Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By dapifo
  • 2 Post By Strange

Thread: Does exist the time at very small scales (eg Electrón or Planck scale)?

  1. #1 Does exist the time at very small scales (eg Electrón or Planck scale)? 
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Does exist the time at very small scales (eg Electrón or Planck scale)?

    If yes,...does it works in the same way of it do in Our Scale?----Does it goes quickly or slowly?...there is any existing theory about this?


    sak likes this.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    One day we may break time into milli seconds and nano seconds. Gosh! Had we already done it? Any way I appreciate the effort to bring the idea.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    Actually breaking down seconds in to milliseconds is quite different to Plank Time. Whilst it is clear what is going on in the former, we simply do not know what happend at "times smaller than Plank Time". For what it's worth, we can think of it as the "highest resolution" possible on a monitor. Movement seems smooth, but zoom in and it moves in pixels and the movement is always a "jump".

    The OP question is valid and interesting, if badly worded.

    I myself asked this question in this thread: Planck time

    Outcome: we do not know.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    At the level of electrons, time behaves exactly as described by relativity; as demonstrated by relativistic effects in muons, particle accelerators, etc. Our current theories don't apply at the Planck level (because quantum effects dominate) so the answer is: we don't know.

    Why not read some of the books that have been recommended to you. In many theories of quantum gravity, time and space are not fundamental aspects of the universe, they emerge from another description.

    By the way, if you can't get your monomania and obsessive behaviour under control at Cosmoquest you will end up getting banned from here. (Here, you will probably just carry on annoying people.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    By the way, if you can't get your monomania and obsessive behaviour under control at Cosmoquest you will end up getting banned from here. (Here, you will probably just carry on annoying people.)
    What do you mean?...If you see the date that was started this thread is before to be (surprisingly and unjustly) banned in CQ.

    And it was because the thread about matter/mass/energy had degenerated to discuss the use of colors, bolds, ... in the posts (?????)

    I cannot understand why people preffers answering mainstream questions..that having and discussion about state of the art themes (??)....Do you?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post

    I myself asked this question in this thread: Planck time

    Outcome: we do not know.
    Really this thread was very short....and clear ...we do not know !!

    It seems that in these scales there is a 2D space.... it is time one of these two D?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Average Human guymillion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    It seems that in these scales there is a 2D space.... it is time one of these two D?
    Causal dynamical triangulation (a theory with very few people backing it, really) says that at a very small scale, spacetime is 2D. However, if this is true (probably not), my guess is that it would not include time (not quite sure how that works though ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    What do you mean?...If you see the date that was started this thread is before to be (surprisingly and unjustly) banned in CQ.
    You weren't banned, you were suspended.

    I cannot understand why people preffers answering mainstream questions..that having and discussion about state of the art themes (??)....Do you?
    people prefer discussing science whether mainstream or speculative. Discussing poorly defined ideas that make no sense is a lot less interesting.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    What do you mean?...If you see the date that was started this thread is before to be (surprisingly and unjustly) banned in CQ.
    You weren't banned, you were suspended.

    I cannot understand why people preffers answering mainstream questions..that having and discussion about state of the art themes (??)....Do you?
    people prefer discussing science whether mainstream or speculative. Discussing poorly defined ideas that make no sense is a lot less interesting.
    Dear Strange...I am not interested in start off thread discussions...please, if you are not interested in the question or item of the present thread you are not obligated to be here...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    It seems that in these scales there is a 2D space.... it is time one of these two D?
    Can you say where this 2D idea comes from? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to...

    Edit: OK, ignore that, I just saw gumillion's comment

    It sounds to me (from the Wikipedia page (1)) that the 2 dimensions of the simplexes are not specifically time or space; they are just two dimensions. It is how they are connected that determines whether any particular edge represents a space-like or a time-like dimension.
    Quote Originally Posted by WP
    The line segments which make up each triangle can represent either a space-like or time-like extent, depending on whether they lie on a given time slice, or connect a vertex at time t with one at time t+1.
    Familiar 4D spacetime emerges from this construction.

    (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_..._triangulation
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It sounds to me (from the Wikipedia page (1)) that the 2 dimensions of the simplexes are not specifically time or space; they are just two dimensions. It is how they are connected that determines whether any particular edge represents a space-like or a time-like dimension.
    Just you was the first person who talk to me about it (!!?)...

    Then, if there are forseen 2D...these will be only of space?....and time will be the third?...or time will not exist?...that is the question !!!...dear Strange.

    Is it possible to forsee that for small dimensions will not be time?...make it sense?....if no time... then no speed...then it will be an static space (2D or 3D).

    May we understand how time can stop at these dimensions?....And if no time are there ...how time can exist at our dimensions?...is time dimension dependent?
    Last edited by dapifo; August 28th, 2012 at 01:16 PM.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Then, if there are forseen 2D...these will be only of space?....and time will be the third?
    As far as I can tell, the idea is that spacetime is constructed from a series of triangles like a wireframe model.



    These triangles are 2D by definition (they are triangles). These 2 dimensions are not space or time. The edges join vertices and are either space-like or time-like depending whether the vertices they join are are adjacent in space or adjacent in time.

    Is it possible to forsee that for small dimensions will not be time?
    There many theorists who suggest that either time does not exist at or that it is simply an emergent property from entropy or something. I don't really understand any of that.

    p.s. From now on, I am going to ignore any sentences from you that contain the word "scale".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by guymillion View Post
    Causal dynamical triangulation (a theory with very few people backing it, really) says that at a very small scale, spacetime is 2D. However, if this is true (probably not), my guess is that it would not include time (not quite sure how that works though ).
    Time is also an essential component in CDT.
    Actually I have high hopes for CDT, the maths of the model work beautifully and it is based on solid grounding. What this hypothesis is stuck on at the moment is the fact that the resultant path integral is too complicated to solve explicitly, so we don't really know yet what the full theory will look like.
    Anyway, not saying yet that there is anything to CDT, but it certainly is an interesting approach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    You might like this: Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime



    It seems that a universe (or at least, a universe inhabitable by intelligent life) can only have 3 spatial and 1 time dimension.
    pyoko and Markus Hanke like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Planck time
    By pyoko in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 11th, 2012, 09:38 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2010, 05:36 AM
  3. Perception of time on huge scales
    By Raziell in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 24th, 2010, 05:54 PM
  4. DOES ELECTRON EXIST AS THE INDIVISIBLE CORPUSCLE?
    By regel in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 21st, 2010, 09:33 AM
  5. expansion of space on small scales
    By medlakeguy in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 8th, 2008, 12:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •