Distance Without Time: Possible?

[brainstorm]

This might be banal but I would say that distance measured without the use of time would be length. Generally I think of distance as being measured as the product of speed and time. If you measure the delay of an echo and know the speed of sound, you can construe a distance. On the other hand, using an odometer would count the number of revolutions of a wheel, which would be multiplied by the circumference of the tire to find the distance you travelled. This is why you have to enter your exact tire-type when you program a cycling speedometer/odometer.

 

[Drakkith]

I could see it as this: You CAN have distance without time. If we suddenly "froze" time, a meter would still be a meter long. However, you couldn't MOVE anywhere as that requires time. You couldn't change anything without time AND distance.

Hope that makes sense. (Note that none of this explains things such as being able to measuring distance without time or anything like that.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Corrected.

You could have distance without time if we could suddenly "freeze" time...

But can we?

It's a 'what if?' thought.

 

[vcurious]

Is it possible to have distance without also having time?

With your permission, perhaps this could be restated as:
Q. Can we have (a) space without time?
A. In this universe, no. Time is fundamental to our universe. Regardless of what size space we examine within our universe, time is part of that space.

Corrected.

But can we?

It's a 'what if?' thought.

With kind deference to DaveCLargeinteger, who I think knows a lot more about this stuff than I do:
B. In a thought experiment universe/space patterned after our own, if we remove/stop/freeze time, that space would go utterly void - no matter, no virtual particles, absolutely nothing.
(It must be event-free to satisfy the "no time" requirement.*) That would give us a space without time. I don't see any other way to satisfy Q. above.

*By the way, I've come up with an aspect of time, but I don't know how to put it in words very well. Time is the filler between events.
So: No time, no events.
If time, then events, matter, stuff, antispoons, you know. :-)

 

[DaveC426913]

With your permission, perhaps this could be restated as:
Q. Can we have (a) space without time?
A. In this universe, no. Time is fundamental to our universe. Regardless of what size space we examine within our universe, time is part of that space.

With kind deference to DaveCLargeinteger, who I think knows a lot more about this stuff than I do:
B. In a thought experiment universe/space patterned after our own, if we remove/stop/freeze time, that space would go utterly void - no matter, no virtual particles, absolutely nothing.
(It must be event-free to satisfy the "no time" requirement.*) That would give us a space without time. I don't see any other way to satisfy Q. above.

*By the way, I've come up with an aspect of time, but I don't know how to put it in words very well. Time is the filler between events.
So: No time, no events.
If time, then events, matter, stuff, antispoons, you know. :-)

I'm confused as to why you don't see a sort of "everything frozen, no events" scenario, like a cube of acrylic with bugs in it.

Not that I'm proposing such a thing can happen, I'm just not sure why a volume of spacetime could not have time stopped in it and still have the atoms in it existing. It would be an interesting experiment to see what the electon clouds would do if they could be frozen.

 

[Hootenanny]

I have only skimmed through this thread, so I apologise if my point has been mentioned already.

The problem I have here is the implicit assumption, certainly in most of the answers thus far, is that distance is somehow related to the ability to travel it. We can perfectly well define a distance without any reference to time. The distance between two points in \mathbb{R}^n, for example can be defined independently of time. We can also define distance in non-Euclidean space for that matter - the distance between LA and Sydney is independent of time.

 

[vcurious]

I'm confused as to why you don't see a sort of "everything frozen, no events" scenario, like a cube of acrylic with bugs in it.

Not that I'm proposing such a thing can happen, I'm just not sure why a volume of spacetime could not have time stopped in it and still have the atoms in it existing. It would be an interesting experiment to see what the electon clouds would do if they could be frozen.

I like your snapshot universe posit. In my considerations of matter/energy existing in no-time space, (with little formal rigor, I might add) vague thoughts of Bose Einsteinian condensates, or maybe infinite masses*, or complete annihilation came to mind. All these are not necessarily related, it's just what bubbled up in my mind over the years. Having these vague, uneasy thoughts gradually pushed me down the path of least resistance into an eventless, matterless space.
I concluded eventless space would dictate the absence of motion. My mistake was to assume matter could not exist in such a state, since even strings supposedly vibrate.
*I am by no means an expert in relativity- more like an idiot, so I have no idea what happens when all motion is stopped for matter and energy. Even the concept of 'happen' connotes time, so I guess we will have to flesh that one out. The bug in amber/snapshot metaphor helps keep me on the straight and narrow when thinking about this stuff, but I do wonder whether nature would tolerate matter and energy in a motionless, eventless state.

Having said all that, I am open to any suggestions on what matter and energy _and even space_would look like under no-time conditions.

 

[irradiance]

"it's a kind of awkward to be asked that kind of question but it does make sense in a way that no one can decipher for the "mean time." what I'm saying is that, though things' movement is most of the time associated with the distance between it's first position to it's final position [displacement or space in general] but it is meaningless because things move in such a way that it is relative to time. time itself is the quintessence of time. "what if space can exist without time?" if we think about it, space can still be there but what are the things that may exist in that space if time is not there? anything? something? or nothing? that is the question that i think would be a core of an experiment about "independence of space from time." no matter what we think about it, time is there. there must be a independent factor as to which a motion can be derive. for the mean time, we can't argue with this fact but as far as i know man has his own ways of unraveling this questions and nature has her own way of unfolding it."

-R. Laride

 

[DLuckyE]

I have only skimmed through this thread, so I apologise if my point has been mentioned already.

The problem I have here is the implicit assumption, certainly in most of the answers thus far, is that distance is somehow related to the ability to travel it. We can perfectly well define a distance without any reference to time. The distance between two points in \mathbb{R}^n, for example can be defined independently of time. We can also define distance in non-Euclidean space for that matter - the distance between LA and Sydney is independent of time.

It's not so much the ability to travel as it is that distance is a measurement of spacetime, and well as the name implies the time is kinda stuck to the space part. So how would you just measure space without a time part?

Even the distance between LA and Sydney is dependent on time, the only reason it seems independent is because time is pretty constant for most of us.

 

[Hootenanny]

It's not so much the ability to travel as it is that distance is a measurement of spacetime, and well as the name implies the time is kinda stuck to the space part. So how would you just measure space without a time part?

Even the distance between LA and Sydney is dependent on time, the only reason it seems independent is because time is pretty constant for most of us.

You missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

Yes, if we work in spacetime then of course the interval between two events is time-dependent, by definition and we cannot define intervals without time. However, the question simply asked if it is possible to have distance without having time. The answer to the question is of course, yes! Outside of relativity, one can perfectly well define the distance between two points without any reference to time.

 

[finiter]

I don’t see how you can have any form of existence without having time

Existence is something connected with time. So space or distance cannot exist without time. Similarly, no body can exist without space. So, irrespective of whether Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct or not, time and space are required for the existence of matter in the form that we now see.

 

[Naty1]

I don't believe anyone knows the answer to the "space without time" question. Someone above noted in this universe they come as a "package", we don't seem to have either one without the other, and so far they appear to be simultaneous entities...along with others like mass and energy. Of all physical entities, time may be the least understood. But fundamentally we undertand none.

Quantum mechanics posits 'entanglement' which implies maybe there is an underlying connection between the two we may not yet fully understand..."spooky action at a distance" (without time)... And special relativity shows us in the macroscopic world, neither entity is fixed and rigid even though they appear that way: both space and time are relative! How can that be? seems crazy and yet it appears to offer an expanation for most pehnomena we observe.

Another insight might come from black holes: Relative to a distant observer, a particle falling near the horizon appears to "stop" in time...and it takes an infinite amount of time for the particle to disappear...so in a sense, we have an example where space and time may "stop" together...but only relative to that distant observer. As far as the freely falling particle is concerned, everything seems normal and for example if it were radioactive would continue to decay at it's normal rate.

A more general question than yours would be "Why did space,time,energy,matter, and the four forces we experience (as an example) all pop out of some apparent initial singularity together." Why THOSE forms of an initial entity...perhaps because if there were others we could not be here to observe. And what happens to all of them inside the final singularity...black holes?

We seem to have a general understanding that at some point, or time, they were all part of an initial single integrated entity coupled with great instability. That decayed into a lower energy and more stable environment we observe...with selected entities appearing separate and distinct. but they arenot: As an example, the three forces have been "unified" mathematically, but not yet gravity, and so we have a hint those three entities seem to have a common origin.

Looking at it another way, if you subscribe to a many worlds interpretation,and there are reasons to do so, then ours is simply one of an infinite number of worlds born every moment...consequently many of them likely have space without time...and others time without space...if so they are stuck in the initial "bang" and can't evolve because without space some can't expand and others can't evolve without the passage of time..so those worlds are evolutionary dead ends.

Addon: Another angle to view space- time from is that of a physical entity affected by gravity. Gravity curves spacetime and increasing gravitational potential slows the passage of time...that's what behind the slowing of time at the horizon of a black hole. So one might argue that not only are space and time related, they have a clearly physical relationship with mass (and hence energy, it's other form) described by the mathematics of gravitational potential. So even heat affects spacetime according to GR.

 

[brainstorm]

Is there anyone who can conceptualize space as nothing more than a variable tendency for physical motion to occur in the same way in similar systems within the same gravitational field-intensity? If you can relativize time to behavioral congruity among different systems, what could space be relativized to? I think it is possible to view space as the separation between stronger fields (EM & nuclear) made possible by the tendency of those stronger fields to coalesce into relatively separate "massive bodies." Gravity, in other words, separates matter into gravity wells, which stratifies their contents according to density. If all that matter was just bound together by EM and nuclear force, it would not be able to separate enough to form spacetime, imo. So distance/space and time are not matrices that precede field-force but they are functions or phenomena that emerge from interactions among those different field-forces, imo. I don't think you can have one without the other any more than you can have leaves without bark; i.e. they're separable in abstraction but in practice they're two parts of the same object-conceptual apparatus.

 

[Forever1]

Quick question theoreticaly you figured out a way to travel back into time. let's say 16,837 years before today. now if you did this and did stuff in that past would it change the future or would the future be the same because you were already in the past? and if you do change things how do you keep from changing it and also until you get to your own time again why can't i die or age? that's my biggest question and the one i would like ansrd the most how come you don't age if your stuck in the past until you get to your own time? please help. just curious.

 

[Forever1]

as far as having distance without time in my personal oppinon i say yes you can. time is a concept asking to have time without distance is like asking if you can have anything without time. of course you can if you don't realize time exists or understand what a number is or have a sense of how long then you threw a football across a field distance still applies your not looking at it threw time or how long it takes to get threw but how far its also true time is light and the faster you move the shorter a distance gets because light and speed is how we base time if you don't have a sense of that and still dropped something there's still a distance try it drop a cup off a tablle and ask yourself what's time and when it hits the floor youll realize it doesn't matter it still fell the action time is nothing but an illiusion of the limit of our life if you were immortal why would the concept of time ever matter to you? what's there to hurry you have etternity it wouldn't exist its a weird feeling trust me but think about it. ps I am no physicist so whatever i say most likely is wrong howeverrrrrrrrrrr its just my oppinion so whhooo knnoowwwsss

 

[chiro]

I'm sorry if I am repeating anyone, but essentially any measure of time for me is simply a delta in some system, be it distance, temperature, energy, density, whatever.

If you have a system and no change existed, then it would be hard to really gauge a sense of what we currently see as time.

I like what people have said about "frozen systems", I think that illustrates my point.

If you look at some different versions of measuring time including thermodynamic, you need some kind of change: in fact if there was no change in a system, its entropy would be zero!

With regards to measuring time with distance: it requires that you measure change. You can measure time with respect to excitations in a cesium atom, but again you are measuring change.