Time can't exist without matter (mass) and motion

[Pippo]

Bcoz light takes some time to reach our eyes and we can never be sure if anything exists at present. We can be sure of past. Sorr I am writing it too shortly.

Yes but even the light travel through the space, so the question is : can the light reach
a "no place" ? (no space, no time , no everything)

 

[Lakshya]

Yes but even the light travel through the space, so the question is : can the light reach
a "no place" ? (no space, no time , no everything)

The answer is holes (black, white and worm).

 

[EssentialNature]

I believe the line of reasoning that a photon has zero rest mass is this:

According to Special Relativity as an object with mass approaches the speed of light its mass increases. The limit equation is that as an object with mass approaches the speed of light its mass approaches infinity. So if an object is moving at the speed of light it cannot have any rest mass.

One must understand the purpose of an equation and from what I have seen many explanations are not very good at getting into explaining the full essence of such equations. That is because typically a large amount of background is assumed. There are non-mathematical books that explain physics, like Brian Green books. These are good for gaining some insights into physics. There are textbooks with strong mathematical books. These usually assume you took all the prerequisites, i.e. they assume a strong background. There are technical papers that almost always assume a strong background. There are articles like those in wiki that run the gambit. The in between books and especially articles which show the math and do a detailed explanation of each term with simple explanations are more harder to find.

Let me explain the equation . This is a composite equation. The energy contained in “rest mass of matter” is the value m2c4. The motional energy and photonic energy is the p2c2. The following web page has some good information about energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
An except from this is:
2. On the other hand, in the key equation m2c4 = E2 − p2c2, the contribution mc2 is called the rest energy, and all other contributions to the energy are called kinetic energy. For a particle that has mass, this implies that the kinetic energy is 0.5p2 / m at speeds much smaller than c, as can be proved by writing E = mc2 √(1 + p2m − 2c − 2) and expanding the square root to lowest order. By this line of reasoning, the energy of a photon is entirely kinetic, because the photon is massless and has no rest energy. This expression is useful, for example, when the energy-versus-momentum relationship is of primary interest.
Technically speaking, this paragraph does not explain why a photon has zero rest mass. It simply states it. So I do not like the wording in this document about why the photon rest mass is zero.

Always remember there is a big difference between photons and particles. When you look at equations you must ask two questions: does this apply to particles, if so then how; does this apply to photons, if so then how. You will likely get different perspectives depending on whether it is a particle or a photon. One other thing to note is to always be careful about rest mass energy verses relativistic energy of a particle due to motion.

Let me explain my point by discussing the wave equation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

When one uses the wave equation especially for matter realize that it deals with the interaction of objects. The is explained as follows:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
“the greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength”

So now ask yourself, what energy are they talking about?
Another question, are we talking about particles or photons?
By the earlier principle, differentiate particles and photons.
It does apply to both. So let me simply discuss the application to particles.
Is the energy dealing with the rest mass, motion, or both?
When you split apart the statement into more detailed questions like this you begin to better understand the nature of the statement and the equations.

This energy is the energy of motion not in rest mass because the equation uses the mass and velocity of a particle. Higher velocity is higher energy is a shorter wavelength.

Principle: motion has no meaning for a single isolated particle. It must be with respect to two or more. A simple statement but remembering it can help clarify.

The energy of motion is in relative velocity. Something moving toward you, which increases its velocity, will increase its energy with respect to you. This will increase this frequency factor. However, you can also increase the energy by accelerating towards this object. If you accelerate towards the object you increase the relative velocity. This increases the relative motional energy and increases this frequency factor also. Your increase in speed effect your view of this objects “frequency”. This frequency factor is what is used on calculating how any interactions between you and this other object will happen.

It is an equation used to help compute outcomes for interactions.

So I hope this helps. I tried to add some principles for understanding what you are reading on physics and how to explore thoughts on physics.

If you might guess these days I do like wiki articles on Physics. They are a nice resource for reference and look up.

 

[Pippo]

The answer is holes (black, white and worm).

My question is : if holes are something can they be compared with a "no place" (a nothing) ?

 

[Lakshya]

My question is : if holes are something can they be compared with a "no place" (a nothing) ?

Yes, bcoz there mechanism is undetectable. BHs tend to go for a singularity or nospace. WHs appearr from a singularity or noplace. And WoHs are a tunnel between BHs and WHs or they travel between no places.

 

[Himanshu]

Yes, bcoz there mechanism is undetectable. BHs tend to go for a singularity or nospace. WHs appearr from a singularity or noplace. And WoHs are a tunnel between BHs and WHs or they travel between no places.

I won't call Black Holes as 'no place'. Its really a place that we don't understand at all. Its a region of space that we cannot describe completely. And today to describe a Black Hole completely has become the holy grail of modern physics (that's an indirect way of talking about 'unification').

To EssentialNature.

That was a great article!
I have always been curious to know where did E=M_0C2 came from. I know the derivation of E=MC2 but it uses on its way M_0C2 as a term that represents the rest mass energy of an object. How do we know this? Is there a concrete derivation of this or did this come to Einstein as a dream?

 

[Lakshya]

I won't call Black Holes as 'no place'. Its really a place that we don't understand at all. Its a region of space that we cannot describe completely. And today to describe a Black Hole completely has become the holy grail of modern physics (that's an indirect way of talking about 'unification').

To EssentialNature.

That was a great article!
I have always been curious to know where did E=M_0C2 came from. I know the derivation of E=MC2 but it uses on its way M_0C2 as a term that represents the rest mass energy of an object. How do we know this? Is there a concrete derivation of this or did this come to Einstein as a dream?

Look, I will talk aboutthe present scientific beliefs here. I will not argue philosophy here. So, BHs have a singularity, where GR and QM both fail. So, v can't call it ordinary space.

And also I think the proof of E=mc^2 is given in Beiser.

 

[Garth]

I have always been curious to know where did E=M_0C2 came from. I know the derivation of E=MC2 but it uses on its way M_0C2 as a term that represents the rest mass energy of an object. How do we know this? Is there a concrete derivation of this or did this come to Einstein as a dream?

Himanshu, did you not read my post #16?

Of course Einstein did not dream it up, there is a sound mathematical derivation of this formula for total energy. It involves rewriting the normal equations for momentum in 4 dimensional space-time coordinates.

Define proper time by the SR metric:

d\tau^2 = dt^2 - \frac{1}{c^2}(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

which is invariant i.e. constant for all observers, so
d\tau = \sqrt{1 - (\frac{v}{c})^2}dt

and the \alpha component of four-momentum is given by:

P^{\alpha} = mc^2 \frac{dx^{\alpha}}{d\tau}

so
P^2 =m^2c^4[(\frac{dt}{d\tau})^2 -(\frac{1}{c} \frac{dx}{d\tau})^2 - (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dy}{d\tau})^2 - (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dz}{d\tau})^2]

which is also an invariant. Then the energy of a particle, E, is given by the P^0 component of four-momentum, where the 'zeroth' component is time, and the space components form the normal 'three-'momentum vector p,

E = mc^2 \frac{dt}{d\tau}

p = m\frac{v}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}

Manipulation of the above gives

E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

so in the rest frame of the particle, where p = 0, we are left with:

E = mc^2

Garth

 

[Himanshu]

Look, I will talk aboutthe present scientific beliefs here. I will not argue philosophy here. So, BHs have a singularity, where GR and QM both fail. So, v can't call it ordinary space.

Lakshya it is not that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity fail. It is the very nature of the Black Hole that compels us to encorporate both the theories at once. And the unification of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity has not yet been achieved. The predictions are nonsensical and do not make sense anymore. The same problem applies to the theory of Big Bang. Scientist are still not able to reverse the clock to the time when t=0. So we cannot talk confidently about the big bang singularity. Laws of physics, as we know, works only upto the Planck scale.

There is nothing philosophical about this. String Theory may actually prove to be the key to achieve this goal. However, how much of the theory is correct is yet to be seen.

Thank You Garth. Now I think I feel E=M_0C^2 in my bones to some extent. However I am stuck at the sixth equation. How did you obtain the expression for momentum from the previous results.

 

[Garth]

How did you obtain the expression for momentum from the previous results.

It is the three-vector constructed from the four-vector momentum:
P^2 =m^2c^4[(\frac{dt}{d\tau})^2 -(\frac{1}{c} \frac{dx}{d\tau})^2 - (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dy}{d\tau})^2 - (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dz}{d\tau})^2]
where
E = mc^2 \frac{dt}{d\tau}
so
P^2 = E^2 - m^2c^4[(\frac{1}{c} \frac{dx}{d\tau})^2 + (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dy}{d\tau})^2 + (\frac{1}{c}\frac{dz}{d\tau})^2]
thus
P^2 = E^2 - p^2 c^2

where
p = m\sqrt{[(\frac{dx}{dt})^2 + (\frac{dy}{dt})^2 + (\frac{dz}{dt})^2]} \frac{dt}{d\tau} = mv\frac{dt}{d\tau}

The total 'Energy' of a particle is the component of four-momentum in the 'time' dimension and ordinary momentum is the three-vector component of the four-momentum of the particle in the space dimensions.

Garth

 

[Himanshu]

Ok. Now I am comfortable with. Thank you Garth.

 

[Lakshya]

Lakshya it is not that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity fail. It is the very nature of the Black Hole that compels us to encorporate both the theories at once. And the unification of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity has not yet been achieved. The predictions are nonsensical and do not make sense anymore. The same problem applies to the theory of Big Bang. Scientist are still not able to reverse the clock to the time when t=0. So we cannot talk confidently about the big bang singularity. Laws of physics, as we know, works only upto the Planck scale.

There is nothing philosophical about this. String Theory may actually prove to be the key to achieve this goal. However, how much of the theory is correct is yet to be seen.

Thank You Garth. Now I think I feel E=M_0C^2 in my bones to some extent. However I am stuck at the sixth equation. How did you obtain the expression for momentum from the previous results.

Hey, please don't involve BBT in the discussion. It's no a well proved theory and there are man problems in it. In fact, it contradicts itself.

 

[Archimedes546]

Hey guys, today I found a great thought experiment to prove that time can't exist without mass and motion. It can be found by proving photon's rest mass = 0. I don't know the actual derivation. So, I have made my own derivation (this is the one I made to prove photon's m = 0 to my friend). Let's start:
E=mc^2 (Rest energy equation)
E/c^2=m=0 (To prove)
We know that c^2 is a constant so if we want to prove m=0, we will have to prove E=0. Let's take another formula:
E=hv
So, we can prove it by this equation. As we are taking the photon to be at rest, there is no frequency at rest. It will have no frequency. So, we will get E=h*0=0. Putting it in the previous equation, we get m=0. That's how I proved it. But today I thought that in this way everything at rest will vanish from the universe.
Okay let's take this experiment. Suppose we stop every matter in the universe. Then everything will vanish according to the above proof. So, anybody outside the universe will never be able to sense that there's a thing like time.
And this state of stopping everything can be achieved by stopping time. Everything will come to rest and will vanish from the universe.

Hence, we can derive that mass and motion can only exist when time exists or conversely time only exists when mass and motion exist. If time exists and mass and motion don't exist, then we can never feel time. We get that feeling when anything comes into motion. So, both are true.

Thouhts please.

Personally I think that the universe COULD exist without time, (I like to think of it sort of as a painting). That is, with compromise of motion time would be rendered 'non-existant' (but the universe might be as a painting that is 'finished', in that instance).
I'm a huge fan of cause & effect though, which is why I think that if time was taken out of the equation that it would be a step backwards, as opposed to the universe imploding ;).

 

[Garth]

Personally I think that the universe COULD exist without time, (I like to think of it sort of as a painting). That is, with compromise of motion time would be rendered 'non-existant' (but the universe might be as a painting that is 'finished', in that instance).
I'm a huge fan of cause & effect though, which is why I think that if time was taken out of the equation that it would be a step backwards, as opposed to the universe imploding ;).

Archimedes546 it's not so much that time is"taken out of the equation", more that it is completely accounted for within the equation.

The 4D space-time description of physics already includes time as one of the coordinates, so a space-time diagram is static, a 'Block Universe' that might indeed be seen as a "painting".

Cause and effect are perfectly determined by the laws of physics built into that space-time continuum. The presence of a singularity at the BB itself does introduce a discontinuity into that cause and effect web, however, in terms of pure GR this could be seen as a genuine beginning of time.

In this scenario if we then ask "What happened before the BB?" The answer would be that there was no 'before' because the BB was the beginning of time itself.

There is no confidence, however, in the assumption that pure GR, and nothing else, gives a true description of the singularity and most believe quantum effects would take over in these most extreme regimes.

The 4D block space-time perspective is one very effective way of doing physics, however it is not our experience of reality for we are temporal beings whose conscious experience of the world is one of past-present-future, where we experience the 'now', the past is written in stone and cannot be changed and we wait for the unformed future.

We have to be consistent in the use of the perspective, and particularly in the use of temporal/atemporal language when describing the universe of space and time. Most confusion about the nature of time arises from such inconsistency. (Such as when we are tempted to talk about the 'rate of time passing').

Garth

 

[krom]

Yes but even the light travel through the space, so the question is : can the light reach
a "no place" ? (no space, no time , no everything)

NO place? you mean no mass

theres no such thing as time without mass, the distortion of space by mass is gravity and time is a product of this, without the mass there's no gravity and therefore no time.

Light carries it's time into space, is there time in space without mass of any kind?, No. to measure time takes mass, and therefore is effected by the measurement itself.

Time is a measurement of the interaction of mass and space, without the mass, time does not exist, therefore nothing has to vanish, as nothing is there, that's if you think that there's such a thing as nothingness, because if this is true, then it can be labelled and therefore is something, infact nothing is something in this case.
Its timeless, unless to add mass and then you displace space, and gravity is in effect and time starts.

When the universe was the size of almost nothing (seconds before the big flash)time passed faster as the effect was greater, with space trying to occupy the area of mass gravity snaps, and throws mass all over the universe and time was scattered far and wide, that's if you believe time is simply the interaction of space and mass.

I'm not a smart person, in fact I'm what you people would call dumb, so don't take anything I say as anything more than a dumb man's thinking.Im really here to learn from you.I'm dyslexic so please understand I'm not good at explaining myself well.

 

[Alex48674]

Umm I pretty much know nowt about nowt

so

"E=mc^2 (Rest energy equation)
E/c^2=m=0 (To prove)
We know that c^2 is a constant so if we want to prove m=0, we will have to prove E=0. Let's take another formula:
E=hf"

(I use f for frequency and v for velocity)
but then if you go
v=fw
f=v/w
v=d/t
f=dw/t

So time has to exist because t can't = 0, but d could = 0 and then you can reverse back, but I think time has to exist but mass doesn't. Let me know if I said something actually right there =], though I doubt I did because I think time coexists with matter or something like that.

 

[Pippo]

NO place? you mean no mass

theres no such thing as time without mass, the distortion of space by mass is gravity and time is a product of this, without the mass there's no gravity and therefore no time.

Light carries it's time into space, is there time in space without mass of any kind?, No. to measure time takes mass, and therefore is effected by the measurement itself.

Time is a measurement of the interaction of mass and space, without the mass, time does not exist, therefore nothing has to vanish, as nothing is there, that's if you think that there's such a thing as nothingness, because if this is true, then it can be labelled and therefore is something, infact nothing is something in this case.
Its timeless, unless to add mass and then you displace space, and gravity is in effect and time starts.

When the universe was the size of almost nothing (seconds before the big flash)time passed faster as the effect was greater, with space trying to occupy the area of mass gravity snaps, and throws mass all over the universe and time was scattered far and wide, that's if you believe time is simply the interaction of space and mass.

I'm not a smart person, in fact I'm what you people would call dumb, so don't take anything I say as anything more than a dumb man's thinking.


Im really here to learn from you.


I'm dyslexic so please understand I'm not good at explaining myself well.

Krom,
I fully agree on your detailed explanation of my sentence, it's exactly what I meant.
Thank you
Pippo

 

[AceHack]

Look I know very little on this subject but I wanted to put an idea out there an see what people think. Is it possible that time is a race between matter and anti-matter? From our observations it looks like there is a little more matter than anti-matter and that's why stuff exists. Is it possible that much like gravity can curve light something else is curving matter\anti-matter but at a different rate causing the difference that we experience as time and space. I know I probably haven't explained this well but it's a thought. Any input is appreciated.

 

[sLeeping_bEauti]

You can't do this, since the photon is never at rest. It always moves at precisely the speed of light.

I havnt covered this bit yet but can you ever in any instance stop a photon moving?

katii x

 

[Pippo]

I havnt covered this bit yet but can you ever in any instance stop a photon moving?

katii x

No, I would say that photon' behaviour strictly depends by the space geometry and properties, and C is a limit given by the space (our space) as well.
So C=0 means there is no space for a photon to travel, but this is a nosense in our dimensions.

 

[sLeeping_bEauti]

No, I would say that photon' behaviour strictly depends by the space geometry and properties, and C is a limit given by the space (our space) as well.
So C=0 means there is no space for a photon to travel, but this is a nosense in our dimensions.

I believe that you can slow photons down using electromagnetic waves?
x

 

[Lakshya]

I believe that you can slow photons down using electromagnetic waves?
x

Hey photons are the force carriers of electromagnetic waves. They are one and the same thing. So, they can't stop each other.
BTW light can be stopped as relative to earth:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../17/waa117.xml

 

[sLeeping_bEauti]

Hey photons are the force carriers of electromagnetic waves. They are one and the same thing. So, they can't stop each other.
BTW light can be stopped as relative to earth:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../17/waa117.xml

Well i wasnt completely sure so I've asked all the teachers lol and they say that it can be done with some kind of magnetic but its so complicated to explain that they didnt, just that in some intances it actually can be done
xx

 

[cristo]

BTW light can be stopped as relative to earth:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../17/waa117.xml

Your link doesn't work, but a google search pulls up this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/17/waa117.xml) which is what I think you meant to link to. Note that this does not mention a photon being at rest (which is impossible by definition) but instead talks about a beam of light instead-- the two things are subtly different. I know nothing about Bose-Einstein condensates, however, so hopefully someone else will be able to come along and answer questions on that (Zz perhaps?)

 

[Pippo]

I believe that you can slow photons down using electromagnetic waves?
x

Any distortion of the space/time may affect speed of light, but it's better to say that an electromagnetic, or gravitational, field can do it, even if you still measure "C" as a result of the space/time distortion.

 

[sLeeping_bEauti]

Ok thanks.
And we can say that photons don't exist without light and light doesn't exist without photons?

 

[krom]

"Ok thanks.
And we can say that photons don't exist without light and light doesn't exist without photons?"

We could say that, as they are both the same thing.

When you see a load of photons hitting something like your hand, they bounce off and your eye receives the information carried by the the reflected photons, without the photons we see no mass (the hand), and without the mass we see no photons. We call these waves of photons light.

 

[krom]

"Ok thanks.
And we can say that photons don't exist without light and light doesn't exist without photons?"

We could say that, as they are both the same thing.

When you see a load of photons hitting something like your hand, they bounce off and your eye receives the information carried by the the reflected photons, without the photons we see no mass (the hand), and without the mass we see no photons. We call these waves of photons light.

Think of it this way, the photon does not exist until it is light and when it reaches some mass it interacts with it in different ways depending on different factors. so light is a photon and a photon is light. I hope that sheds some photons on it.

 

[sLeeping_bEauti]

Think of it this way, the photon does not exist until it is light and when it reaches some mass it interacts with it in different ways depending on different factors. so light is a photon and a photon is light. I hope that sheds some photons on it.

lol...so if a photon doesn't exist until it is light, but light is structured with photons (right?) which makes which?...because if they both make each other, how do they come about in the first place?
xx

 

[krom]

These energy packets are called photons and its interaction with mass is what we call light, so there is no such thing as light as is, just the interaction of the photons with mass. that effect is broken down into different forms of interaction, and the light we see is only a small part of that.

So my point is this... a photon is light and light is a photon, but its only light when it interacts with mass again, until that, its a packet of energy, not even a particle, not a carrier of light, just pure energy, and its effect becomes clear when it meets another electron, and is bounced/ reflected/ or absorbed etc and we see this energy as light.

So light could be called a energy interaction with mass, from its birth to its final arrival in your eye.

Hey I'm not too clever, this is prob totally incorrect lol.
What do you think?.

You see a photon contains all the energy needed , and its interaction with the mass it reaches shows us this energy in different ways, depending on the electrons it meets, so the so called light streaming from the sun is not light at all, but pure energy, and its collisions with mass is what we call light, photons hitting mass and carrying the info to our eyes, and some going right through and out the back of your head and some not making it to your eye etc.

So there's no light without mass, just energy with nothing to interact with, add mass and things start to light up a little, as the photons start to interact with it.

So light is a photon's interaction with mass, gravity is the displacement of space by mass, so also effects the energy as it passes through or close by this mass space interaction.

Your going to tell me I'm wrong lol, but at the end of the day, that's why I'm here.