    space no smaller than a Planck distance since it
    itself is a string. By that virtue, the photon is
    actually taking up the whole of the Planck space. It
    cannot be halfway in, or halfway out or any proportion
    thereof precisely because it cannot otherwise be
    defined as a string (it cannot be half a photon) and
    there is no smaller space. Furthermore, the
    characteristics of the photon cannot be manifested
    without a complete vibration. By this reasoning, the
    time it takes a string to produce a photon cannot be
    less than the Planck time because the vibration would
    not be complete. Taken in another way, you cannot have
    a complete vibration if you do not have a complete
    string.

    Using this analogy, if at the time of the Big Bang
    (zero time), photons were produced, they would have a
    period of Planck time at least. That is why all
    photons travel at the speed of light (not faster or
    slower). There is no “in between” state because the
    vibration necessary to generate a photon would not be
    complete. Precisely because of this point, all photons
    in the universe should be “in synch” with each other
    in multiples of minimum (Planck) time.

    Whether other particles are subject to this “minimum
    time” is self-evident since all particles are made up
    of strings. The question is whether certain particles
    have a larger “minimum time” because it takes longer
    for the string to generate a complete vibration. I do
    not think this has to be the case since the minimum
    requirement for one vibration would be one complete
    string. Nevertheless, if some particles (especially
    those slower than light) have a longer minimum time
    (the time it spends generating one complete vibration
    in a Planck space), these should be greater than (they
    are multiples of, since there is no smaller unit by
    definition) Planck time since nothing can travel
    faster than light and each vibration requires a
    complete string.

    An interesting consequence of these arguments is that
    matter and energy is being “created” in multiples of
    “minimum” (Planck) time. With each vibration, a string
    generates the same particle over and over again over
    time. When a string’s vibration is changed, then the
    type of matter (or energy particle) it manifests is
    changed. Whether the time to generate the properties
    of the matter or energy particle remains the same
    (Planck time or multiples thereof) remains to be seen.

    --desperately looking for feedback
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 11, 2003 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    You have posted conclusions from your theory in a couple of other threads here. I am not the mentor of this board but in my opinion your theory belongs on the theory development board, not this one. This is no reflection on your theory.

    But one consequence of your theory needs a comment. You say that strings are the length of a planck length, and draw conclusions from that. That is not at all necessarily so. Bosonic strings, while very small, are not assumed to have the length problems you cite, and we can say that they are several orders of magnitude above the planck length.
     
  4. Dec 11, 2003 #3

    koi

    User Avatar

    minimum size

    I agree that bosonic strings can be several magnitudes of Planck length. But the point was that Planck length is minimum length. You cannot have 1.5 times Planck length because it cannot be divided. In the same light, you cannot have less than multiples of Planck time because it cannot be subdivided. The reason I posted this theory here is precisely because one of the previous threads spoke about a theory of time in the string context. If you think this belongs in TD, then I have no problem with that.

    Moreover, the statement that bosonic strings are larger than Planck length leads me to the second part of my posting. If larger particles do not fit in one Planck space (but 2 or 3 or 4 etc.) then they will have longer minimum times since they have to be as fast as or slower than light. Nevertheless, they have to be in multiples of Planck time because, again, you cannot occupy only part of a Planck length.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2003
  5. Dec 11, 2003 #4

    koi

    User Avatar

    A string is a string is a string

    Waittaminnit! I take it back. All (ALL!) strings are identical, meaning a light string is the same as a bosonic string. It's the vibrations that are different as modified by a Calabi-Yau space. Perhaps the reason bosons are several Planck lengths in magnitude is because they require more than one period of Planck time to be manifested as a complete string vibration. It's not that the boson's string is bigger than a light string (by definition all strings are the same, otherwise its not a fundamental unit), its because a boson's vibration period is longer, and therefore its minimum time is as well (but still has to be multiples of Planck time).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?