Time is quantized?

[a_priori]

Time may be quantized. How could I have slept through this? My hair hurts. This is wonderful…

 

[a_priori]

I’m assuming that the idea of time being quantized presupposes a quantum that is distinct from Planck Time. The time it takes for a photon to travel Planck length has been suggested as the smallest unit of time that has any real meaning.

How does the de facto quantum of time (admittedly theoretical) relate to Planck time? Needin’ answers here. Thanks.

 

[Light1111]

Time may be quantized. How could I have slept through this? My hair hurts. This is wonderful…

Could you explain something about what this means? Is this a principle of quantum mechanics? What is the significance?

 

[Anselm33]

Time may be quantized. How could I have slept through this? My hair hurts. This is wonderful…

As I understand it (after a Google search–this is the physics that’s beyond my pay scale ) the quantization of time is a construct of string or as it’s now called “M-theory” (M standing for Membrane, Mystery or Muddle–take your pick). The idea is that there is a minimum volume to 4-space, i.e. the three spatial dimensions + time that enter into special and general relativity, so there’s a minimum volume of space-time. There wouldn’t be a quantization of time separately I don’t think because the three space dimensions and the time dimension are non-separable in relativity theory.

My own feeling is that M-theory is mathematical metaphysics, i.e. not really science since it won’t be empirically verified by any kinds of experiments (practically) and since it’s constructed to have so many adjustable parameters that it would fit any measurements, even were it to be empirically verifiable.

 

[a_priori]

Could you explain something about what this means? Is this a principle of quantum mechanics? What is the significance?

Hello Light, It’s all quite beyond me and I’m sure their are some here who can understand and explain it better. The basic concept is that things exists in tiny discrete packets known as a quanta. A photon is a quantum of light. Something that can be described as possessing this characteristic can be said to be quantized. The notion that time is quantized would mean that it doesn’t flow infinitely. You wouldn’t be able to divide time in half continuously forever. We already know that time and space are not immutable like Newton presupposed. But this adds a new wrinkle, the implications of which beyond me but the concept is extremely exciting.

I hope you are doing well.

 

[a_priori]

As I understand it (after a Google search–this is the physics that’s beyond my pay scale ) the quantization of time is a construct of string or as it’s now called “M-theory” (M standing for Membrane, Mystery or Muddle–take your pick). The idea is that there is a minimum volume to 4-space, i.e. the three spatial dimensions + time that enter into special and general relativity, so there’s a minimum volume of space-time. There wouldn’t be a quantization of time separately I don’t think because the three space dimensions and the time dimension are non-separable in relativity theory.

My own feeling is that M-theory is mathematical metaphysics, i.e. not really science since it won’t be empirically verified by any kinds of experiments (practically) and since it’s constructed to have so many adjustable parameters that it would fit any measurements, even were it to be empirically verifiable.

So the concept is that a “quantum of space” necessarily contains within it a quantum of time in exact, predictable proportions? Is this where time and space mathematically exist as the same thing in a pure sense? When time changes relativistically at high fractions of the speed of light, are there required commensurate changes in the associated other 3 dimensions of space in order to maintain the necessary proportions on the quantum level? Thank you for posting. This is exciting stuff.

 

[Anselm33]

So the concept is that a “quantum of space” necessarily contains within it a quantum of time in exact, predictable proportions? Is this where time and space mathematically exist as the same thing in a pure sense? When time changes relativistically at high fractions of the speed of light, are there required commensurate changes in the associated other 3 dimensions of space in order to maintain the necessary proportions on the quantum level? Thank you for posting. This is exciting stuff.

let’s look a two-dimensional case which is easier to visualize. Let’s suppose you have a floor to tile. The tiles come in sets which are a certain area, say 1 square feet. That’s the area quantization of the tiles… they don’t come in any smaller area. Now you could have that 1 square foot be 12 inches by 12 inches or 6 inches by two feet, etc. and still have the same area. Presumably the quantization of space-time would proceed similarly. Time would not be quantized by itself, but only implicitly as part of the quantization,i.e. setting a minimum volume for space-time.

 

[a_priori]

let’s look a two-dimensional case which is easier to visualize. Let’s suppose you have a floor to tile. The tiles come in sets which are a certain area, say 1 square feet. That’s the area quantization of the tiles… they don’t come in any smaller area. Now you could have that 1 square foot be 12 inches by 12 inches or 6 inches by two feet, etc. and still have the same area. Presumably the quantization of space-time would proceed similarly. Time would not be quantized by itself, but only implicitly as part of the quantization,i.e. setting a minimum volume for space-time.

I have no problem with the concept of quantization itself. That has been familiar territory for quite some time. The question is this. Does time dilation always result in COMMENSURATE changes in space and vice versa? Are the two directly proportional?

Does quantization imply a particle? Could spacetime ultimately be associated with a particle?

 

[Anselm33]

I have no problem with the concept of quantization itself. That has been familiar territory for quite some time. The question is this. Does time dilation always result in COMMENSURATE changes in space and vice versa? Are the two directly proportional?

Does quantization imply a particle? Could spacetime ultimately be associated with a particle?

As I understand it, the metric for space-time relativistically is given by
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2 where units are such that c= 1 for speed of light.
(note: in Hartle-Hawking theory, the coordinat t is transformed to it, i.e. becomes space-like rather than time-like, so your metric is ds^2 = dx^2 … +dt^2.)
so it would be, I think ds^2 (or ds–the element of volume) that would be quantized. Now
I have to think whether ds is invariant under a change of coordinate system, and I’m not prepared to do that right away. If ds is to be quantized, that would suggest it is, but I’ll have to go through the transformation equations for a simple case to verify that intuition.
And as far as the quantum of spacetime being associated with a particle???
With respect to radiation, quantization implied a particle (a photon, massless) so may your supposition is correct. If there is a unit of something, we can always term it a particle.

 

[Light1111]

a priori,

This is very exciting! As always with quantum mechanics, I’m fascinated by the “story” that you explained, a priori, but the theorems themselves is where my understanding starts to unravel. I remember struggling my way through “A Brief History of Time” by Hawking – reading it over and over, and walking away with merely the gist – he was very comforting to the non-scientist! I remember at one point in the book he says, “Picture 4 dimensions.” Then, in parentheses, he added: “Let me admit I have trouble picturing 2 dimensions.” This was great reading! Here one of the premier physicists of history can’t even picture 2 dimensions! (I’m sure he has difficulty merely because he’s picturing the 2 dimensions to their greatest depths, not because of the sorts of surface difficulties I’m stuck on – but still!)

As far as time being able to be divided into two, even after reading all the above posts I have to admit I’m not sure what that means. I remember Hawking stating that past, present and future exist simultaneously – I’m only on the verge of understanding how this is possible. I love the concept. If I remember correctly, he states that the perception we have, that time moves forward, that the past is behind us, and the future ahead, is merely that – perception. That it is an illusion; that in truth, all aspects of time are simultaneous. I wonder if what you describe in this thread is an addendum to his prior statement? For, if time can be halved infinitely, but does not flow “forward” infinitely, it would seem his earlier statement has been corrected?

Also, are we still holding that time itself is the 4th dimension? That was never particularly clear to me . . I recall the x/y axis that illustrates the time/space continuum. . . I feel one of the trickiest things to grasp is that time/space is one construct, and are inseparable from one another. Our experience of time is so greatly different from that!

Thanks for starting this exciting thread. “Time” is one of those things I’ve always had on my “List of Things to Ask God” when I die!

Hope you’re doing well too! Peace to you!
Light1111

 

[JDaniel]

Please, you guys. First things first: what time is must be correctly defined and understood. Time is the measure of motion. No motion, no time. If God blasted the universe with a giant ray that destroyed everything in the universe, there would be no motion to be measured by time, therefore, there would be no time.

While it is fun to abstract time and play with the resulting conceptions, they are not real. They are part and parcel of mathematical abstraction, which is different from abstraction from the physical. Besides leaving aside all sensible matter, in favor of universal intelligible matter, mathematical abstraction starts from immateriality.

In order to work with such abstraction, it must always be remembered that a mobile being, of some kind, is required, or there is nothing but an elaborate game. No motion, no measurement of anything.

Time is relative to speed and distance traveled. In a box of absolute dimensions, the speed of an object can increase or decrease the amount of of time it takes to traverse the box. Likewise, by increasing or decreasing the dimensions of the box, one can increase or decrease the amount of time it takes an object to traverse it. In neither of these cases is time itself being altered, only its measured amount.

Time, for us, is finite as we can always add another minute or second to the continuum. When physics speaks of quantizing time, it is speaking of it in a purely abstract manner. If we could quantize time, this or that would be interesting. But, we can’t. What we can do is create a mental construct that pretends to halve time, or manipulate its dimensions.

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

Doesn’t time coexist with matter?

 

[JDaniel]

Doesn’t time coexist with matter?

No. It is sort of an invisible yard stick. It exists only on clocks. If matter was motionless, there would be nothing to measure; hence, no time. In fact, if only one photon existed, in the universe, you couldn’t tell whether it was in motion or not. Motion, or mobile being, is the essential ingredient to taking a measurement, as well as measurability.

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

No. It is sort of an invisible yard stick. It exists only on clocks. If matter was motionless, there would be nothing to measure; hence, no time. In fact, if only one photon existed, in the universe, you couldn’t tell whether it was in motion or not. Motion, or mobile being, is the essential ingredient to taking a measurement, as well as measurability.

This thread (to me) implies that time has been assumed to always exist? If I am understanding it incorrectly, please let me know. Even if matter was motionless, there is still a distance between the motionless matter. Matter creates distances and time?

 

[JDaniel]

This thread (to me) implies that time has been assumed to always exist? If I am understanding it incorrectly, please let me know. Even if matter was motionless, there is still a distance between the motionless matter. Matter creates distances and time?

Yes, well, in a sense it has. If time began at the outermost boundary of the Big Bang, then it has always existed, in so far as the universe is concerned. But, think about matter and non motion for a moment. How can mere distance create time? At the end of the universe, when all matter and energy stop, and the universe stands still, and the quanta stands still, and the clocks stand still, and radioactive decay stands still, is there time?

There might be energy-less matter. There might be a cessation of expansion. There might be a cessation of gravity. There might be nothing left that can cause motion. Will there be time?

Distance relative to a particle in motion can be measured by that yard-stick we call time. And, that would be time. Distances between two (or more) objects in space, moving toward or away from each other can be measured by time. But, if there are but two objects in space, and they both stay relatively the precise same distance from each other, and do not otherwise move, does the presence of the distance create time?

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

Distance relative to a particle in motion can be measured by that yard-stick we call time. And, that would be time. Distances between two (or more) objects in space, moving toward or away from each other can be measured by time. But, if there are but two objects in space, and they both stay relatively the precise same distance from each other, and do not otherwise move, does the presence of the distance create time?

I think our concept is time is totally irrelevant when we talk large scale. I agree with your explanation, but that is only when an object is in motion. I think there is always a potential presence of time with matter. Even if those two objects never moved, time effects both of the objects at the same rate, because time is always present on matter.

The distance between them always allows for a potential measurement of time. We will always have that distance, and once there is a measurable time unit, we can find many other attributes of these two objects.

Sorry if this was wordy, I am in a rush…Oh No! Class starts in 5 min!!!http://cloudimages.grasscity.com/smilies/bolt.gif

 

[JDaniel]

I think our concept is time is totally irrelevant when we talk large scale. I agree with your explanation, but that is only when an object is in motion. I think there is always a potential presence of time with matter.

Even if those two objects never moved, time effects both of the objects at the same rate, because time is always present on matter.

The distance between them always allows for a potential measurement of time. We will always have that distance, and once there is a measurable time unit, we can find many other attributes of these two objects.

Sorry if this was wordy, I am in a rush…Oh No! Class starts in 5 min!!!http://cloudimages.grasscity.com/smilies/bolt.gif

Lemondiesel:

One can claim a “potential” for anything. I could claim the potential of having an affair with your wife’s sister. Hey! It’s a claim - and it’s a potential! There’s got to be some sense to a theory, otherwise it’s non-sense.

We cannot seem to get past the definitions of matter in our brains. Matter is now seen to be energy. The language inventory regarding energy is somewhat different from that of mere matter. There’s kinetic energy; there’s potential energy; there’s radiant energy; there’s nuclear energy; all of which seem to portray energy (matter) as something that is always set to burst.

I think it’s critical to maintain a clear concept of time. If not, we can more easily be led astray by absurd notions of reality. For example: time doesn’t really exist. Since time consists of three stages, and the past no longer exists, while the future is not present yet, and the now just passed by, therefore, time does not exist. Good argument, but, untrue. How do we know it’s untrue? From the brute fact of matter?

On the other hand, if everything, including ourselves, were absolutely immobile, we would be unaware of the passage of time and therefore unaware of time’s reality. Think about it. Don’t we become aware of motion and time in exactly the same experience? Cold, dead, hard, immobile matter cannot have anything but the most remote affinity with time.

 

[yppop]

Lemondiesel,

JD has the correct view of time; it is nothing more than the manifestation of change (motion) of matter or space. Matter in motion is called kinetic energy; space in motion is called radiant energy.

Cosmological time came into existence with the big bang and the first burst of radiant energy; kinetic energy came later when the Higgs field created matter. Prior to the big bang; something existed that caused the big bang and that something was God. Pure thought represents change, and since change is manifested as time, then we can argue that prior to the big bang another form of time existed that was associated with the mind of God; I call it: ontological time.

It is cosmological time that is quantized; ontological time is continuous. So what does it mean to say that time is quantized? To say that matter or energy is quantized means that they exist as some sort of particles, that is to say, as some minimum size, an electron or a quark for matter, a photon for energy.

The way to imagine a particle of time is to disavow the continuity of time - an assumption that was shown to be a contradiction by Zeno but was assumed throughout the history of science in spite of Zeno - and to assume that reality advances is small increments, the first of which was the Planck era.

Incremental reality requires that all the physical elements of reality – space, time, matter, energy - be quantized. The order of appearance of the elements in the big bang was: space, time and energy, and finally matter. Matter and energy are already quantized; space is partially quantized in the form of strings or quantum loops, but neither appears to be a viable description of reality.

The most obvious (and the most plausible) means to quantize time is to assume that the space that defines the dimensions of the universe is discrete, that matter is nothing more than a configuration of discrete points, and that time and energy are manifestations of the incremental motion of those configurations.

Time is more than quantized; at the ground of reality, it, like space, is discrete, the maximun means of quantization.

Yppop

 

[a_priori]

Please, you guys. First things first: what time is must be correctly defined and understood. Time is the measure of motion. No motion, no time.

Unless you are at absolute zero, there is motion.

 

[a_priori]

“Time” is one of those things I’ve always had on my “List of Things to Ask God” when I die!

I hope to ask God many things as well. The ultimate teacher!