Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can something exist without time-space?

  1. Apr 13, 2007 #1
    This question was bothering me for long time, but i couldnt find the answer to this question.
    Try to imagine that there is another world without time, space and matter. World that the human barin cant fully imagine. Can SOMETHING (no matter what) exist in this world? An entity of any kind? An other version of matter which doesnt need space to exist?
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 13, 2007 #2
    Well if you believe in a creator he would exist outside space/time and matter. As to what it would be like.. better yet, as to why you can not immagine it. Can you immagine a tree? Good, now can you immagine a fusonhousien (a made up word)? of course you can't because you don't know what it is. Humans have only been exposed to space/time/matter so to immagine something that is not is outside our experience.
  4. Apr 13, 2007 #3
    Its like the Alien example. Can you imagine an alien which is created from something we dont know?
    Thats why i'm searching the answer in phylosophy.. For example.
    If there were only this world without space and matter but still there was something, an entity which existed in that world. There can be nothign else in this world accept this "something", therefore its perfect, it has everything that can ever exist. To keep existing you need to do something. To import or export information or actions.

    The baby example: there is a baby, borned without the 5 senses, therefore it doesnt know the world exist, in other words, world doesnt exist to this baby. So it cant recieve any information from outside created by others. How can the baby know about his own existance? By doing those actions, importing info or exporting info, including thinking. But how can it think if it doesnt know any terms, it knows nothing about the world and its own environment, it knows nothign about itself, the knowlage is obsolutely 0. Therefore the baby cant think either, so it doesnt know about his own existance, so he doesnt exist in his own world (world created by the information we get, we get the light into our eyes, see it as a tree and use the picture in our mind, in our private world), If it doesnt exist in his own world - It doesnt exist at all, only we can see the body of that baby.

    Therefore, to exist the entity needs to import or export something to know about its own existance and exist (because there is nothign else because of this entity, its private world is the whole world, therefore if it doesnt exist in its own world, it doesnt exist at all). And because it exist, its doign something. Whats that something? Importing? No. Why? because there is nothign to import, it has everything that can exist in this world.
    So can it export? Yes, but to who? To what? Therefore it creates another entity, the opposite, the unperfect entity so it can give the other one it created that something its created of (lets call it "or"). When the unperfect entity gets the "or" its being filled with somethign perfect, with more of it, therefore it gets satisfaction.

    The creation of that entity was in order to give it enjoyment.

    Thats my theory, based on the Wisdom of Kabbalah.

    BTW, i found my answer in the atomic structure, tnx anyway.
    and, i'm sorry if i had some mistakes in my writing, its 2:12am lol
  5. Apr 13, 2007 #4
    I would tend to think that a baby would still feel hungery and, assuming its mother still feeds it regulary, it will inport a feeling of satifaction It will not know why it was hungery and now its not but it would regonize this change. The baby maybe be able to understand that it is not the baby that brings about this change in hunger to satifaction. Therefore it would be able to assume there are things outside of its senses.
    But either way a baby would feel hunger which according to your argument make the baby know it exist. Also this would allow for rudementay thought. hungery..not hungery.
  6. Apr 14, 2007 #5
    Hunger is the wish to recieve something tasty, you dont want to eat just because your stomach hurts or you want to survive. You eat because its tasty. Therefore the baby wont feel hunger, it will feel pain in his stomach and no pain.
    Mother wont be able to feed the baby, baby cant feel anything and doesnt know when to swallow.

    There is another option to keep it alive, intravenous infusion. But this will put the food inside his blood directly, therefore it may not feel pain at all and may not know what pain is? Does it feel any pain either?

    Anyway, eating is recieving information from outside. Without recieving any information and exporting it, the creature doesnt exist in his own world - for himself. We can see its body laying, but we see the body in our mind, in his mind and consciousness, he doesnt exist.
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2007
  7. Apr 14, 2007 #6

    Hunger and tasty have nothing to to with eathother. If your hungery enough you eat things that are very untasty.

    But with the idea of pain and no pain, there is a third option for feeding. The baby can be feed through a tube. This can be done regulary, not conteniously, thus allowing for the possibility for pain and no pain.

    And what about bordem? Could this not be expirenced?
  8. Apr 14, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You found what in the "atomic structure"? Certainly not the answer to your question because "atomic structure" is well-known only because we can solve and describe it using its Hamiltonian. And I'm sure you know what are contained in that Hamiltonian, don't you, since you found the "answer"? Try writing it down without using any "time and space" if you can.

  9. Apr 23, 2007 #8
    The problem is that the human brain not only cannot fully imagine such a scenario, it cannot imagine such a scenario at all. Then again, maybe it is just me--limited imagination. If anyone can describe a world without time, space and matter, other than just making such a statement, it would be very enlightening.

    One could imagine a world with no motion and no change and therefore no time. One possibly could imagine a world with only one dimention and therefore no matter. Imagining a world with no space is the most difficult. Imagining a world with no time, space, or matter--priceless.
  10. Apr 23, 2007 #9
    If one could imagine a world without space, time, or matter, I imagine they could imagine worlds with countless features we are without. Also, without time, there can be no conciousness, and it takes a moment, at least, to imagine. So what we view as imagining would be an invalid way of observing such a plane. It seems easy enough to imagine a world without matter because we have the ability to observe dog or no dog, so it's just applying the same idea to the cosmos (this is open to argument, of course). We can't really do that with time. Only thing is when we sleep. So, I guess, try to imagine the timeless experience you have between moments of conciousness as a constant, which can't really be done.
  11. Apr 25, 2007 #10
    Is this question WRT to objects composed of matter? I mean of course linguistic objects and abstractions would existed.
  12. Apr 26, 2007 #11
    Time is nothing more complicated than change. Change is one of the constant properties of the universe. All things change, even at light speed this is maintained in a weird kind of abstract way. So this question is simpler than it would appear, provided we realise the fact that time is change. The something you speak of would be eternaly unchanged, without movement or decay or physics. Nothing would ever interact with it because even the slightest change would be contradictory to it's timeless property. This last fact tells us that anything removed from the dimension of time must be also removed of space (Also Einstein's relativity and Tenser calculus tell us that time and space are one, so to remove one is to remove both). The something could not exist in cohabitation with our spacetime environment because it would be capable of interaction at it's boundary and measurements could be taken as we swirled around it.

    The Something therefore has no x,y or z dimensions else it could be marked on a geometric grid and cannot ever change in any way what so ever. Well, to answer your question I would say that quantum particals have no x,y or z dimension when momentum is known so that is obviously possible, even within the realm of spacetime physics. However, all things change. So what does this do to our argument? Nothing.

    Imagine if the universe came to a complete holt. No partical would move in relation to any other partical. The point here is that it could be happening and we would not know. If electrons couldn't move through neural paths in our brains and no object could change or decay in any way or move in any dimension it would be impossible to detect the pause in time. It is important to realise that this paused universe would actually be a universe without a dimension of time during the pause. So it is impossible to argue that this has not occured at some point due to the fact that it would be undetectable.

    So the the example you have given could very well describe our own universe since all our particles are acting according to the laws of QM and therefore do not always have a property of x,y or z dimensions and time can't be proven to be constantly in effect. I don't know anyone who would argue that they don't exist, so I would say that the answer to your question is YES!
  13. Apr 26, 2007 #12
    Time is a componenet that cannot be removed, because it is nothing at all. If we remove all the units (geometry of nothing) of our universe, we still have time. What would be missing is the gage for time. i.e the tick and tock would be gone.

    In our universe, there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.
  14. Apr 26, 2007 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    [quote[Time is nothing more complicated than change. Change is one of the constant properties of the universe. All things change, even at light speed this is maintained in a weird kind of abstract way. So this question is simpler than it would appear, provided we realise the fact that time is change. The something you speak of would be eternaly unchanged, without movement or decay or physics.[/quote]

    Alternatively, there could be something else to change
  15. Apr 26, 2007 #14
    I don't understand what is meant in your posts Castlegate and Office Shredder. Are you both saying that my interpretation of the time dimension is wrong? I have always assumed that time is a measure of the rate of change. It is a tool that we overlay against the workings of the universe so as to compare observations of change. If time has some other property that I have missed, please explain in depth as I would be greatfull to hear it.
  16. Apr 27, 2007 #15
    We need events to garner a sense of time, but these events are not a representation of time. Time being the non-event between those events. The tick and tock of a clock represent events. Whats between tick and tock is absolutely nothing at all. Should you (lets say) approach the speed of light, you don't slow time down, you slow the rate of tic and tock. Time never changes, it is after all (nothing).

    Thats my story, and I,m sticking to it for all time. :smile:
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2007
  17. Apr 30, 2007 #16
    So you are saying that if no change occured within the universe time would continue to serve a purpose of some sort? If so, what purpose would it serve?
  18. May 1, 2007 #17
    Removing change, or what I would call markers for time involves removing all that exist. We would then be left with nothing (time). Thusly an eternity of time would have to pass before a new marker could be put into play, by which all other markers after are based. Time (nothing) serves no purpose other than to lie there and play the two dollar whore, by which things((forms of nothing) (markers)) go about their business. The universe (a collection of markers) stands as the definition of nothing (time), wherein nothing (time) is the only ingredient, while the markers serve as fundamental containers for it.

    Nothing stands for zero, while the markers stand for one. This is a necessary contradiction that allows us to tell any (one) from any other (one). Nothing (time) serves the purpose of existence, as existence serves to define that which does not exist.

    In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.
  19. May 2, 2007 #18
    Not having a higher educational understanding of phillosophy has put me in the possition of being completely confused. I don't understand how your description of the time dimension changes it from a theoretical frame of reference (such as Euclidian geometry) to a universal property (such as mass). I'm not saying your wrong, I am simply unable to grasp the central idea of your argument.
  20. May 3, 2007 #19

    I'd like to offer up an explaination of how a goemetric representation of time can become a property such as mass, but that will take some effort on my part, and I'm a bit short on time, at this time. I will do my best when time allows.
  21. Jan 7, 2008 #20
    Observation provides us with experience in three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, but science has suggested that there are other dimensions in which nature operates, dimensions so exquisitely small that all of us will be very lucky if in our lifetimes human eyes pierce their miniscule depths. Kaluza, for instance, suggested that light is a phenomenon of 4 spatial dimensions. While he was later proven wrong, his theories have become the basis for string theory and its offshoots which predict the existence of numerous ultramicroscopic spatial dimensions. I believe some of these dimensions are said to lie outside of time and they are also places which govern quantum interactions. Quantum mechanics describes particles that eddy forward or backward in time. At times they disappear completely, then reappear again. Where do they go? Outside of the 3 dimensions of space and dimension of time with which we are familiar. How does it happen? That remains a mystery. The point of all this is that it is possible to conceive of space without time, indeed the quanta seem to require space without time.

    The quanta are energy (photons) and matter (electrons, quarks, etc.) Yet we suspect that they exist to a certain extent outside of time. So it would seem quite possible to have a place where there is matter and space without time. Indeed, all light remains outside of time (as I have recently been reminded in a thread in the relativity forum). And paradoxically it exists in space without having a clear frame of reference in space (another point I was reminded of in the relativity forum). So, light (energy) it would seem also exists in space without existing in time.

    I think the problem with the original argument in this thread is that it assumes that time, matter and space are all requirements for existence. Yet observation of the quantum world would seem to contradict this notion. The lasting and fundamental elements of existence would seem to be light, matter and space. When all is reckoned it may be that time is a dispensible element of the universe.
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2008
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook