h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think I mentionned that idea of mine before in one og H2G2's forums, but...

Say you have a A+ particule running in a straight line, and a A- antiparticule running on the same line, both heading into each other. When the meet, if I remember well, both "disappear", and leave only some energy behind.
Now if looking at time as one of the dimensions, couldn't this be A+ bouncing back in time (i.e. "disappearing" for us, but no trajectory change on the other 3 dimensions), "turning into A-" after it's bounce, as perceived by us who stayed in a forward time direction ?

A+......A+.....A+.....'BOOM!'.....A-.....A-.....A-

???

It is the observer moving through time that makes it seem to go by. Time is just a medium.

That has nothing to do with what Connie is on about. Time may be the medium as you say, but the 'particles' within that medium are still an intrinsic part.
So any A+ particles losing energy as they go past the 'now' would certainly become A- particles, the trouble with this theory is that the massive buildup of energy within the 'now' would cause a total existance failure without some form of dissapation. Perhaps applying the circular time theory, the energy rejoins the A- particles at the exact opposite end out time, a sort of anti-now, thus becoming A+ particles ready to start the process all over again.

What I meant is that there is no need for any directional change of a particle in time. It is only due to observation that any change occurs.

Damn that ever changing now. Hmm.

Hi, Connie:

I like the idea of using the A+ and A- particles in the example; but if this event happened in time - as opposed to one of the three physical dimensions - it leaves me with two thoughts:

1) The A+ and A- particles are then the same particle, and not two meeting particles at all.

2) What made it go 'boom' and switch?? There must be some causative event, right?

That would be, indeed, only one particule...

As for what causes it to bounce, I haven't solved that problem yet, but :
- first, if you look at time in one direction, there is some energy dissipating from the "collision", but if you look at it in the other direction, it is energy focusing on the particule to make it bounce...
- and second, who really knows why particules do what they do anyway ?!?!

Love, and a happy new year !

Connie L.
The only particules a Drag-Queen is really interested in are photons that make her shine !

Connie:

Just thought of something even more curious than the bounce effect. What state does a particle reach between A+ and A-?
non-A, A-neutral, non-existence?

There would not be a between I would have thought. Except maybe the instant (which doesnt exist because you cant measure time with time) where that indefinable something is removed to create the A- or added to make the A+. It would be and instantaneous on/off like when an electron is removed from an atom. There is no between, it just happens, accompanied by energy release/use.

Thanks BF! But that leaves me with the task of asking you if you're familiar with a concept called Planck Time?

Basically, a Plank Unit (of time or space) is supposed to be the most minimal 'length' possible. Many physicists buy into plank units for space, and others for time. In plank units, an instantaneous change would be A+ A+ A+ A- A- A-, where a continuous flow of time would necessitate A+ A+ A+ A= A= A- A- A- or something like it.

Just wondering whether you had considered this concept.

Isnt the smallest possible thing that is possible to happen in the smallest possible time supposed to be a particle/electron/quark/other insanely small sub-atomic doodah moving ever so slightly? The universal tick or whatever I heard somebody call it.
In which case time A+ going into time A- would require a particle moving slightly, so there would not be a between to describe. Because it is time that is doing the moving, the very act of the now turning into the then would BE the smallest possible thing to happen.

In a flow universe, a thing can be smaller as long as you can still ask 'what size would it be if you cut it in half", and time measured in increasingly small amounts if you can fit one more zero after the decimal place and before the '1'.

The universal tick (I'll have to look this up!) sounds something like Planck time.

Of course, we may never know.

Ah so your point is that the infinitesimal movement of theorised particle could move even less and still count? Do you know the name of those 'real life' particles that seem to spontaneously vanish and appear elsewhere nearby? Im wondering if the A's have a similar process thus discounting any gradations of movement, simply because it doesnt move, it just goes somewhere else.

Hmmm, ' 'real life' particles that seem to spontaneously vanish and appear elsewhere nearby '? Sounds as if you may be refering to tunneling neutrinos. Physicists grant them this sort of property.

My problems with this particle parlour trick is that it may merely be a result of our inability to 'see' or measure the in-between. It is exciting to think that it is actually proof of additional dimensions, and a violation of Newtonian physics; but I don't really think we 'know' yet. Being convinced isn't quite the same thing, is it?

I think that it was you who recently mentioned that things standing still in spatial coordinates are still moving in time. If not, the point was well taken. Nothing that exists in our universe is ever truly still. If it were, it would cease to exist as time passed its coordinates by.