Can time exist without matter?

Interdisciplinary science discussions. Also, if you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here.

Can time exist without matter?

Postby Philip on January 26th, 2014, 5:44 am 

Can time exist without matter? If we think deeply time can only exist if there are matter around. Assuming if there is a lone single atom and there is no observer, there will be no motion, change and time. And we should know that actually time is just a concept which don't have any real existence.

Thoughts?
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby owleye on January 26th, 2014, 10:34 am 

Philip wrote:Can time exist without matter? If we think deeply time can only exist if there are matter around. Assuming if there is a lone single atom and there is no observer, there will be no motion, change and time. And we should know that actually time is just a concept which don't have any real existence.

Thoughts?


According to relativity theory, or at least one interpretation of it, space-time consists of the sum net of the gravitational fields of all of matter. But there are gradations of what it means to have this relative status, some theories advocating that points in space-time do allow existence even when there is no material existence at that point (or physical existence, if one includes the presence of energy due to radiation), while others don't. Note that a gravitational field is treated in relativity theory in a manner not unlike EM fields. Charged and magnetized particles are affected by such EM fields, as well as affect them, and this is analogous to how gravitational fields affect massive/energetic particles. What's philosophically interesting, I think, is whether and in what sense do these fields exist in the first place? What is their real nature? Their introduction appears to resolve the issue over action-at-a-distance, but the issue isn't fully resolved because quantum theory has as yet not been fully accommodated with gravitation and there remains certain experiments that seem to indicate a non-local interaction.

After writing the above, I'd forgotten the reason for my response, which is to point out that the basic theory of relativity theory emphasizes the point of their being no universal 'now'. And if there is no 'now', how is it that we come to rely on it and how is it possible for us to communicate? Note that I'm taking this argument from something towards which Marshall pointed me in a topic that I've already forgotten the author. In any case, his point was that it was best to interpret space-time as epistemically significant, not necessarily ontologically significant. To get at his ontic point, we need to begin with the 'now' (actually the "here and now', if one takes quantum theory epistemically as well), as having existence, then proceeding to answer how it's possible for relativity theory to give us the answers it gives us. For example, we can associate other's with their 'now' if there is some original reference frame in which both 'nows' can be synchronized and reconciling it with a record of their movements relative to each other. Using this interpretation, space-time exists in the sense in which it is incorporated into a cosmological unity of the existence of the universe itself, it having an origin of sorts in which all that exists can be theoretically mapped.
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Philip on January 27th, 2014, 9:58 am 

owleye wrote:
Philip wrote:Can time exist without matter? If we think deeply time can only exist if there are matter around. Assuming if there is a lone single atom and there is no observer, there will be no motion, change and time. And we should know that actually time is just a concept which don't have any real existence.

Thoughts?


According to relativity theory, or at least one interpretation of it, space-time consists of the sum net of the gravitational fields of all of matter. But there are gradations of what it means to have this relative status, some theories advocating that points in space-time do allow existence even when there is no material existence at that point (or physical existence, if one includes the presence of energy due to radiation), while others don't. Note that a gravitational field is treated in relativity theory in a manner not unlike EM fields. Charged and magnetized particles are affected by such EM fields, as well as affect them, and this is analogous to how gravitational fields affect massive/energetic particles. What's philosophically interesting, I think, is whether and in what sense do these fields exist in the first place? What is their real nature? Their introduction appears to resolve the issue over action-at-a-distance, but the issue isn't fully resolved because quantum theory has as yet not been fully accommodated with gravitation and there remains certain experiments that seem to indicate a non-local interaction.

After writing the above, I'd forgotten the reason for my response, which is to point out that the basic theory of relativity theory emphasizes the point of their being no universal 'now'. And if there is no 'now', how is it that we come to rely on it and how is it possible for us to communicate? Note that I'm taking this argument from something towards which Marshall pointed me in a topic that I've already forgotten the author. In any case, his point was that it was best to interpret space-time as epistemically significant, not necessarily ontologically significant. To get at his ontic point, we need to begin with the 'now' (actually the "here and now', if one takes quantum theory epistemically as well), as having existence, then proceeding to answer how it's possible for relativity theory to give us the answers it gives us. For example, we can associate other's with their 'now' if there is some original reference frame in which both 'nows' can be synchronized and reconciling it with a record of their movements relative to each other. Using this interpretation, space-time exists in the sense in which it is incorporated into a cosmological unity of the existence of the universe itself, it having an origin of sorts in which all that exists can be theoretically mapped.


I think, time does not exist. Time is a metric humans invented in order quantify motion at predetermined intervals of interest. Time NECESSARILY requires an observer to conceive it, define it, quantify it, set the interval, and measure it. And time is impossible if there is only one atom/object/matter in universe.
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Gregorygregg1 on January 27th, 2014, 10:31 am 

Philip wrote:I think, time does not exist. Time is a metric humans invented in order quantify motion at predetermined intervals of interest. Time NECESSARILY requires an observer to conceive it, define it, quantify it, set the interval, and measure it. And time is impossible if there is only one atom/object/matter in universe.


More likely time is irreversible change, which requires mater or light. I would suggest that neither space nor time exist where there is neither mater nor light, and vice versa.
User avatar
Gregorygregg1
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: 16 May 2012
Location: The center of the universe


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Obvious Leo on January 27th, 2014, 1:46 pm 

Gregorygregg1 wrote:More likely time is irreversible change, which requires mater or light. I would suggest that neither space nor time exist where there is neither mater nor light, and vice versa.


To suggest that time cannot exist without matter or energy is not a particularly meaningful statement, GG, albeit a bloody obvious one. The entire universe can be defined in terms of matter or energy so all you're saying is that if the universe did not exist then time would not exist. Luckily the universe does appear to exist so we needn't agonise for too long over that non-puzzle. Attempting to derive meaning from a counter-factual event is a common flaw of cognitive information processing, and no doubt this troublesome trait evolved for sound Darwinian reasons, but we allow our intuitive irrationality to take us a step too far when we attempt to define our universe itself in terms of what it is NOT. Sadly Logic 101 is not a course requirement for physics undergraduates these days, so the blowtorch of reason is never applied to the foundational assumptions of this science. Consequently this is what they do all the time.

This explains why they've managed to arrive at the same conclusion as Philip, namely that time does not exist. Although this means that their models make no sense the clever buggers have a ready answer for every inconvenience. We live in a universe that makes no sense.

I trust that everybody can sleep a little better now that this has all been cleared up.

Regards Leo
Obvious Leo
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3146
Joined: 30 Oct 2012
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Philip on January 28th, 2014, 2:26 am 

Obvious Leo wrote:
Gregorygregg1 wrote:More likely time is irreversible change, which requires mater or light. I would suggest that neither space nor time exist where there is neither mater nor light, and vice versa.


To suggest that time cannot exist without matter or energy is not a particularly meaningful statement, GG, albeit a bloody obvious one. The entire universe can be defined in terms of matter or energy so all you're saying is that if the universe did not exist then time would not exist. Luckily the universe does appear to exist so we needn't agonise for too long over that non-puzzle. Attempting to derive meaning from a counter-factual event is a common flaw of cognitive information processing, and no doubt this troublesome trait evolved for sound Darwinian reasons, but we allow our intuitive irrationality to take us a step too far when we attempt to define our universe itself in terms of what it is NOT. Sadly Logic 101 is not a course requirement for physics undergraduates these days, so the blowtorch of reason is never applied to the foundational assumptions of this science. Consequently this is what they do all the time.

This explains why they've managed to arrive at the same conclusion as Philip, namely that time does not exist. Although this means that their models make no sense the clever buggers have a ready answer for every inconvenience. We live in a universe that makes no sense.

I trust that everybody can sleep a little better now that this has all been cleared up.

Regards Leo


Assuming if there is only a single lone atom, can it have any motion? No. Motion is only possible if there are more than one object. If there is only a single lone atom, mass, weight, motion, energy, time will be impossible.
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby owleye on January 28th, 2014, 9:46 am 

Philip wrote:I think, time does not exist. Time is a metric humans invented in order quantify motion at predetermined intervals of interest. Time NECESSARILY requires an observer to conceive it, define it, quantify it, set the interval, and measure it. And time is impossible if there is only one atom/object/matter in universe.


A lot of assertions here. You may have folks who will agree with them, if that's what you are looking for. But what I wonder is whether there's any good reason for thinking of time the way you do.

In relativity theory, time is what a clock measures. It's exactly backwards from how you depict it. According to you, clocks can't measure time because time does not exist. For you time is an artificial creation -- a meaningless quantity invented out of whole cloth, having no virtue in the absence of humans -- sort of like counting the number of angels on the head of pin. No reality to angels, so the number can take on any value. So what is it that a clock actually measures? If I have it right from the above, it apparently measures motion. Apparently motion exists in the absence of time. No time is required for motion to exist. It's as if you are speaking of still motion, a movement that has no motion.

Call me dimwitted, but this makes no sense to me.

The assertion that time is impossible if there is no materiality to the universe is denying the sort of time that we humans ordinarily call attention to, but it's not an unreasonable position. However, it doesn't rule out that time exists as a property of the material universe. Thus, this isn't an argument against time itself.
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Philip on January 28th, 2014, 10:28 am 

owleye wrote:
Philip wrote:I think, time does not exist. Time is a metric humans invented in order quantify motion at predetermined intervals of interest. Time NECESSARILY requires an observer to conceive it, define it, quantify it, set the interval, and measure it. And time is impossible if there is only one atom/object/matter in universe.


A lot of assertions here. You may have folks who will agree with them, if that's what you are looking for. But what I wonder is whether there's any good reason for thinking of time the way you do.

In relativity theory, time is what a clock measures. It's exactly backwards from how you depict it. According to you, clocks can't measure time because time does not exist. For you time is an artificial creation -- a meaningless quantity invented out of whole cloth, having no virtue in the absence of humans -- sort of like counting the number of angels on the head of pin. No reality to angels, so the number can take on any value. So what is it that a clock actually measures? If I have it right from the above, it apparently measures motion. Apparently motion exists in the absence of time. No time is required for motion to exist. It's as if you are speaking of still motion, a movement that has no motion.

Call me dimwitted, but this makes no sense to me.

The assertion that time is impossible if there is no materiality to the universe is denying the sort of time that we humans ordinarily call attention to, but it's not an unreasonable position. However, it doesn't rule out that time exists as a property of the material universe. Thus, this isn't an argument against time itself.


See the bolded statement, if time is a measurement that a clock measures, it is still a nonexistent because if there are no clock to measure it then the time itself would be nonexistent. Okay I explain again, time is a metric humans invented in order quantify motion at predetermined intervals of interest. Time NECESSARILY requires an observer to conceive it, define it, quantify it, set the interval, and measure it. How can motion occurred if there are no matter around? There must be two or more objects existing in order for motion to exist. There are no matterless motion.

Assuming if there is a single object in universe, there will be no mass, energy, weight, motion, time, etc. because mass, weight, energy, motion, time, etc. can only exist if there are two or more objects.
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Privileged Space?

Postby Faradave on January 28th, 2014, 12:30 pm 

You presuppose space but not time. Why?
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1607
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby owleye on January 28th, 2014, 7:35 pm 

Philip wrote:
See the bolded statement, if time is a measurement that a clock measures, it is still a nonexistent because if there are no clock to measure it then the time itself would be nonexistent.


I think you are having a problem with sentence structure. If time is what a clock measures, then time is not itself the measure. That's the function of the clock. It's the measuring device, not time. Time is what is being measured. Clocks do exist, and, according to relativity theory, they measure time. However, the assumption is that there's something for clocks to measure. Time doesn't just pop into existence just because clocks are around. You aren't thinking straight.

Philp wrote:Okay I explain again, time is a metric humans invented in order quantify motion at predetermined intervals of interest.


Again. You have it backwards. Apparently you are thinking that the daily cycles that the earth makes in accordance with its rotation, which used to be what folks thought of as a clock, has nothing to do with the amount of time it takes to accomplish it. Since time doesn't exist, according to you, such a rotation of the earth can't possibly take any time at all. Indeed, according to your "time doesn't exist' theory, every thing would have to happen at once, no time having elapsed for whatever you think is moving. I see this as just so much nonsense.

Philp wrote:Time NECESSARILY requires an observer to conceive it, define it, quantify it, set the interval, and measure it.


I don't understand your reasoning here. You've said above that an observer is required to measure motion, which you dismissed as being a measure of time. What's the point of time having this necessary property? Isn't it enough that time doesn't exist that you have to invent it for your own purposes as if the rest of us should now understand that time is an invention out of whole cloth and has no reality to it. All you needed was already inferred from your original message. It is a figment -- a mirage. It has no real use for us. All the motions that we observe take no time at all. Motion and movement are timeless entities.

Then again, maybe what you are contending is that motion only exists when there is an observer that is measuring it. The motion of the earth on its axis exists only when there is some observer who notices it. Otherwise the earth isn't moving. This is the only way I can understand your point.

Philp wrote:How can motion occurred if there are no matter around? There must be two or more objects existing in order for motion to exist. There are no matterless motion.


I'm ok with this idea. I didn't object. However, that has nothing to do with your contention that time doesn't exist. And it is this that is most perplexing. How can motion exist in the absence of time? You haven't responded to that concern.
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: Privileged Space?

Postby Philip on January 29th, 2014, 1:29 am 

Faradave wrote:You presuppose space but not time. Why?


Nothing (i.e space) remain regardless whether time exist or not. Even if there is only one atom, the atom still have its background, which is space (i.e nothing). While time, energy, motion, etc. must necessarily require two or more objects.
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Philip on January 29th, 2014, 1:32 am 

owleye wrote:
Philip wrote:
See the bolded statement, if time is a measurement that a clock measures, it is still a nonexistent because if there are no clock to measure it then the time itself would be nonexistent.


I think you are having a problem with sentence structure. If time is what a clock measures, then time is not itself the measure. That's the function of the clock. It's the measuring device, not time. Time is what is being measured. Clocks do exist, and, according to relativity theory, they measure time. However, the assumption is that there's something for clocks to measure. Time doesn't just pop into existence just because clocks are around. You aren't thinking straight.

Philp wrote:Okay I explain again, time is a metric humans invented in order quantify motion at predetermined intervals of interest.


Again. You have it backwards. Apparently you are thinking that the daily cycles that the earth makes in accordance with its rotation, which used to be what folks thought of as a clock, has nothing to do with the amount of time it takes to accomplish it. Since time doesn't exist, according to you, such a rotation of the earth can't possibly take any time at all. Indeed, according to your "time doesn't exist' theory, every thing would have to happen at once, no time having elapsed for whatever you think is moving. I see this as just so much nonsense.

Philp wrote:Time NECESSARILY requires an observer to conceive it, define it, quantify it, set the interval, and measure it.


I don't understand your reasoning here. You've said above that an observer is required to measure motion, which you dismissed as being a measure of time. What's the point of time having this necessary property? Isn't it enough that time doesn't exist that you have to invent it for your own purposes as if the rest of us should now understand that time is an invention out of whole cloth and has no reality to it. All you needed was already inferred from your original message. It is a figment -- a mirage. It has no real use for us. All the motions that we observe take no time at all. Motion and movement are timeless entities.

Then again, maybe what you are contending is that motion only exists when there is an observer that is measuring it. The motion of the earth on its axis exists only when there is some observer who notices it. Otherwise the earth isn't moving. This is the only way I can understand your point.

Philp wrote:How can motion occurred if there are no matter around? There must be two or more objects existing in order for motion to exist. There are no matterless motion.


I'm ok with this idea. I didn't object. However, that has nothing to do with your contention that time doesn't exist. And it is this that is most perplexing. How can motion exist in the absence of time? You haven't responded to that concern.


Time can only exist if there are two or more objects around. If there is only one object, how can time exist? How can energy exist? Time, energy, motion, etc. are only possible if there are two or more objects around.

How can motion exist in the absence of time? Remember, time is only possible if there are two or more objects. Just assuming if there is only one object, do you think time is possible?
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Privileged Space?

Postby edy420 on January 29th, 2014, 4:20 am 

Philip wrote:
Faradave wrote:You presuppose space but not time. Why?


Nothing (i.e space) remain regardless whether time exist or not. Even if there is only one atom, the atom still have its background, which is space (i.e nothing). While time, energy, motion, etc. must necessarily require two or more objects.


Technically, one atom is made up of multiple parts.
So even one atom, can age/travel through its own reference of time.
We could use the rotating electrons as a way to measure time.
I wonder if the electrons age more than the proton?

Back to the OP, sure, time can exist without mass.
What I consider time, is simply a chronological string of events.
Without mass, we have a chronological string of nothing, followed by nothing..
Although light itself may not exist, the "speed of light", Universe parameter may still exist.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby owleye on January 29th, 2014, 9:55 am 

Philip wrote:Time can only exist if there are two or more objects around. If there is only one object, how can time exist? How can energy exist? Time, energy, motion, etc. are only possible if there are two or more objects around.

How can motion exist in the absence of time? Remember, time is only possible if there are two or more objects. Just assuming if there is only one object, do you think time is possible?


I have no problem when you place time in the context of materiality. In that sense it is a property of matter. However, you've been claiming that time doesn't exist at all and is but a human invention with no real basis in fact. That's the point of contention, not respecting the view itself, but rather in the way you've been characterizing it.

No matter, if your only point is to represent time's existence in the way you describe it above, this idea is certainly not new. Indeed, it was the subject of debate in the early years of Einstein's development of his theories of relativity. And it was part of the topic which discussed Newton's rotating bucket on this board some time ago. In addition, of course, the philosopher Immanuel Kant made a case for the existence of time and space as preconditions for experiencing the world, whose existence beyond what can be experienced is denied. Lomax, on this board, found it interesting that so many thinkers find it much easier to deny time but aren't able to deny space in the same way. Science has moved beyond Kant, but it should be understood that this doesn't mean that we are at the stage of history when we've heard the last word on this very concept. It is one of the more elusive concepts in science and philosophy, if not the most elusive.
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Braininvat on January 29th, 2014, 11:41 am 

Even a single proton can decay. But the thorny issue with time, for some, is that it is defined in terms of change, and "change" as a term, usually depends on some notion of time. The circularity between the two concepts suggests their intimate interconnection. For me, "change" is a more fundamental concept, while "time" is a more abstract distillation from change and certain regularities (and entropic direction) of said change.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5763
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Braininvat on January 29th, 2014, 12:05 pm 

Afterthought - further confusing the issue is time's relationship to velocity. If I am moving at the speed of light (like a guy in one of Einstein's gedankexperimenten, riding on the back of a photon), there really is no time in the way we usually define it, because I would see the entire life of the universe in an instant. This is a conundrum about time, but time, for the photon-riding observer, essentially drops out of the picture. In such cases, where we seem to be able to get rid of time, there may be a hint that time is not fundamental. Photons, in themselves, have no need for it. WE have a need for it when we talk about photons and assign them a velocity, because we see the photon as changing its position "over time." The problem with my thinking, which I'm doing rather improvisationally, is that I am creating a ridiculous and false situation - no one can ride a photon. Photons don't "observe" anything. Abstraction has endless potholes to fall into.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5763
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Moving Clocks Age Slow!

Postby Faradave on January 29th, 2014, 12:54 pm 

Philip wrote:Nothing (i.e space) remain regardless whether time exist or not.

In Special Relativity time and space interchange for different inertial frames. If you allow for space, you have allowed a particular inertial frame to the exclusion of all the others, without reason. A moving frame specifies a different space (simultaneity), inclined relative to an at rest frame.
Philip wrote:If I am moving at the speed of light (like a guy in one of Einstein's gedankexperimenten, riding on the back of a photon), there really is no time in the way we usually define it, because I would see the entire life of the universe in an instant. This is a conundrum about time...
A distinction between aging and non-aging future paths is needed. CU@T2
The photon model seems to be nearing obsolescence.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1607
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Braininvat on January 29th, 2014, 2:10 pm 

Thanks - the "riding a photon" quote is actually not from Philip, but from me.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5763
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Philip on January 31st, 2014, 8:07 am 

How can photon and electron exist in reality if those things have no any mass and dimensionless?
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Venus on January 31st, 2014, 11:28 am 

Philip wrote:How can photon and electron exist in reality if those things have no any mass and dimensionless?

First of all an electron has mass.

A photon has no rest mass simply because there is no frame where it is at rest but it certainly has momentum. But note that a system of two photons leaving in opposite direction does have a rest mass.
User avatar
Venus
Banned User
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: 23 Oct 2013


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Braininvat on January 31st, 2014, 11:37 am 

If one uses string theory, an electron isn't exactly "dimensionless," either. But we are talking about subatomic particles that as "things-in-themselves" aren't really accessible, only as bundles of properties that are measured indirectly. Electrons don't exist in the way that macro objects, like you and I, do.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5763
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: What's the point?

Postby Faradave on January 31st, 2014, 12:30 pm 

An electron has potentially infinite dimension if considered in terms of its fields. What we typically refer to is the point that locates the field center.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1607
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby rchrdstvr77 on February 22nd, 2014, 3:45 pm 

Can time exist without matter? >>

No. Time exists when matter is in motion, measurable motion.
rchrdstvr77
Banned User
 
Posts: 197
Joined: 21 Feb 2014
Philip liked this post


Re: What's the point?

Postby Philip on May 13th, 2014, 11:04 pm 

Faradave » January 31st, 2014, 11:30 am wrote:An electron has potentially infinite dimension if considered in terms of its fields. What we typically refer to is the point that locates the field center.


So if electrons are infinite, do that mean the electrons don't have shape, or what?
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Cerebrum on May 14th, 2014, 6:38 am 

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." - Albert Einstein

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." - Albert Einstein

These are not just Einsteins quotes. These are answers to your questions from a man that explained relativity theory.
User avatar
Cerebrum
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: 24 Mar 2014


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby owleye on May 14th, 2014, 11:12 am 

Cerebrum » Wed May 14, 2014 4:38 am wrote:"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." - Albert Einstein

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." - Albert Einstein

These are not just Einsteins quotes. These are answers to your questions from a man that explained relativity theory.


I think you forgot to mention that Einstein is God.
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: What's the point?

Postby Faradave on May 14th, 2014, 11:47 am 

Philip wrote:So if electrons are infinite, [does] that mean the electrons don't have shape, or what?

The "electron" IS its infinite field (often interpreted as three fields: gravitational, electrical, weak). The field has a position in spacetime, an "event" corresponding to a location in space at a given time. That event is a point, for which "shape" does not apply but from which, equidistant locations define a sphere. Thus, when an electron is ascribed a shape, it is considered spherical.

"The ACME team has reported the most sensitive measurement to date of the electron's deformation. Their results demonstrate that the particle's departure from spherical perfection, if it exists at all, must be smaller than predicted in many theories that include new particles."
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1607
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Dave_Oblad on May 14th, 2014, 10:02 pm 

Hi All,

Braninvat wrote: If I am moving at the speed of light (like a guy in one of Einstein's gedankexperimenten, riding on the back of a photon), there really is no time in the way we usually define it, because I would see the entire life of the universe in an instant.

I think it's about time we put this popularization in the trash can where it belongs. It makes the fallacy of comparing apples to cars. First, you are made of Matter. Matter is constantly undergoing a morphing process of its internal Geometries. When Matter is put into motion, it must sacrifice the epicycles of morphing in exchange for continuity to a new location. The faster said Matter moves, the greater the sacrifice it must make in modifications to its Geometry. In other words Epicycles must go down as speed increases. This is called Time Dilation. But in fact Time hasn't changed at all. We count epicycles in Matter and call this a Clock. But a Clock doesn't measure Time. It measures Epicycles.

So, if you were Matter, you could not ride on a Photon, as your Matter would not progress in epicycles very fast. This is the only case where one might believe that such a rider would see Time radically accelerated. But since you can't, being Matter, ride a photon.. then let's imagine you are a ghost without Matter. Now tell me what your Temporal Clock reference would be. Lincoln posted awhile back that a Photon undergoes its own epicycles and proceeds through a series of Morphs in its Geometry while going somewhere. If you use the epicycles of a Photon as the basis of your personal Temporal Reference, then a trip of a few inches may seem to take forever. Imagine the scale of distance from the real you and the nearest Star.. then amplify that scale as you reduce your size to that of a Photon. Crap, it may seem like an eternity to get to the next Star.

So again, we must recognize that the perception of Time is related to epicycles of the body in motion.

Therefore a Photon has its own Clock Rate and we (Matter) have our own.. and you can't compare the two in any meaningful way unless you want to compare them as One to One in full cycle counts. In which case, being a Photon may be a very arduous task and it may seem to take an Eternity just to go a few lousy feet.. when you count off Time the same way a Photon does.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)
ElectraQT liked this post


Re: What's the point?

Postby Philip on May 14th, 2014, 11:57 pm 

Faradave » May 14th, 2014, 10:47 am wrote:
Philip wrote:So if electrons are infinite, [does] that mean the electrons don't have shape, or what?

The "electron" IS its infinite field (often interpreted as three fields: gravitational, electrical, weak). The field has a position in spacetime, an "event" corresponding to a location in space at a given time. That event is a point, for which "shape" does not apply but from which, equidistant locations define a sphere. Thus, when an electron is ascribed a shape, it is considered spherical.

"The ACME team has reported the most sensitive measurement to date of the electron's deformation. Their results demonstrate that the particle's departure from spherical perfection, if it exists at all, must be smaller than predicted in many theories that include new particles."


If an electron have a position/location in space, that's mean it is still finite. Not to mention it have shape, meaning it is must be necessarily finite.
Last edited by Philip on May 14th, 2014, 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Philip on May 14th, 2014, 11:57 pm 

rchrdstvr77 » February 22nd, 2014, 2:45 pm wrote:Can time exist without matter? >>

No. Time exists when matter is in motion, measurable motion.


Agree.
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
RoccoR liked this post


Next

Return to Anything Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests