Can time exist without matter?

[MrZ]

Hello faradave,
it truly was unclear, sorry for that. I believe that in reality there can be no motion without interaction. ("unless acted upon by a net force")
In reality space,can not be empty. not talking philosophically but about our space, here in our universe. empty space is a "sea" of something(not going to discuss it here) containing other things as well.
"lightlike" forces do not magically force, there is a reason for everything. energy is a convenient word, different things in same basket.
But there are interactions. You can think "what if we take those interactions away", but they can't be taken away.
Also it doesn't mean that with fewer interactions there is "slower" time. Some interactions actually slow relative "time", slow decay and so on. There are so many mechanisms we have yet to discover.


As you can see i keep making unclear assertions.. I apologize but can't really explain. My understanding is somewhat ..weird. :)

[Faradave]

Hello MrZ,

I didn't mean to seem abrupt. In the science forums, it is usual to take as a starting point that time is one of four dimensions. One might then argue the priority or subsequence of particles and their interactions.

Particle interactions would similarly be construed as an exchange of mass-energy, momentum and/or information. Since the maximum propagation rate for these is universal speed limit c, a temporal component is implied.

Welcome to SPCF! Hope you enjoy it here.

[HarryP]

It's hard to make a statement or prediction about something that is outside of our reality. As far as relativity and Einstein go as far as I know space and time are intervowen and therefor one can't exist without the other. But I might be wrong as might Einstein

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi HarryP,

Outside our Reality? Can you explain that? There is nothing outside our Reality that affects us.

Regards,
Dave :^)

[AustinParadisePDX]

As far as my understanding goes, time only exist with motion, and it speeds up the more we are familiar with the thing. Basically, the more experiences to relate it to, the faster time goes. Time is a question, the more you know about it, the quicker you get the answer. Thoughts?

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi AustinParadisePDX,

Welcome to the Forums.

Not sure of what to make of your post. From a Science point of view, it makes no sense. Maybe from a philosophical point of view.. perhaps? Time seems to go faster the older one gets.. spoken from experience only.

Nine months of school felt like an eternity when I was 15. Today, at 66, one year feels like three months. Is that what you are trying to express?

Regards,
Dave :^)

[AustinParadisePDX]

I actually started this thread. Hahahah!!

The more you try something, the more proficient you become, and the faster the time it takes to do the task.

Example: When you first go to a new destination, it seems like an eternity, but, after doing it more times, becomes shorter in time.

Make sense now?

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi again,

So you are equating Time to the experience of it, rather than ticks of a clock. For me, the passing of time is relative to the entertainment or boredom values experienced. It's totally subjective in such cases.

Best regards,
Dave :^)

[vivian maxine]

Hi again,

So you are equating Time to the experience of it, rather than ticks of a clock. For me, the passing of time is relative to the entertainment or boredom values experienced. It's totally subjective in such cases.

Best regards,
Dave :^)

Good point, Dave. Giving me ideas. Can we all just toss the clocks and live by our own time? As long as we do play so much magic with time, why not try it?

[BadgerJelly]

I actually started this thread. Hahahah!!

The more you try something, the more proficient you become, and the faster the time it takes to do the task.

Example: When you first go to a new destination, it seems like an eternity, but, after doing it more times, becomes shorter in time.

Make sense now?

That is more about attention and repetition. Also depending upon events during your trip your perception of time will alter. We basically blot out what is always there in a way. Also hindsight can effect how you believe you perceived time. If something new and unexpected happens it stands out and the immediate surrounding time period stands out too.

sometimes in my life a month seems like a year because of how much I manage to cram in.

[ringer777]

i agree that time (moving forward) cannot exist without matter because that is the nature of the universe we live in. they say the universe is still expanding and expanding faster, not slower. If the universe stopped expanding, time would stand still or become non-existent. you and I wouldn't be able to make our next move, we would either freeze or become non-existent in a way that is hard to wrap your head around. Maybe the universe expands in order to accommodate what just happened, so maybe what happened 2 seconds ago, still exists in the universe somehow like a series of dominoes in a way we cannot phathom. like remember your 10 year old self on christmas day - that may still exist right now but in that part of the universe where it was already expanded into. life is a journey? i don't know.

[Heavy_Water]

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?

I believe it can.

May I offer a syllogism?

To wit........................

Space is a vacuum. More vacated of molecules and atoms than we can replicate here on Earth in our best, cutting-edge vacuum chambers, as I recall.

Time is a part of the fabric that comprises the Space-Time Continuum.

The vacuum of Space is, of course, a part of the STC

Therefore, Time can and does exist in the absence of Matter.

[RoccoR]

Re: Can time exist without matter?
→ rchrdstvr77, Philip, et al,

This is an impossible question. No matter which side you take [(• Yes time exist) (• No time doesn't exist)] your answer can not mean anything. The laws of physics (and --- for that mater --- every other cornerstone science) do not exist in an empty universe. Time is merely a description.

≜ IF there is nothing to describe, THEN time cannot be a characteristic.
≜ IF there is no matter, THEN there can be no energy (no frequency of radiation or light, no electromagnetic fields, no fundamental frameworks or Architecture like space-time).

We have no idea if the laws of physics are universal. BUT, the laws of physics as we know them, cannot exist (are meaningless) if there is no application (energy on which the laws of physics could be derived).

In a universe "without matter" (which implies no energy), the question of "time" is as meaningful as the question of the "unicorn."

(ANSWER)

Nonsensical: Yes and no, existence and nonexistence are undefined.

Most Respectfully,
R

[mitchellmckain]

Can time exist without matter?

Yes

It did. Time came into existence before matter.

If you want a more difficult question then ask...

Can time exist without energy?

In that case, you going to have a difficulty with defining energy apart from time.

We can, and I do speculate that there is substance of all thing which is like energy and then I would say that you cannot have time without that. I think it is the clear implication of modern physics that there is nothing universal or absolute about time and it is just as much a part of and contingent upon the physical universe as anything else. (In fact, time is simply an ordering of events and there is no reason why there might not be many separate temporal orderings in existence somewhere.) So, I would think this energy-like substance of all being is a pre-requisite for the existence of time. But, energy as we know it in science is just as much a part of the structure of the universe as is time and there is no justification for a precedence in that case.

I suspect this is coming from a kind of phenomenological thinking that time requires some effect as if there can be no time without a means to measure it. I believe this leads to logical inconsistencies, however.

[Alan McDougall]

Time and movement and the flow of entropy are all linked so that one cannot exist without the other.
Another thought is what about absolute zero, could this be added making the universe into a hypothetical huge piece of concrete

Alan

[mitchellmckain]

Time and movement and the flow of entropy are all linked so that one cannot exist without the other.
Another thought is what about absolute zero, could this be added making the universe into a hypothetical huge piece of concrete

Alan

So let's suppose you have two boxes. One has matter inside and the other does not. Can we conclude that time only exists in the box with matter in it? No. This is the inconsistency which I mentioned above. Matter is matter. Motion is motion. And time is time. These are three separate and distinct things and should not be confused with one another. The empty box has no matter or motion within it, but it is not not the case that time does not exist in that box. We can say that nothing every happens in the empty box precisely because time does exist in that box.

[Enigma1956]

[quote="[url=http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=321296#p321296]mitchellmckain » May 12th, 2017, 3:23 am[/url]"][quote]Can time exist without matter?[/quote]

Yes

It did. Time came into existence before matter.

If you want a more difficult question then ask...

[i]Can time exist without energy?[/i]

In that case, you going to have a difficulty with defining energy apart from time.

We can, and I do speculate that there is substance of all thing which is like energy and then I would say that you cannot have time without [i]that[/i]. I think it is the clear implication of modern physics that there is nothing universal or absolute about time and it is just as much a part of and contingent upon the physical universe as anything else. (In fact, time is simply an ordering of events and there is no reason why there might not be many separate temporal orderings in existence somewhere.) So, I would think this energy-like substance of all being is a pre-requisite for the existence of time. But, energy as we know it in science is just as much a part of the structure of the universe as is time and there is no justification for a precedence in that case.

I suspect this is coming from a kind of phenomenological thinking that time requires some effect as if there can be no time without a means to measure it. I believe this leads to logical inconsistencies, however.[/quote]

Greetings! I find your assertion that, "... <i> there is nothing universal or absolute about time ..." to be interesting ... but mislead and incorrect. Your assertion is based on your perception of Time Absolute (tA) as being, "an ordering of events," which is Causality and is based on Special Relativity's early definitions of tA.
Causality is NOT "Time Absolute," rather it is 'Time Dynamic' (tD) and is merely the matrix/reference frame by which we are enabled to create a measurement of tA.
tA > the existence/duration of any thing, even if that "thing" is a state of absolute Nothingness (nZ). This is the most precise and practical definition of Time Absolute; and, tA IS a Cosmological Constant which "flows" at a uniform rate regardless of the circumstances of Causality/tD.
We may develop 2 ways to measure tA/tD:
(i) Time Subjective (tS) > the measurement of tA/tD using cyclic events of uniform duration as experienced by 1 or more Observers sharing a common environmental reference frame; and,
(ii) Time Objective (tO) > the measurement of tA/tD using a cyclic event of uniform duration as experienced by 2 or more Observers without any other common environmental reference frames. (for example; 2 observers living on different planets/in different Galaxies may have completely different reference points {cyclic events of uniform duration} and therefore unable to establish a common clock based on their respective environments, but might use a single Cosmic Event to develop a common clock/calendar)
The presently held belief that Time, per se, dilates/contracts due to circumstances of gravitational force/hypervelocity is based on temporal illusion, but is NOT a valid theory. Consider Einstein's infamous 'Train-Clock' thought experiment in which an Observer at the rear of a train accelerating to C/light speed sees an infinitely visible clock's hands slow down as the velocity reaches at/near C. Einstein's rendition of this scenario failed to include the fact that as the train-board Observer approaches C velocity, the photons carrying the information from the clock no longer reach him with new information ... rather the Observer's eyes hold only the last photonic image received as his velocity reached C and he was moving in synch with the light wave.
Now consider the following scenario: we have a giant clock laid out in Space on a horizontal plain. The circumference of the clock is 1 light second, and there is a single hand on the clock the point of which circumnavigates the clock once per second (i.e. the hand's tip moves at C velocity around the clock face). We take a pair of Twins, and place one in an observation chair at the rim of the clock in the 12:00 position; and, the other Twin we place in an observation chair on the tip of the clock's hand moving at C around the clock. Each Twin has a very expensive synchronized watch. As the Twin on the clock passes the Twin on the rim, they will see that exactly 1 second passes each time they see each other. Thus we debunk Einsteinian Special Relativity's assertion that Twins would age differently AND that Time dilates for an Observer travelling at C velocity.

[Enigma1956]

[quote="[url=http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=321296#p321296]mitchellmckain » May 12th, 2017, 3:23 am[/url]"][quote]Can time exist without matter?[/quote]

Yes

It did. Time came into existence before matter.

If you want a more difficult question then ask...

[i]Can time exist without energy?[/i]

In that case, you going to have a difficulty with defining energy apart from time.

We can, and I do speculate that there is substance of all thing which is like energy and then I would say that you cannot have time without [i]that[/i]. I think it is the clear implication of modern physics that there is nothing universal or absolute about time and it is just as much a part of and contingent upon the physical universe as anything else. (In fact, time is simply an ordering of events and there is no reason why there might not be many separate temporal orderings in existence somewhere.) So, I would think this energy-like substance of all being is a pre-requisite for the existence of time. But, energy as we know it in science is just as much a part of the structure of the universe as is time and there is no justification for a precedence in that case.

I suspect this is coming from a kind of phenomenological thinking that time requires some effect as if there can be no time without a means to measure it. I believe this leads to logical inconsistencies, however.[/quote]

Greetings! I find your assertion that, "... <i> there is nothing universal or absolute about time ..." to be interesting ... but mislead and incorrect. Your assertion is based on your perception of Time Absolute (tA) as being, "an ordering of events," which is Causality and is based on Special Relativity's early definitions of tA.
Causality is NOT "Time Absolute," rather it is 'Time Dynamic' (tD) and is merely the matrix/reference frame by which we are enabled to create a measurement of tA.
[b]tA > the existence/duration of any thing, even if that "thing" is a state of absolute Nothingness (nZ). [/b] This is the most precise and practical definition of Time Absolute; and, tA IS a Cosmological Constant which "flows" at a uniform rate regardless of the circumstances of Causality/tD.
We may develop 2 ways to measure tA/tD:
(i) Time Subjective (tS) > the measurement of tA/tD using cyclic events of uniform duration as experienced by 1 or more Observers sharing a common environmental reference frame; and,
(ii) Time Objective (tO) > the measurement of tA/tD using a cyclic event of uniform duration as experienced by 2 or more Observers without any other common environmental reference frames. (for example; 2 observers living on different planets/in different Galaxies may have completely different reference points {cyclic events of uniform duration} and therefore unable to establish a common clock based on their respective environments, but might use a single Cosmic Event to develop a common clock/calendar)
The presently held belief that Time, per se, dilates/contracts due to circumstances of gravitational force/hypervelocity is based on temporal illusion, but is NOT a valid theory. Consider Einstein's infamous 'Train-Clock' thought experiment in which an Observer at the rear of a train accelerating to C/light speed sees an infinitely visible clock's hands slow down as the velocity reaches at/near C. Einstein's rendition of this scenario failed to include the fact that as the train-board Observer approaches C velocity, the photons carrying the information from the clock no longer reach him with new information ... rather the Observer's eyes hold only the last photonic image received as his velocity reached C and he was moving in synch with the light wave.
Now consider the following scenario: we have a giant clock laid out in Space on a horizontal plain. The circumference of the clock is 1 light second, and there is a single hand on the clock the point of which circumnavigates the clock once per second (i.e. the hand's tip moves at C velocity around the clock face). We take a pair of Twins, and place one in an observation chair at the rim of the clock in the 12:00 position; and, the other Twin we place in an observation chair on the tip of the clock's hand moving at C around the clock. Each Twin has a very expensive synchronized watch. As the Twin on the clock passes the Twin on the rim, they will see that exactly 1 second passes each time they see each other. Thus we debunk Einsteinian Special Relativity's assertion that Twins would age differently AND that Time dilates for an Observer travelling at C velocity.

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Enigma1956,

Welcome to the Forums.

Now consider the following scenario: we have a giant clock laid out in Space on a horizontal plain. The circumference of the clock is 1 light second, and there is a single hand on the clock the point of which circumnavigates the clock once per second (i.e. the hand's tip moves at C velocity around the clock face). We take a pair of Twins, and place one in an observation chair at the rim of the clock in the 12:00 position; and, the other Twin we place in an observation chair on the tip of the clock's hand moving at C around the clock. Each Twin has a very expensive synchronized watch. As the Twin on the clock passes the Twin on the rim, they will see that exactly 1 second passes each time they see each other. Thus we debunk Einsteinian Special Relativity's assertion that Twins would age differently AND that Time dilates for an Observer travelling at C velocity.

Sorry, no debunking in this thought experiment.

If this were possible to do, the Rim Fellow would indeed measure the Arm Guy as passing by.. once per second.

But the Guy on the Arm would measure passing the Rim Fellow zillions of times per his own personal second of lapsed time (proper-time).. as read by his own very expensive synchronized watch. Watches do not remain synchronized when there is a velocity difference.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

[mitchellmckain]

Once again it is shown that when someone imagines he has disproved relativity, the only inconsistencies to be found is in the person's understanding of relativity. I have told people time and time again that the key to a proper understanding of relativity is the relativity of simultaneity (i.e. that clocks synchronized in one inertial frame are not synchronized in a different inertial frame) In any case, if it is a choice between the scientists who have tested relativity against the measurable facts over and over again for the last century and the declarations of the uneducated about what is misleading and incorrect according to nothing more than their philosophical inclinations, then I will go with what is tested and consistent with the objective measurements. For Pete's sake, the corrections for both General and Special Relativity are required for the operation of modern GPS technology using communication satellites and thus to imagine disproving relativity is as ludicrous as insisting the Earth is flat.

I certainly have nothing against philosophical (even theological) speculations and subjective reasons for belief AS LONG AS they are within the bounds of the reasonable agreement with the objective evidence of science.