Time as a Force: Should There Be a Timetron?

[dimazayka]

First, before anything, I am not anyone special, so some of what I say, might be wrong.
In QFT, interactions result from exchange of virtual particles. These virtual particles are known as force carriers. For the electromagnetic force, they are photons. For the strong force, they are gluons. For the weak force, they are the W and Z bosons. All those forces are expressed as gauge theories. A gauge theory essentially says that all interactions are manifestations of symmetries.
Gravity is also a force and is able to interact, therefore it also needs a force carrier, so the hypothetical graviton was hypothesized.
Astronauts come back to Earth younger than they would have been had they stayed on Earth for that same period of time. They are traveling so fast relative to the Earth that time slows down for them. Does that mean that time is also a force? Time interacts with speed...and all interactions are manifestations of symmetries.

So should there be another hypothetical force carrier for time...the timetron?

ready, set, tell me why ime wrong.

 

[jedishrfu]

Welcome to PF!

Please take some time to read the rules for PF before posting again.

Your discussion is considered to be either speculative science or a personal theory. We do not discuss these at PF as they distract from the primary mission to help students and others interested in studying mainstream science.

 

[Drakkith]

Time is not considered a force any more than distance is. Consider that in General Relativity, space and time are unified and you cannot remove time as a dimension and make it a force. When you speed up, you are moving faster in a spatial direction than in the temporal direction, so you experience less time passage than someone who isn't moving (A gross simplification).

 

[Drakkith]

I think the question, "Is time a force", is a valid one, but the way the OP has worded it makes it come off as a personal theory. As long as the discussion stays within the rules of the forum and the OP doesn't insist that this "timetron" exists, I see no reason to close it.
I've moved the thread to the General Physics forum and the title has been changed to something less suggestive of a personal theory.

 

[jedishrfu]

That sounds reasonable.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Read Lee Smolin's Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe and be ready for his forthcoming The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time: A Proposal in Natural Philosophy.

In my understanding, Smolin makes no effort towards time as a field, but does suggest a particle's Leibnizian relationships creates the necessary fields, one of which is space. His background-independent physics are difficult to understand. I wish his expositions were as clear as Leonard Susskind's.

 

[jedishrfu]

There is also the Julian Barbour contention that time does not exist:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time_(book)

 

[Dale]

There is also the Julian Barbour contention that time does not exist:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time_(book)

One of the most disappointing books I have ever read.

 

[jedishrfu]

One of the most disappointing books I have ever read.

This is true. I was hoping for some profound insight and instead came away with what?

But maybe it will tickle someone somewhere and a true timeless concept will emerge and we will be free of tenses in English. :-)

 

[Taboo]

For mass to change state, it must be acted on by a force. If time does not act on a mass, no change is imparted. I know this runs counter to what we conceive as a "force", and time is routinely regarded as a dimension, but if time does not act on a mass, no change is imparted. Furthermore, if something does not experience time, it does not exist.

 

[Drakkith]

For mass to change state, it must be acted on by a force. If time does not act on a mass, no change is imparted. I know this runs counter to what we conceive as a "force", and time is routinely regarded as a dimension, but if time does not act on a mass, no change is imparted.

Time does not "act" on anything any more than space "acts" on anything.

 

[Taboo]

Time does not "act" on anything any more than space "acts" on anything.

But it does. Take a look at a motion equation, v=v_o+at. You change the variable t, you change v. Time is directly acting on the velocity of a mass. Same thing with a distance equation, d=vt+1/2at² If you want to move an object from point A to point B, a force must act on it. Likewise, time must also act on it. If that object experiences no passage of time, it does not move. But I understand your point. Unlike a force, neither time nor space exert a "push" on matter. But in order for any force to do work, it must have both time and space. An electron cannot orbit a nucleus if time does not pass and if there is no point A and B for it to move through. And in order for any mass to exist, it must have space in which to manifest. But I am just pondering, just thought-exercising, not trying to redefine anything.

 

[nasu]

This is playing with words.
The fact that some parameter influences another does not mean that it "act" on it, in the same sense we use the word "act" for a force.
If you extend the meaning like this, then anything is a "force".

Frequency is a force because if you change frequency the period changes. Do the frequency "acts" on period so it must be a force.
But then the term "force" becomes quite meaningless.

You may find it more interesting to study the phenomena rather than trying to change definitions of terms.

 

[Dale]

I am just pondering, just thought-exercising, not trying to redefine anything.

It seems like that is exactly what you are trying to do.

This thread is closed.