Can time exist without matter?

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

Re: What's the point?

Postby Faradave on May 15th, 2014, 12:48 am 

Philip wrote: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.

Consider the distance of the earth from the sun. It's not as easy as it sounds. We have to decide where the endpoints of the distance are. We might choose the surface of the earth's crust at sea level but it is more convenient to calculate orbits using the center of mass of both the earth and the sun.

At a given moment, those centers of mass are single point locations. But we don't consider those points to be the earth and sun without all the atoms that make them.

It is also convenient to consider an electron as a "point particle" but an electron would not be an electron without its fields. The particle may be considered the center point of those fields. Because the fields vary predictably with radial separation from the center, a spherical "shape" is implied.

Though the intensity of an electron's fields diminish quickly with separation, the size of those fields is limited only by the time the electron has existed.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: What's the point?

Postby owleye on May 15th, 2014, 7:36 am 

Faradave » Wed May 14, 2014 10:48 pm wrote:
Philip wrote: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.

Consider the distance of the earth from the sun. It's not as easy as it sounds. We have to decide where the endpoints of the distance are. We might choose the surface of the earth's crust at sea level but it is more convenient to calculate orbits using the center of mass of both the earth and the sun.

At a given moment, those centers of mass are single point locations. But we don't consider those points to be the earth and sun without all the atoms that make them.

It is also convenient to consider an electron as a "point particle" but an electron would not be an electron without its fields. The particle may be considered the center point of those fields. Because the fields vary predictably with radial separation from the center, a spherical "shape" is implied.

Though the intensity of an electron's fields diminish quickly with separation, the size of those fields is limited only by the time the electron has existed.


What do you make of electron orbitals, often characterized by indicating they are standing waves? I think you mentioned in an earlier post something about electrons having some degrees of freedom besides translational ones, which I understood to mean that it had spin characteristics. And while it may have a center of mass and a center of charge, it's not obvious to me that these two have to coincide, though, if they do, these rotational characteristics might more easily be understood. The orbital adaptations maintained by like and unlike charges do take on odd shapes.

The point particle, to me, is useful in certain applications, but if we're trying to figure out what an electron actually is, if it is some entity, having certain properties, then I believe one has to deal with what it means to exist, respecting its position and motion. The classical picture is considerably clouded at this deep level and some other accounting is required. As such, 'contact', which you seem to emphasize, has to take on a different flavor. It may even be that the concepts of space and time need adjusting.
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Faradave on May 15th, 2014, 2:01 pm 

owleye wrote:The point particle, to me, is useful in certain applications...
Yes, it's essential for at least two reasons. First, an electron's spin requirement is such that any real radius would result in a surface velocity exceeding universal speed limit, c. Second, since field strength, particularly that of the much stronger electric field, increases geometrically as radius diminishes, it becomes overwhelmingly large at any size attributable to the electron. If the electron was a material of any sort imaginable, the force of one half repelling the other half would tear it apart. A solution to both is zero radius. No surface means no surface speed. And no volume means nothing there to break apart.

owleye wrote:And while it may have a center of mass and a center of charge, it's not obvious to me that these two have to coincide...
If you think of the center of mass as the center of the gravitational mass, it becomes the center of the gravitational field. As I have tried to emphasize elsewhere, I believe it no coincidence that this corresponds to the center of the electrical field as well. They are one in the same field effecting different targets, essentially space for gravitation and other particles for electric. The fields have identical morphology, including centers. Their difference in strength can be attributed to target distribution (point vs. surface at any given distance).

owleye wrote:'contact', which you seem to emphasize, has to take on a different flavor. It may even be that the concepts of space and time need adjusting.
Exactly! Action at a distance is magic, not allowed in science. Currently, this is resolved by modeling massless (and/or virtual) "force carriers". That way action occurs by contact with the carrier at both ends of the particle interaction. I find this unnecessary if we allow for contact directly through holes in spacetime (my pinholes). That's just another model but it's a simpler one which goes on to provide answers unavailable to the standard model.

I believe one has to deal with what it means to exist,
I consider "existence" to mean having a timeline, which is to say, having an inertial reference frame. This essentially rules out massless particles and it is my personal position that massless and virtual force carriers are a useful model only, having no real existence. The essential element of a pinhole is non-existence, the absence of separation, i.e. "contact".

owleye wrote:What do you make of electron orbitals, often characterized by indicating they are standing waves? I think you mentioned in an earlier post something about electrons having some degrees of freedom besides translational ones, which I understood to mean that it had spin characteristics.
That's a very insightful question! I have already wandered well beyond Anything Science and hope you'll keep an eye out for a new thread "(Psi of Relief)" in the Personal Theories forum, where most of my meanderings belong.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby edy420 on May 15th, 2014, 10:43 pm 

If time does not exist without matter, then the void beyond the mass of a finite universe is timeless.
There fore nothing from our universe may venture out into this timeless void, because time can not simply go from non existing to suddenly existing.

Unless my logic has led me off track with this theory, then I refuse to believe that time can not exist without mass.
Because the notion that matter can not extend beyond the boundrys of a finite mass cluster (finite universe), seems illogical.

If mass can extend into the outer void then chronological time does not need mass to function.
This to me seems most logical.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Dave_Oblad on May 15th, 2014, 11:33 pm 

Hi All,

Based on conventional use of the words Time and Matter, then yes.. Time can Exist without Matter. (but would Time then Matter?....lol)

It's a good bet that Time had a Beginning and the Universe has a Finite Volume at any given moment. Asking how long did Time not Exist previous to its beginning.. or.. What's outside the Current Volume of Space is meaningless. Those questions only exist due to a misunderstanding of a Reality that is based on false assumptions.

The very word "Time" has too many meanings to ever give a single perfect answer.

Does that help Edy420?

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: What's the point?

Postby Philip on May 15th, 2014, 11:42 pm 

Faradave » May 14th, 2014, 11:48 pm wrote:
Philip wrote: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.

Consider the distance of the earth from the sun. It's not as easy as it sounds. We have to decide where the endpoints of the distance are. We might choose the surface of the earth's crust at sea level but it is more convenient to calculate orbits using the center of mass of both the earth and the sun.

At a given moment, those centers of mass are single point locations. But we don't consider those points to be the earth and sun without all the atoms that make them.

It is also convenient to consider an electron as a "point particle" but an electron would not be an electron without its fields. The particle may be considered the center point of those fields. Because the fields vary predictably with radial separation from the center, a spherical "shape" is implied.

Though the intensity of an electron's fields diminish quickly with separation, the size of those fields is limited only by the time the electron has existed.


Assuming if there are no other objects in the universe and there is only a single electron in existence, is its shape still finite or infinite?
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
TommyCzech liked this post


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Faradave on May 16th, 2014, 11:40 am 

Philip wrote:Assuming...there is only a single electron in existence, is its shape still finite or infinite?

Pencil cross section.png
What is this?
If I tell you this is a picture of a pencil, you might notice that something is missing, a dimension! It only shows a cross section of a pencil.

Any particle, such as an electron, may have its existence questioned unless we allow for it to exist for a real duration of time. Instead of asking, "Can time exist without matter?", I think it is better to ask, "Can matter exist without time?"

Is an electron that exists for an infinitesimal moment an electron or just a cross section of one? The same applies to the electron's fields. An electron is not an electron without its fields. An electron's fields may be thought to extend from its center, as far as speed c times the duration that the electron has existed.

Field radius = electron's duration x c
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Philip on May 16th, 2014, 10:56 pm 

Faradave » May 16th, 2014, 10:40 am wrote:
Philip wrote:Assuming...there is only a single electron in existence, is its shape still finite or infinite?

Pencil cross section.png
If I tell you this is a picture of a pencil, you might notice that something is missing, a dimension! It only shows a cross section of a pencil.

Any particle, such as an electron, may have its existence questioned unless we allow for it to exist for a real duration of time. Instead of asking, "Can time exist without matter?", I think it is better to ask, "Can matter exist without time?"

Is an electron that exists for an infinitesimal moment an electron or just a cross section of one? The same applies to the electron's fields. An electron is not an electron without its fields. An electron's fields may be thought to extend from its center, as far as speed c times the duration that the electron has existed.

Field radius = electron's duration x c


In my opinion, I think electron don't have an external boundary. If it is infinite, it don't have shape but we can observed its effect on its surrounding. In other word, electron is a kind of "matter wave".

Most people call the fundamental matters as point particles but in the real world, it don't have a point-like shape.
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Philip on May 16th, 2014, 11:01 pm 

But if electron is infinite and don't have shape or form, what are the differences between the electron and absolute nothing?
Philip
Banned User
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Sep 2013


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Faradave on May 17th, 2014, 12:25 am 

Philip » May 16th, 2014, 11:01 pm wrote:But if electron is infinite and don't have shape or form, what are the differences between the electron and absolute nothing?


The ability to interact with other particles.
And don't forget, another charged particle will feel equal force in spherical regions around the electron, so the field may be said to have a spherical shape.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby mhfrance on May 18th, 2014, 6:32 am 

Spacetime. Entropy. These are largely missed in the above threads...

Surely time exists regardless of matter - as spacetime. Besides, is it not a pointless question anyway? (no offence) I mean all questions are great, even if the conclusion is ¨That was a silly question¨
User avatar
mhfrance
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 18 May 2014


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Hendrick Laursen on July 8th, 2014, 1:05 am 

Certainly, the answer shall depend on how you define the term "Time".
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 545
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Time for a definition

Postby Faradave on July 8th, 2014, 1:42 am 

Hendrick Laursen wrote:...how you define the term "Time".

Try: That which separates different events at a given spatial location.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Time for a definition

Postby Hendrick Laursen on July 8th, 2014, 3:09 am 

Faradave » July 8th, 2014, 12:42 am[/url] wrote:
Hendrick Laursen wrote:...how you define the term "Time".

Try: That which separates different events at a given spatial location.

Well, I think it is a good but incoherent definition. With your view we can't judge about time's existence without matter as your definition strongly relies on location. Another question too; How are we to define location while there is no matter?
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 545
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Time for a definition

Postby Faradave on July 8th, 2014, 10:13 am 

Hendrick Laursen wrote:With your view we can't judge about time's existence without matter as your definition strongly relies on location.

I don't recall mentioning matter. A spacetime event is merely a 4D location and does not necessarily entail a particle of any sort. "Judgement" is another matter entirely.
Hendrick Laursen wrote:Another question too; How are we to define location while there is no matter?
I don't require an absolute location, only two different events at the same location. In such a case, the only parameter providing the difference is the temporal coordinate.

Time, like a spatial dimension, provides the potential for separation and spin. They differ in that time provides absolute direction. The latter may be seen as a restriction of freedom. Temporal progression may proceed to any degree so long as it is not backward.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Gregorygregg1 on July 12th, 2014, 11:55 pm 

Does time exist? Try to catch it. Here it is...wait...no, here it, no....Damn! Well, can it exist without mater? We've been here before, dividing time and mater into ever smaller bits trying to get them to coincide. It doesn't work because no matter how quick your brain is, it is always one step behind time, and can never seem to get down to the tiniest bit of mater. It always becomes theoretical and unverifiable. From a pragmatic perspective, they coexist, that is all that can be concluded. No cause and effect.
User avatar
Gregorygregg1
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: 16 May 2012
Location: The center of the universe


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Braininvat on July 13th, 2014, 9:56 am 

Time is an abstraction of motion and change - it depends on how "real" you choose to make this abstraction? If you see time as completely dependent on the clocks of motion and change, then an unchanging void would be timeless. If you can see any way to have time, as a reified thing, be maintained in a void, I would be pretty amazed.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5100
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Gregorygregg1 on July 13th, 2014, 10:49 am 

Braininvat » July 13th, 2014, 6:56 am wrote:Time is an abstraction of motion and change - it depends on how "real" you choose to make this abstraction? If you see time as completely dependent on the clocks of motion and change, then an unchanging void would be timeless. If you can see any way to have time, as a reified thing, be maintained in a void, I would be pretty amazed.


Perhaps, but can you envision some circumstance where mater might exist without time? Perhaps they are part of a single phenomenon we call existence.
User avatar
Gregorygregg1
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: 16 May 2012
Location: The center of the universe


Re: Being specific

Postby Faradave on July 13th, 2014, 12:28 pm 

We specify events in spacetime with four coordinates, three spatial and one temporal. This is real, practical and we all use it. If I have an appointment with my dentist on the third floor of a building on a particular street corner at 3:15 next Wednesday, we both target the same 4D event to keep it. Once you admit that four coordinates are required, you acknowledge the reality four dimensions.

You might well argue that those coordinates only have meaning relative to another reference coordinate. No matter. Pick any reference agreeable to both parties. The relative aspect recognizes that the four dimensions provide varying degrees of separation between events. Dimensions are, the potential for separation of events.

Unless one argues that all events are the same, one agrees to the reality of the dimensions which separate them.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Does it really matter?

Postby Faradave on July 13th, 2014, 12:57 pm 

One can assert that time and space don't exist without matter. With no material observer, who's to say? But then it's equally valid to assert that space and time do exist without matter. Who's to say?

In deciding which side to take, consider that the closer we look at matter, the less it's there. A "point particle" is a location (4D event), central to the fields ascribed to that particular variety of particle. There is no room for a pebble of any sort. With mass being the property most commonly attributed to material particles it is helpful to recall that mass may be identified as gravitational charge.

Einstein did us two great favors in this regard. He equated inertial mass and gravitational mass (equivalence principle) and he accurately described gravitation as a perturbation of spacetime. That is, a massive particle can be described as a manifestation of spacetime geometry. The particle is not necessarily the cause of the perturbation but as likely, the result of it. The latter would give spacetime a more foundational basis than matter. If you go the other way, you are still left with the burden of explaining what the particle IS fundamentally.

I believe Einstein's great insight into gravitation should be extended. Instead or trying to force the unification of gravitation with the other three forces (EM, strong & weak), we should strive instead to recognize the other three forces in terms of their particular spacetime mechanics. Einstein again heroically comes to the rescue by providing the lightlike spacetime interval over which all forces operate. You can't ask for a bigger hint than that!
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)
owleye liked this post


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Lumen on August 2nd, 2014, 11:54 pm 

Time is so flexible. An experiment was done in which the reaction oh flies, pigeons, and snails were noted to the an explosion.
The flies reacted immediately! To them WE seem to move in slow motion.
The pigeons reacted in the same time frame as we would.
Anything that happens within a half- second is not experienced, so they never reacted to the sharp boom. To them we appear to move as quickly as flies react in our consiousness.
People in car accidents etc. often experience the situation kin slow motion to give them time to react...no doubt a result of adrenalin.
I will post another response as this does not address mass.
Lumen
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 24 Jul 2014


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby Lumen on August 3rd, 2014, 12:09 am 

Several mentioned there could be no time if there was only one atom... However a lot is going on even in an atom and even sub- atomic particles. Possibility: Everyone's consciousness cold exist within one atom.
We all know how time slows or stops in the huge mass within a black hole.
Also time moves more slot at the equator. Earth bulges there, ten miles thicker. So with the added mass and speed as (At he equated one is moving faster with the location )
All of this shows time IS effected by mass.
After this universe ends I believe we cAn experience linear time, but won't be bound by it.
Forever Lincoln will be giving a speach. Forever Jesus will be dying on the cross and rising again. And perhaps we can visit other times in other universes, while retaining the ability to have a conversation and enjoy good things. So is this the absence of time of the full realization of time.
Lumen
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 24 Jul 2014


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby AustinParadisePDX on April 11th, 2016, 10:17 pm 

Time, in the sense of our internal clock, is the space between the observer and the observed; when a question, such as, how, what, when, where, why, etc, is answered. Time, in the sense of a physical clock is the relative motion of the object versus another. This is just my two cents, so take it how you want.
AustinParadisePDX
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 11 Apr 2016


Re: Dualing Rulers

Postby Faradave on April 12th, 2016, 12:51 pm 

Welcome APPDX,

You're correct in your impression that any separation can equally expressed (using universal speed limit c as a conversion factor) equally well in meters or seconds. But you would do well to recognize also that "internal clock" = "physical clock". Clocks measure aging. That's not necessarily the same as future displacement.

When you run across the admonition, "Moving clocks run slow.", keep in mind that both clocks exist in every future (by conservation of mass-energy). So, they both have the same future displacement. What differs is the amount of aging they each measure (experience). Aging is time experienced on the way to the future.

Einstein revealed that clocks in two different inertial frames each see the other running (aging) slower than the other. How can that be? They disagree on their baselines (simultaneities). Consider two rulers at an angle to each other, from the same origin. If each ruler defines the ground as "that which is perpendicular to my measure", then each ruler will consider itself "higher" than the other.

Rulers AB.png
From a baseline parallel to the dotted disk, ruler A considers itself "higher" than ruler B.

Rulers BA.png
From a baseline parallel to the dotted disk (and perpendicular to B), ruler B considers itself "higher" than ruler A.


Their measured differences (Δ) are both correct. Differing baseline spatial simultaneities ("relativity of simultaneity") is the basis of differently measured (but nonetheless accurate) ages of observers in relative motion.

Like you back owleye. I miss you, buddy.
Last edited by Faradave on April 12th, 2016, 1:45 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)
AustinParadisePDX liked this post


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby RichardKingstone on April 12th, 2016, 1:13 pm 

The Minkowski metric has zero matter.
All four dimensions are technically spatial.
One spatial dimension (ct) is time dependent and requires motion of light.
So it may be assumed there is no time without light.
Maybe your question can be rephrased as follows;
Does flat-space have time?
Possibly not, because all four dimensiions are actually spatial.
RichardKingstone
Banned User
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 25 Sep 2009
AustinParadisePDX liked this post


Re: Prejudice Spatial (not racial)

Postby Faradave on April 12th, 2016, 1:53 pm 

RichardKingstone wrote:All four dimensions are technically spatial. ...all four dimensions are actually spatial.


I would say, "Our continuum offers four dimensions of potential separation."

To specify them as spatial* implies bidirectional translational freedom, which is not observed for one of them.

RK wrote:...there is no time without light.

Interesting, but the limit of the LFT as speed goes to limit c, reveals that light does not experience time. (i.e. It is non-aging.)

*Granted, measurement of separation may have interchangeable units of time or space.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)
AustinParadisePDX liked this post


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby edy420 on May 17th, 2016, 3:10 am 

What if we consider matter that appears and disappears.

If all matter disappeared, then re-appeared, could we say that matter disappeared for an hour or so?

If yes then time is independant of matters existence.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz
AustinParadisePDX liked this post


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby sarathantony on May 21st, 2016, 10:07 pm 

it's true that time cannot exist without matter. In fact matter is the key unit to define time. You'll even feel time different at moon, because it's matter (mass) is less than that of Earth.
But my point is, 'without matter' is just non sense. Without matter or can i say, "absolute nothing" is not possible. In fact, it's not even a possibility.
Proof?
Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed- Einstein

Also,
E=mc^2, energy equals mass itself.

It was there even before the creation itself.

Time is almost stable in the space. But when space encounters mass, the mass tends to stretch the space-time thereby stretch the time too.
And we don't know yet how it would be from a fourth or fifth dimension.
sarathantony
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 21 May 2016


Re: Can time exist without matter?

Postby MrZ on September 2nd, 2016, 7:49 pm 

Time is interaction. Nothing else. Motion is interaction. Interactions have limits thus linear(relative) motions have limits. There can not be time without interaction, and for interaction we need something to exist in the first place.
MrZ
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 02 Sep 2016


Re: Back-words

Postby Faradave on September 2nd, 2016, 8:31 pm 

MrZ wrote:Time is interaction. Nothing else.

A bold but unclear assertion. If you mean to indicate that interactions* entail time, OK. That's not the same as saying that time is interaction.

Newton's first law does not require interaction as it specifies a condition of zero net force.

*Interactions entail forces, which are lightlike and thus entail spatial and temporal components.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests