The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is time a force?  (Read 9296 times)

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« on: 09/03/2009 20:27:20 »
My mind works in strange ways and this little gem has just popped up from its murky depths and tickled my consciousness. As there isn't a Whacky Ideas forum I've stuck it here.

Could we be thinking about time in totally the wrong way? Could it be a force rather than a dimension?

If we first look at the 3 spatial dimensions with which we are familiar, we can move freely back and forth in any direction. We can move left and right along the x axis, up and down along the y axis, and backwards and forwards along the z axis. There is no preferred direction of motion in any of them. You could say that for each spatial dimension there is a direction and an anti-direction. I think it would be safe to assume that if other spatial dimensions exist then these would also be bi-directional.

Forces, on the other hand, are uni-directional. Bosons are exchanged between particles to make them react to the force concerned, but that is a 1-directional process. There is no anti-weak force, no anti-strong force, no anti-electromagnetism and, to the best of our knowledge, no anti-gravity.

Time also appears to be uni-directional. It seems we can move only forwards in time. Does it not seem, therefore, that time has much more in common with a force than with a dimension?

Now think about symmetry-breaking and unified theories. It is already well established that the electrical and magnetic forces are combined. At energy levels of 250MeV they unite with the weak force. At higher energy levels still the strong force looks as though it can combine with the electro-weak force in a Grand Unified Theory. More energetic still and many scientists believe gravity may also combine in what is known as a Theory of Everything (TOE).

I now propose a TOTWFC (Theory Of The Whole Fekin Caboodle) in which at energy levels above even a TOE time is combined with the other forces. It would have been the first force to break from the others. Before that, time did not exist as a separate “thing”.

In other threads here it has been suggested by some that prior to the Big Bang time did not exist. Well, my TOTWFC says that is indeed the case and that the Big bang did not occur in time at all; time didn't exist until 10-silly number seconds after the Big Bang.

In the TOTWFC there would be an ultra-massive boson to mediate the timeforce. Let's call it the chronoton. It would, like all other gauge bosons, be uni-directional. It would explain why time is uni-directional. There would be no time paradoxes to contend with as time travel into the past would be impossible as there is no anti-timeforce (gauge bosons are their own anti-particles).

It could explain time-dilation in strong gravitational fields as being due to the presence of more chronotons (don't ask me how that happens, I'm not that clever) and I think it may also explain time-dilation due to relativistic speeds, but I'm still thinking about that.

I'm crap at maths so I can't formulate this theory in scientific terms. I think in abstract patterns and so far this theory sits to sit quite comfortably with me.

I would appreciate your comments regarding what a load of old bollox this is.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2009 20:33:54 by DoctorBeaver »


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is time a force?
« Reply #1 on: 09/03/2009 20:42:49 »
Quote from: DoctorBeaver
It could explain time-dilation in strong gravitational fields as being due to the presence of more chronotons (don't ask me how that happens, I'm not that clever) and I think it may also explain time-dilation due to relativistic speeds, but I'm still thinking about that.
Hey; I like that! I was just about to suggest chronatons as the force mediating particles; but your spelling makes more sense.:)
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Is time a force?
« Reply #2 on: 09/03/2009 21:53:20 »
I certainly don't think it's a pair of danglies, but I'm not sure about what you say about electromagnetism as that force can be both attractive and repulsive.

Actually, it's that darn electromagnetism that really stands out from the others, imho.  The other forces are only attractive, and I think that they might all be unified using curvature of spacetime, but I can't figure out a model for EM at all ???

I have to admit that I don't like the QM idea of forces.  Although the numbers add up, there's no explanation as to why the various particle interactions are expressed in the way that they are; what is the mechanics of the force?  To me it's as though QM gives me the answers but doesn't show me it's working out; you just know that there must be something more behind the answers.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #3 on: 09/03/2009 22:05:30 »
I certainly don't think it's a pair of danglies, but I'm not sure about what you say about electromagnetism as that force can be both attractive and repulsive.

I have to disagree with you. Magnetism flows from the south to north pole (I think it's that way around, but please correcct me if I'm wrong), it never goes the other way. If you put 2 bar magnets side-by-side with opposite poles touching, the EM from the south pole of each will flow into the north pole of the other magnet. Put 2 like poles together and the flow cannot happen as at 1 end you have an outpouring of force from both magnets, and at the other end... erm... I'm not sure how to describe that.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Is time a force?
« Reply #4 on: 09/03/2009 22:22:12 »
Quote
Forces, on the other hand, are uni-directional
No, Dr.B, they are vector quantities - they have magnitude and direction - just like displacement, velocity and acceleration.

And Magnetism doesn't  "flow"; it is just there, once the field is established. You don't need a pole to have a magnetic field - in fact the field doesn't start or stop anywhere - the lines of force (to use a quaint old fashioned term) are continuous. The bar magnet is not the basic magnetic entity - the current loop  is.

But I love your enthusiasm!
« Last Edit: 09/03/2009 22:26:14 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Is time a force?
« Reply #5 on: 09/03/2009 22:30:46 »
I would argue that the reason that the magnetic 'flow' always goes from the South to the North pole (if it is that way around) is because the South and North poles are defined, respectively, as the poles where the magnetism flows from and to.

The idea of magnetism just flowing from one pole to the other can't be right though; if it was, then South to South might repel but North to North should still attract.  As they don't, it would seem to me that if it's down to the flow of something, then for repulsion at both North and South poles, you need something flowing out of both ends, which implies two simultaneous flows, not just one.

But I think Sophiecentaur is probably right.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is time a force?
« Reply #6 on: 09/03/2009 23:41:20 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur
And Magnetism doesn't  "flow"; it is just there, once the field is established.
This fits best with me. It comes from the partial differential aspect of the magnetic field. A certain rate of electric change creates a certain constant magnetic field. The electric change must be happening within whatever material is exhibiting the magnetic property.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #7 on: 10/03/2009 02:41:59 »
Quote
Forces, on the other hand, are uni-directional
No, Dr.B, they are vector quantities - they have magnitude and direction - just like displacement, velocity and acceleration.

And Magnetism doesn't  "flow"; it is just there, once the field is established. You don't need a pole to have a magnetic field - in fact the field doesn't start or stop anywhere - the lines of force (to use a quaint old fashioned term) are continuous. The bar magnet is not the basic magnetic entity - the current loop  is.

But I love your enthusiasm!

OK, I used the wrong terminology. Sorry. But I stand by what I said - magnetism does not work both ways. There is no such thing as anti-magnetism. That's the point I was trying to make. I know there are anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field, but that's a complicatefd situation connected with the poles flipping. I don't think it demonstrates anti-magnetism.

Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the 2 magnet scenario at all as that added an extra complication that I couldn't explain properly. Just think of 1 magnet and a substance that is magnetic, such as tin. There is no form of the magnetic force that will repel the tin. To my way of thinking that means magnetism is solely an attractive force. Similarly, there are no forms of gravity, the weak force, or the strong force that repel.

Does that sound more reasonable now?
« Last Edit: 10/03/2009 02:46:20 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #8 on: 10/03/2009 04:06:41 »
What about the simple case of two electrons?  They repel each other.  If I replace an electron with a proton, they will attract each other.  Electricity can both attract and repel.  Magnetism can attract and repel as well, but it's harder to visualize because there are no magnetic "charges." 
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #9 on: 10/03/2009 08:06:05 »
JP - but, again, the electrons are both charged; negatively. I agree that EM is different from the other forces, but the fact that similarly charged particles repel could be thought of as the interaction of 2 instances of the force rather than the force itself. That would explain the repulsive nature of 2 like magnetic poles repelling one another.

The strong force has the additional property that it strengthens with distance, exactly the opposite of the other forces. Maybe that too is a manifestation of 2 or more instances of the force interacting, but in this case it augments the force rather than causing a repulsive interaction.

Can I just say that I didn't sit down for months thinking about this. I wasn't even thinking about it at all. I had a sudden inspiration and wrote this as the idea was still formulating itself. Aspects of it, and responses to your criticisms of it, are still occuring to me. I couldn't at first explain the repulsive nature of like magnetic poles, but a possible solution came to me as a result of thinking about replies that have been made.

Thank you all, you're making my brain work properly for the first time in quite a while even if what it's spewing out is nonsense  :D
« Last Edit: 10/03/2009 08:12:46 by DoctorBeaver »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Is time a force?
« Reply #10 on: 10/03/2009 10:33:49 »
I think you are looking for something that just isn't there, DrB.
Magnetic fields and electric fields are both vectors which have magnitude and direction. They add like other vectors. You can, of course, get magnetic attraction and repulsion - the same as with electric fields. The difference between the magnetic and electric effect is that the electric force can be there under static conditions (i.e between two static charges) whereas the magnetic force is only there under dynamic conditions (moving charges).
Maxwell showed that they are both part of the same system.
btw, to explain the 'magnetic' effect of attraction and repulsion between two current carrying wires you don't actually need to use the idea of magnetism at all. The force can be explained (quantitatively - not just qualitatively) in terms of the relativistic effect of the (extremely slowly ) moving electrons in the conductors and the perceived density of + and - charges in the conductors. The moving electrons appear to be of different density to the static protons (more or less, depending upon the direction of flow). This produces a net force (attractive or repulsive) which is equal the what you get if you do the conventional 'magnetism' calculations. So you don't even need magnetism if you don't want to include it.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #11 on: 10/03/2009 22:11:25 »
I think you are looking for something that just isn't there, DrB.
Magnetic fields and electric fields are both vectors which have magnitude and direction. They add like other vectors. You can, of course, get magnetic attraction and repulsion - the same as with electric fields. The difference between the magnetic and electric effect is that the electric force can be there under static conditions (i.e between two static charges) whereas the magnetic force is only there under dynamic conditions (moving charges).
Maxwell showed that they are both part of the same system.
btw, to explain the 'magnetic' effect of attraction and repulsion between two current carrying wires you don't actually need to use the idea of magnetism at all. The force can be explained (quantitatively - not just qualitatively) in terms of the relativistic effect of the (extremely slowly ) moving electrons in the conductors and the perceived density of + and - charges in the conductors. The moving electrons appear to be of different density to the static protons (more or less, depending upon the direction of flow). This produces a net force (attractive or repulsive) which is equal the what you get if you do the conventional 'magnetism' calculations. So you don't even need magnetism if you don't want to include it.

Let me try to fathom out what the fek that all means before I even think about responding to it!  :-\
 

lyner

  • Guest
Is time a force?
« Reply #12 on: 10/03/2009 23:03:57 »
The last bit is 'well sexy', actually. It just tells us that we don't need to include Magnetism or lines of magnetic force as an explanation for the 'magnetic' effects we think we see.
Life is full of surprises.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #13 on: 11/03/2009 00:03:24 »
Now you've given me a headache. Why do you do these things? WHY!?
 

Offline A Davis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #14 on: 11/03/2009 01:14:47 »
Interesting idea SC, but your saying there's no magnetic field, I have problems with that conclusion, the only argument I can think of is that there is an angle between the two fields, they act in different vector fields how can they be the same.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is time a force?
« Reply #15 on: 11/03/2009 11:39:23 »
Quote from: DoctorBeaver
The strong force has the additional property that it strengthens with distance, exactly the opposite of the other forces. Maybe that too is a manifestation of 2 or more instances of the force interacting, but in this case it augments the force rather than causing a repulsive interaction.

This is true, however, a force strengthening with distance doesn't necessarily mean that the force is exhibiting a different characteristic than the electromagnetic force. It could mean that a confinement mechanism is such that separation brings the confinement mechanism closer together. Example: a ball in a box; the walls of the box confine the ball; if the walls of the box and the ball repel each other, and you only have knowledge of the centre of each, the force would seem to get stronger with separation.

This is my speculation about how the strong force works: It is a schematic of two protons; the colours represent polarity; blue is negative; red is positive. Like charges repel. Here you see an increase in force with separation.


« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 18:14:11 by Vern »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Is time a force?
« Reply #16 on: 11/03/2009 22:19:02 »
Interesting idea SC, but your saying there's no magnetic field, I have problems with that conclusion, the only argument I can think of is that there is an angle between the two fields, they act in different vector fields how can they be the same.
You're making the mistake (common enough) of demanding a single meaningful explanation of things. What I said was that there is no need to use the idea of a magnetic field in order to explain the way 'magnetic things' operate.
The very concept of a Field is only a way of describing how, for instance, a unit of mass will experience a force when it is in the vicinity of some other masses. The field doesn't actually have to be there - it is just a construct.
In the case of the relativistic electric force effect between moving charges, you are merely doing without the construct of a field which, otherwise, you might call 'magnetic'.

Never ask "What is really happening?". There is never an answer to that question.
 

Offline A Davis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #17 on: 12/03/2009 00:24:43 »
I agree there is no real answer to the question, I've never seen a magnetic field or an electric field, but I have seen their effects experimentally, the iron fillings on a magnet aligning to produce a field, static electricity making my hair stand up, it's experiments like this that have led to Maxwells equations. The best experiment I ever did at college was Millikans oil drop experiment, it amazed me.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Is time a force?
« Reply #18 on: 12/03/2009 11:33:05 »
More amazing than Millican's experiment is the data processing he had to do to get an accurate answer out of it.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #19 on: 12/03/2009 18:19:06 »
So, does all that mean that I've been dumb?
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #20 on: 12/03/2009 18:50:36 »
Well, at least it sounded smart :)
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #21 on: 13/03/2009 05:08:05 »
I tried
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #22 on: 13/03/2009 05:11:53 »
There there, now get some sleep!
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #23 on: 13/03/2009 06:22:35 »
Can't. I've tried.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is time a force?
« Reply #24 on: 14/03/2009 14:31:18 »
I think I will nominate the Chronaton as the mediating force that determines the passage of time and the expansion of the universe. That way we who like to think of unifying principles may have an easier task to surmise how everything fit together.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is time a force?
« Reply #24 on: 14/03/2009 14:31:18 »

 

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