Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: quantum of time

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,032

    quantum of time

    It is possible that time is quantised. There seems to be some evidence for this in Redshift quantization.

    I am wondering what this means. Does it mean that time is also synchronised, that is that each quanta should start simultaneously with other time quanta across the universe? If not does that mean a time quanta is spatially bounded. But if they were I don't see how that works with relativity, whether redshift is stretching the quanta.

    If time is quantised and synchronised then in some sense time is layered.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Redshift quantisation is a claim for which there is no robust evidence. Most papers claiming it use one or more of the following:
    1) Questionable statistics
    2) Non-conventional 'corrections' to the data
    3) Selective subsets of the data

    Papers which look at all the data using standard methods and corrections find no evidence for redshift quantisation.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by transreality View Post
    It is possible that time is quantised... Does it mean that time is also synchronised, that is that each quanta should start simultaneously with other time quanta across the universe?
    If they did start and stop simultaneously it seems as though the 'stopped' parts wouldn't be noticed - and what would be perceived would be a continuous 'flow' of time. Time is probably the least understood concept in physics, good luck trying to understand it!

    Narlikar, who worked with Fred Hoyle, argued that redshifts were intrinsic to objects (not just dependent on distance). It's in 'Anomalous redshifts and the variable mass hypothesis' and from memory there is a chapter, near the end, which argued that the intrinsic redshift parts were quantised...it was ATM and since published in 1996 clearly has not been popular as not much is mentioned on it nowadays.
    "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,123
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    If they did start and stop simultaneously it seems as though the 'stopped' parts wouldn't be noticed - and what would be perceived would be a continuous 'flow' of time.
    Compare to distance units. Just because space may be quantized does not mean it 'starts and stops', or that there are gaps between them.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    533
    Correction to post 3.

    It was "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies:" Halton Arp and J. Narlikar, which had the chapter on quantised intrinsic redshifts.
    Last edited by john hunter; 2018-Jun-07 at 10:53 PM.
    "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by transreality View Post
    It is possible that time is quantised. There seems to be some evidence for this in Redshift quantization.

    I am wondering what this means. Does it mean that time is also synchronised, that is that each quanta should start simultaneously with other time quanta across the universe? If not does that mean a time quanta is spatially bounded. But if they were I don't see how that works with relativity, whether redshift is stretching the quanta.

    If time is quantised and synchronised then in some sense time is layered.
    Im still thinking that everything approaches discreteness and continuosness, but never reaches it.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,349
    Quote Originally Posted by transreality View Post
    It is possible that time is quantised. There seems to be some evidence for this in Redshift quantization.
    Note that wiki link you provided also says "Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times."
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    Narlikar, who worked with Fred Hoyle, argued that redshifts were intrinsic to objects (not just dependent on distance). It's in 'Anomalous redshifts and the variable mass hypothesis' and from memory there is a chapter, near the end, which argued that the intrinsic redshift parts were quantised...it was ATM and since published in 1996 clearly has not been popular as not much is mentioned on it nowadays.
    As I said, it is not popular because there is no robust evidence for it. Every paper I've seen showing evidence for it has been shown to have deep flaws in either the data analysis or data preparation.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    It was "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies:" Halton Arp and J. Narlikar, which had the chapter on quantised intrinsic redshifts.
    Here's the paper. https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/i...d_galaxies.pdf

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Im still thinking that everything approaches discreteness and continuosness, but never reaches it.
    Considering that it is the emitted photons that are supposed to be quantized, not the quasars themselves, a basic discrete model will show what the intrinsic redshifts referred to in the paper actually are and how any rings of material shed by the quasar pairs would expect to also have consistent intrinsic shifts if they were shed and ejected simultaneously.

    The first image below shows the continuous paths of discrete light emitted from 2 sources rotating around a stationary centre of rotation over one complete rotation with various different angles of the plane of rotation, with respect to the stationary observer, superimposed on top of each other. The colours of the light paths reflect the intrinsic shift of the movement of each source with respect to the observer at the time of emission. The distance to the observer from both points, 1,0 and 3,0, (i.e. the start point of each cycle) is 2 * Pi * c/v where v is the velocity of the rotating sources for all the different angles of rotation shown. This calculation is accurate for all the source v's emitted photons initially arriving at the observer after 1 complete rotation and, although the light paths will change at relativistic source v's, the discrete intrinsic shifts from each source will stay as they were emitted as that is how intrinsic shifts are defined.

    Rotations shift three.jpg

    The next image shows how the Top Elevation of the 45 degree paths are generated over each quarter of clockwise rotation of their source(s).

    Rotations shift quarters.jpg

    The final image shows the complete 45 degree paths after one complete clockwise rotation of their source(s) in all 3 elevations.

    Rotations shift.jpg

    None of this is ATM as it is just a simple geometric model of the discrete intrinsic quasar redshifts as referred to in the paper.

    If you start moving the centre of rotation of the sources towards, stationary (as above) or away from the observer the light paths and the intrinsic shifts arriving at the observer change as shown in the Top and End Elevations of the 45 degree model below.

    Rotations shift All.jpg

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Note that wiki link you provided also says "Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times."
    I got to the topic via this discussion in Scientific American. William G. Tifft seems to be a productive professional operating in his field (now emeritus) with a considerable contribution of papers. I don't think its ATM but I may not be qualified to judge.
    Last edited by transreality; 2018-Jun-12 at 08:08 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Interesting.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,654
    When the papers by Tifft and the controversy around H. Arp's work arose, there was limited data on galaxies, unlike the era of terabytes today. Much of the mystery seemed to diminish after Margaret Geller, and I believe it was also John Huchra, plotted the incoming data as " slices of the universe, in 3D, using computers. If a cluster of galaxies all had nearly the same redshift, in a small area of the sky, then they were all at the same relative distance, and the map in 3D, showed " walls" of galaxies with in between voids with hardly any. That the universe was not quite isotropic and homogeneous on large scales was then the new "unsettling" question.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    When the papers by Tifft and the controversy around H. Arp's work arose, there was limited data on galaxies, unlike the era of terabytes today. Much of the mystery seemed to diminish after Margaret Geller, and I believe it was also John Huchra, plotted the incoming data as " slices of the universe, in 3D, using computers. If a cluster of galaxies all had nearly the same redshift, in a small area of the sky, then they were all at the same relative distance, and the map in 3D, showed " walls" of galaxies with in between voids with hardly any. That the universe was not quite isotropic and homogeneous on large scales was then the new "unsettling" question.
    Perhaps there are two questions going on here. 1) about whether time is quantised and 2) whether redshifts are quantised.

    If the work of Arp, Tifft etc.. is valid and there is evidence for some quantisation of redshift and if the work of Geller and Huchra explains it, then for 2) we are left with the question of why there is a foam-like large scale structure to the universe. It's an interesting question, although maybe not so unsettling...

    Apparently Arp was denied telescope time when he started to propose his theories and went to work in Germany. His views were controversial and he might not have agreed with the Geller and Huchra explanation, shame if his work was frustrated. There is a discussion of that here http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/1...nd-censorship/

    As for 1) isn't the time quantisation of the order of 10^-44s if it exists, so probably wouldn't show up in redshift data, maybe someone interested in quantum-gravity would know about this.
    "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    ... we are left with the question of why there is a foam-like large scale structure to the universe. It's an interesting question, although maybe not so unsettling...
    Simulations like the Millennium simulation replicate this structure extremely well - as do fluid dynamics models. It is a reasonably well answered question. The remaining questions are more to do with the initial conditions for the simulation and how they formed.

    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    Apparently Arp was denied telescope time when he started to propose his theories and went to work in Germany. His views were controversial and he might not have agreed with the Geller and Huchra explanation, shame if his work was frustrated. There is a discussion of that here http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/1...nd-censorship/
    He stopped being given observation time because as galaxy surveys increased in number, size and quality it took every greater data 'conditioning' to show his effect. His ideas were convincingly refuted so the priority of his research dropped. It wasn't censorship, it was science moving on. Its the same reason why if you ask for lab time to investigate phlogiston you won't get it. And it was 20 years after he proposed his ideas, fifteen years after he was given a live debate at Princeton to discuss his views. Giving someone observation time for twenty years, giving them a platform to debate this with another respected physicist, publishing them - all until the evidence showed their ideas to not stand up. Seems a funny form of censorship to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    As for 1) isn't the time quantisation of the order of 10^-44s if it exists, so probably wouldn't show up in redshift data, maybe someone interested in quantum-gravity would know about this.
    That is the Planck time - there is no hard evidence that it is physically significant but has been proposed as a 'natural' scale for time quantisation. The reasoning is that at this scale quantum effects are big enough that a smooth spacetime metric is no longer valid and so describing a path in time doesn't make sense any more.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Simulations like the Millennium simulation replicate this structure extremely well - as do fluid dynamics models. It is a reasonably well answered question. The remaining questions are more to do with the initial conditions for the simulation and how they formed.


    He stopped being given observation time because as galaxy surveys increased in number, size and quality it took every greater data 'conditioning' to show his effect... Seems a funny form of censorship to me.


    That is the Planck time - there is no hard evidence that it is physically significant but has been proposed as a 'natural' scale for time quantisation. The reasoning is that at this scale quantum effects are big enough that a smooth spacetime metric is no longer valid and so describing a path in time doesn't make sense any more.
    About Arp's observation time: Yes possibly, there is a discussion from both sides in the link.

    For Q1) Is this more or less answered, i.e. is the consensus that there is not good evidence for redshift quantisation and if it exists it might well be explained by the foam-like, large scale structure?

    For Q2) i.e. from OP "It is possible that time is quantised [?]". What should be the answer, is it that some theories suggest it, but the answer isn't known yet? Can Anyone add more?
    "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    For Q1) Is this more or less answered, i.e. is the consensus that there is not good evidence for redshift quantisation and if it exists it might well be explained by the foam-like, large scale structure?
    I think so - the effect has only gotten weaker with more evidence. Gaps in the data due to the presence of voids is not the same as quantisation.

    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    For Q2) i.e. from OP "It is possible that time is quantised [?]". What should be the answer, is it that some theories suggest it, but the answer isn't known yet? Can Anyone add more?
    Most extended quantum theories assume that it must be on some level. But so far none of the tests for space-time or time quantisation have shown any evidence for it. It is frustrating, in a way, as quantum theories are so successful otherwise.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •