|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Time||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- Yeah, after reading the article I don't know why I know what a chronon is. It's not referenced in the QM or decoherence articles at all... --HantaVirus 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not standard physics, although the idea has been proposed. Time is not quantized in standard quantum mechanics, although there is some suspicion that a correct model of quantum gravity will need time to be quantized.--Srleffler 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- In a 1975 article "Skewered" by Isaac Asimov, He calculates the time interval for a particle moving at the speed of light to travel a distance of 1 ferni (10E-13s) as equal to 3x(10E-24s) (which is approximately 10E-23.5s) and calls that 1 chronon and credits the word "chronon" to Stanley G. Weinbaum, A science fiction writer.WFPM (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
"A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time, in a theory that proposes that time is not continuous." Time is not continuous...this doesn't seem rational, even considering quantum mechanics. The other three dimensions (those of space), have no quantized lengths, so why would time? Also, a chronon (2×10-23 s) is like 1021 times longer than a planck time, which is the closest that theories can get us to the Big Bang. If chronons are discrete and indivisble, then what does the planck time denote? I dont think that time is quantized into segments. Instead, a planck time is the smallest interval in the continuous "stream" (FLOABW...) of time that makes physical sense to use (explaination). --HantaVirus 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There us the notion of an "elementary length," it just tends to be raised more as speculation than as a proven theory. See, for example this definition (defining the elementary length as "a fundamental number λ such that all length measurements would be integer multiples of λ" and here (a discussion that references the "elementary length"). In Loop quantum gravity, the elementary length is the Planck Length and every length is necessarily a multiple of that length. (Reference). --Unregistered User 19 March 2007 18:05 (EDT)
The article states that the Chronon can be derived from using the Planck Length as the wavelength of a wave and calculating the period. Estimating the Planck Length at 1.6e-35 and the speed of light c (3e8), the corresponding period closely resembles the Planck Time (5.33e-44 vs. 5.39e-44). This disagrees with what the article states (1.078e-43). Additionally, suggest adding a link to Planck Time in "See Also" 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you should set 1/2 a wavelength to the planck length, because the wave has to have time to oscillate up AND down. If you set a full wavelength equal the planck length then it would not be a wave at all; it would be a DC current!
Also, the fundamental length and time limits on the universe are not just theory. They are real and can be thought of as the smallest "building blocks" of our universe, which are photons. Because we measure everything using photons, if you try using a photon to measure something smaller than a photon you won't see anything. It's not saying there is nothing smaller than a photon, but if there is then we can't observe it (at least not using photons).--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Use in Fiction?
This reminds me of the Discworld book Thief of Time, specifically a concept described as "the cosmic tick"; the time span required for the smallest possible thing that can happen to happen. I don't know if that links directly to this, however, not being a student of quantum physics myself. Redneckgaijin (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. The smallest thing that could possibly happen is light traveling a distance of the planck length. The time it takes that to happen is 1 chronon.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, there of course can be smaller harmonics. -lysdexia 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Correction: IIRC, the Planck length and time are related by the speed of light, and the Planck time is much shorter than 1 chronon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- According to an interview with Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen (who cowrote the Science of Discworld novels with Pratchett), the "cosmic tick" was inspired by a New Scientist article about loop quantum gravity—in other words, not by chronons, but by time being quantized at the Planck scale. They used that as an example of how Pratchett often explores what different scientific theories would be like if visible at the everyday scale (comparing him to Einstein and his famous thought experiments). I don't have a citation for that interview, but unless you have a citation that says the opposite, I don't think you can use Pratchett as an example of chronons in fiction.
- But there are some definite uses of chronons in fiction. Star Trek uses the term, but rarely the idea; it's usually either a synonym for "tachyon" or for "chroniton" (which is a different idea, a particle given off by time-travel events), although according to Memory Beta the novel Spock Must Die uses it to mean the smallest possible measurement of time. Doctor Who usually uses the term in its (quasi-)scientific meaning; chronons are "discrete particles of time" (Time and the Rani), "atoms of time" (The Time Monster), the stuff that "time is made of" (City of the Daleks). Superhuman creatures named chronovores, who eat chronons until entire universes collapse, were a plotline in two different loose sequences of novels. (Doctor Who also has "chronitons", with basically the same meaning as in Star Trek, although not as pervasively.) And I'm sure there are plenty of examples beyond Star Trek and Doctor Who. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This is an observation related to the stub "chronon". I believe the possibility that time is quantized is very real. After all, 10 -43 (10 at the 43rd negative potency)is the time that light takes to cross one planck lenght. Bellow that level space and time as we know them do not exist. I have always considered this to be one quantum of time. I am curious, therefore, to know the reasons why the writer of the stub claims the time quantum to measure 10 -22 secs. Jose Viegas (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- As a halfwave, it comes to 380 MeV. It seems a arbitrary common factor in mid-energhy reactions -lysdexia 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article rated "high importance"? It is an obscure theory not supported by mainstream physics. The concept has no visibility to the public at large and the article averages only about 200 hits per day. SpinningSpark 19:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Last few months typically about 350 hits a day, or 10,000 hits a month, is quite respectable. You could now maybe justify making this medium importance.--Penbat (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The concept of chronon has been garnering attention over the last decade. See this October 2013 paper “Upper Time Limit, Its Gradient Curvature, and Matter” by Eytan H. Suchard published in Journal of Modern Physics and Applications 2014, 2014:5 http://scik.org/index.php/jmpa/article/view/1317/640
Please correct: Vaknin's dissertation, not Suchard's
Suchard's articles are based on Sam Vaknin's dissertation "Time asymmetry Revisited". See Library of Congress record: http://catalog2.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=115001&recPointer=0&recCount=25&searchType=1&bibId=3810279
Misrepresentation of Planck Time
RFC before changes: the Planck time isn't a quantization of time at all. It's a minimum time, not an indivisible packet of time. You can have 13-1/2 Planck times, you just can't have less than 1.
Also, unrelated but might as well mention here: recent evidence suggests the inflationary period began in less than one-billionth of Caldirola's proposed chronon width. I'm not sure if that discredits Caldirola's width or not, as the article (and sources) are a bit unclear (one could suggest spatial expansion is not quantized in the same way particle motion would be, I suppose). TricksterWolf (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Now the article says: The Planck time  is not a quantization of time itself  Additionally, the Planck time is a universal quantization of time itself  So it isn't, but additionally, it is? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Fringe theories by Vaknin and Suchard
I've removed the works by Vaknin and Suchard from this page:
- The only real reference for Vaknin was his Ph.D. thesis from "California Miramar University" (actually Pacific Western University). Whether or not this was a diploma mill () is hard enough to find out, and the fact that it's only available in one place on microfilm makes verification nearly impossible.
- Suchard, the only person to cite Vaknin according to GScholar, publishes with Scientific Research Publishing and other vanity publishers. He isn't cited by anyone.
WRONG. Suchard's work is published by PEER-REVIEWED journals. Example: http://www.sciencedomain.org/download.php?f=Suchard482014PSIJ11129_1.pdf&aid=512218.104.22.168 (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The "one place" Vaknin's dissertation is available from happens to be the Library of Congress. Plus, it is also available from UMI. Plus, diploma mills are not in the habit of producing actual Ph.D. dissertations. Plus the former name of the accredited (hence not diploam mill) California Miramar University was Pacific Western University. You got everything else right, though. Bravo: a prime example of Wikipedian thoroughness and knowledgeability.22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Being published does not necessarily prevent something from being fringe science. It would be far more convinving to show that the paper was cited by others. It would be even more convincing if the cited authors actually agreed with Suchard. As it is, it does not show up in scholar at all. That's not to say it isn't cited, but at the moment it's not looking very good. By the way, shouting in all caps does not make your argument any more cogent or convincing. On the contrary, it implies that shouting is all you have got. SpinningSpark 14:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Spinningspark, pity your thoroughness does not match your hectoring eloquence. Had you bothered to look the paper up, even you would have noticed that it was published today. Hardly gives it time to be cited, doesn't it? (ask any electrical engineer). Moreover, I was responding to Quertus's fallacious claim that Suchard was published only by vanity publishers (in which he seems to include all open access journals, peer-reviewed or not.) Ah, well, Wikipedia, I guess.126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it says it was published 30 June, but in any case User:Qwertyus' post was on 3 June so you are doubly unjustified in shouting WRONG. If it has not had time to be cited that would be too soon. We don't assume or guess that something is going to become notable, or even accepted in the mainstream. We wait till it actually happens. SpinningSpark 20:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Referring: "Being published does not necessarily prevent something from being fringe science". Yildiz Motor was blamed to be "Fring Science" or even a hoax for several years partly because it uses magnets that breakdown and thus hinder it's technological reliability, e.g. the original motor had 1980 magnets from which only 1200 survived. It is now improved: http://www.bsmhturk.com/ Yildiz Motor can be explained by the Chronon Field you call "Fringe Theories". Conventional physics is unable to explain the Yildiz motor and other effects that the so called, "Fringe Theories" explain, e.g. "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". Acceptance of new science which challenges fundamental concepts such as energy and momentum is a very difficult process which is unnecessarily made even more difficult by your objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eytan il (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oh no, Yildiz isn't fringe. The claim that a magnetic monopole motor "typically does not require any power supply" is out and out crackpot pseudoscience at best and fraudulent at worst. SpinningSpark 02:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
"SpinningSpark", is that a crackpot pseudoscience too?: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-approves-impossible-space-engine-design-that-apparently-violates-the-laws-of-physics-and-could-revolutionise-space-travel-9646865.html "SpinningSpark", You probably have never bothered to read Dennis Sciama's papers from 1953 and 1964 so you are totally unaware of the idea of Inertial Induction. Yieldiz motor does not have to be fraud in order to satisfy concurrent science's lack of knowledge. TMHO, Yieldiz motor generates powerful diagonal dipoles in a metal cylinder and therefore, an electro-gravity warp, that takes energy from far bodies of mass by Inertial Induction, is a rational explanation. Please note that gravitational mass does not have to be the inertial mass. e.g. Dark Matter in Suchard's theory is a result of excess in negatively charged particles if the constant of electro-gravity is 1/8PiK and positively charged particles if it the constant of electro-gravity is 1/K - K is the gravity constant and Pi is 3.1415... - in highly radiated areas of galaxies. In any case, the first order Noether's theorem has a generalization for higher order derivatives. So energy and momentum conservation are no longer a simple local law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eytan il (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't waste your breath, Eytan. This is Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia" where electrical engineers edit articles in physics and physicists edit articles about nutrition and where most contributors are either teenagers or lack any form of formal education or both. It is declining, as it well deserves to. Read what Vaknin has predicted a decade ago: http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/wikipedia.html (got him into a legal tassle with the narcissistic Wales, and his cult, the Wikipedians.) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is Caldirola's work not "fringe science"? Could it be the ancient feud between Vaknin and Wikipedia that tilted the scales? Is Wikipedia NOT OBJECTIVE??? (gasp) 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've never understood why people who think that Wikipedia is a useless failed experiment or a pile of intentionally-biased nonsense spend so much time arguing on Wikipedia talk pages…
- At any rate, offering a theory that's considered crackpot by both mainstream science and Wikipedia (whether they're right or not) is hardly helpful. Until you can convince people that the Yildiz motor is not pseudoscience (which, in the case of Wikipedia, you'd do by providing reliable sources at an article about the YM), the fact that Suchard's theory is compatible with the YM is not an argument that Suchard's theory is mainstream science. That has nothing to do with any bias that may or may not exist; it just stands to reason that any community who doesn't believe A is real will be swayed by any argument in favor of B on the basis of A. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The article says: "While time is a continuous quantity in both standard quantum mechanics and general relativity, many physicists have suggested that a discrete model of time might work, especially when considering the combination of quantum mechanics with general relativity to produce a theory of quantum gravity."
I don´t know how chronon works with the Wheeler–DeWitt equation..?
According to David Deutsch time is a quantum consept. I suppose that chronon , "unit" can be compared to what David Deutsch called "moment" (=world)... Physicist Paul Davies says also that time is not continuous.
In the article tachyons in fiction, there's a See Also saying:
- A chroniton is a fictional elementary particle with time-travel properties in some works of science fiction.
However, that link to chroniton redirects to this article, which doesn't mention the term, or anything about fictional chronitons. From looking at the history, at one point chroniton and chronon were both stub articles about fictional particles from science fiction. At that point, it probably made sense to merge them. But now that this is an article about the actual physics hypothesis and various related theories, it no longer works.
I believe this article should cover uses of chronon in fiction (especially Star Trek and Doctor Who, but I'm sure there are plenty of other examples), and should also mention that "chroniton" is sometimes used in SF as a synonym for chronon, and sometimes as a distinct technobabble concept (e.g., in at least some Doctor Who novels, chronons are either the quantum of time, or the physical manifestation of the Web of Time, while chronitons are particles given off by time-travel events), as well as a link back to tachyons in fiction. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)