It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by swan001
I dont think time exists, so i dont think it can emit energy.
Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
Answer: Morphic fields as per Sheldrake?
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by poet1b
Interesting observation, time as energy, but would that mean time has mass.
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.
Originally posted by swan001
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)
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.
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.
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.