1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theories out there that view time as a particle?

  1. Aug 22, 2013 #1
    Conceptually hard to grasp... are there any theories out there that view time, like a particle, as having a rest mass, and possibly spin and charge?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 22, 2013 #2

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, time is not a material thing and has none of those quantities.
     
  4. Aug 22, 2013 #3
    But empty space has properties like Eo, G and c, all of which require time, so how can time not be an actual thing too?
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2013
  5. Aug 22, 2013 #4

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have no idea what you are talking about.
     
  6. Aug 23, 2013 #5

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    c (the velocity of light) is not a property of space. It is a property of spacetime. Does it answer your question?
     
  7. Aug 23, 2013 #6
    The idea that the Higgs boson confers mass on particles can inspire questions like yours, but of course the subject of time is a whole n'other ball of wax. Better to ask, "is time a constant?" For example, time is relative only to an observer outside of a frame of reference, but is time for someone in an object travelling at 99.999% of c the same as time for someone standing outside of that frame of reference? In other words, is my time the same for me on earth as it would be for me traveling at 99.999% of c, ignoring other frames of reference? Much more interesting. IMO, my watch would tick for me just as fast regardless of where I am.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2013
  8. Aug 24, 2013 #7
    well yes to phinds time is not a physical thing , it doesn't spiral out of a fusor or a nuclear reactor like a particle that you then measure , but time is physical as it is a fundamental property of spacetime.
    time is rather a measure of change in other words we could say , for example take a jar of hydrogen atoms at room temperature.Now if you could precisely say at each given moment where the atoms are located and the corresponding elementary particles , the very next moment they would be at a different place so something has and changes each moment and by that we say time has run.
    No wonder why they rely on the atomic clock as the most precise instrument of measuring how the "frames"of life go by looking at how many oscillations the cesium atom makes.

    But from here on a question arises for me personally and maybe for others too, what happens after the universe experiences a total and absolute heat death , when there is no more energy in spacetime ad everything is perfectly still and at it's lowest possible temperature , even though a theoretical scenario would time still go on then?
    Something tells me it would but I will let more experienced people sort this case.
     
  9. Aug 24, 2013 #8
    My apologies, a better question would have been: Are there any theories that view the universe (and possibly beyond) as existing in a field of quantum black holes, with such 'particles' having the properties of spacetime? The idea is similar to LQG in that spacetime in quantized, but different in that spacetime itself has a rest mass.

    The question was spurred by my thinking that if time does have the properties of a particle, then there must be some steady state thing going on in empty space (or nearly so, considering dark energy). I don't have the skills to set up the field equations in general relativity, but setting the gravitational potential energy (with a gradient) for a 'spacetime particle' to be equal to the energy that particle gets from the Hawking radiation of the field, I get a mass and separation distance that's very close to what you get when you set the Schwarzchild radius to be equal to the Compton wavelength. This also allows me to calculate a bulk modulus for free space, along with a density, which gives a wave propagation speed that's very close to c.

    R
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2013
  10. Aug 24, 2013 #9

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So HERE you seem to agree with me that the answer to the OP's question is no.

    No argument there, but what does that have to do with the question that was asked? Are you somehow arguing that the answer to the original question is yes?
     
  11. Aug 24, 2013 #10

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Never heard of such a thing. Sounds like blather to me. Listen, ryan, I'm not trying to be rude here or trying to give you a hard time, but I just can't figure out where you are coming from with any of this.
     
  12. Aug 24, 2013 #11
    To me, space time is not a particle but time is a part of space-time as well as distance. Most do not consider differing rates of space time as having charge like properties as far as I know. They know there is such a thing as time dilation and relativity but that is about as far as most are willing to proceed with the understanding of space-time. Another example is wave-particle duality. Most just shrug and say that is the way it is. The communities would probably need to consider that space-time carries a charge strength depending on how much energy is contained in a space-time.
     
  13. Aug 24, 2013 #12
    At the risk of getting off topic, understanding wave-particle duality is not as tedious as one might think. Waves are caused by oscillations, and occur in photonic waves as a sequence of wave cycles by way of the contraction and expansion of the outer orbitals of electrons of the atoms in the medium through which the photonic waves are propagated. A photon represents one quanta of energy produced during one cycle of a wave's oscillations. The term "quanta" was first coined by Planck during his study of black body radiation, by which he detected pulses of energy of a specific resonant frequency emanating from the black body cavity, and the term "photon" was first coined by Einstein during his study of the photo-electric effect, the explanation of which earned him his Nobel prize, incidentally, and not for his theory of relativity as many believe. Understanding how waves propagate and behave leads to a simple understanding of what happens during the infamous double slit experiment, from which the wave/particle duality description is derived. Photons are considered to be "particles" but there is absolutely no analogy to be made to, say, a grain of sand, even though for argument's sake, one can reiterate Einstein, who said that E=Mc2
     
  14. Aug 24, 2013 #13
    Well to phinds no I am not saying a complete yes or no to the OP question , in the meaning he probably thought of it it's a NO.
    But in overall dwelling into the subject more you have to think that time itself is deeply associated with space.One would be meaningless and unusable without the other and vice versa. So there s a connection there.
    Just not in the sense like EM radiation has a connection to photons if that's what the Op thinks that time also needs a particle or some field or whatnot.
    Time is kinda elusive but in the same moment it's perfectly real and physical. to the OP Just don't look at time as something that needs a particle to mediate itself or whatnot.Think of it as a movie , as long as you have atleast two frames you have your spacetime and energy and everything that it consists of and that itself brings time into the equation.
     
  15. Aug 24, 2013 #14
    I have seen a video at school called 'it is about time' where ideas about what time is are considered. A great analogy is movie film where it would be easy to convince yourself that time was continuous but we all know the film is a series of spearate photographs.
    I think there is a modern version of this relating to time itself and the 'particle' or instants of time are known as Chronons.
     
  16. Aug 24, 2013 #15

    Drakkith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I've never heard of one. Black holes of such a size would instantly evaporate anyways. Nor can black holes have the properties of spacetime (which doesn't really make a lot of sense anyways).

    This sounds too close to a personal theory, which is against PF rules, for me to want to get into.
     
  17. Aug 24, 2013 #16

    Drakkith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Quantized spacetime has been theorized but not observed.
     
  18. Aug 24, 2013 #17
    If you don't mind me pointing it out...the first post asked about theories of quantised time.
    I think chronons are part of that theory. Are you aware of this?
     
  19. Aug 24, 2013 #18

    Drakkith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Only what I've read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon
     
  20. Aug 26, 2013 #19
    light

    Space-time is proven. You can compare the results of light coming out of a prism to that of light coming out of a double slit experiment with-edge-sensor-recorders-on. Prism light is slowed and creates a rainbow wave visual. "recorder on" sends energy from the slit to the recorder and causes the light to behave as a particle.
     
  21. Aug 26, 2013 #20

    Drakkith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    While you are correct in that determining which slit the light went through will cause it to no longer show a double slit interference pattern, I just want to clarify that light always behaves as a particle upon detection. Even the 1-slit interference pattern cannot be reproduced by classic particles.
     
  22. Aug 26, 2013 #21
    Right. While the detectors at the slit are hooked up to recorder (that are on) then some energy is removed from the slit. According to e=mc^2 with less energy in an area there is less mass in that area. Apparently,with less mass in a region light passing through that region is altered so that it behaves as something with mass.

    Anyone have a link to a single slit with recorders on?
     
  23. Aug 26, 2013 #22

    Drakkith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    What? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works at all.
     
  24. Aug 26, 2013 #23
    Would this be the case in a field of such black holes, all radiating into each other?

    Among other reasons for asking the question, and hopefully I'm not being too speculative here, I found the first ten minutes of the following video interesting enough to wonder if there any theories that view time (which wouldn't be the smooth space-time of relativity because singularities and event horizons) in such regards. I take it that there are not... and that I am probably crazy. :rolleyes:

    Lecture 5 | Quantum Entanglements, Part 3 (Stanford) - YouTube

    If anyone knows of any links or papers that elucidates what Susskind is describing in the beginning of that video, I'd be much obliged.
     
  25. Aug 28, 2013 #24
    Time is a placeholder. Things can have position in time, just as they can have position in space. It is one of the fundamental concepts of this physical reality that things can have locations. By contrast, try to imagine a universe that does not allow things to have positions in either time or space, its not easy, but that is the point, the concept of location, of a framework, generally called space-time, is fundamental to the nature of this reality. To answer the question, no, time is not a particle, it is a placeholder.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Loading...