Little Bang Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 If someone can show me an event in the quantum universe that does become an an event in the macro universe then I will believe that time exists. Otherwise, I have to think that we don't understsnd the quantum mechanics of motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 Little Bang: If someone can show me an event in the quantum universe that does become an an event in the macro universe then I will believe that time exists. Otherwise, I have to think that we don't understsnd the quantum mechanics of motion. What is your dividing line between quantum and macro? Does a buckeyball - which consists of 60 carbon atoms bonded together into an atomic 'soccer ball' - count as macro? I ask because the double slit experiment has been done with buckeyballs and they did behave as waves: that is, an interference pattern was produced. PS: I haven't been following the discussion in this thread, so I might have misunderstood your comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 ANYTHING that we observe is part of the Macro universe. An electron becomes part of the Macro universe only when we look at it, otherwise it is part of the Quantum universe or the Probability universe if you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 Well there are some folks who have postulated (no proof yet) that time is quantized, and Planck Time represents the individual "frames" in the movie of reality...Pretty wild (and contradictory) conclusions pop out of this idea...again not proven, and arguably it may not be possible to prove this one since it has the same observational problems as superstrings/branes.... Cheers,Buffy Actually, worse problems. You cannot get even one basic vacuum state yet of LQFT. String theory has the opposite problem of too many different states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 lindagarrette: Quantized values pertain only to packets of energy. There's no "packet" of time. Not saying this proves that time is quantized, but... "As we apporach the Planck length and time, though, spacetime itself must exhibit quantization. There must be fundamental, indivisible units of length and time on the order of the Planck units." (Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified, Richard Wolfson, W. W. Norton, 2003, p235) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Not saying this proves that time is quantized, but... Not proven but supported by many in the know as highly likely. Thank you TeleMad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 James Putnam for one... :note: I think McCutcheon also argues it to argue that "there is no such thing as time"... Cheers,Buffy I might suggest: Tifft, William G.; "A Brief History of Quantized Time," Mercury, 24:13, September-October 1995 Also, to that list one could add, Lee Smolin and almost everyone who holds to LQFT, and A. Lehto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 I am very interested in who are the folks pushing quantized time. Could you name a couple please? To my knowledge, string theory does not include a time factor. So what is the connection? Its not string theory that utilizes such. In String theory time is rather a continum. It is Loop Quantum Field Theory or LQFT that relies upon such. In that approach there is a minimum unit of time and space which is smaller than a Planck unit which Smolin calls a loop. The problem I see in that approach at present is that while it can generate what one could term building blocks for a quantum vacuum there has never been found a solution that can generate a full quantum vacuum of any type to begin with. It has aspects in common with older spinnor theory dealing with hopf tori and older 26 dimensional string theory and its geometry. But the inability at present to show even one full scale quantum vacuum leaves a big question mark on it's approach at present. That was why I mentioned where as string theory yields one an infinity of quantum vacuum states, it does not yield even one such state at present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 The logic behind the quantized time approach is that since spacetime is united in theory both aspects should be quantized. However, the only aspect where such seems to surface is when one is dealing with redshifts which was where that book on the history of such comes into play a bit. At one point I played with the older 26 Dimensional model a bit and Spinnors as far as theory goes. For some on aspects of this look up Tony Smith's articles out of Lanl. If one plays a bit with a minimum unit of time one can eventually abstract out the mass on everything down to neutrinos. In fact, though I never bother to actually publish any of this one such value on the neutrinos turns out to be within the error range on its discovered values. The problem I see is that the structures Smolin is trying to utilize which he calls loops and knots may only be say building blocks of Strings themselves which begs the question like are they fundamental then or is there units they are derived from? That rather leads one back to the normal approach where time is a continum. One might can break time down into what we could term fundamental units of the continum. But I suspect that the continum itself defies such an absolute minimum unit and that while some sort of building block may exist within the structure of time that as a continum those structures are just built in geometry of something that only can be seen when some artifical construct scale is employed. On this one Linda I too do not follow all the logic behind the theory. I get as far as seeing Smolin's idea that a String, as an extended object should have its own parts, so to speak. I would also agree that its possible to break down the planck unit into further sub-divisions. But I do not buy the logic that those are themselves the ultimate fundamental breakdown of spacetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 If time is a factor in string theory, what part does it play? Is it an address point, taking up one of the 11 or so dimensions? I can't find any reference to time dependency anywhere in my QM texts. The only mention is descriptive. In the Schroedinger picture the state changes (physical quantities vary) deterministically over time, which means the probability of finding a particle varies over time, although the total probability remains the same. (?) I think the quantum time argument is invented to be common ground for linking QM with relativity for the TOE, but it doesn't appear to work yet. (Strings and loops are not even described as physical objects.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Posted December 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2005 Many thanks for all the comments. I added some details and a whole new chapter "Speed of Gravity". Antti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 "Time flies like an arrow.Fruit flies like a banana." Groucho Marx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 The perception of time is intricately related to our state of mind. To clarify, just think of one of Einstein's quote about relativity... <paraphrased>"A second with your hand placed on a hot burner seems like an hour, but an hour with a beautiful woman seems like a second... that's relativity." It's potentially related to processing speed within the brain. When we are interested in something we naturally understand it better and more parts of the brain are brought into the process. Perhaps there is greater synaptic involvement and the stimuli are organized, quantized, interpreted, etc. more efficiently. How many times have you hung out with a friend and had a great time, only to realize that your time was up too soon? And how many times have you engaged in a boring or monotonous task only to feel the seconds tick by so slowly? Time Dilation and Contraction on a neurophysiological level... hmmm... "Psychotemporal morphology..." Careful, I'm gonna trademark that! :eek2: Oh... the quick answer is because the clock has wings, and the air flow below it moves faster than the air flow above it and it creates a negative pressure pushing it upward. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 Antii can you please use a link next time. I cannot read that much,,,,smile. ------------------------------------------------------------Time machine is in movies only. We do have relative time.If you travel twice the speed of light away from earth you will start recording radio waves from the past. Although actual time is the same where ever you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 Although actual time is the same where ever you go.It is? So you're saying Einstein was wrong? Wow. I'd love to see some evidence of this, considering the multitude of experiments which have confirmed the predictions of his theory. Also, can you please clarify your use of the word "actual" before the word time? Perhaps this is where I'm confused. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Hello Infinitenow Ok,,,,,,explain to me what you think Einstein meant.--------------------------------------------------------- Light ,electromagnetic radiation is a means of communication. If i'm standing on earth now,,,,,,,and you are standing anywhere in the universe the time is the same. But! the minute we try to communicate there will be a delay in time.Simialr to distance stars, we receive the light years after.-------------------------------------------------------------Time has no physical properties and therefore you are unable to change time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Time has no physical properties and therefore you are unable to change time.It just sounds like you are ignoring the effects of time dilation and contraction, as well as the effects of each individual's unique frame of reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.