Distance Without Time: Possible?

  • Thread starter swerdna
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Time
In summary, General relativity says that you cannot have one without the other. They are deeply interwoven at a fundamental level.
  • #1
swerdna
251
0
Is it possible to have distance without also having time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
General relativity says no, you cannot have one without the other. They are deeply interwoven at a fundamental level.
 
  • #3
bluesurge863 said:
General relativity says no, you cannot have one without the other. They are deeply interwoven at a fundamental level.
Thanks - The other post that said you can has mysteriously disappeared. Does that mean it was wrong?
 
  • #4
I don't think the poster fully understood what you meant, and so deleted his post.
 
  • #5
bluesurge863 said:
I don't think the poster fully understood what you meant, and so deleted his post.
Thanks - General Relativity aside, would it be possible?
 
  • #6
Let's start with an example of time: If you dropped a cup from a table here on earth, it would take a certain amount of time for it to hit the ground.. agreed? Now, drop that same cup from that same table while on the moon.. it would take a different amount of "time" before it finally hit the ground. The distance is the same in both cases, but the time very different. So, this begs the question.. Is time real or simply relative?

We measure time by our finite definition of life. We are only here for a certain amount of "time", as we see the sun come up and go down each day. So we measure time as a function of recurrence, by which we can say 'so many recurrences and we finally cease to exist.' Is time real or merely a perception?

If we lived eternally, without dying, without needing food, without the need to regenerate-or-die, would we even be worried about time? Is time real or just an illusion brought on by our limited lifespan?

Is time really bound exclusively to just space or are there other variables, if time really does exist that is? From the example of the falling cup (forementioned), it would seem that we must at least factor in gravity to get a correct calculation of space in both instances, if we are to keep time in the equation.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
swerdna said:
Thanks - General Relativity aside, would it be possible?

Do you mean "what if the laws of physics as we understand them were not the laws of physics as we understand them?"

You would get unicorns and faeries.
 
  • #8
Technocreep said:
We measure time by our finite definition of life.
If we lived eternally, without dying, without needing food, without the need to regenerate-or-die, would we even be worried about time? Is time real or just an illusion brought on by our limited lifespan?

Is time really bound exclusively to just space or are there other variables, if time really does exist that is?
None of this is sensical. Time gets along just fine without us, and in fact without life at all. It got along for a billion years before life came traipsing through the kitchen in its muddy shoes.
 
  • #9
Technocreep said:
Let's start with an example of time: If you dropped a cup from a table here on earth, it would take a certain amount of time for it to hit the ground.. agreed? Now, drop that same cup from that same table while on the moon.. it would take a different amount of "time" before it finally hit the ground. The distance is the same in both cases, but the time very different. So, this begs the question.. Is time real or simply relative?

We measure time by our finite definition of life. We are only here for a certain amount of "time", as we see the sun come up and go down each day. So we measure time as a function of recurrence, by which we can say 'so many recurrences and we finally cease to exist.' Is time real or merely a perception?

If we lived eternally, without dying, without needing food, without the need to regenerate-or-die, would we even be worried about time? Is time real or just an illusion brought on by our limited lifespan?

Is time really bound exclusively to just space or are there other variables, if time really does exist that is? From the example of the falling cup (forementioned), it would seem that we must at least factor in gravity to get a correct calculation of space in both instances, if we are to keep time in the equation.
Sorry but I can’t relate any of that to my question.
 
  • #10
swerdna said:
Sorry but I can’t relate any of that to my question.

You're not the only one. :confused:
 
  • #11
@swerdna: It is totally relatable to your question in that it did NOT require the same amount of time to travel the same distance; therefore, distance is not bound to time; also therefore, it IS possible to have distance without time.
 
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
Do you mean "what if the laws of physics as we understand them were not the laws of physics as we understand them?"

You would get unicorns and faeries.
Thanks - That's probably the best answer for my purpose.
 
  • #13
Technocreep said:
@swerdna: It is totally relatable to your question in that it did NOT require the same amount of time to travel the same distance; therefore, distance is not bound to time; also therefore, it IS possible to have distance without time.

If you can show an example of an object traveling a specific distance in no time (blithely putting relativistic effects to the side), then you will have shown that time and distance aren't related. In both of those cases, you have an object traveling a distance over a time interval.
 
  • #14
Technocreep said:
@swerdna: It is totally relatable to your question in that it did NOT require the same amount of time to travel the same distance; therefore, distance is not bound to time; also therefore, it IS possible to have distance without time.
Don’t see how a thing taking different times to cover the same distance in different circumstance means in any way that “it IS possible to have distance without time”.
 
  • #15
I think the problem here is that everyone is talking about motion. Time is absolutely needed for motion, but distance is just a difference in position. Two stationary objects at different positions in space do not depend on time for their distance from each other to exist. :)
 
  • #16
I don’t see how you can have any form of existence without having time. Given there must be things that exist to have distance between them I would conclude that you automatically must have time if you have distance. Even if distance doesn't "need" time. Does that make sense?
 
  • #17
What would happen to everything if time ceased to exist is a much more philosophical question, one that I can't answer. I was merely saying that mathematically distance is not time-dependent. You could freeze time, slow it down, speed it up, but the distance between two stationary objects wouldn't change because of these manipulations. We could say that distance couldn't exist without time but it becomes kinda meaningless if nothing at all could exist without time. So we might have to just agree that time exists, then we can look at what concepts it actually plays a role. If THAT makes sense lol.
 
  • #18
f03cuss said:
What would happen to everything if time ceased to exist is a much more philosophical question, one that I can't answer. I was merely saying that mathematically distance is not time-dependent. You could freeze time, slow it down, speed it up, but the distance between two stationary objects wouldn't change because of these manipulations. We could say that distance couldn't exist without time but it becomes kinda meaningless if nothing at all could exist without time. So we might have to just agree that time exists, then we can look at what concepts it actually plays a role. If THAT makes sense lol.

OK, so let's run that thought experiment. Say we want to speed up time to the point where travel is instantaneous. Is it meaningful to have instantaneous travel with nonzero distance?
 
  • #19
Great question. Been thinking about it myself, haven't gotten too far. :confused:

Some thoughts:
I'm not sure your question can be comprehensively answered until we humans understand the nature of time, which we don't.

I've read "Time is a property of the Universe." That tells me little about time, since in my book, it's akin to saying "Time comes with."

So at this point, I don't know what time is, so I don't know what a 3 dimensional space looks like without time, which I think is the crux of your question.

Such a space would have to be featureless, I guess, because in a space without time, all events occur simultaneously and instantaneously, ruling matter and energy as we know them out of existence. Indeed, in such a space, 'events' probably don't even exist. :uhh:

On the other hand, can't we mathematically describe separate imaginary points A and B in a featureless 3D space? If so, I guess one could have distance without time.
 
  • #20
bluesurge863 said:
OK, so let's run that thought experiment. Say we want to speed up time to the point where travel is instantaneous. Is it meaningful to have instantaneous travel with nonzero distance?

Hmm, interesting question, but again, now we are talking about motion/traveling. Distance does not require motion, motion requires distance, or rather, space. So we can talk about distance without motion.

For something to travel a distance instantaneously (because of time manip) time would have to be moving forward at an infinite speed. At which point you could be in all points in space at once. And probably would be. Infinite mass.
 
  • #21
f03cuss said:
Hmm, interesting question, but again, now we are talking about motion/traveling. Distance does not require motion, motion requires distance, or rather, space. So we can talk about distance without motion.

For something to travel a distance instantaneously (because of time manip) time would have to be moving forward at an infinite speed. At which point you could be in all points in space at once. And probably would be. Infinite mass.

But it wouldn't have to move at infinite speed. Due to relativistic effects, it would only have to travel at the speed of light.

(And by the way, I didn't say that travel would have to occur, just time would be sped up to the point where instantaneous travel would be possible. :wink: )
 
  • #22
bluesurge863 said:
But it wouldn't have to move at infinite speed. Due to relativistic effects, it would only have to travel at the speed of light.

(And by the way, I didn't say that travel would have to occur, just time would be sped up to the point where instantaneous travel would be possible. :wink: )


Are you saying time would have to travel at the speed of light? Light's velocity is measured in distance divided by time. Not sure we can say time's velocity is measured in distance divided by the time itself (maybe another observer's time). I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think we can think of time itself moving at the speed of something physical. Like time moving at the speed of a rolling bowling ball. But even if we could, at the speed of light, light still needs time to cross a distance, and to that beam the time traveled would not be instantaneous. :) This is fun.
 
  • #23
Sorry, I misunderstood what you said.

I'm not entirely sure it's meaningful to assign a rate to time at all, so to say it can pass with a certain speed is sort of playing fast and loose with the underlying concepts. I think of time as more of a continuum that can be stretched (slowing down) and compressed (speeding up).

When I said something would have to travel at the speed of light, I meant the object (or person?) that was observing the travel to be instantaneous, and would therefore view any possible trip as having zero distance. Us on the outside, however, would still view the trip as taking a certain amount of time.

Take the light from the sun as an example - from the light's point of view, travel is so fast as to be approximately instantaneous (I say approximately because it's not a complete vacuum, as it has to pass through the atmosphere of the Earth in order for us to view it). From our point of view, however, it takes about 8 minutes. So not only is distance forever correlated with time, it is also entirely dependent on the perspective of the observer.

Also, there is no spoon.
 
  • #24
You can 'consider' distance without discussing time, in a classical sense. We all have maps and diagrams, which do just that.
However, to describe the way things actually work and behave, time needs to be brought in.
This could be looked on as the difference between situations and processes.
 
  • #25
bluesurge863 said:
I'm not entirely sure it's meaningful to assign a rate to time at all, so to say it can pass with a certain speed is sort of playing fast and loose with the underlying concepts. I think of time as more of a continuum that can be stretched (slowing down) and compressed (speeding up).

Exactly what I was thinking.

bluesurge863 said:
When I said something would have to travel at the speed of light, I meant the object (or person?) that was observing the travel to be instantaneous, and would therefore view any possible trip as having zero distance. Us on the outside, however, would still view the trip as taking a certain amount of time.

I see what you're saying now.

bluesurge863 said:
So not only is distance forever correlated with time, it is also entirely dependent on the perspective of the observer.

Hate to be a stickler, but I think you mean motion is forever correlated with time. Distance is only dependent on the perspective of the observer if there is motion involved, whether it's the observer or the object moving. The pure concept of distance, a difference in position, like vcurious' example above, has no intrinsic correlation with time. :smile:

Who needs spoons anyway..
 
  • #26
Well, as sophiecentaur said, of course we can consider distance separately from time, but that wasn't the question. The question is whether or not it is possible for one to exist and not the other.
 
  • #27
f03cuss said:
What would happen to everything if time ceased to exist is a much more philosophical question, one that I can't answer. I was merely saying that mathematically distance is not time-dependent. You could freeze time, slow it down, speed it up, but the distance between two stationary objects wouldn't change because of these manipulations. We could say that distance couldn't exist without time but it becomes kinda meaningless if nothing at all could exist without time. So we might have to just agree that time exists, then we can look at what concepts it actually plays a role. If THAT makes sense lol.

Perhaps a study of the theory of relativity and the implications of that theory may help.
 
  • #28
I think the point is that when time slows down for you (and thus relatively speaking speeds up for everyone else) distances get shorter, to the point when times stops moving everything is at the same place.

If everything is at the same place, then the distance is also zero, so no time no distance.
 
  • #29
DLuckyE said:
I think the point is that when time slows down for you (and thus relatively speaking speeds up for everyone else) distances get shorter, to the point when times stops moving everything is at the same place.

If everything is at the same place, then the distance is also zero, so no time no distance.
Which applies only to massless particles like photons ...from its perspective, it travels zero distance in the direction of its motion, in zero time...the entire universe passing by it in less than the blinking of its eye...fascinating. :bugeye:
 
  • #30
PhanthomJay said:
Which applies only to massless particles like photons ...from its perspective, it travels zero distance in the direction of its motion, in zero time...the entire universe passing by it in less than the blinking of its eye...fascinating. :bugeye:

No. Photons do not have a perspective; they do not experience time at all. It is not a valid frame of reference.

However, we can describe approaching the limit: the closer an observer gets to c, the shorter the universe becomes and the faster they can span it.
 
  • #31
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.
 
  • #32
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.)
 
  • #33
Corrected.
Drakkith said:
You could have distance without time if we could suddenly "freeze" time...
But can we?

It's a 'what if?' thought.
 
  • #34
swerdna said:
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.
DaveC426913 said:
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. :-)
 
  • #35
vcurious said:
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.
 
<h2>1. What is "Distance Without Time: Possible?"</h2><p>"Distance Without Time: Possible?" is a concept in physics that suggests the possibility of measuring distance without the use of time as a factor. It challenges the traditional understanding of distance as a function of both space and time.</p><h2>2. How is it possible to measure distance without time?</h2><p>This concept suggests that distance can be measured by using other physical quantities such as energy or momentum, instead of time. This challenges the traditional understanding of distance as a function of both space and time.</p><h2>3. What implications does "Distance Without Time: Possible?" have in the field of physics?</h2><p>If proven to be true, this concept could have significant implications in our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics. It could potentially lead to new theories and models that could explain phenomena that are currently unexplained.</p><h2>4. Is there any evidence to support the idea of "Distance Without Time: Possible?"</h2><p>Currently, there is no concrete evidence to support this concept. It is still a theoretical concept that is being explored and debated by scientists. However, there have been some experiments and theories that suggest the possibility of measuring distance without time.</p><h2>5. How does "Distance Without Time: Possible?" relate to Einstein's theory of relativity?</h2><p>This concept challenges the principles of Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that distance and time are inextricably linked and cannot be measured independently. If "Distance Without Time: Possible?" is proven to be true, it could potentially lead to a new understanding of the relationship between space and time.</p>

1. What is "Distance Without Time: Possible?"

"Distance Without Time: Possible?" is a concept in physics that suggests the possibility of measuring distance without the use of time as a factor. It challenges the traditional understanding of distance as a function of both space and time.

2. How is it possible to measure distance without time?

This concept suggests that distance can be measured by using other physical quantities such as energy or momentum, instead of time. This challenges the traditional understanding of distance as a function of both space and time.

3. What implications does "Distance Without Time: Possible?" have in the field of physics?

If proven to be true, this concept could have significant implications in our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics. It could potentially lead to new theories and models that could explain phenomena that are currently unexplained.

4. Is there any evidence to support the idea of "Distance Without Time: Possible?"

Currently, there is no concrete evidence to support this concept. It is still a theoretical concept that is being explored and debated by scientists. However, there have been some experiments and theories that suggest the possibility of measuring distance without time.

5. How does "Distance Without Time: Possible?" relate to Einstein's theory of relativity?

This concept challenges the principles of Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that distance and time are inextricably linked and cannot be measured independently. If "Distance Without Time: Possible?" is proven to be true, it could potentially lead to a new understanding of the relationship between space and time.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
378
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
440
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top