# Does time exist?

As I understand it, the distance between the two photons shrinks @ 2*c, but each photon only observes the other moving @ c

vr = 2*c/2 = c

My own interpretation of this apparent contradiction is that based on quantum mechanics quanta cannot regenerate at greater than c and thus any observed speed is translated to c. At faster than c the photon would disappear during quantum suspension.

I do have an additional question. Is it possible that in this scenario, when their quantum state is synchronized and in suspension, neither particle is able to observe each other at all?

As I understand it, the distance between the two photons shrinks @ 2*c, but each photon only observes the other moving @ c

vr = 2*c/2 = c

Not far of my interpretation.
In my opinion and simplified, there is an expansion occuring permanently at the quantum scale at every position doing some "buffering".
The expansion speed is equal to C/2. (simplified)
So, if two "objets" are at the point of really crashing together (before.... it is only virtual), this very local expansion counteract the speed of the objects that are about to crash.

This is a simplified proposition, but "the expansion/contraction at every scale proposition" added to quantum mecanismus (i dident talked about here) is a coherent proposition that permit to explain the anomaly of the energy of the universe. See below with the work of Bill Unruh and Qingdi Wang.

Wikipedia said:
In cosmology, the cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density (the small value of the cosmological constant) and theoretical large value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory.

Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the discrepancy is as high as 120 orders of magnitude,[1] a state of affairs described by physicists as "the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of science"[1] and "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."[2]

Bill Unruh and collaborators have argued that when the energy density of the quantum vacuum is modeled more accurately as a fluctuating quantum field, the cosmological constant problem does not arise
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00543
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

Science said:
UBC physicists may have solved one of nature’s great puzzles: what causes the accelerating expansion of our universe?

UBC researchers Qingdi Wang and Bill Unruh tackle the question in a new study that tries to resolve a major incompatibility between quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Wang’s calculations provide a completely new physical picture of the universe, one in which the space we live in is fluctuating wildly. At each point, it oscillates between expansion and contraction. As it swings back and forth, the two almost cancel each other but a very small net effect drives the universe to expand slowly at an accelerating rate.

This is a new idea in a field where there hasn’t been a lot of new ideas.
“Space-time is not as static as it appears, it’s constantly moving,” said Wang.

The study suggests that if we zoomed in--way in--on the universe, we would realize it’s made up of constantly fluctuating space and time.

“This is a new idea in a field where there hasn’t been a lot of new ideas,” says Unruh, a physics and astronomy professor who supervised Wang’s work.

In 1998, astronomers found that our universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate, implying that space is not empty and is instead filled with dark energy that pushes matter away.

The most natural candidate for dark energy is vacuum energy. When physicists apply the theory of quantum mechanics to vacuum energy, it predicts that there would be an incredibly large density of vacuum energy, far more than the total energy of all the particles in the universe. If this is true, Einstein’s theory of general relativity suggests that the energy would have a strong gravitational effect and most physicists think this would cause the universe to explode.

Fortunately, this doesn’t happen and the universe expands very slowly. But it is a problem that must be resolved for fundamental physics to progress.

But if space and time are fluctuating, why can’t we feel it?

“This happens at very tiny scales, billions and billions times smaller even than an electron,” said Wang.

“It’s similar to the waves we see on the ocean,” said Unruh. “They are not affected by the intense dance of the individual atoms that make up the water on which those waves ride.”
https://science.ubc.ca/news/physicists-offer-new-accordion-theory-expansion-universe

I do have an additional question. Is it possible that in this scenario, when their quantum state is synchronized and in suspension, neither particle is able to observe each other at all?

Yes, good point, this is also in my opinion a way to explain this.

You are in a spaceship traveling at 0.8C.
You position yourself in the middle of the spaceship with two other scientists, everyone has a clock (so 3 clocks, 3 people).
The two other scientists position theirselfs, one in the front of the ship, one in the back of the ship.
At 8 and 1 minute o'clock precisely, you shoot a beam of light toward the front.
At 8 and 2 minute o'clock precisley, you shoot a beam of light toward the back.
The two other scientits note the time of arrival of the beam.
You can deduce the duration of travel for the light for the two beams.

What do you think ?
1 : The 2 durations are equal.
2 : The 2 durations are not equal.
2.a : Duration toward the front is longuer.
2.b : Duration toward the back is longuer.
The durations are equal, in the reference frame of the spaceship. The spaceship's speed relative to something else is irrelevant.

How can we now explain that the front of the ship is attained by the light beam with the same duration as the back of the ship ... if velocity of light doesent add to velocity of ship ?
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Those laws predict that the speed of light has a particular value. Therefore, that value must be the same in all inertial frames.

If the velocity of ship doesent add to C, why do the light beam attein the front of the ship as if there were no motion, altought the front of the ship advance while the light beam advance ?
Things look different in the frame of the ship, compared to how they look in the frame of somebody watching the ship fly past. For the person watching the ship fly past, the light from the middle will take longer to reach the front of the ship than it takes to reach the back.

Here, without too much tinking, we should conclude that, a contrario, the speed of light add to the speed of the ship (like if we would trow some tennis balls).
That's the problem with not doing enough thinking (or experimenting). Nature doesn't work that way, even though it seems like it "should", according to "common sense".

Last edited:
Here is a gedanken experiment. When two objects approach each @ C from opposite directions do they approach each other @ 2 x C ?
In the frame that is watching them approach at c (impossible for any objects with mass, by the way), their "relative velocity" would indeed be 2c.

In the frame of one of the objects, watching the other, the other would only be approaching at c.

If so, how can that be? If not, why not?

My own interpretation of this apparent contradiction is that based on quantum mechanics quanta cannot regenerate at greater than c and thus any observed speed is translated to c. At faster than c the photon would disappear during quantum suspension.

What does it mean for a "quantum" to "regenerate"?
Why is "regeneration" measured as a speed?
What do you mean by an observed speed being "translated"?
Why do you speak of things travelling faster than c, when no such thing has ever been observed?
What is "quantum suspension"?

Are you just making stuff up? What's the point of just talking out of your arse about science? Why not try to learn something about the subject? It's not just you. A number of other people on this forum regularly do the same thing.

In the frame that is watching them approach at c (impossible for any objects with mass, by the way), their "relative velocity" would indeed be 2c.
I know, that's why I used "photons"
Write4U said:
As I understand it, the distance between the two photons shrinks @ 2*c, but each photon only observes the other moving @ c
Perhaps, but I am pleased you asked me to explain what I meant by that narrative.
What does it mean for a "quantum" to "regenerate"?
AFAIK, quanta are distinct values which cannot occupy the same place at the same time. Therefore the realization of quanta requires time. (I named it regeneration)
Why is "regeneration" measured as a speed?
Or as time, take your pick. The speed/duration is @ c.
What do you mean by an observed speed being "translated"?
translated into observable change.
Why do you speak of things travelling faster than c, when no such thing has ever been observed?
I did not say that. I said the space between the two particles shrinks @ 2*c. But each particle can only observe the other traveling @ c .
i.e. vr = 2*c/2 = c
What is "quantum suspension"?
If quanta are discreet and cannot realize at the same time, then there must be a transition period between the two states. Else you'd get a continuum and that contradicts quantum, no? I used the term quantum suspension to identify this transitional period. I believe it is also called "quantum limit".
A quantum limit in physics is a limit on measurement accuracy at quantum scales. Depending ... if time interval between pulses is much shorter than the period of suspended mirror oscillations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_limit
Are you just making stuff up? What's the point of just talking out of your arse about science? Why not try to learn something about the subject? It's not just you. A number of other people on this forum regularly do the same thing.
I believe I am very conservative in thought. You have never seen me spout spiritual woo.
I will admit to being naive in the quantum world, but that is only a matter of degree. No one knows all the answers, including you.

I am currently listening to this very interesting symposium

Watch it. This is deep stuff. Are these "learned minds" talking out of their arse about science?

Last edited:
AFAIK, quanta are distinct values which cannot occupy the same place at the same time.
That's not actually true, at least not for quantum particles of certain types (e.g. bosons, specifically). I don't know what you mean by a "quantum value".
Therefore the realization of quanta requires time. (I named it regeneration)
You've invented two terms now: "realization" and "regeneration". What use is that? Why not learn some quantum physics isntead, if you're interested? Why make stuff up?
If quanta are discreet and cannot realize at the same time, then there must be a transition period between the two states.
I have no idea what "realize" means, in this context. It's not a term I saw in any quantum mechanics I studied.

I used the term quantum suspension to identify this transitional period. I believe it is also called "quantum limit".
That's three terms you've "invented" in one post. Why not learn about the actual subject you're trying to discuss, instead?

The term "quantum limit" can mean different things in different contexts. Linking to wikipedia doesn't give me any confidence you understand what a quantum limit is. And if you did, why would you want to invent a completely new term for the same thing?

I believe I am very conservative in thought. You have never seen me spout spiritual woo.
No, just pseudoscientific woo. And meaningless nonsense, on occasion, like now.

I will admit to being naive in the quantum world, but that is only a matter of degree. No one knows all the answers, including you.
Well, yes. But I'm careful to delineate what I know and what I don't know, when I post. If I post authoritatively about a topic like quantum mechanics, I use the standard terminology that's used in the field, that I learned when I studied the subject. I rarely make up my own terms for things and if I do I try to make sure they have clear definitions so that people can understand what I'm going on about. When I speculate, I try to make it clear I'm speculating. When I'm not certain about something, I often say so.

See the difference?

That's not actually true, at least not for quantum particles of certain types (e.g. bosons, specifically). I don't know what you mean by a "quantum value".
A very small packet of energy with a value.
What is the value of Quanta? The dimension of Planck's constant is the product of energy multiplied by time, a quantity called action. Planck's constant is often defined, therefore, as the elementary quantum of action. Its value in metre-kilogram-second units is defined as exactly 6.62607015 × 10−34 joule second.
Which is a human symbolized number. To the universe it's just a relational value.
You've invented two terms now: "realization" and "regeneration". What use is that? Why not learn some quantum physics isntead, if you're interested? Why make stuff up?
These terms are not made up by me. I use them because I believe they apply in a conversational way.
What does realization mean?
Self-actualization, can be described as the complete realization of one's potential
What does regenerate mean? [/quote]Regenerate, 1 : to become formed again. [/quote]
I have no idea what "realize" means, in this context. It's not a term I saw in any quantum mechanics I studied.
Realize, transitive verb. 1a : to bring into concrete existence
That's three terms you've "invented" in one post. Why not learn about the actual subject you're trying to discuss, instead?
I did not invent these terms, I used them in conversational narrative. Frankly I wouldn't know where to look for the correct terms. I must have read the terms I use somewhere in a similar context or I would not have used them. I do not make up the term, I may apply them in conversational way because of the inherent "common denominator" meaning.
The term "quantum limit" can mean different things in different contexts. Linking to wikipedia doesn't give me any confidence you understand what a quantum limit is. And if you did, why would you want to invent a completely new term for the same thing?
Again I did not invent the term. I used it because I believed it was sufficiently clear in a conversational discussion of a scientific subject. I used to be a proposal writer, but not in the arena of science.
No, just pseudoscientific woo. And meaningless nonsense, on occasion, like now.
Well, no one chided Einstein for his "spooky action at a distance". Did he invent the term "spooky" or did he use it for illustrative purposes, even as it does not appear in any scientific paper?
I am not offering a scientific paper for peer review. I am trying to discuss a scientific subject in a conversational manner.

Now that I have explained the definitions of my use of these terms, and with stipulation that they are not strictly scientific, is the gist of my posit wrong? Because that's the important part.
When I read a scientific paper, I seldom look at the maths. If I understand the accompanying narrative I am satisfied that I have a general understanding of the subject.
Well, yes. But I'm careful to delineate what I know and what I don't know, when I post. If I post authoritatively about a topic like quantum mechanics, I use the standard terminology that's used in the field, that I learned when I studied the subject. I rarely make up my own terms for things and if I do I try to make sure they have clear definitions so that people can understand what I'm going on about. When I speculate, I try to make it clear I'm speculating. When I'm not certain about something, I often say so.
As do I. And I often provide links to the terms I use in order to avoid the discussion about semantics we are having. I have been chided for using to many links to definitions of terminology I use.
See the difference?
Yes I do, and perhaps I'm guilty of being obtuse on occasion. But I always offer to explain my thought processes and/or terminology. But now that I have defined my "conversational" terminology, is the content wrong, or just poorly presented?

Last edited:
As I understand it, the distance between the two photons shrinks @ 2*c, but each photon only observes the other moving @ c

vr = 2*c/2 = c

My own interpretation of this apparent contradiction is that based on quantum mechanics quanta cannot regenerate at greater than c and thus any observed speed is translated to c. At faster than c the photon would disappear during quantum suspension.

I do have an additional question. Is it possible that in this scenario, when their quantum state is synchronized and in suspension, neither particle is able to observe each other at all?
For anyone moving at speed a toward an oncoming photon, they will measure the velocity of the photon as
v=(b-a)/(1-ab)=(-1-a)/(1+a)=-1.
The example is one of closing speed, the rate of change of a spatial separation, which are not subject to SR.
In those cases, there is nothing material moving >c.

For anyone moving at speed a toward an oncoming photon, they will measure the velocity of the photon as
v=(b-a)/(1-ab)=(-1-a)/(1+a)=-1.
The example is one of closing speed, the rate of change of a spatial separation, which are not subject to SR.
In those cases, there is nothing material moving >c.
Did you read my post? I would urge to read it again.

That's not actually true, at least not for quantum particles of certain types (e.g. bosons, specifically).
That is remarkable! The definition posits that they don't even touch!

What troubles me is the question if certain particles create a spacetime coordinate, or if all spacetime coordinates are of the same size,
i.e. a discrete point, instead of an area.

Q1 Is there space between the two bosons in the same spacetime coordinate?

Q2 Does that mean bosons are smaller than a spacetime coordinate?

Q3 Does that mean a single spacetime coordinate has several possible dimensions?

I don't know what you mean by a "quantum value".
an energy packet with a very small mathematical value

Q4 Do all quanta have the same value?

Last edited:
Write4U:

It's hard to know what to say to you. In response to my post in which I suggested that you might like to learn something about quantum theory, you spent almost an entire post making excuses as to why your use of idiosyncratic terms and inaccurate descriptions doesn't matter. It's like you don't care whether what you say is right or wrong; as long as words are coming out of you and landing on the page, that's all that matters to you.

This is not the first time that you have quoted regular dictionary definitions, wikipedia and similar sources back to me when I have pulled you up on a matter of how something is actually defined in science. You seem to think that it's enough to know how the Webster's dictionary defines "quantum", and you don't actually need to understand how scientists (physicists) define it, even when you're trying to talk about in-depth matters concerning its technical aspects. Also, I don't know what you think you're achieving by trying to "introduce" me to something like Planck's constant. If you're under the impression that anything like that is news to me, then you're most likely severely underestimating the person you're talking to. I am not one to trot out credentials and argue from authority, but please assume that I have some relevant credentials when it comes to physics. That should be obvious from my record of posts to this forum over the past 20 years.

That said, let me turn to your questions.
That is remarkable! The definition posits that they don't even touch!
At the quantum level, the idea of things "touching" is problematic. At that level, there are only the basic forces of nature - only forces and fields. Particles are very much not like little billiard balls, when you look at them close up.

Consider a laser beam, like you might find in a laser pointer or a CD player. That beam contains billions upon billions of photons every second. All of them have approximately the same wavelength and lots of them exist essentially in the "same place" at the same time. Specifically, nothing in physics prevents all of the photons from being in exactly the same place at the same time. In a quantum sense, we would say that all the photons are in the same "quantum state" (which includes all the information about the photons' position, among other things).

This behaviour is not unique to photons, but nor is it always the case. If we take a bunch of electrons, say, then their behaviour is very different. Quantum rules actually prevent electrons from being in the "same place at the same time". And that is ultimately why we have chemistry at all, rather than having electrons in atoms all existing in a single lowest energy level in every atom.

What troubles me is the question if certain particles create a spacetime coordinate, or if all spacetime coordinates are of the same size, i.e. a discrete point, instead of an area.
A coordinate is a mathematical abstraction, used as a convenient calculational device. We can't detect coordinates. Coordinates don't do anything, by themselves. They are ideas.

Therefore, it is meaningless to talk about particles "creating" coordinates. Only people can create coordiates.
Q1 Is there space between the two bosons in the same spacetime coordinate?
No.
Q2 Does that mean bosons are smaller than a spacetime coordinate?
That question is meaningless. Coordinates are numbers. They have no size.
Q3 Does that mean a single spacetime coordinate has several possible dimensions?
No. A single coordinate is a single number.

Spatial coordinates use 3 numbers. Spacetime coordinates require 4 numbers.

The word "dimension" can refer either to a spatial dimension or to a mathematical dimension. The two are similar but not identical.
Q4 Do all quanta have the same value?
Is an electron the same as a photon? Both are quanta. Go figure.

It feels (at times, no pun), like time is completely objective (real) and also completely illusory. Time follows a consistent set of rules, so it's real, but beyond physics, it takes on a subjective spin. (using a watch to ''tell us'' time, for example)

Did you read my post? I would urge to read it again.
I did. I'm agreeing with your 1st two conclusions. What follows seems irrelevant.
Positions/coordinates are not properties of particles, but relations used in the analysis of physics.

I did. I'm agreeing with your 1st two conclusions. What follows seems irrelevant.
Positions/coordinates are not properties of particles, but relations used in the analysis of physics.
OK, do mathematical relationships in nature mean anything? If human analysis of natural physics is possible via mathematical symbolisms, does that suggest the mathematical nature of universal dynamical physics and therefore that positions/coordinates may not be properties of particles but they are very much properties of spacetime.

Last edited:
All of them have approximately the same wavelength and lots of them exist essentially in the "same place" at the same time. Specifically, nothing in physics prevents all of the photons from being in exactly the same place at the same time.
Isn't a spacetime coordinate a single non-dimensional point in 4 dimensional spacetime?

Anything that is bigger than this single coordinate would still involve more than one single point of spacetime coordinate. I think the movement of the laser beam suggest that it they cannot occupy the exact same coordinate at the same time.
Else we may as well drop that axiom altogether, no?

Last edited:
It feels (at times, no pun), like time is completely objective (real) and also completely illusory. Time follows a consistent set of rules, so it's real, but beyond physics, it takes on a subjective spin. (using a watch to ''tell us'' time, for example)
By itself the concept of time is meaningless. But as a property of the duration of chronological existence it acquires meaning.

Yesterday occupied a different spacetime coordinate as today. Tomorrow will occupy a different spacetime coordinate as today. That is real and the difference can be measured.

By itself the concept of time is meaningless. But as a property of the duration of chronological existence it acquires meaning.

Yesterday occupied a different spacetime coordinate as today. Tomorrow will occupy a different spacetime coordinate as today. That is real and the difference can be measured.
But, isn’t it a human construct in that is how we observe the flow of events? Our perception can be a type of reality if that’s all we have ever known, though.

We have three kinds of time:

1- Time of duration (TD).
2- Time of sequential separation (TSS).
3- Time of consciousness (TC).

1 and 2 are objective. 3 is subjective.

The problem of time, altought it is not actualy solved, or better said, altought we have too many possible interpretations, show something about ourselves.
We are trying to understand time as if it was some strange thing, but we think that space is totaly obvious.

Is space not as much strange as time ?
Does space exist ?
Why do we think it is obvious that space exist but we are questioning time ?

One answer i like for time explaination, the thermal time hypothesis (and what is amusing is that in french langage "le temps" mean time and "la temperature" mean temperature, so time and temperature have already similar origin) :
Wikipedia said:
Generally covariant theories do not have a notion of a distinguished physical time with respect to which everything evolves. However, it is not needed for the full formulation and interpretation of the theory. The dynamical laws are determined by correlations which are sufficient to make predictions.

But then a mechanism is needed which explains how the familiar notion of time eventually emerges from the timeless structure to become such an important ingredient of the macroscopic world we live in as well as of our conscious experience.

The thermal time hypothesis has been put forward as a possible solution to this problem by Carlo Rovelli and Alain Connes, both in classical and quantum theory.
It postulates that physical time flow is not an a priori given fundamental property of the theory, but is a macroscopic feature of thermodynamical origin.[29]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time