Precept 1. Things diffuse from a small volume into a larger one.

Precept the second. Time is diffusing. The big-bang says that time has a begining. From the begining until now is a fixed amount of of time, and also of space. From now until the end of time is a much larger volume i.e. neigh unto infinite.

1st Hypothesis. We observe time going only one direction because it is diffusing from a finite box into an infinite box. Time doesn't go backwards for the same reason gas doesn't diffuse back into the box. The probability is gas-ly small, infact if the outer box is really infinite the probability of diffusing back in is zero.

If you will allow the assumption that time is diffusing, then we can model the average path of time with the root mean square velocity, or the average speed with which a molecule of time will travel. V=(3kT/m)^(1/2) where V is the velocity, which in our case is C, the speed of light. Einstein and others have suggested that if you travel faster than the speed of light you will have traveled in time. Therefore, time travels at the speed of light or about 299792458 m/s. The symbol k is the Boltzman's constant which is equal to 1.3806504 x 10^-23 J/K and T is the temperature, or in our case the average temperature of the universe which is between 2.7280 and 2.7282 K plugging in and rearranging we see that m, the mass of time = 3kT/C^2 or 1.25726*10^-39 kg but surprizingly this unit of time does not have a "time" associated with it, so is time quantized? Is it discrete? Or is this the "rest mass of time" I don't know. However, time having a mass could account for the mysterious dark matter in the universe, if time has a mass according to DeBroglie it could have a wavelength and it might be that time itself is vibrating rather than say light or matter, perhaps it is time that gives things their duality? Oh and on a more religious note, if something is beyond time is it no longer a dichotomy? Is this what gives God his constancy? Ponder away, and I wish you luck.

## 1 comment:

The temperature of the cmb doesn't really count as giving you an estimate of the temperature of time. Also you are at the same time assuming implicitly that a particle of time has a rest mass when you use the velocity equation to derive its energy but at the same time you are allowing it to travel at the speed of light which, if it did have a rest mass would require it to have an infinite amount of kinetic energy. I want to add something about particles of time though. First of all I don't think time is quantized and therefore don't think that it has an associated particle. I don't really believe that time exactly has a real existence at all. Ironically the argument you are using about the diffusion of the universe is usually the key support of the argument that time doesn't exist. Time is an illusion caused by the diffusion of the universe in its state space.

Despite the fact that I agree with the perspective of the non-existence of time. I want to add to the particle of time thing a bit. Lets assume for a moment that time does come in nice quantized particle packages. Lets say that every time something absorbs a time particle it goes forward in time a bit or more to the point it diffuses in its state space a bit. Furthermore lets assume that time have a non-zero rest mass. For the moment ignoring the weirdness of allowing space to generate virtual particles in the absence of passing time we will assume that the vacuum generates virtual time particle anti particle pairs which get absorbed by stuff and cause time to pass. Now here is the part where we use this to calculate something interesting. The rest mass of a time particle would determine how probable the pair production is the lower the rest mass the longer the particles can travel and the easier they are to make so the average fluctuation of the passing of time from one object to annother (the standard deviation in the number of time particles absorbed) would be very small and if the time particles had higher masses then the fluctuations would be larger. Based on the fact that time appears to be extremely consistent betwixt one observer and another time would have to have an absolutely miniscule rest mass. (fights urge to delete the second part of this comment)

Post a Comment