# Time can't exist without matter (mass) and motion

by Lakshya
Tags: exist, mass, matter, motion, time
 Sci Advisor P: 2,341 Right, a massless particle can't be at rest, so it cannot have and does not have a "rest mass", but it can and does have energy and momentum.
P: 72
 Quote by Chris Hillman Right, a massless particle can't be at rest, so it cannot have and does not have a "rest mass", but it can and does have energy and momentum.
But the E and p at rest are 0.
PF Gold
P: 3,273
 Quote by Lakshya But the E and p at rest are 0.
Chris meant to add "when it is moving at c". I think that was taken as read.

i.e. 'a massless particle can't be at rest, so it cannot have and does not have a "rest mass", but it can and does have energy and momentum when it is moving at c'.

Garth
 P: 26 instead to say does time cease to exist if it cannot be measured or observed because surely all clocks require to be made of mass and energy
P: 72
 Quote by nicky nichols instead to say does time cease to exist if it cannot be measured or observed because surely all clocks require to be made of mass and energy
Nice argument nicky. I am looking 4ward to carry a research on it.
 P: 72 Is it going to rest in peace? Is there nobody out there to reply?
PF Gold
P: 3,273
 Quote by Lakshya Is it going to rest in peace? Is there nobody out there to reply?
We have answered your post, have you taken in and understood what we have said?

You may appreciate the quote from the fourth century:

 What then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled.
St. Augustine of Hippo (He was a bishop in N.Africa). Confessions XI 14 (AD 354-430)

In that same chapter he also said , as a prayer to God, amongst other sayings:
 It is therefore true to say that when you had not made anything, there was not time, because time itself was of your making.
( i.e. time 'began' when the universe did - not bad for the fourth century!)
and
 How can the past and future be when the past no longer is and the future is not yet? As for the present, if it were always present and never moved on to become the past, it would not be time but eternity.

You may find the discussion of this old thread useful to read: The Nature of Time?.

What other questions do you want to ask?
We will do our best to answer them.

Garth
P: 8
 Quote by Lakshya Is it going to rest in peace? Is there nobody out there to reply?
This is a basic question so basic that the basic interpretation of GR would have to be changed and those theories like BB would fail.

The existence of time is the sole requirement of the assumption that spacetime is really a curved matter. Gauss studied curved surface, very realistic. Based on Gauss forms of curved surface, Riemann proposed curved surface of whatever dimension. These are math!!

GR, a physical theory, considers the math to be reality. So the universe based on BB (big bang) must be the curved entity in the meaning of Gauss but 4-dimensional. This is the standard interpretation of GR.

Another interpretation is based on real matter and is consistent to Quantum Mechanics: Physical measurements give an impression of curved spacetime. Based on this interpretion, cosmic redshift is Doppler redshift. The physical universe is infinite but physical constants may change and the corresponding physical measurements give an impression of Big Bang. And time does not exist as you suggest!

Jin He
 P: 53 According to me "no mass and not motion" , so no observers as well, means nothing, so why the time should exist?
 P: 72 And y do u think so? I think the answer is c.
P: 53
 Quote by Lakshya And y do u think so? I think the answer is c.
I could fully agree about C, but we are supposing no observers, no masses, so where C is originated from ?
P: 72
 Quote by Pippo I could fully agree about C, but we are supposing no observers, no masses, so where C is originated from ?
Bcoz light takes some time to reach our eyes and we can never be sure if anything exists at present. We can be sure of past. Sorr I am writing it too shortly.
P: 53
 Quote by Lakshya Bcoz light takes some time to reach our eyes and we can never be sure if anything exists at present. We can be sure of past. Sorr I am writing it too shortly.
Yes but even the light travel through the space, so the question is : can the light reach
a "no place" ? (no space, no time , no everything)
P: 72
 Quote by Pippo Yes but even the light travel through the space, so the question is : can the light reach a "no place" ? (no space, no time , no everything)
The answer is holes (black, white and worm).
P: 53
 Quote by Lakshya The answer is holes (black, white and worm).
My question is : if holes are something can they be compared with a "no place" (a nothing) ?
P: 72
 Quote by Pippo My question is : if holes are something can they be compared with a "no place" (a nothing) ?
Yes, bcoz there mechanism is undetectable. BHs tend to go for a singularity or nospace. WHs appearr from a singularity or noplace. And WoHs are a tunnel between BHs and WHs or they travel between no places.
P: 67
 Quote by Lakshya Yes, bcoz there mechanism is undetectable. BHs tend to go for a singularity or nospace. WHs appearr from a singularity or noplace. And WoHs are a tunnel between BHs and WHs or they travel between no places.
I wont call Black Holes as 'no place'. Its really a place that we don't understand at all. Its a region of space that we cannot describe completely. And today to describe a Black Hole completely has become the holy grail of modern physics (that's an indirect way of talking about 'unification').

To EssentialNature.

That was a great article!
I have always been curious to know where did E=M_0C2 came from. I know the derivation of E=MC2 but it uses on its way M_0C2 as a term that represents the rest mass energy of an object. How do we know this? Is there a concrete derivation of this or did this come to Einstein as a dream?

 Related Discussions General Discussion 13 General Physics 8 Special & General Relativity 1