definition of time, in quantum physics

Discussion on the subject of time here shows that time as a basic physical quantity is not well defined. Different experts have a different formulations of time. But we all agree that in the universe there is only one physical quantity that we call time.

We need a new, clear definition of time here. I would invite good heart and sharp mind physicists to post their definitions of time. We will have than a sincere constructive discussion that will lead into a definition of time on which we will all agree. Time is one.

Max Planck says that photon pass the Planck distance in a Planck time.

Amrit definition of time.
Time is movement of photon into Planck distance.
Planck time t is a number that indicates the duration of the photon moving in a Planck distance.

Movement of photon into Planck distance is a smallest movement possible in the universe.

Time is a physical quantity measured by clocks.
With clocks we measure duration of movement of matter-energy into cosmic space.
Time is movement.


yours sincerely, amrit

Well, the definition of time as "movement of something" is definitelly better, then just the "movement", but I'm affraid, the situation is no so simple...


By the Aether Wave Theory the vacuum is multidimensional and it consists from "layers", which are connected by the energy density. The energy waves at the certain space convolution level are acting here as the density waves at the contiguous level, and so on, whereas the energy density remains aditive. Such layers are rather nested topological structures for the energy wave spreading, than real 2D layers - they corresponds the (mem)brane concept of M-theory. The very elastic liquid foam can serve as the approximate model of such structure, which is formed just by torsion deformations of it. Such deformations are exhibiting an inertia, behaving like the mutually repulsive massive particles.

From this point of view the density distribution serves here as the time distribution at the contiguous space time level and so called de Broglie quantum wave serves as the density wave here. Such model is able to explain so called quantum effects easily as the result of interference of the energy wave with its corresponding density wave. We can postulate the time quantity measure as the wave frequency at the contiguous space convolution level and the corresponding time flow at such level as so-called imaginary time. As usually, the surface wave model helps with natural understanding a lot: the density of water simply serves as the time measure for the surface wave spreading.



But as you can see, such distinguishing between real and imaginary time doesn't help us with the explanation of the nature of the time quantity alone, as this model is virtually recursive. We always have some energy density motion at the deeper level, so each imaginary time has some "more imaginary" time assigned, and so on.. Furthemore, the fractal wave model of universe supposes some "universal time" existence, which is common for all the convolution levels.

I know, you don't believe to the hidden dimensions concept, but without such concept you're in deep troubles if you want to explain a lot of aspects of the quantum world and particle properties. Even the "photon wave" existence required by your primitive "single layer" model supposes some elastic environment and such elastic environment requires the other one, and so on.

Yes Zephir, it is better to think that light is movement of something as to think that that time can move by itself. This idea is a "mental residue" from the times of Newton. At his time physics was a part of metaphysics. The idea is from metaphysics, it is not from physics. It is uncomfortable that whenever we talk about time in physics, we do not know about what exactly we are talking about.
See what Nobel Winners says about time, on Nobel web site.
So myself I do not like this situation, And I’m working to improve it. Maybe with support of some other experts here we will have good final results regarding understanding of time.

In all formula of physics the symbol t indicates duration of movement. Why we think differently ?

amrit

Technically speaking, both we are think by the very simmilar way, but I feel, most of aspects of your theory can be generalized easily using a hidden dimensons concept.

Well, here is some problem with this topic, as I'm not able to add new posts here by the same way, like you and I don't see this topis in the topic list.

Maybe some problem with the database? The physorg forum is running a quite slow at the last time.

I do not disagree that time is essentially "measured motion".

And I have a problem with singularity/initial conditions (ie no time, NOT t=0).

Course, analysis is a bit difficult with such a definition:-)

Hi Contrarian
welcome in the A-TEMPORAL CLUB

there was no beginning of the universe
universe is a system in a permanent equilibrium
no beginning no end

see my article at
www.ejtp.com
Active Galactic Nucleus.........(2005) Soil, Scarlett

This post has been edited by amrit on Jul 14 2006, 11:50 AM

Hi amrit, Contrarian, Zephir et al.... I think...

I will naturally differ in my opinion about what time really is. I am not about discussing the stupid question about the units of time being time itself. Ignoring the "unit" which is totally irrelevant... I believe that there is no "fundamental" unit of time such as the Planck Time. It is a nonsense notion actually since there is no reason for any such unit to exist, it is just an "extensible" quality. The Planck Time is just another unit like any other. We should concentrate on what time really is and why it appears to be irreversible.

Entropy of the Universe is the closest thing that we can stipulate that "enforces" time. Aside from the fundamental irreversibility of time within Minkowskian Spacetime, the other aspect of time is the Cosmological Constant which is not only working on the biggest things in our Universe it is also working on the very smallest scale of everything in the Universe as well and spreading "stuff" apart (this is the Hubble Shift). This process is frame dragging every point from every other point leading to "inflation" energy and to changing processes such that the physical constants... being modified over the vast periods of time the Universe has been in existence. This spreading is equivalent to a vast amount of energy as our Universe actually "winds down". This Hubble Spreading is actually the direction of increasing entropy and makes the fabric of spacetime very slightly "non-abelian". Round trips to two different points in space that are suffering this spreading cannot be accomplished without an input of energy. Consider two neighboring points in space way back in time near the Big Bang. Let’s say they were one meter apart then. Today 13.5 Billion years later they may be 13 Billion light years apart. A round trip 13.5 billion years ago would have only a tiny energy penalty, today this will require a vast supply of energy to make this round trip. Indeed if the points are sufficiently far apart the relative velocity is approaching near the speed of light. Soon one of these points may pass into a Rindler Foliation and it would take an infinite amount of energy to make the round trip.... this is time or a measure of it.

Large examples of this process can be seen with Black Holes. If light falls into a Black Hole it Doppler shifts (relative to our frame of reference) toward the red end of the spectrum. At the same "time" the waves of light from the outer Universe come up close to the edge of the light cone (the event horizon) and "fall" in. The events of the past form an endless procession of events on the surface of that light cone, a vast block of information "frozen on the surface" only to be instantly covered by all the succeeding instants of time, over and over for all eternity. While the "sequence" of events is ever approaching that light cone as a mirror captures the external Universe, the Black Hole captures and "swallows" the events as "strings" on the surface of the event horizon as an infinitesimal layer of time, a temporal hologram, an exact analog of the external Universe, functional in all respects.

This is fueling the expansion of the universe, pushing all the points in space apart irreversibly increasing the amount of information trapped there as "history", between all "points" in space. The points in space are the fermions and the information stored are the bosons (photons). The space around the Black Hole is almost imperceptibly "spreading" as a result of this entropic process. The same process occurs on and between every quantum particle in the Universe, on its brane wall. This is a time sequence and it cannot be undone from our point of view, a Calabi-Yau Space of Information (a three dimensional "skin" with a tiny temporal "depth" imperceptible to our investigations). Since this is light that is falling into this parametric (reciprocal) layer, nothing can apparently get ahead of any of this and nothing can lag behind any of this either. It is like a gramophone recording on the surface of the membrane of all "closed" dimensional spaces (sub-atomic particle branes), only the "spiral" starts always on the outside and it moves bodily towards the center with apparent ever decreasing "relative speed" as an ever slowing wave relative to the external minkowski spacetime. It will get only a very tiny distance in this reciprocal space before it will appear to apparently stop, as it also seems to be red shifted to nearly infinity. Everything you have ever done has been recorded there "forever", unable to be erased or changed. A totally holographic recording based on primary "matter waves". Each bosonic "shell" are eigen values of the system and "concentric layers" represent a "snapshot" of our time as higher dimensional "strings" on a brane. Each "string" is the reciprocal equivalent to a standing wave "excitation" making up a tiny part of the overall hologram of the Universe.

That is time.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jul 14 2006, 01:11 PM

Amrit, I just checked that website. It doesn't seem to do much reviewing of the work. Also, you claim to be a member of the 'SpaceLife institute' but when I google for that, all I get are posts you've made on other websites talking about yourself. The institute is simply a entity you created to make it sound more like you're attatched to an academic facility.

I could just found the 'Institute for Advancement of Quantum Applications' and sign all my correspondence with "AlphaNumeric, Institute for Advancement of Quantum Applications" but it wouldn't add validation to my opinions.

http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv1i2p1.pdf

Your article never gives any proof or evidence for it's asserations, just statements. You also mention Autodynamics, a theory which is riddled with problems, including predicting the neutrino doesn't exist and predicts effects which are not seen experimentally. For instance, at low speeds Autodynamics predicts wildly nonlinear addition of velocity, while everyday experience and experiment show otherwise.

Also, in your references the second reference is a talk you supposedly gave in Moscow in 2003. Why then does your name neither appear on the participant list, nor the list of talks given here : here and here. Your 3rd reference is Carezani at the same conference and his name appears on the list.

It would appear very much like you're lying in an attempt top appear more credible, both by bending the truth about the 'institute' you are affiliated with (ie it's not an academic group) and about where you've presented your ideas.

Then throw in the fact your ideas contradict experiment and the outlook for you isn't too brilliant....

/edit

Also, your paper here is a mixture of false claims, bad examples and incorrect predictions. In the abstract you describe what is known as a 'Wick Rotation', a concept well known in both quantum field theory and relativity, so it is not a new line of thought. You also claim that relativity says gravitation changes occur instantly. That's wrong, relativity says gravitational changes propogate at light speed.

This post has been edited by AlphaNumeric on Jul 14 2006, 01:02 PM

All theory. There is no proof that time cant exist without motion. Time isn't motion at all. Time is how we measure motion, granted. That doesn't mean it is what it is.

erich with clocks we measure duration of motion
and this is what time is

Amrit, I just checked that website. It doesn't seem to do much reviewing of the work. Also, you claim to be a member of the 'SpaceLife institute' but when I google for that, all I get are posts you've made on other websites talking about yourself. The institute is simply a entity you created to make it sound more like you're attatched to an academic facility.

SpaceLife İinstitute is founded by me back in 2000.
from 2005 director is Davide Fiscaletti İtaian physicist

we publish in several scientific journals

and we will bring a-temporal concept into main stream in a next 5 years

This post has been edited by amrit on Jul 14 2006, 04:12 PM

You just refuted your own theory right there. You said time is how we measure motion. That doesn't mean time is motion. It simply means that is how we understand time.

erich i will not lose my time with you
you are just out of the subject

LOL! Refute your own statement, realize it, back down like a 5 year old. Try actually saying you're wrong.

What is the institute. It seems to have no presence on the internet other than you mentioning it by saying how you're affiliated with it. Similarly, Davide Fiscaletti doesn't seem to be attatched to any university or academic institution, just mentioned alongside your name in a few papers (though I do not read italian, so if he is a member of a university somewhere, please link to his page).

The fact you started it doesn't help it validate your point. What does the institute do? Is it located somewhere? Who else is linked to it? Is it an employer or just a name.

What other publications have you published in? That one you linked to clearly doesn't count as a proper publication because it obviously doesn't review any papers submitted to it due to your paper containing several glaring errors, not to mention not up to the standard of papers published by such groups as www.arxiv.org which is where almost all major physics papers are published. If you look around there you'll see that your papers fall a long way short of being publishable.

If your model includes autodynamics in some way, then it's demonstrably false. Autodynamics does not work for every day speeds, it doesn't limit to Newtonian and Gallelian results, as relativity does (and must!).

Really? You already had been trying for 7 years, why do you need 5 more?
Look, Amrit Sorli, several of us have proven to you that your "theory" is wrong. we did that from different angles:

-the theory is riddled with mistakes

-there are experiments that refute it

-no mainstream journal accepted your paper (I am sure you tried and you got plenty of rejections)


So what's your point in going down in flames? A real scientist would have admitted to error long ago.