The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Time, to be or not to be... a particle  (Read 3711 times)

Offline livingod101

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Time, to be or not to be... a particle
« on: 18/07/2008 02:17:32 »
Hello everyone.  First of all I am not a Physicist or any Scientist of any kind, just a dork with time on my hand.  I love Physics and Science in general so I love to let theories mull over in my head.  This one theory I have had for a while and wanted to share it with you.  This theory maybe out of the "norm" so accept my apologies if I offend anyone, which is not what I am trying to do.  And any feed back would be awesome.

I am sure there are many theories on "time" if not "time travel".  Here are couple of my thoughts:

First I wanted to bring the simple equation of Rate, where R = D / T (Rate equals Distance over Time).  Essentially this describes the movement of an object not at rest from one perspective.  And I specifically want to bring in the particle Photon in to play.  And so far what I get is a Photon is "mass less" and the only reason it exists because it is traveling at a fixed velocity carrying specific amount of energy.  What I also get is usually Photon is generated when an excited particle is shedding it's energy which in turn forms a photon which is acts like a particle and is a wave.  Within the realm of Quantum Physics, what I get, it is theorized that all matter in the universe is a form of energy loop of string which vibrates at a certain way to give the perception of matter.  So when we observe a photon (loose term on "observe") we perceive it traveling from point A to point B over certain amount of time and we "give" it a quanta of Rate or Velocity.  Which, I hope I am right on.  Now perception is the loose term here too.  What "if" we were to say what we observe can be shifted and was introduced to a new perspective where "time" is actually a property of a Photon.  What if I were to suggest that a Photon has a built in time, it is not a matter of where it will be after a certain amount of time.  What if it was given a specific amount of time and it travels at a distance over that “time” and gives us a perspective of rate or velocity.  Essentially what if time was part of matter embedded in the loop of string as part of it's property.  If we could exploit this maybe we can introduce negative time to a particle and have it essentially "time travel".

Ok hopefully I made my point above, if you want clarification I will do my best, it still hurts thinking about it though.

Ok now for the second theory:

We all know (or at least accept) that the future is not made yet because we have "choice".  If that were the case what I propose what if our "past" is also in a state of flux.  Meaning what if the "past" as we know it is constantly changing like our future.

Anyway thank you for listening/reading.


 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Time, to be or not to be... a particle
« Reply #1 on: 18/07/2008 08:19:05 »
If I may correct you on 1 point - quantum physics does not postulate strings; that is the realm of string theory.

As for your hypothesis, you seem to be suggesting that time is a property of photons. Do you mean that in the absence of photons, time does not exist?

Maybe you could try explaining your idea a bit more thoroughly. I appreciate that's not always easy with abstract notions (I often have trouble myself).
 

Offline livingod101

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Time, to be or not to be... a particle
« Reply #2 on: 18/07/2008 16:48:18 »
Actually yes, if I think about it right time cannot or do not exist without particles.  Everything we measure is considered over time, time has always been a factor in most calculations.

Ok, what I am essentially proposing is "time" rather being the result of particle movement, it is actually a property of a particle, not just photon.  Consider a simplistic look and this analogy may not work so just bear with me.  If you were to travel from NY to NJ and someone told you to get there in two hours, you would have to travel at a certain "speed"/"rate" to get there, covering "D" amount of distance.  Well what if the particles have a built in "Time to Live" properties; and for Photons that factor is so small that it has to travel at the universal speed limit.

Now the question is:
How does it know the direction and does it have a destination or is it like pointing a gun at a direction and it just travels to where it was pointed to?

Also the other question is if time is a property of particles and the theory is all particles is a loop of energy string which is part of a universal net, then would time be shared like any energy?

As far as your point on Quantum Physics ("If I may correct you on 1 point - quantum physics does not postulate strings; that is the realm of string theory.") you are probably right.  I guess I have always thought in the "realm" of Quantum Physics, "String theory" is one of many theories.  Thank you.
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Time, to be or not to be... a particle
« Reply #3 on: 18/07/2008 20:02:46 »
Hi livingod101.

Its a fascinating subject time and have to admit I had never thought of it being embedded in a particle. But, particles decay so would that not mean that they would also lose time?

I have to point out that I too am no scientist or physicist and just a layman so this is what I think.


Time, I think, is just a property of our own conscious mind and is just something we as humans bother about and measure. I don't believe it has a direction just that we give it one because we can measure it. As you say "Everything we measure is considered over time" so time therefore is just another measurement. We only know particles move because we can measure them over time.

In the past we never bothered much about it but now because of scientific advances we can measure the difference between 2 states with great accuracy.

Not so long ago a candle was used, then a clock was invented which gave hours and minutes. Then we got seconds, milliseconds and now atomic clocks with even smaller measurements. Outside of science and measurement time does not have much meaning as the man said "its all relative"

Time has no meaning for a rock, it has no meaning for animals and vegetation, to them its about rhythms and cyclic events. Our bodies are cyclic and have circadian rhythms which we like to call body clocks. If, as some suggest, the universe is cyclic then time does not have a direct beginning or end but just goes round and round like a clock.

If it were possible to go backwards in time you would come to a point of no time (a standstill) before regressing into the past. A bit like reversing a forward moving car (vehicle), you have to stop first before you can go backwards. The problem here is if time can stand still then there would be no time or universe left as it would at that point cease to exist and so would you and I.

I can accept the possibility of time travel to the future but think that going into the past means you have to overcome that standstill barrier. A bit like overcoming the speed of light barrier.

Hope that make a bit of sense.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Time, to be or not to be... a particle
« Reply #4 on: 18/07/2008 20:02:57 »
Time is an enigma. No-one knows what it is. We can't identify it as a discrete entity; so if it were a property of matter, how would we recognise & measure it?

For what it's worth, my theory is that time is a higher dimension. We exist on a 3-dimensional brane within a higher dimensional universe. Our brane is not stationary. It is travelling in a higher dimensional direction - and that dimension is the time dimension. Such a set-up eliminates time-travel paradoxes because as we are restricted to our brane, we are not free to move in the time dimension.
« Last Edit: 18/07/2008 20:06:42 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline livingod101

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Time, to be or not to be... a particle
« Reply #5 on: 19/07/2008 00:51:26 »
I knew I would love this forum.

Mad Man I am going to respond to you first and use your post to answer and comment on your posting:

"Hi livingod101.

Its a fascinating subject time and have to admit I had never thought of it being embedded in a particle. But, particles decay so would that not mean that they would also lose time?"

*  Yes it would, and if you think of it as conservation of energy, if time is part of a particle and it is energy as it decays time would be released back to the universe net.

*  The other thought process is that "time" is an aspect of the particle rather then the particle it self, a analogues would be a clock, if a whole clock is a particle then it's ability to count time is an aspect of the clock.  So essentially you can reprogram the clock to count time backwards.  I wonder if this analogy works :)

"I have to point out that I too am no scientist or physicist and just a layman so this is what I think.

Time, I think, is just a property of our own conscious mind and is just something we as humans bother about and measure. I don't believe it has a direction just that we give it one because we can measure it. As you say "Everything we measure is considered over time" so time therefore is just another measurement. We only know particles move because we can measure them over time."

*  You are absolutely right, I personally like going toward more of that the universe exists because the collective consciousness of our universe "says so".  So yes time is something we created as we created the particles them selves.  I definitely want to point out I am not proposing anything that will radically change the Quantum Physics it self and the quanta of it.  Rather I am merely suggesting a shift in the thought process where everything is placed. 

*  It is like when we used to think the earth was the center of the universe and all rotated around it, then we found out otherwise yet it did not change the way sun came up on the East and set in the West, it did not change the calculation of the day either.

"In the past we never bothered much about it but now because of scientific advances we can measure the difference between 2 states with great accuracy.

Not so long ago a candle was used, then a clock was invented which gave hours and minutes. Then we got seconds, milliseconds and now atomic clocks with even smaller measurements. Outside of science and measurement time does not have much meaning as the man said "its all relative"

Time has no meaning for a rock, it has no meaning for animals and vegetation, to them its about rhythms and cyclic events. Our bodies are cyclic and have circadian rhythms which we like to call body clocks. If, as some suggest, the universe is cyclic then time does not have a direct beginning or end but just goes round and round like a clock. "

*   Absolutely, to elaborate your point we said “there is a rock” and there for “the rock” existed, we created the universe out of "words".  Yes this thought process is very radical, don’t crucify me yet, take it on just as a suggestion :)

"If it were possible to go backwards in time you would come to a point of no time (a standstill) before regressing into the past. A bit like reversing a forward moving car (vehicle), you have to stop first before you can go backwards. The problem here is if time can stand still then there would be no time or universe left as it would at that point cease to exist and so would you and I.

I can accept the possibility of time travel to the future but think that going into the past means you have to overcome that standstill barrier. A bit like overcoming the speed of light barrier.

Hope that make a bit of sense."

* It does make sense what I am getting out of it is if time was frozen for some reason everything would cease to exist, and that is what I am trying to explain that if time "is" an aspect of a particle, essentially for the particle to exist and be "alive" (very loose term/analogy) it requires time.
 

Offline livingod101

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Time, to be or not to be... a particle
« Reply #6 on: 19/07/2008 00:58:20 »
“Time is an enigma. No-one knows what it is. We can't identify it as a discrete entity; so if it were a property of matter, how would we recognise & measure it?

For what it's worth, my theory is that time is a higher dimension. We exist on a 3-dimensional brane within a higher dimensional universe. Our brane is not stationary. It is travelling in a higher dimensional direction - and that dimension is the time dimension. Such a set-up eliminates time-travel paradoxes because as we are restricted to our brane, we are not free to move in the time dimension.”

* DoctorBeaver, if that is what you theorize, it may make sense of my second theory about time, as I posted in the beginning:

"We all know (or at least accept) that the future is not made yet because we have "choice".  If that were the case what I propose what if our "past" is also in a state of flux.  Meaning what if the "past" as we know it is constantly changing like our future."

* To elaborate, consider the possibility we create our own reality, so the future is to be created based on choice, if that is the case we have to assume the future we want based on our choice has to be created somehow, and to do this we have to change the past, if a collective consciousness exist above the three dimension where time exist then we constantly change our past so it would work-out the way we want our future to manifest.  What do you think?
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Time, to be or not to be... a particle
« Reply #7 on: 19/07/2008 09:12:55 »
livingod - firstly, a little tip if you want to quote a reply from someone. In the top right-hand corner of their reply you will see the word "quote". Click on that and what they have posted will be transferred into the reply box. You can then edit it as required.

Quote
To elaborate, consider the possibility we create our own reality, so the future is to be created based on choice, if that is the case we have to assume the future we want based on our choice has to be created somehow, and to do this we have to change the past, if a collective consciousness exist above the three dimension where time exist then we constantly change our past so it would work-out the way we want our future to manifest.

I can't see that as a possibility. The future I want to manifest may involve you never having been born (not that it would, of course  :P ). How would you stop that happening if we can change our past to suit?
 

Offline livingod101

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Time, to be or not to be... a particle
« Reply #8 on: 22/07/2008 08:05:23 »
livingod - firstly, a little tip if you want to quote a reply from someone. In the top right-hand corner of their reply you will see the word "quote". Click on that and what they have posted will be transferred into the reply box. You can then edit it as required.

Quote
To elaborate, consider the possibility we create our own reality, so the future is to be created based on choice, if that is the case we have to assume the future we want based on our choice has to be created somehow, and to do this we have to change the past, if a collective consciousness exist above the three dimension where time exist then we constantly change our past so it would work-out the way we want our future to manifest.

I can't see that as a possibility. The future I want to manifest may involve you never having been born (not that it would, of course  :P ). How would you stop that happening if we can change our past to suit?

First of all thank you, that helps a lot, I like this quote feature.

Second it does manifest as a possibility, and here is why it is so.  This may come as shocking and I recognize again I am treading in some radical ideas.  Consider the possibility our individuality is a rouse, a false sense of reality if you will.  Consider the possibility we survive by creating individualism, yet the possibility of "real" is we are all part of same consciousness, and based on the collective "choices" we make the reality (present, past and future) manifest.  Now you can take comfort in the idea that because you do exist we "all" already made a choice for you (and I) to exist.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Time, to be or not to be... a particle
« Reply #8 on: 22/07/2008 08:05:23 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums