Is time a force?

  • 29 Replies
  • 9467 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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 »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

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
  • ******
  • 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.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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 »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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 »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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!  [:-\]
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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!?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline A Davis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Is time a force?
« Reply #25 on: 14/03/2009 20:34:44 »
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.

You have seen Effects and ascribed them to fields. You can't assert that the fields caused the effects. All you can say is that Magnetic Fields are a concept which gives consistent results when you base predictions on them. There are alternative models which also produce the same predictions.
No one has seen a field, as you say. They're in our heads - nowhere else.
You might as well say that the Maths of simple arithmetic has to be there to make two beans and two beans feed four mice.

*

Offline RayneSong

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #26 on: 24/03/2009 02:56:57 »
I've come to view time as a ripple like effect when you get into time travel study.  Time is experienced as a slowing down of the quantum mechanics of our universe to a speed in which we can record and learn from.  All things are made of energy at the core level, and the universe is made of the same mechanisms at some level.  We merely have a scope, or spectrum of energy in which we are able to perceive.  In this sense, time is merely a perception, in which we can observe.  Perceptions can be argued to be multiple realities, and within a multiple reality perception time travel would become accessible through manipulation.  Often the truth about time remains hidden because of the Natural Spiritual Laws of Cause and Effect, yet if there were to be a conscious time traveler, a ripple effect could forever change the course of evolution.  Do you believe that a time traveler would have to travel in complete body to be able to manipulate time-lines, when our race is superstitious of Angels, and God, and beings that we are unable to regularly perceive?

*

lyner

  • Guest
Is time a force?
« Reply #27 on: 25/03/2009 00:36:37 »
I have thought about the title and original post of this thread and I have to take issue, I'm afraid.
A Force is a defined quantity which relates mass, length and time in a specific way. Nothing more and nothing less.
Nothing else can be a Force - unless we are going to re-jig the whole of Science (and we just don't have time for that) or just to be poetic and metaphorical about the whole thing (which may be fun but it's not Science).

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Is time a force?
« Reply #28 on: 25/03/2009 14:24:30 »
I thought that the thread title was ok.

I can imagine frameworks/models where time and 'forces' might be reconciled, especially when we consider that, as you point out, and with which I agree, we don't really know what forces are anyway.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline amrit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
  • Power of science is uncompromised search for truth
    • View Profile
Is time a force?
« Reply #29 on: 10/04/2009 17:51:51 »
no time is not force, time is a run of clocks

TIME IS RUN OF CLOCKS IN ATEMPORAL SPACE

People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present,
and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
Albert Einstein
 http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

Abstract
Today in physics there are two fundamental approaches on time. First is that with clocks we measure time that is a consistent part of space. According to this approach clocks run in space-time as a basic physical reality. This approach has no experimental evidence, space-time as a fundamental physical reality in which material change run cannot be experimentally observed. Second approach is that time is not part of space; time is run of clocks in space. Each experiment conforms that with clocks we measure duration and numerical order of material change that run in space. There is no experimental evidence that clocks run in time, clock’s run itself is time. Run of time is relative; speed of clocks depends on strength of gravity force in different areas of space. Space itself is timeless (atemporal).
Key words: time, space, duration, numerical order, information

Introduction
There is no experimental evidence for space-time existing as physical reality. In physical experiments one observes stream of material change in physical space only. Physical space is a medium in which massive bodies and elementary particles move. Space-time is not a physical reality, space-time is merely a mathematical model with which one describe stream of material change in physical space. With clocks we measure duration and numerical order of material change that run in physical space. Here time is defined as: Time is run of clocks in physical space. Physical space itself is timeless (atemporal). Travel into past are out of question.

Discussion
Several researches confirm that space-time as an “arena” of the universe does not correspond to the physical reality. They propose “timeless space” as an arena of the universe.
 An article discussing that model of space-time is not corresponding physical universal space and could be replaced with atemporal fractal geometry of state space was recently published on arxiv (1).
An article discussing possibilities that space is timeless was recently published in arxiv: “We illustrate our proposal using a toy-model where we show how the Lorentzian signature and Nordstroem gravity (a diffeomorphisms invariant scalar gravity theory) can emerge from a timeless non-dynamical space” (2).
Time and clocks are man inventions. Motion is primary, time is secondary. Ernst Mach sad: “It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction, at which we arrive by means of the changes of things”(3).
Time is a scientific tool that permits us to build up cosmological models of the universe. Time as a run of clocks plays no role in the universe. Julian Barbour is saying in his article “The Nature of Time”: “I will not claim that time can be definitely banished from physics; the universe might be infinite, and black holes present some problems for the time picture. Nevertheless, I think is entirely possible – indeed likely – that time as such plays no role in the universe” (3).

Relativity of Time
According to this understanding of time in the Special Theory of Relativity in a faster inertial system the speed of clocks (time) and material change in general, is lower than in a slower inertial system. In General Theory of Relativity in physical space with stronger gravity the speed of clocks (time) and material change is lower than in cosmic space with a weaker gravity field.
This understanding of time resolves the problem of twins. They do not live in time; they live in space only. A brother in a high-speed spaceship is getting older slower than his brother on Earth, but both are getting older in a physical space only and not in time. With clocks we measure biological changes in their bodies.

Direct Quantum Information
Some research shows that quantum direct communication is a real phenomenon: “We show how continuous-variable systems can allow the direct communication of messages with an acceptable degree of privacy. This is possible by combining a suitable phase-space encoding of the plain message with real-time checks of the quantum communication channel. The resulting protocol works properly when a small amount of noise affects the quantum channel. If this noise is non-tolerable, the protocol stops leaving a limited amount of information to a potential eavesdropper”(4).
Here it is considered that information does not move in space-time, it moves in physical space only. Physical space itself is immediate information medium between quanta.
Also in the EPR experiment physical space is immediate information medium between elementary particles. There is no information signal in form of photon or some other particle traveling between particles A and B. Time of information transfer between particle A and particle B is zero (5).

Causality problems for Fermi’s two-atom system
Physical space as an “immediate information medium” resolves the causality problem of Fermy two atoms system: “Let A and B be two atoms or, more generally, a ‘‘source’’ and a ‘‘detector’’ separated by some distance R. At t=0A is in an excited state, B in its ground state, and no photons are present. A theorem is proved that in contrast to Einstein causality and finite signal velocity the excitation probability of B is nonzero immediately after t=0. Implications are discussed”(6).
Excitation probability of B is nonzero because space in which atoms exists is an “immediate medium of excitation”. There is no time needed for information or excitation to pass from A to B. Time is only a measure for motion of excitation from atom A to atom B in physical space.

Immediate Physical Phenomena
According to understanding here physical phenomena can be immediate. One can also say “timeless” or “atemporal”. Time t for these phenomena to happen is zero. Experiment from which they conclude that an electron can tunnel through the potential barrier of a He atom in practically no time vas carried out recently (7).
An article on arxiv a system of diagrams is introduced that allows the representation of various elements of a quantum circuit, including measurements, in a form which makes no reference to time (hence ``atemporal'') (8).



Conclusions
   Material change does not run in time, they run in physical space only. Physical space itself is timeless (atemporal). Some physical phenomena that run atemporal physical space are immediate. Time for these phenomena to happen is zero. Clocks are scientific tools which measure time as a duration and numerical order of material change that run in timeless physical space.

References:
1.   T.N.Palmer, The Invariant Set Hypothesis: A New Geometric Framework for the Foundations of Quantum Theory and the Role Played by Gravity, Submitted on 5 Dec 2008, last revised 17 Feb 2009, http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1148
2.   Florian Girelli, Stefano Liberati, Lorenzo Sindoni, Is the notion of time really fundamental? Submitted on 27 Mar 2009  http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4876
3.   Julian Barbour, The Nature of Time, submitted on 20 Mar 2009, http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3489

4.   S. Pirandola and others, Quantum direct communication with continuous variables, A Leters Journal Exploring Frontier of Physics (2008)
5.   Fiscaletti D. Sorli A.S. Non-locality and the Symmetryzed Quantum Potential , Physics Essays,  21(4), (2008)

6.   Gerhard C. Hegerfeldt. Causality problems for Fermi’s two-atom system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 596 - 599 (1994) http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v72/i5/p596_1

7.   P. Eckle, A. N. Pfeiffer, C. Cirelli, A. Staudte, R. Dörner, H. G. Muller, M. Büttiker, U. Keller, Attosecond Ionization and Tunneling Delay Time Measurements in Helium, Science,
Vol. 322. no. 5907, pp. 1525 – 1529 (2008) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5907/1525

8.   Robert B. Griffiths, Shengjun Wu, Li Yu, Scott M. Cohen, Atemporal diagrams for quantum circuits, submitted on 21 Jul 2005, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507215
amrit sorli