Jump to content

The origin of matter and time


RichP714

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jvandyke_texas said:

He's describing a Minkowski diagram, which has been known for over 100 years.  He doesn't talk about causality.

He does a pretty good job avoiding math of the Lorentz transformation.

 

 

Yes, this is a 'refresher' of one of the earlier episodes, also posted here, that gives the details.  It's a pretty neat visualization of the Lorentz transform.  Given that this show is on PBS, I think the audience doesn't want to be hit on the head continuously with math.  He's NOT claiming to be describing anything NEW, just rounding up what is already known.  Many of his videos include 'watch these before this so you can be refreshed on what's coming in this episode; when he doesa this, it's an episode that's wrapping up an idea that has taken many episodes to convey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

In "The Origin of Matter and Time" video the speaker says "time and mass and matter become emergent (not fundamental) properties of the causal propagation of patterns of interactions between timeless, massless parts". This is a pretty amazing statement. I believe the 'parts' he refers to are the sub-atomic particles which he postulates are not time-interactive unlike larger aggregate particles which directly interact with time. 

 

Is the large particle interaction with the Higgs Field (and other fields/particles) the reason for this supposition differentiating small vs. large-aggregate particle relationship with 'time'? Does anyone know to what extent this has been experimentally proven or is it still just theory? Any known reference in a scientific journal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, straylight said:

In "The Origin of Matter and Time" video the speaker says "time and mass and matter become emergent (not fundamental) properties of the causal propagation of patterns of interactions between timeless, massless parts". This is a pretty amazing statement. I believe the 'parts' he refers to are the sub-atomic particles which he postulates are not time-interactive unlike larger aggregate particles which directly interact with time. 

 

Is the large particle interaction with the Higgs Field (and other fields/particles) the reason for this supposition differentiating small vs. large-aggregate particle relationship with 'time'? Does anyone know to what extent this has been experimentally proven or is it still just theory? Any known reference in a scientific journal?

 

AFAIK, large particle interaction with the Higgs Field is not a thing.  The Higgs field imparts mass to sub-atomic particles by tugging at them at Planck length scales, so electrons, gluons, quarks will interact with Higgs.  Atoms/molecules/organisms are too large to directly interact with the Higgs field; the mass of those larger constructs is imparted by the force of the gluons holding them together.

 

There's a difference between being timeless, being time agnostic and causality (c).  I think you mentioned Feynman diagrams in another post; those graphically show that interactions between sub-atomic particles are effectively equivalent interactions between their anti-matter pair, but reversing the direction of time (they are time agnostic, but still obey causality).  In this way, any interaction between any 'things' (sub-atomic or macro scale) involves time in one way or another; back-to-front or reverse.

 

This PBS speaker (he is a physicist)  has many videos on youtube; I think he's still the current host of the show; the show itself is pretty good IMO, they show concepts graphically for the most part, but get into the details and the math on occasion, and seeing things like the Lorentz transform presented graphically is pretty neat.  His post on why time has a direction is pretty neat, among others.

 

I don't know if this gives any rationale that you were looking for, I might have got it wrong or not understood the question, but I think a more correct statement would have been that as long as a sub-atomic particle is interacting with others, it has to experience time in one way or another, but not necessarily in the same way that the aggregate of those sub-atomic particles (the 'thing') does.

 

 

  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is a great clarification, thanks! There was a mention of interactions at the Planck length but I failed to connect that to affecting just electrons, gluons, and quarks directly.

Edited by straylight
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...