Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Time Dilation

  • 17-09-2020 10:19pm
    #1
    Voltex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭


    Can a unit of Planck time be subject to relativistic time dilation or are SR or GR effects meaningless at such small scales?


Comments

  • #2
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Voltex wrote: »
    Can a unit of Planck time be subject to relativistic time dilation or are SR or GR effects meaningless at such small scales?
    It can. Though Planck time is only a fundamental unit of time in some proposed theories of quantum gravity. It's easily possible that in the true theory time is arbitrarily fine or of varying fineness.


  • #3
    Goosius
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭Goosius


    Fourier wrote: »
    It can. Though Planck time is only a fundamental unit of time in some proposed theories of quantum gravity. It's easily possible that in the true theory time is arbitrarily fine or of varying fineness.

    I don't think we can say for certain that it is possible right now.

    The problem is not what our universe might actually do in the scenario.

    The problem is in our current theories. Planck time comes from quantum mechanics, but the formulas of time dilation come from Relativity. The starting value of an "absolute" time is actually meaningless to relativists, and so it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), that you could probably definitely not plug that absolute value neatly into our current formulas for time dilation. (without blowing a fuse somewhere so to speak)


  • #4
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Goosius wrote: »
    I don't think we can say for certain that it is possible right now.

    The problem is not what our universe might actually do in the scenario.

    The problem is in our current theories. Planck time comes from quantum mechanics, but the formulas of time dilation come from Relativity. The starting value of an "absolute" time is actually meaningless to relativists, and so it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), that you could probably definitely not plug that absolute value neatly into our current formulas for time dilation. (without blowing a fuse somewhere so to speak)
    Quantum Field Theory combines both relativity and quantum mechanics correctly and in it the Planck time can be time dilated easily with no inconsistencies because there's nothing particularly special about it, it's just the unit frequency of field modes. Note the Planck time comes from both quantum mechanics and relativity not quantum theory alone.

    In some proposed theories of quantum gravity the Planck time is more special than it is in Quantum Field Theory.


  • #5
    Goosius
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭Goosius


    Fourier wrote: »
    Quantum Field Theory combines both relativity and quantum mechanics correctly and in it the Planck time can be time dilated easily with no inconsistencies because there's nothing particularly special about it, it's just the unit frequency of field modes. Note the Planck time comes from both quantum mechanics and relativity not quantum theory alone.

    In some proposed theories of quantum gravity the Planck time is more special than it is in Quantum Field Theory.

    I was inclined to chat on this forum, and certainly debate too, but because you (Fourier or more importantly the real person behind the handle) apparently continue to hold to multiple positions which seem to be contrary to mainstream science (positions which I did respectfully examine in other recent threads using multiple sources of counter-information), it is making it difficult to bring these conversations to a commonly agreed starting point without future-aggravation.

    Maybe this is a debating style unknown to me, its just not the way I want to be starting these conversations.

    Go in peace everyone, I'm going to sign off from this public board for now. Adios.


  • #6
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Goosius wrote: »
    I was inclined to chat on this forum, and certainly debate too, but because you (Fourier or more importantly the real person behind the handle) apparently continue to hold to multiple positions which seem to be contrary to mainstream science, it is making it difficult to bring these conversations to a commonly agreed starting point without future-aggravation.
    I work in physics, I just know the mainstream opinions more accurately than one can glean from wikipedia and popular books like you are doing. Pick up an actual textbook like Peskin and Schroeder and you'll see that arbitrarily small time scales can be dilated in quantum field theory. The starting point is the actual theorems I mentioned, i.e. real results from actual papers not wiki references (which you didn't seem to understand).
    Goosius wrote: »
    (Maybe this is a debating style unknown to me, its just not the way I want to be starting these conversations.
    I cited the actual theorems proving what I was saying. It's not some odd debating style it's just regular physics. You can't have a conversation about actual physics without referencing actual theorems in the area and current work rather than wikipedia expositions of 56 year old theorems.
    Goosius wrote: »
    Go in peace everyone, I'm going to sign off from this public board for now. Adios.
    As genuine advice if you are trying to submit to journals, I think you should read actual textbooks instead of trying to piece things together from wikipedia and popular science.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement