A Minimum Time Interval - Implication From the Universe's Very Existence?

a reply to: swanne

Yeah. I suppose there are two ways to go about this issue.

--------------

First way: The smallest unit of time is 0, and there is either an exception to Heisenberg's equation [either it doesn't operate on the quantum scale, or it is otherwise altered] or there is no conflict and law does allow the creation of particles with infinite energy.

or

Second way: These "instant" actions occur because of non-locality. That is, things are infinitely near to each other so information has no distance to travel and requires no time to "arrive".

--------------

So, if what you say about the impossibility of an infinitely energetic particle is true, then #1 can't be true and any instant actions we see are thanks to the origin and destination of information being spatially identical, which allows information to "arrive" at the exact moment that it is generated.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: ImaFungi


Indeed. But these are created artificially by pumping energy into the particle, and so are their lifetime. As you point out, they are created from energy and other materials, and not from total vacuum. A few of super-massive particles in some particle accelerators on Earth wouldn't destroy the universe. The point is if they can be created out of total vacuum, for if such massive particles could really occur naturally from utter nothingness, then it'd occur almost everywhere in the Universe, and the latter would have collapsed under the combined multitude and magnitude of these particles.

So can scientists theoretically compel vacuum to form massive particles? And would the limit to how massive a particle they can create from pure vacuum, be limited to the amount of energy they have at their disposable to 'shake up the foundation' and cause it to momentarily orient itself in a gradient of energy densities, the highest of which would be deemed a massive particle, huh.

That is the main explanation indeed. Muons tends to decay into an electron and a neutrino because the latter are less massive than the muon.


Tauons (and all fermions and bosons, for that matters) are not known to have any substructure - and a substructure is necessary if one is to theorize that these particles can "hold themselves together". But emerging preonic models might shed some light on this topic. The problem is, models of preons are often considered as fringe science.

So this is something strange. Fermions such as the Muon is said to have no substructure, Yet, it can decay into other particles?...something fishy about that, logical language.

And I think my gut tells me Either a fundamental particle with an area of substance itself is held together by internatl forces inherent to its substance, or it is kept together by external forces.

So many people gaze at the photon... Although I admire their perseverance, I nevertheless chose to use my eyes to gaze at another alternative. Instead of focusing on the photon, I focused on the relation between vacuum's maximum mass production and time.

And you define time as? So you are saying the shortest possible time interval is related to how long it takes a vacuum to produce a maximum mass particle?

I've thought about the same thing. But then I realized something important. Let's say, for the sake of the thought experiment, that the Universe's minimum time is 1/1000 a second. What I didn't realized, is that my camera belongs to this universe. Thus its very existence too will be affected by the Universe's frame rate. Let's say I put the camera so that it take one picture each 1/500 seconds. My camera will have time to exist two times for each time it takes a picture. The playback will show no two identical frames. Once I put my camera on 1/1000, my camera's recording rate will match its existence rate. On the playback, I'll see a smooth image with no two identical images. But once I put my camera on 1/2000 a second, the camera still cannot exist for a time shorter than 1/1000 of a second. If it could take a picture each 1/2000 of a second, and my camera phases out of existence each 1/1000 of a second, then my camera doesn't exist for half that time. And thus neither do the pictures which she was set to record. The result is a smooth playback with no two same pictures, since the camera technically never existed between the Universe's frames.

I think I follow, I guess that portion of my reply, was more about my thoughts that there must be a minimum time interval, and it is because if we were to use a hypothetical camera, that existed outside of the universe, say an immaterial god camera, this designed to see objective truth and potential. Knowing that numbers are infinite, and that matter and energy are quite limited by their infinitude (as infinite as they appear and perform at times) that one can in theory just keep adding up the frame rate of this hypothetical camera. So yes, I realize now your theory assumes a minimum time interval, I hadnt thought much about it, so the camera example was my way of convincing myself, yes, most likely there is a minimum.

a reply to: swanne

I think what the problem is is that you're not taking the delta into account. What the equation says is, the product of the uncertainty in E and the uncertainty in t must always be greater than or equal to the reduced Planck constant. That is, when we measure the mass-energy and duration of existence of a particle, the more accurately we measure its mass-energy the less accurately we can know its lifetime, and vice versa.

The catch is, this uncertainty allows virtual particles (the exact section you're getting the info from) to exist. It's actually a bit of a loophole. Normally, particles can't just pop into existence - but, if they only exist within the uncertainty of the delta-t, then they can essentially exist without the possibility of being detected, and therefore without anyone being able to say that they exist at all.

This is what creates an upper bound on the lifetime of virtual electrons. They cannot exist for longer than ħ/ΔE because, if they did, then they'd be existing for longer than the uncertainty in or measurement and would thus be violating the law that matter cannot be created from nothing.

The Wikipedia article is right, and so is your conclusion.

Of course, then we also have to keep in mind is that, what your conclusion is actually saying is this: the uncertainty in our measurement of time has a lower bound. That's slightly different than time itself having a lower-bound interval, although one may certainly follow from the other.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: swanne

A simpler formulation: any unit of time shorter than the length of time it takes a photon to travel the "Planck length" is meaningless.

Edit to add: Star and flag for your edited version!

Yes. Just considering this as a logical thought experiment, and without considering the physics involved...

...I was thinking that the time it takes for the fastest possible speed (the speed of light in a vacuum) to cover the shortest possible unit of length (a Planck length) would be the shortest possible unit of time.

That would define (at least in my mind) the "graininess" of time.


EDIT TO ADD:
But now as I think about it more, I suppose it is possible for two events to occur with a shorter interval of time between them than the amount of time I defined above (the time it takes for light to travel on Planck length).

i.e., in the time it took for light to travel one Planck length, I suppose it is possible that three or more non-simultaneous events could have occurred.

a reply to: ImaFungi

So can scientists theoretically compel vacuum to form massive particles?

Unlikely. Vacuum is after all nothingness - the particles which are created from vacuum are created because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. In other words, these virtual particles are created simply because we can't measure them. Us shooting a particle beam at a Planck lenght unit of vacuum wouldn't change the fact that we can't measure what happens inside a Planck Lenght. Thus Heisenberg's formula for the mass of virtual particles would still stand, unchanged, no matter how much effort we spend in vacuum. Which means, no changes would be perceived on the masses of the particles which the vacuum produces.

So this is something strange. Fermions such as the Muon is said to have no substructure, Yet, it can decay into other particles?...something fishy about that, logical language.

Indeed.

I did create a preon model so to resolve this oddity. But as I've said, preon models are not considered much seriously by many physics authorities.

So you are saying the shortest possible time interval is related to how long it takes a vacuum to produce a maximum mass particle?

Precisely.

And you define time as?

In my mind, time is which prevents everything from happening at once. It's what animates the frames of space so to build a History, an universe.

a reply to: CLPrime

Normally, particles can't just pop into existence - but, if they only exist within the uncertainty of the delta-t, then they can essentially exist without the possibility of being detected, and therefore without anyone being able to say that they exist at all.

Essentially, I understand. But for the sake of argument: several experiment do prove they exist. The polarization of virtual electron-positron pairs in the presence of an electron, the Casimir Effect, etc. Doesn't this imply that their existence, in a sense, can be at least detected?

I think what the problem is is that you're not taking the delta into account. What the equation says is, the product of the uncertainty in E and the uncertainty in t must always be greater than or equal to the reduced Planck constant. (...)Of course, then we also have to keep in mind is that, what your conclusion is actually saying is this: the uncertainty in our measurement of time has a lower bound. That's slightly different than time itself having a lower-bound interval

Wow, very good point. I believe you found the flaw in my argument. You have my sincere admiration - I would have never realized that; many thanks for pointing this out. Indeed my argument could be true, but only if we ignore the uncertainties Δ.

Hm, I wonder if a less "foggy" formula, relating the exact duration "t" of the existence of a (this time non-virtual) particle with its exact mass "m" exists. I'll have to do some searches.


I tip my hat, mate!

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

But now as I think about it more, I suppose it is possible for two events to occur with a shorter interval of time between them than the amount of time I defined above (the time it takes for light to travel on Planck length).

i.e., in the time it took for light to travel one Planck length, I suppose it is possible that three or more non-simultaneous events could have occurred.

I agree. This is the reason why I am skeptical about Planck Time being the minimum time. I mean, Planck units make great landmarks, but are they really the end of the universe? I'm not so sure. Maybe they are, but maybe they aren't.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
∆E ∆T = h
and planks constant is a number calculated from the black body radiation
www.youtube.com...

on the other side Planck's Units at all means nothing, as they just a formula for calculate a universal, basic units,
from G L T as constants. Different constants, different Planck Units, but this is a grate formula if we meet aliens for example.. we can use the Planck's units to translate they measurements as I assume they don;t use meter, kilogram and seconds...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


BTW: Planck's length is not the smallest possible length ever, it just makes no sense for our mathematical equations to deal with numbers smaller than that.

The same for the rest of this constants

originally posted by: swanne


Unlikely. Vacuum is after all nothingness - the particles which are created from vacuum are created because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. In other words, these virtual particles are created simply because we can't measure them. Us shooting a particle beam at a Planck lenght unit of vacuum wouldn't change the fact that we can't measure what happens inside a Planck Lenght. Thus Heisenberg's formula for the mass of virtual particles would still stand, unchanged, no matter how much effort we spend in vacuum. Which means, no changes would be perceived on the masses of the particles which the vacuum produces.

So do you mean that, if the universe is a tightly connected, dense, substance of energy, this nothingness of vacuum you speak of, is the non material non substance non inherent energy that the somethingness exists in/on? and so if an area of the connected energy substance gets a certain kind of total hole in it, that hole represents and is non substance, non material, non something, non inherent physical energy, but because the existence of it has real effects on the energy that immediately surrounds it, the hole itself, though it is non existence itself, though it has real effects on what exists, can be said to be 'a particle', and these are the 'vacuum particles' that are created? Seemingly holes in between the connections of the total something?

In my mind, time is which prevents everything from happening at once. It's what animates the frames of space so to build a History, an universe.

So your thread is trying to figure out; 'A minimum "that which prevents everything from happening at once"'?

a reply to: ImaFungi

the hole itself, though it is non existence itself, though it has real effects on what exists, can be said to be 'a particle', and these are the 'vacuum particles' that are created?

Vacuum particles are inside the "holes", but this doesn't necessarily imply that holes are particles. Vacuum is where nothing exists except space-time, and in newtonian physics, we thought that it meant that nothing exists in this nothingness. But experiments, such as the Casimir Effect (where two plates are pushed towards each other by an invisible force) shows us how wrong we are in this assumption... When there is absolutely nothing in a given space, it was found that in fact there is still a tiny amount of energy in this nothingness. A zero-point energy. This means that there is never a true "nothingness" in the universe... as long as space-time exists, level of energy at this given point may never reach below a certain value.

It's a bit like the picture on the screen of a badly tuned TV. It was assumed that if the picture being displayed on the TV was that of a pitch-black hole, the screen (our universe) would be accordingly dark. But in truth there is a minor graininess in the screen... so that even in the presence of an incredibly dark picture, an ocean of shades of grey and colors is always present.

So your thread is trying to figure out; 'A minimum "that which prevents everything from happening at once"'?

Indeed; for although we must find what prevents everything from happening at once (the answer is, Time), we mustn't forget that something also must exist which prevents everything from never happening in the first place (the answer is, a minimum Time interval). This is called the "Tile Argument", which resolves Zeno's Paradox. It is better visualized using a quick formula.

If there was no time, and thus Time was alway equal to zero, then an infinite amount of events would happen all at once:

n/0 = infinity

where "n" is any number (representing the amount of events) you like. But on the other hand, if time was truly infinite in nature, that is, it can be divided forever so that any interval has an infinity of instants, then no events would ever happen unless infinity has elapsed by:

n/infinity = 0

This paradox can easily be solved by considering a lower bound for Time, which cannot be further divided, and thus avoids reaching infinity - in other words, there are but a finite amount of instants between any events.

I go about it using the mass-energy approach, but some people go about it using Zeno's paradox approach which I described above. IMO both approaches are aligned in the same way and point to the same conclusion.

I do think that the quantized nature of physical reality is settled science. The implications of this include a quantum of Now.

a reply to: NorEaster

Is there ever a now? I feel Time always goes one way (towards the future) or another (past).

a reply to: swanne

where "n" is any number (representing the amount of events) you like. But on the other hand, if time was truly infinite in nature, that is, it can be divided forever so that any interval has an infinity of instants, then no events would ever happen unless infinity has elapsed by: n/infinity = 0

not really ! and this is important
n/infinity tends to 0 but it never is
which means if
n/infinity=A
A > 0
means A = 0 + 1
this number one is not a meter or anything, it is just something bigger then nothing.
Maybe not even bigger but just something else and not 0.
it is not defined but not zero !

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: NorEaster

Is there ever a now? I feel Time always goes one way (towards the future) or another (past).

Each quantum of Now is replaced by the next quantum of Now. Like the sort of spatial trajectory that we are capable of perceiving all around us, each "now" vanishes on the heels of the "now" that replaces it. The old school physicists call each of these quantized instances of material realm presence "Planck Time", but no one really has any capacity to accurately determine the actual duration of this quantum of Now.

We do know that despite the mathematical claims of time's arrow being bi-linear, all experimental and empirical evidence (that is incontrovertible and not open to even the smallest variety of interpretations) insists that the trajectory of change/event units that we call "Now" moves in only one direction. The physics department can declare it to be the result of entropy, but whatever their assessment, only the fringe insists that the math blackboard and its formulaic convolutions has the power to bring a shattered glass back together again. The rest of us know better.

a reply to: KrzYma

That would be important if it were right, but it's not. Not quite. The limit of n/x as x→infinity is 0. There is no such thing as n/infinity, therefore you cannot make it equal to A. This is why we're using limits in the first place, because n/infinity is undefined (thus it cannot be defined as "A" or anything else).
This is because infinity is a concept, not a number. What's important with dealing with limits to infinity is noticing what happens as x becomes arbitrarily large. In the case of f(x) = n/x, as x becomes arbitrarily large, n/x approaches 0. Does it reach it? No, because x never reaches infinity.
However, swanne isn't dealing with numbers, he's dealing with a timeline that is no less than exactly infinitely divisible. If n/x > 0, then x < infinity. Since swanne is dealing with x = infinity, n/x = 0.

Now, that brings me to swanne's post...

originally posted by: swanne

If there was no time, and thus Time was alway equal to zero, then an infinite amount of events would happen all at once:

n/0 = infinity

where "n" is any number (representing the amount of events) you like. But on the other hand, if time was truly infinite in nature, that is, it can be divided forever so that any interval has an infinity of instants, then no events would ever happen unless infinity has elapsed by:

n/infinity = 0

If n < infinity, then this is potentially true (it depends on how events are spaced over the course of time), however, given an infinite timeline, the natural conclusion is that an infinite number of events occur; thus, n = 0, and you get

infinity/infinity = undefined

What this means in real life is any number of events can occur at any given instant in time. Just like what we observe.

originally posted by: CLPrime

originally posted by: swanne

If there was no time, and thus Time was alway equal to zero, then an infinite amount of events would happen all at once:

n/0 = infinity

where "n" is any number (representing the amount of events) you like. But on the other hand, if time was truly infinite in nature, that is, it can be divided forever so that any interval has an infinity of instants, then no events would ever happen unless infinity has elapsed by:

n/infinity = 0

If n < infinity, then this is potentially true (it depends on how events are spaced over the course of time), however, given an infinite timeline, the natural conclusion is that an infinite number of events occur; thus, n = 0, and you get

infinity/infinity = undefined

What this means in real life is any number of events can occur at any given instant in time. Just like what we observe.

The logic I use in my head is that any two events occurring in the universe that happen on their own time (i.e., events are not connected) can happen any time they wish -- one (say, for example) "Planck time" apart, or 1/2 Planck time, or any infinitely-cut fraction of Planck time. So, yeah, it does seem that there is no minimum time scale.

UNLESS -- and this is when it starts getting a bit metaphysical -- every event and every action in the universe has been working on the Plank-Time "metronome" since the beginning of the universe, and every tiny occurrence in nature still happens in rhythm to that metronome. Therefore, any two seemingly unrelated events happening in the universe are still doing their thing "together" (i.e., in a whole multiple of Planck time) to the original beat set forth at the beginning of time.

So when I think of it that way, then maybe there IS a minimum time scale, and since the beginning of the universe, nature has been moving to that "tick, tick, tick", and is still keeping rhythm. However, and having said that, I'm not sure I believe that.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Another alternative is that each individual quantum of matter/energy (or even a theoretical quantum of space itself) has its own independent quantum of time. This would imply that every such quantum has its own unique reference frame - an idea not too far removed from Relativity.

a reply to: CLPrime

Yeah, but if each individual quantum of matter, energy, or even a quantum of space itself all started their internal clocks at the same moment they were all created at the instant of the theoretical big bang, then perhaps their internal clocks are still synchronized. If a minimum timescale is one tick of that clock, than all of the clocks in the universe may still be ticking in unison.

Again, not that I necessarily believe that, but it is a beautifully warm Friday afternoon, and I'm allowing my mind to wander through these "what if" thoughts.