Perhaps time is subject to wave particle duality. Time dilation (especially gravitational time dilation) might point to particle behavior of time. Light interacts with a gravitational field just like time. ..and light is made of photons(particles).  Time dilation is in a sense related to the dopplereffect....they are both about the effect of relative velocity between two observers(this is very simplified of course).

And according to Wave–particle duality ..particles or quantum entities can be(partly) described as waves. So when you find time particles, then time is subject to wave particle duality

I found this video about it:

 

Edited July 27, 20187 yr by Itoero

10 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Perhaps time is subject to wave particle duality. Time dilation (especially gravitational time dilation) might point to particle behavior of time. Light interacts with a gravitational field just like time. ..and light is made of photons(particles).  Time dilation is in a sense related to the dopplereffect....they are both about the effect of relative velocity between two observers(this is very simplified of course).

And according to Wave–particle duality ..particles or quantum entities can be(partly) described as waves. So when you find time particles, then time is subject to wave particle duality

 

Any evidence that time is quantised? Or that it can be represented as a particle or a wave function?

21 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Perhaps time is subject to wave particle duality. Time dilation (especially gravitational time dilation) might point to particle behavior of time. Light interacts with a gravitational field just like time. ..and light is made of photons(particles).  Time dilation is in a sense related to the dopplereffect....they are both about the effect of relative velocity between two observers(this is very simplified of course).

And according to Wave–particle duality ..particles or quantum entities can be(partly) described as waves. So when you find time particles, then time is subject to wave particle duality

I found this video about it:

 

 

We already have one current thread discussing the incorrect speculation that light is some form of wave.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115425-is-time-a-wave/

Whilst we have no evidence that time is granular we have no evidence that it is not either.
This question has occupied some of the foremost minds of our day in the Cambridge University book edited by Professor Majid

On Space and Time

Note that granularity does not necessarily mean particulate, they are different things.

Edited July 27, 20187 yr by studiot

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Any evidence that time is quantised? Or that it can be represented as a particle or a wave function?

No. But this video  is rather interesting.

There is no evidence. I think it's a matter of time before time quanta are proven

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

We already have one thread discussing the incorrect speculation that light is some form of wave.

Ok but I point to the particle behavior of time. If I posted it in the other thread It would be considered a highjack and they would give me another warning point or ban me. The other thread was in 'physics'.

12 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Ok but I point to the particle behavior of time. If I posted it in the other thread It would be considered a highjack and they would give me another warning point or ban me. The other thread was in 'physics'.

I was not complaining, just offering information. You may not have seen that thread.

You do have a point, though I can't see why anyone would complain if you did post your reference there, I can't say if it is a valid point of view (or not) but it is a perfectly respectable one.

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

though I can't see why anyone would complain if you did post your reference there

I might feel the need to comment about the deranged ramblings of an artist being posted in support of a personal theory...

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

I was not complaining, just offering information. You may not have seen that thread.

You do have a point, though I can't see why anyone would complain if you did post your reference there, I can't say if it is a valid point of view (or not) but it is a perfectly respectable one.

I was in the thread, doubting if I should post or not   

In this paper they use a Chronon field, quarks of time.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1806/1806.05244.pdf

This is more general, concerning the 'history' of chronon related work.

http://samvak.tripod.com/time.html.

Don't the particle Physicists just love bring out new particles to join the party?

Ther seems to me to be a good deal of substitution/introduction of new parameters without proper jsutification, just desgined to fit the figures, in that paper.

 

But then I am not a fan of electro-gravity.