In 1990 an office mate told he had an idea that time could be quantum made up of `time-ons’. At the time, that seemed to me contrary to all the continuity ideas in mathematics, limits, differentiation, integration. But it piqued my interest and I started to read some physics.
Now I am unsure. Among other things, the logarithmic definition of entropy seems to be related to time. An ensemble of n particles with mean path length mu has log (n) degrees of freedom with mu the base of the log, or unwinds in log (n) time units proportional to the mean path length. The mean path length is discrete. The log function is continuous. Is there in entropy a mysterious connection to time particles?
Your views on these issues?
I found some discussions on the internet about quantum time. I mention them here. There are likely many others. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/time-particles.359149/; //www.quora.com/Is-time-a-particle ; http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/quantum-time/
In quantum mechanics, it is action that is quantised. Given that action is the time integral of the Lagrangian (which is an energy) and energy is continuous, then it may appear that time could be discrete. However, in my opinion, and in my guidance Waves" interpretation, the reason action is quantised arises from the wave nature, and the requirement that the antinodes are real. So for a particle in motion the action between antinodes is h, and I regard that as a better way f looking at quantisation, in that I can say WHY it is quantised. Why tends to be a question that most people avoid because it is too difficult to answer, so when I see an answer, maybe wrongly I tend to get to like that explanation.
Time isn't any more or less discrete than space is-that's a consequence of Lorentz invariance. When gravitational effects can't be separated from quantum effects, however, then it's no longer obvious what happens. Since black holes have finite entropy, in this case, a quantum probe of a black hole spacetime, that can resolve the individual states, will resolve time in discrete steps, too.
If time and space can be compacted into a single entity called "spacetime" then the particularization of time would seemingly imply a particularization of space as well as of time. Time and space would no longer be the real-number continua that are so convenient for real-world applications. I would go with Occam and his razor and not overly complicate an already complicated Universe and allow that the "natural units" (Planck) of 5.39×10−44 s for time and and 1.62×10−35 m for distance are sufficient evidence for a continuum representation of time and space.
Nowadays there are theories which purpose the quantization of the space-time for unifying gravitation with the other three interactions. Therefore the quantization of the time is not so strange concept at all, look at the link
https://indico.cern.ch/event/21917/contributions/1521199/attachments/354819/494246/Rovelli08.pdf
Don't forget relativity itself is a continuous theory. You cannot use parts of relativity to argue about quantization, and any mathematical relationship is simply a description of what happens if the underlying premises apply. If they do not, the equation is irrelevant to the discussion.
Quantisation st the moment seems to have some very clever people with their head between their legs, peering into a dark cavity.
Photons, gravitons now timeons!
Perhaps it is because we live in an environment swamped by digital information (datons?) that we can no longer envisage continuous forms and have forgotten how analogue reality works.
There are throughout this and other forums, people seriously discussing that gravitons (defined as the smallest possible quant of gravity) must have a structure, perhaps made up of fields, sub-mimnima particle or even gravity shock fronts and yet the existence of gravitons is completely unproven.
The quantization of time cannot be just a fashion or something like that. If it arises is due to have a physical reality behind it: quantum gravitation. This aim is a very important issue because it would change our present concept of cosmology (for instance solving the problems of singularities as the born of the Universe) or to go further the Standard Model.
DH: If time and space can be compacted into a single entity called "spacetime" then the particularization of time would seemingly imply a particularization of space as well as of time.
Quite a bit of research has gone into this over the last few decades, many theories assuming that such "graininess" to spacetime would be around the Planck time and length. Unfortunately an observation from FERMI cast doubt on this and it was later confirmed by another observation from INTEGRAL, an author at a conference shortly thereafter commented that the sound of applause for the speakers was sometimes drowned out by the sound of papers being shredded in light of that observation.
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_challenges_physics_beyond_Einstein
To answer on this thread’s question it is useful to read the last SS post in the thread
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Spacetime_how_does_space_time_work
including to read that time, and space as well, cannot be quantized fundamentally, the 3D space and 2D time in Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container” , where Matter exists and changes, isn’t “quantized” because of emptiness cannot be quantized.
However, because of it seems as with rather non-zero probability, as that is postulated in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’ informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1649,
this container is filled by dense lattice of 4D fundamental logical elements (FLE) , which have sizes in metrics of the 4D-subspacetime (cτ,X,Y,Z) be equal to the Planck length, lP, and
because of with rather non-zero probability all/every material objects are some disturbances in the FLE lattice,
in all processes in Matter, which always are also 4D motions of material objects in the 4D sub-spacetime with the 4D speeds of light,
this motion indeed proceeds as discrete 4D Planck length steps [more correctly, in certain sense, see the link above, lP.21/2]
Cheers
I would agree that spacetime supports, and is supported by, theories but without any "experimental" evidence forits existence. I would agree that spacetime's dimension of time, as well as of space, is quantized with a unit close to PLanck-time (or Plank-length). However, its dimensionality seems - to me - to be (2+1), not (3+1), if we consider only the independent variables. Furthermore, spacetime-nodes are not symmetrically identical, leading to the possibility of six distinguishable fundamental properties that could be hosted within this (2+1) spacetime. This gives a sound answer to the incompatibility of 3N-configuration space of QM with perceivable 2 (3-space - 1-"space-dependent variable") (considered as 3) dimensional space.
(5/3/2019)
The SS post in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_dimension_relate_to_cosmogenesis
is relevant/useful for this thread.
Cheers
Ioannis Hadjidakis
I have wondered about the meaning of the GR Field Equation. The original intent IMHO was to use Riemann math to simplify a 3 space 1 time Energy momentum equation to one of 2+1 through a Riemann transformation (mapping). But then people started to take the left side (transformed side) as REAL and spacetime as REAL. In your view, the mapping side must be inverse transformed to the obtain observable results. I like the idea that the left side is real which describes a scalar - the potential field.
IH: The original intent IMHO was to use Riemann math to simplify a 3 space 1 time ...
No, the original problem was that special relativity precluded effects following from causes faster than the speed of light but Newtonian gravity required gravitational force to act instantly. Einstein needed to resolve that contradiction and Minkowski's geometry gave him a way to do that.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Theoretical Physics
- Time