Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jordan14

Time Particles

Recommended Posts

So I just wanted to know what people thought about the existance of time as a particle.

 

Quite and interesting statement and one that definately "thinks outside the box", so what does everyone else think about it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from my meagre understanding such a particle would be the Photon in relation to a given frame.

 

I could be WELL WRONG here though!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought time is a dimesion

 

I thought Time was a magazine...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think about it much

 

1) why would you need such a particle

2) how in the world would such a particle act

 

Yes, time is a dimension, and it seems happy that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are talking about chronotons, they are fictional.

 

But...but...but...they use them on STAR TREK! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn you both! 3 years at Klingon College and 6 months dedicated to Chronoton particles alone, and NOW you`re trying to tell me I wasted that time! and have no chance of a time refund because they don`t exist :(((

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your thinkning of The Times newspaper, and everybody knows it takes 12months to pass a chronological degree in chrono particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as an after thought, I wonder if he means Tachyons rather than "Time particles"?

badly worded perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time as a particle wouldnt work...

 

it's a dimension (among other things swansont!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read my post it was probally the worst worded post EVER, I did as YT suggested mean Tachyons, I should have read through my post.

 

I'm quite embarrassed now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time is a dimension that is not included in mathematical calculations when dealing with space. It is called the 4th Temporal dimension with a reason (there is also a 4th spatial dimension which is commonly known as the 5th dimension). You cannot cast off time being a particle because you just assume its a dimension. Chronotons are most likely theoretical, like gravitrons. Also, the 5th dimension is sometimes considered to be sub-atomic particles as well, thus a dimension is a particle. You can argue with me if you want, but its just theory. Read the book "Hyperspace" for further information on higher dimensional theory. It is meant for the general public and is not difficult to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If time were a particle, scientists would be constructing a time machine this instant. As others have said, time is a dimension, the fourth dimension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, just because if time is a particle, doesn't mean scientists can manipulate it. We can detect the gravitron, but have we been able to manipulate it yet? Nope..

 

Zelcon

As others have said, time is a dimension, the fourth dimension.

 

Hyd (me)

Time is a dimension that is not included in mathematical calculations when dealing with space. It is called the 4th Temporal dimension with a reason

 

....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we can detect the graviton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can detect the gravitron

 

Citation, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake.

We have evidence that gravitron exists. We haven't proved or observed its existence directly. Thus we detect its properties, not the actual gravitron particle I think.

 

Graviton

The graviton is the exchange particle for the gravity force. Although it has not been directly observed, a number of its properties can be implied from the nature of the force. Since gravity is an inverse square force of apparently infinite range, it can be implied that the rest mass of the graviton is zero.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html#c6

(ctrl + f, search gravitron)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My mistake.

We have evidence that gravitron exists. We haven't proved or observed its existence directly. Thus we detect its properties' date=' not the actual gravitron particle I think.

 

 

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html#c6

(ctrl + f, search gravitron)[/quote']

Graviton is still a theoratical particle as far as I know. Based on quantum mechanics it is predicted to exist and also predicted to have extremely small mass. There has been no experimental evidence showing its existence.

The best chance to detect graviton lies in the massive particle accelerator being built in europe right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on quantum mechanics it is predicted to exist and also predicted to have extremely small mass.

 

Since gravity is an inverse square force of apparently infinite range, it can be implied that the rest mass of the graviton is zero.

 

Same source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Graviton is still a theoratical particle as far as I know. Based on quantum mechanics it is predicted to exist and also predicted to have extremely small mass. There has been no experimental evidence showing its existence.

The best chance to detect graviton lies in the massive particle accelerator being built in europe right now.

 

It should have zero mass actually (otherwize gravity would have a speed of propagation < c, which would screw up lots of astro measurements). And the LHC has pretty much no chance of finding it - it could only see it in very special circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time - not a particle.

As pointed out by others, it's a dimension but, IMO, only by convention.

By convention because it is the effect of change and inherently energy by which change propagates.

 

Gravitons are mere predictions but as Severian pointed out to propagate at c they would have to be massless. Has this propagation of gravity (at c) been confirmed yet?

 

And there is a Time magazine but has nothing to do with physics. :)

 

...my first post on SFN, so please, take it easy :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just read my post it was probally the worst worded post EVER' date=' I did as YT suggested mean Tachyons, I should have read through my post.

 

I'm quite embarrassed now[/quote']If a thread takes a wrong turn it seems impossible to get it back on track... :)

 

Tachyons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyons

 

A tachyon is a hypothetical particle that travels at superluminal velocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has this propagation of gravity (at c) been confirmed yet?
yea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Disagree with your comments. It is entirely possible for time to exist as both a particle and a dimension. Light, I belive is the highest naturally occuring density of Time occuring in our dimension(other than being a form of energy, after all energy is movement and movement is time). This agrees with Einstein's beleif that when any object goes faster than the speed of light(see above braceted area), It will travel backwards in time(the natural state of all things is a sphere, therefore time is also a sphere, and If you travel far enough in one direction, you will arrive at a point behind where you started). Therefore, if you somehow infuse all atoms in your body with an excess in Time, you will travel backwards. by the same princible, removeing all Time will cause the rest of time to pass you by.

also(though I'm not so sure about this), have you ever been standing by the side of a road when a car passes by? If you have, you'll remember that the car passes, and then you feel the air rush past afterwards. this is because the car takes particles of Time from the air around it, so the car moves faster(and slows down time slightly for the contents) and the air, laging behind a bit is not moving as fast as the car(because of its lack of Time).

I hope this answer is satisfactory. I have found no error over the many hours I have thought this over(incidentally before I read this), and if you can find error, please notify me, as this theory is in its developmental stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.