Time - the Real Zero-Point Energy, Not Virtual Particles!

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
What if time could emit energy? I got the idea by looking at Feynman's diagram of a neutron decay. And I remembered that entropy of a system rises with time.

I started wondering why neutron "knows" they have to decay in the first place. What, do they come with internal chronometers which tells them that past a certain time, they gotta decay? Nope, yet, they just... do. Why? Why don't they decay, say, after 1 year instead? Or 100 bilion years? It seems as if they just do... and you could put them in total vacuum and they'd still decay anyway. So, why does the neutron decay at the right amount of time? I think the reason could be simply that an external force is "undermining" the stability of the neutron, and that, because of that force, the neutron will always decay in a short amount of time. That force could exist even in total vacuum, where there is no fields or particle. Well, I present to you "time". Time does exist in total vacuum. Which means it could very well be the source of this mysterious energy behind decay. Because a system's entropy rises with time, it could be that time itself holds energy, which is radiated unto the 3 (or 1, if you believe in holographic universe) other dimensions when it "cools off" (from the GUT level of energy during the universe's birth? ). Which would also explain why you can get energy even in total vacuum. Gravity could be a mid-point between the time direction and the space direction. As the whole space system would travel at light speed towards the future along time's axis, different angle could provide different matter masses, and the angle which is the most perpendicular to time would become bosons which travel at light speed. Semmitry break would be nothing more than angular differences relative to original GUT state.

This would still explain why Casimir force occurs, even without the need for virtual particles which BTW are a misinterpretation of Werner Heisenberg's explanation for uncertainty principle.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Interesting observation, time as energy, but would that mean time has mass.

I think of the neutron as a soft particle, which decays as a result of subatomic erosion.

It we consider that we live in a world constantly in motion, all of matter could be included in the mass of time.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Does you mean TIME big tee, is THE ultimate subtle force which imparted the urge to explode in the kernel of our universe?
I ask you what WAS thw reason for the big bangola?
Further hwy would the universe be cotracted into such a small unit at the point?
Also perhaps you have thoughts on just where the Universe (or multiverse) is expanding into, assuming that the other dimensions are also expanding?:i get so confused with this stuff.....

I mean if time is the fourth dimension then is it also expanding with the other three? or is it a separate entity of some kind?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
It's their average decay time that is around 8 minutes. That doesn't mean it's set to decay at exactly 8 minutes. The feynman diagram isn't enough, you need to look at the energy difference of the neutron and its constituent parts. The decay releases .782 MeV of energy. This means that the free neutron is in a higher energy state than a proton, electron, and anti-electron neutrino. The question as to why it doesn't decay after 1 year or a billion years instead is the same question as why won't a broom stand up on its own: it's in an unstable high energy state and it will fall in a short period of time. It could remain standing for a year, but it's really unlikely.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 



Originally posted by swan001
What if time could emit energy? I got the idea by looking at Feynman's diagram of a neutron decay. And I remembered that entropy of a system rises with time.

I started wondering why neutron "knows" they have to decay in the first place. What, do they come with internal chronometers which tells them that past a certain time, they gotta decay? Nope, yet, they just... do. Why?


Answer: Morphic fields as per Sheldrake?
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


I dont think time exists, so i dont think it can emit energy. the word and concept of time is itself, a description of energy. The progression of energy/matter in systems. So over a span of increments/progression/time/change... energy can do stuff... from this point (in time) to this point (in time), a system of energy... went from being like this and doing this... to being like this and doing this... Time is only a result of a quantity of energy existing of a quality, and it moving and reacting with it self. Also if this system of universe had a beginning, a birth. that was the beginning of the totality of the systems time. within the system of the universe there are different quantities of energy/matter in different structures doing different things at different speeds; this is the idea behind relativity.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Your theory hinges on the fact that the neutron decays relatively quickly when outside of the nucleus. Have you actually looked into the reasons why this happens?

I'm not an expert on this matter, but from what I've gathered, it happens because a neutron is energetically uphill from (heavier than) proton + electron + antineutrino. Nature favours the lowest energy state possible (which is actually connected to the principle of entropy), so the neutron decays to a more energetically favourable configuration.

Time itself simply signifies change or transition from one state to another, it doesn't actually cause it.
edit on 18-2-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
There is no perfect vacuum; since a vacuum is so dirty with particles, I have shunned the research drawn from it altogether...sure you can calculate the probability of how many particles that will exist in this vacuum no matter what and try to make the base number nil enough; and conduct the experiment over and over to try and get some form of datum to be some what repeatable. Does that make it so? In my mind no.

Particles do have energy and when this energy depletes; they cease to be labeled as the same particle. Think of the sparks from a campfire; there's a pop and a spark of material is ejected from the flames, when the energy of the material it is consumed the trail ceases and the spark seems to disappear.

If you think of the origin of the spark there was no existing spark, just the log and the fire consuming the logs energy, during this consumption a mass ejection that creates the spark, it still has the properties of both the wood and the fire, just a smaller scale of it...once the fire consumes the small bit of sparked wood the energy is gone, and now the wood is ash.

Thinking of time in regard to that example; there is an observable scale. The wood and fire, is the same as the spark that is wood and fire, one lasts for maybe an hour and one lasts for a second or two, time scale is relative to size...it takes a person maybe 6 steps to cross a room, an Ant thousands...so what took you seconds may seem to the Ant hours. (of course we have to toss out planetary rotation for this time measurement and use relativity instead)

For your particle to last longer or shorter the mass of the particle would have to be larger or smaller. So that begs to question; does the same particle come in different sizes? If one particles energy is burned out faster than another's from decay...was it smaller than the other? Or less energy to be consumed causing it's faster decay? If particles are all a relative size...then they will likely decay at relatively the same rate.

Of course, depending on conditions a particles state can change...such as super heating or cooling, fields, electricity, vacuums, speeding up or slowing down from forces on space time curves etc. trying to make a particle a constant in the midst of variables, and extract data...when the constant could very well be a variable itself is pretty tricky and questionable science. So we create uncertainty principles etc. for things we do not understand but observe. The problem is the constant building off of one uncertainty after another, without solving the first...anything built on top of that uncertainty is just wishful thinking, in my personal opinion.

Much in the same way that; an illogical thought process creates a false construct out of irrational thinking that gives rise to delusions of how something is vs. how it actually is.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by swan001
 


I dont think time exists, so i dont think it can emit energy. the word and concept of time is itself, a description of energy. The progression of energy/matter in systems. So over a span of increments/progression/time/change... energy can do stuff... from this point (in time) to this point (in time), a system of energy... went from being like this and doing this... to being like this and doing this... Time is only a result of a quantity of energy existing of a quality, and it moving and reacting with it self. Also if this system of universe had a beginning, a birth. that was the beginning of the totality of the systems time. within the system of the universe there are different quantities of energy/matter in different structures doing different things at different speeds; this is the idea behind relativity.


Time is space in a kinetic form. Space is time in the static form. The infinite expanse of space is all the future imploding from everywhere, down and inward, towards everywhere, targeting the ONE infinitesimal Singularity that happens to be engaged in infinite angular diversity and rate of motion kinetics. The resultant "flight path" of the Singularity, where that Singularity exists, is the foundation that is the expanse of space. That same "flight path" of the Singularity, where the Singularity IS NOT, is how omniscience generates and upholds non-existence.

Space-time is the narrow bandwidth of space (the present as a Planck frequency and duration string of instances) where it is converting back into pure time (all the past located as the thread imploding into the infinitely kinetic Singularity). Our Universe, because of our very poor sensors, observes a tiney speck of this conversion where both co-exist.
edit on 18-2-2013 by tkwasny because: Addition



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
Your theory hinges on the fact that the neutron decays relatively quickly when outside of the nucleus. Have you actually looked into the reasons why this happens?

I'm not an expert on this matter, but from what I've gathered, it happens because a neutron is energetically uphill from (heavier than) proton + electron + antineutrino. Nature favours the lowest energy state possible (which is actually connected to the principle of entropy), so the neutron decays to a more energetically favourable configuration.

In fact, there is a GAIN in mass. W- bosons have a mass of 80 GeV. And your point doesn't explain how a 3-fermion hadron could "decay" into another 3-fermion hadron PLUS another fermion (electron) PLUS another fermion (antineutrino)? The total mass of the system is superior, and the 2 fermion gain is unlogical... unless some exterior energy has been added.

Here's a Feynman diagram taken from Wikipedia:


Now look at antimatter annihilation (a "perfect" decay):


There is a drop in mass AND there is no new particles - both particles are simply converted to photons. But decay is different.
edit on 18-2-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by swan001
 


I dont think time exists, so i dont think it can emit energy.

What makes you think that? Obviously time has to exist for the universe to experience something more than total stillness.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
Answer: Morphic fields as per Sheldrake?
en.wikipedia.org...

Hi Captain Pike.

Hm, these "morphic fields" look as if they violate the entropy rise. According to it, complex systems would in fact gain structure, and evolve, not lose it.
edit on 18-2-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Interesting observation, time as energy, but would that mean time has mass.

Photons has energy, yet it has no mass.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by swan001
 


I dont think time exists, so i dont think it can emit energy.

What makes you think that? Obviously time has to exist for the universe to experience something more than total stillness.


what makes me think that? the rest of my reply you ignored

Time doesnt exist as an object, only as an abstract comprehension of the progression of interaction between energy. One particle exists for one second, one exists for a year. This is how time exists, the marking and measuring of duration. The duration of these things exist, the duration it takes the earth to revolve around the sun is a real physical event taking place, it is not one second duration, it is not a millennium duration. It is a year. A year exists in the same manner an inch and a foot exists. A consistent tool used to measure duration. A flower can be an inch long, and another can be 2 inches long, the physical difference in size of these flowers is real, and the physical difference in time between the duration of life between a human, and a fly is real. So I concede on my statement, time is a real thing, it is measurable, but it is not so much a thing in and of itself, as it is a result of the nature of energy, which can be used to describe and compare different bundles of energy.
edit on 18-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Here's a Feynman diagram taken from Wikipedia:



^ I think there is a gain in mass, because before the particles collide, they have an inherent mass, but also have energy beyond that mass because of the velocity at which they are traveling ( is that relativistic mass?) when they collide, there is more energy present then the sum of the particles rest masses, this extra energy is converted into new particles with their specific masses... If I interpreted correctly, i think thats how its thought it goes, I could be wrong.



Now look at antimatter annihilation (a "perfect" decay):


There is a drop in mass AND there is no new particles - both particles are simply converted to photons. But decay is different.
edit on 18-2-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


Both particles being converted to photons is where all the mass is, the mass of the particles are converted to pure energy. (I wonder what happens when an electron collides with a proton, and how a positron relates to a proton)... Im also curious as to what the fundamental differences between a positron and electron are, what makes the charges different? Its purely the opposite ways in which they travel in a magnetic field, but what the heck does this mean, does it mean a positron is an electron traveling and spinning backwards? like a positron is facing the south pole of a bar magnet and electron is facing the north pole? so yea what about an electron makes it negative charge, and what about the positron makes it have positive charge, and what about them meeting together, causes their charges to become insignificant in the universe, and convert their momentum and rest mass into pure EM radiation?



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
In fact, there is a GAIN in mass. W- bosons have a mass of 80 GeV. And your point doesn't explain how a 3-fermion hadron could "decay" into another 3-fermion hadron PLUS another fermion (electron) PLUS another fermion (antineutrino)? The total mass of the system is superior, and the 2 fermion gain is unlogical... unless some exterior energy has been added.

Err, you are reading the diagram incorrectly. The end products are proton, electron, electron antineutrino. Those three together are lighter than the neutron.

The W-boson is an intermediate particle with a very short lifetime in this decay, a virtual particle. It decays pretty much immediately to the electron and antineutrino.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Wt exactly do you mean, when you say " I present to you Time"?
Some inkling to you here www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


If it is true that energy is mass times the constant velocity of light, then energy requires mass.

Which is why they might need to re-think the concept of the Photon.

A wave travels across the ocean, but does any of the water that was there at the beginning, make it to the end?

Energy as mass in motion, over time, or is it time is mass in motion.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by swan001
 


If it is true that energy is mass times the constant velocity of light, then energy requires mass.

Which is why they might need to re-think the concept of the Photon.

A wave travels across the ocean, but does any of the water that was there at the beginning, make it to the end?

Energy as mass in motion, over time, or is it time is mass in motion.



Mass itself is energy thought as well. The reasons a couple thousand hydrogen atoms can produce the energy levels of an atomic bomb, is because there is a tremendous amount of energy within the relatively small amount of mass of a couple thousand atoms.

Light/photon (is mysterious and I question details about it myself) but I think its thought that it is not an exchange of mass from one space to another, it is the exchange of force and comes into existence when atoms move in relation to one another, the faster and more abruptly they change direction in regards to one another, the higher the value of energy is sent outwards. It must be said the photon or value of energy is higher in a point of space time because usually values of energy can be equivalent to their velocity. speed, or acceleration, where as light is thought to be constantly the same velocity regardless of the associated energy level.

the mystery continues when it is described what light/EM radiation actually is thought to be. an oscillating magnetic field creating an electric field creating a magnetic field creating an electric field, perpendicular to the direction of propagation. Its weird to me because this photon has no charge associated to it, and i personally dont know what fields are or how they are considered to exist. when a radio wave is emitted from a tower miles away and is picked up on your radio, how does that signal travel to your radio, does it simply pass inbetween every air atom in its way? does it impart its signal on every air atom which then perfectly plays 'telephone' and passes it to the next?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
The W-boson is an intermediate particle with a very short lifetime in this decay, a virtual particle. It decays pretty much immediately to the electron and antineutrino.

So.. because W- boson only lives a short period of time, its mass can be discarded as unimportant?





top topics
 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join