Quantum Definition of Time - The Incredible Truth


What is Time?

( Collected Post)
Proposition: Time is actually a broken symmetry of uniformity as in a very, probably highest, symmetric (uniform) state, where everything is equal; time does not and cannot exist. Please do not confuse with the T – in quantum mechanics where the operator of time plays a role in the CPT – theorem/ symmetry.

The uniform symmetry breaking must have happened prior to or at:

                                                                                          10-43 s

Which sounds contradictory as it would mean that time existed before it could have existed. That is of course a misconception for two reasons!

Firstly, no time less than 10-43 s is physically relevant! As space and time is fluctuating; therefore it is not possible to distinct between cause and effect, which is exactly what a uniform space-time would be like (opening sentence). Only when that (higher) symmetry is broken time can come into existence.

Secondly, there are two principles of cosmology:

                                                            Space is homogeneous and isotropic!

The highest symmetric state, in a space-time that is homogeneous and isotropic, is of course uniform. But in a uniform state of space-time there is no distinction possible as there is no difference. Only when there is tiny shift, then time can be measured and have a meaning.

Remark: We point out, that there is no such thing as time t = 0 s! As no time smaller than 10-43 s is physically relevant! Physics starts when space and time become possible; and they become possible for the first time, when information can be transported from one point of space to another. And no length smaller than 10-35 m is physically relevant! This is a result of the Planck units.



Comments

  1. I consider this "pulling the wool over our eyes".
    Time, as a manifestation of the ongoing evolution of matter & energy, as being the observable Cosmos--- > things that have "objective existence", in that these things can be detected with a suitable sensor (instrument, or more symbolically, a "yard stick").
    For time, as the temporal aspect of the progress of the evolution of the Cosmos, the "yard stick" to measure that progress, is a clock, as a physical entity comprised of energy and matter, or depending on the choice for a clock, pure energy, such a photon would be (if that would be a practical clock at all). More conveniently, a physical clock as periodically changing (behaving) object, is chosen to be, now-a-days the cesium-133 Atom, and by way of its very constant frequency, the time Unit the second is derived.
    In principle any clock would do for measuring ‘time cycles” for anything that happens in the Cosmos. In the past the Day Cycle and the Moon Cycle were rather crude clocks, but they serviced their purpose well. Mechanical clocks, when they were developed were not very accurate at all, in terms of their ticking rate constancy. Now at least the Cesium 133 Atom Clock is the best we can muster, for measuring how the “things” that “make-up” the Cosmos, "behave” temporally.
    In that sense, time for measuring how things behave, is not a physical thing of itself, but merely a mathematical derivative of the behavior of some matter & energy, that makes-up the whole Cosmos --- > Matter & Energy, and if pure energy could be used as a "clock" in a practical sense then maybe we could do without Atom Clocks. more to come!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Follow-up: Based on this notion of the existence of time as being a "derivative" of matter & energy of the Cosmos (as Albert Einstein defined it), implies that whenever matter and energy existed time has existed, non-objectively, as the temporal manifestation of the Substance the Cosmos is comprised of. Thus, if energy & matter have no beginning then time has no beginning. ---- > If Energy & matter did appear spontaneously from "not anything", then time began spontaneously with that spontaneously beginning of energy & matter! ----- > Consider Lawrence Krauss' Proposal ---- > "A Cosmos from Nothing", meaning "from Zero Energy” --- > E=E(matter) + E(gravity +E(dark) = 0. ----> OK, this is a viable Theory it may well also require Quantum Dynamics to give a deeper detailed structure to the physics of its applicable process, but its existential essence is that before the spawning of the “material things” from pure energy, time already existed simply because energy already existed, by virtue of that energy.
    In this scheme of things the definition of a absolute time Time=0 [as an analogy to absolute temperature Temp=0] would make no sense, as we have not even a "workable" hypothesis on the idea of energy having a beginning or not, but at least it allows us to define a time Tbc --- > Tbc is the time at the beginning of the Cosmos, if we define the Cosmos to be the physical(sensible) part of all energy E that exists, after Tbc, at which time the Cosmos appeared:
    E=E(matter+dark matter) + E(gravity +E(dark) = 0. . . .
    This line of thinking about the evolution of the Cosmos would allow time Tbc = 0 to be defined, in a practical sense, irrespective of the idea of "Planck Time" being limited to be t=10^(-34) , as THAT is merely defined in dependence on the concept that physical matter(particles) can not have a dimension smaller than the Plank Length, which is at yet merely an hypothetical assertion. If physical matter is, on the lowest dimensional scale, "not-anything" more than energy, then at that scale "objects" are no longer matter, but pure energy, for which size units do not apply.
    In closing: Time exists, as I define it, simply by the virtue of “energy existing”. Time is then merely a manifestation of an evolving dynamic Cosmos. Time cannot be defined in any other way as being a behavioral manifestation of "things” that exist.
    Using this definition, time can, in principle, just as well be defined in terms of an increasing Entropy, although that would not be expedient to the come to the definition of the Clock Time Unit, the Second!

    ReplyDelete
  3. My idea: 1) it is not because something is not relevant that it doesn't exists, and 2) it is not that because physics starts at a certain point, that "science" can't start earlier ... . But who am I to put this first, I am not a physicist nor a scientist ...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts