Physics education research, electronic materials, and the musings of Christopher Moore, Ph.D.

Birddog:

Thank you for your remarks. This is the response I'm getting from a high percentage of my readers, with the exception of a very few.

Have a good day.

The existence of time in physics may well be axiomatic, but regardless of that there does in fact appear to be gap in our current understanding of ‘what time itself is’ as well as a lack of an ‘explanation’ for the existence of time. So with regards to your remark that I am trying to ‘justify’ the existence of time is not correct at all. My hypothesis attempts to ‘explain’ not ‘justify’ the existence and emergence of time; and based on the responses I’ve had it’s doing a good job of it too, regardless of your comments.

I am aware of the many concepts of time put forward by a number of philosophers and scientists but my work however, gives a new avenue of thought that describes time as having a direct relationship with energy, which leads one to assume that they may be one and the same thing’ – both of which are related to ‘change’. Paul Davies, the Australian physicist, has even stated that without energy there is no time, suggesting that the two work hand in hand.

I haven’t heard that word ‘bragging’ since my school days back in the 1950s/60s. I’m wasn’t bragging at all, nor do I wish to, I was only pointing out that my paper has stirred up quite an interest to which I have received a good number of positive responses, with the exception of a few.

As for submitting my paper to a scientific journal, this is currently in progress. Yes, I can agree my work may ‘appear’ flawed. Many hypotheses in there early stages are, as I’m sure you know. A hypothesis can be an ongoing investigation, until it reaches the point where all flaws have been eliminated through re-evaluating elements of the hypothesis, testing it, experimenting and even developing a mathematical model if applicable etc., and only then will the work begin to prove valid. That is the stage I am currently at, bringing my work up to a standard that may prove valid and workable. But for the moment, it’s the ‘best fit’ hypothesis we have that can explain the nature and cause of time, which as I have said, has aroused a lot of interest.

The point you made regarding the fact that we can have a body with energy yet have no change, yes, I am aware of that, and it’s one aspect of my hypothesis that may make it appear flawed, but it isn’t, as you will see in due course.  I won’t go into details at the moment, but I can offer a hint by using a clock as an example.

For a clock to measures time it requires a store of energy, which can be in the form of a wound-up spring or electrical energy.  To get that clock to measure time we need to release that stored energy, and when released, it’s then converted into kinetic energy that causes the internal workings of the clock to function – the function being, to measure time second by second. Now, if we had another clock that also had a source of stored energy, yet remained inert because it hadn’t been set into motion, then the inert clock couldn’t measure time, but, the functioning clock however, is still measuring time. Time therefore is ‘considered’ by the ‘functioning clock’ but not by the inert clock, yet both have energy.

This will also help to clear up another so-called flaw you seem to have pointed out regarding your remark where you suggested an ion free of electrons would have no time basis, therefore no ability to ‘change and progress’. But as I said, you will be able to read more when I post a second paper onto my website.

>The central idea of your "hypothesis" is based on a logical fallacy.<

I totally disagree with you.

>Your entire argument relies on classical concepts that rely on time.<

Yes, that’s right, why couldn’t it be? Although it may have classical concepts, my hypothesis also demonstrates the physical existence of time within quantum physics, where time is shown to have a particle nature.

>Classical physics is a subset of quantum physics -- the equations of classical physics can be derived from quantum theory. So you are starting from "last principles" as opposed to "first principles" (actually, your mixing them all up).<

You might accuse me of ‘mixing it all up’, but what I’m doing is creating a bridge between classical time and quantum time. Physicists have often admitted that we may have got parts of our understanding wrong. Our concept of time may not be what we have imagined it to be, and perhaps we need to re-evaluate our current knowledge to find an answer, and that is what I have done. I have looked at time from a new angle.

>Energy IS NOT time.<

I have had a couple of people say the same thing, a few couldn’t agree or disagree, and the rest appear to agree that my assumption may well be correct. Your opinion is ‘your’ opinion, and I can respect you for that, so we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

>Time and energy are ‘related’ but that does not make them the same thing.<

I can fully understand what you are saying, and yes, they are indeed related, and my current opinion states that they are the same thing. If they are not same, how then can we define the relationship between time and energy? That fact that energy causes ‘change’, where change creates the passing of events (passage of time), indicates that time itself is energy based, where ‘work’ is the mechanism that creates the ‘flow’ or ‘passing’ of time. Without energy this could not happen.

>I can agree that energy and time may have a more fundamental relationship yet to be discovered.<

As I said above, there appears to be a strong relationship between time and energy, and I’m currently working to find that relationship - mathematically.

>I'm not saying that you are asking bad questions; just the answers you have come up with do not make physical sense.<

It seem perfectly clear to me.

>What does your hypothesis predict? How can I test it?<

I have been bashing my brains out with this one for months. Time is a difficult one to test. Got any ideas?

Last edited by Ron57 (2005-08-20 17:34:55)

Is this a test to try my knowledge of physics? If it is, I object and will not answer. But if you are trying to understand my hypothesis - honestly -  then I shall reply.

No answer?

Time: some people say that time is a measure of entropy
as time progress, the universe becomes more random, it doesnt go in reverse?

I guess what you are saying is theoriticaly correct but you have to remeber that something that can travel faster than light has to have no mass... and i ask how many things can u tell me have no mass.

Im not entirely sure about your theory saying that something traveling faster than light may enable us to see back in time... i think it would just enable us to see and react faster...but then again maybe you are correct.

Either way i can see how you have arrived at your theory and respect that.

Chris wrote:

Answer a few questions for me please.

A particle moves across a frictionless table at constant velocity from point A to point B. Does the particle have energy?

Is there any work being done from A to B?

Does time "flow" as the particle goes from A to B?

I will answer my own questions:

If the particle is moving, then it must have kinetic energy.

Since there is no change in the velocity as it moves from A to B then it has no change in kinetic energy. Therfore no work is being done.

By the very definition of velocity time must flow from point A to point B even though there is no work being done and no change in energy.

A tachyon is the tpye of particle you are describing. They are a theoretical result of the Dirac equation. No evidence for their existence has been shown though. So there is much debate as to whether they actually exist.

IM realy intrigued as to this tachyon.  First question, can anyone write a fenetic way to pronounce the word and also does anyone know if they are composed of quarks or anti-quarks or if they are there own elemtery particle?

Chris: arn't ALOT of things to do with physics theoretical?

Chris: arn't ALOT of things to do with physics theoretical?

Well yes. The existence of tachyons comes from a solution to the Dirac equation, but that solution does not seem to make physical sense. No experiment has been able to directly or indirectly establish the tachyon's existence. So the particle remains conjecture.

See the following URL for the solution to the one dimensional free particle Dirac equation (the simple one )

http://home.pcisys.net/~bestwork.1/QRW/ … _dirac.htm

Equation (9) describes energy as a square root function. The soultion to a square root function can be either positive or negative, corresponding to positive and negative energy. The tachyon (particle that always travels faster than the speed of light) is descibed by the negative energy solution. This is generally accepted to be a physically invalid solution though.

An example with simple kinetic energy:



From this equaion, we cannot tell whether the velocity is positive or negative prima fascia.