Does Time Cease to Exist Without Matter?

[phinds]

I have read in serveral posts here that the concept of time in a total void is meaningless. That is, many scadzillions of years from now, assuming the expansion continues and black holes evaporate, and all goes REALLY dark (yes, I'm talking about a LONG time), the concept is that time loses its meaning because there's no way to measure it.

This really is perhaps one of those silly semantic arguments that I usually do not care for but this one is bugging me for some reason.

I GET completely the fact that you can't MEASURE time without matter but the concept that time just stops passing doesn't make sense to me. It is a somewhat pointless distinction, since even if time goes on, nothing HAPPENS. It's just the concept that "time stops" that bothers me and that SEEMS to be what I'm hearing from some of the threads here.

I'd appreciate any comments anyone has on this? Do you think time doesn't exist if you can't measure it because there's nothing to make clocks out of (and even no subatomic interactions to measure your ticks by) ?

Thanks,

Paul

By the way, I put this in cosmology since I can't think where ELSE to put it ... if a mod wants to move it, fine by me.

 

[dimensional]

I dunno, I guess I would also be on the side of those who support the non-existence of an entity if absolutely no way to measure of discern it was even possible. I know this isn't really the same thing but it reminds me of the theological arguments that go like "you can't prove or disprove god" etc. since there's no way anyone would be able to give evidence in the first place. Seems more like a philosophical question to me, but who knows? I'm just here to learn like the rest of us, I would love to see some more thoughts on this as well.

 

[shifty88]

I've allways thought of Time as a perception rather than a law of physics

As far as i am aware Physics cannot explain what time is, all we can do is measure the passing of time from one moment to the next, from the swing of a pendulum to the sun rise.

So when 'nothing' happens anywhere ever again, Time has lost all meaning and their would be no perceivable way to measure the passing of time or indeed nobody to perceive time pass.

If time is just a perception that is.

 

[salvestrom]

Mmm, juicy questions!

Until three days ago I would have said time doesn't exist. Overnight I started thinking of it as a proper dimension and as of earlier today I began considering the existence of an associated particle. These are the sorts of questions and statements I propose to myself:

- We use 'time' to measure separation of events, along with distance.
- If time doesn't exist why don't events happen all at once.
- Time dilation is, in effect, the slowing of physical action - the ability of any action to continue occurring at the same rate. Time isn't forced to slow down by high gravity, action is and we, as independent observers, say that time has 'slowed'.
- The separation of events tells us what time is, or does time tell us what the separation of events is?

To directly respond to your question:

If time is only an observed measure of events with no 'independent' existence, then in the far future, time ceases to have meaning with nothing to be measured occurring. If on the otherhand, space is expanding, then presumably time is, too, in which case there's just no one there to notice.

It occurs then, that you may have just asked the cosmological equivalent of the 'do falling trees make no sound if no one is there to hear it' question. Good job!

 

[shifty88]

good post salvestrom, I'd press Like if the forum had one.

 

[CosmicEye]

I didnt know matter was required for time to pass. I would think if you were sitting in a 99% materless universe, you could still see your watch tick. I would think time still passes, maybe even faster than now because the more massive an object is, the slower time becomes. So, maybe its opposite in that respect.

But that's just a guess, I really have no idea...

 

[Ynaught?]

Might I suggest that you take a look at this paper from Alan Guth: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178v1.pdf

From the paper, "Although the false vacuum is a metastable state, the decay of the false vacuum is an exponential process, very much like the decay of any radioactive or unstable substance. The probability of finding the inflaton field at the top of the plateau in its potential energy diagram, Fig. 2, does not fall sharply to zero, but instead trails off exponentially with time [26]. However, unlike a normal radioactive substance, the false vacuum exponentially expands at the same time that it decays. In fact, in any successful
inflationary model the rate of exponential expansion is always much faster than the rate of exponential decay. Therefore, even though the false vacuum is decaying, it never disappears, and in fact the total volume of the false vacuum, once inflation starts, continues to grow exponentially with time, ad infinitum."

I think he is essentially stating that the vacuum expectation value of free space never reaches zero. As such, quantum fluctuations are not only possible but are expected. And if something can fluctuate, even at a quantum level, there must be space-time to fluctuate in. But these are just my musings and I could be way off base...

 

[PRDan4th]

Time is simply the measure of motion of things. If there are no things, then no motion, therefore no time.

 

[phinds]

I didnt know matter was required for time to pass. I would think if you were sitting in a 99% materless universe, you could still see your watch tick. I would think time still passes, maybe even faster than now because the more massive an object is, the slower time becomes. So, maybe its opposite in that respect.

But that's just a guess, I really have no idea...

But you're missing the point. If you and your watch are there, then that's NOT the circumstance about which my question is posed. I'm talking about when NOTHING is there.

 

[phinds]

Time is simply the measure of motion of things. If there are no things, then no motion, therefore no time.

Uh ... maybe. What makes you so sure? Cite references.

 

[phinds]

Might I suggest that you take a look at this paper from Alan Guth: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178v1.pdf

From the paper, "Although the false vacuum is a metastable state, the decay of the false vacuum is an exponential process, very much like the decay of any radioactive or unstable substance. The probability of finding the inflaton field at the top of the plateau in its potential energy diagram, Fig. 2, does not fall sharply to zero, but instead trails off exponentially with time [26]. However, unlike a normal radioactive substance, the false vacuum exponentially expands at the same time that it decays. In fact, in any successful
inflationary model the rate of exponential expansion is always much faster than the rate of exponential decay. Therefore, even though the false vacuum is decaying, it never disappears, and in fact the total volume of the false vacuum, once inflation starts, continues to grow exponentially with time, ad infinitum."

I think he is essentially stating that the vacuum expectation value of free space never reaches zero. As such, quantum fluctuations are not only possible but are expected. And if something can fluctuate, even at a quantum level, there must be space-time to fluctuate in. But these are just my musings and I could be way off base...

Very interesting. Thanks for that.

 

[PRDan4th]

I believe time is a creation of man. Not a basic physical law of nature as is gravity, for instance. First time was used to measure the rotation of Earth and defined the duration of its motion as a DAY. Then the lunar calendar used the motion of the moon rotating around the Earth as a MONTH (lunar of course). Then to measure the rotation of Earth around the sun as the Mayans did defining the YEAR. Hours, minutes and seconds are simply sections of DAY. As you posted with a universe without any matter of any kind there cannot be any motion to measure. Also nobody to measure it, therefor no time.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe time is a creation of man. Not a basic physical law of nature as is gravity, for instance. First time was used to measure the rotation of Earth and defined the duration of its motion as a DAY. Then the lunar calendar used the motion of the moon rotating around the Earth as a MONTH (lunar of course). Then to measure the rotation of Earth around the sun as the Mayans did defining the YEAR. Hours, minutes and seconds are simply sections of DAY. As you posted with a universe without any matter of any kind there cannot be any motion to measure. Also nobody to measure it, therefor no time.

Time got along quite happily while dinosaurs walked the Earth. They ate, they slept, bred, died, generations passed...

Time got along quite happily before life even appeared on Earth. Mountains grew, weather eroded, volcanoes erupted...

Time got along quite happily before Earth existed. Stars were born, asteroids collided, galaxies coalesced...

Time got along quite happily before stars existed...

 

[PRDan4th]

Of course time has existed since motion of things started. The OP suggested a scenario where nothing exists, empty space, no matter. In this case there will be no motion, therefore nothing to measure time with. Therefore no time.

 

[phinds]

Of course time has existed since motion of things started. The OP suggested a scenario where nothing exists, empty space, no matter. In this case there will be no motion, therefore nothing to measure time with. Therefore no time.

As I said in the original post, I recognize your point of view completely, but it leaves me totally unsatisfied. I recognize that the universe does not CARE whether I am satisfied or not, but again, as I stated originally, "no matter" and "time doesn't exist" do not conflate well for me and the fact that they DO conflate well for you doesn't get me anywhere. Still, I thank you for your input.

 

[DaveC426913]

If

...time is a creation of man.

then

...time has existed since motion of things started.

cannot be true.If

... nobody to measure it, therefor no time.

then

...time has existed since motion of things started.

cannot be true.

Your statements are false regardless of whether there's matter or no matter.

 

[salvestrom]

Minutes, hours and days are indeed the invention of man. Seconds are a very recent one. But these things and their like are not Time. They are only a measure of Time, as the meter is a measure of distance.

In fact, to suggest time does not exist in this far future, is to unavoidably accept that distance also does not exist, simply because no one is their to traverse it. To say otherwise is to say that spacetime is not valid. That Einstien was wrong. Now, Einstien was not infalable and we all are aware of how he felt about Quantum Mechanics, but if you're going to argue against spacetime, bring friends. Ones with degrees. Not because you're wrong, but because you can't simply nay say one of the cornerstones of modern physics.

 

[phinds]

Minutes, hours and days are indeed the invention of man. Seconds are a very recent one. But these things and their like are not Time. They are only a measure of Time, as the meter is a measure of distance.

In fact, to suggest time does not exist in this far future, is to unavoidably accept that distance also does not exist, simply because no one is their to traverse it. To say otherwise is to say that spacetime is not valid. That Einstien was wrong. Now, Einstien was not infalable and we all are aware of how he felt about Quantum Mechanics, but if you're going to argue against spacetime, bring friends. Ones with degrees. Not because you're wrong, but because you can't simply nay say one of the cornerstones of modern physics.

I like that.

I was a bit puzzled by your earlier statemenent

If on the otherhand, space is expanding, then presumably time is, too

Did you, in that statement, mean that you believe time would be EXPANDING, or just that time would continue to exist (which would be consitent with the statement above) ?

 

[salvestrom]

Did you, in that statement, mean that you believe time would be EXPANDING, or just that time would continue to exist (which would be consitent with the statement above) ?

Ah. Um. Prolly best I don't explain that. =D

 

[Chalnoth]

I have read in serveral posts here that the concept of time in a total void is meaningless. That is, many scadzillions of years from now, assuming the expansion continues and black holes evaporate, and all goes REALLY dark (yes, I'm talking about a LONG time), the concept is that time loses its meaning because there's no way to measure it.

This really is perhaps one of those silly semantic arguments that I usually do not care for but this one is bugging me for some reason.

I GET completely the fact that you can't MEASURE time without matter but the concept that time just stops passing doesn't make sense to me. It is a somewhat pointless distinction, since even if time goes on, nothing HAPPENS. It's just the concept that "time stops" that bothers me and that SEEMS to be what I'm hearing from some of the threads here.

I'd appreciate any comments anyone has on this? Do you think time doesn't exist if you can't measure it because there's nothing to make clocks out of (and even no subatomic interactions to measure your ticks by) ?

Thanks,

Paul

By the way, I put this in cosmology since I can't think where ELSE to put it ... if a mod wants to move it, fine by me.

Looks like this has been a pretty active thread, but I'll just chime in in response to this OP.

This can be made clear, I think, by marking a distinction between the dimension of time and the arrow of time.

The dimension of time exists regardless. It is there whether or not you have matter around to experience it. But if there is no matter, radiation, or anything else, then there is no direction to the dimension of time. In other words, there is no arrow of time.

An arrow of time only appears when you have a universe which is increasing in entropy. But an empty universe is just that: empty. It doesn't change in entropy at all, so it doesn't have an arrow of time. And when a new universe is born, its arrow of time could point either way, depending upon its initial conditions.

 

[phinds]

Chalnoth, thanks for that response. I think perhaps your concept is mathematically viable, although I'm not sophisticated to know, but the thing about it that doesn't stike a sympathetic chord in my thinking is that it would then seem to imply that the arrow of time, in this far future, would not have to be "pointing in the same direction", if you see what I mean, as it is NOW, and that doesn't seem to make sense.

I realize that NOT what you said, and it's an implication that I am deriving from your statement. You didn't say it could turn around, you said it wouldn't exist, but I continue to find it confusing and I can't seem to get a good handle on the distinction between the "dimension" and "arrow" concepts.

On the other hand, I just got up, so I'm mull it over a bit.

Thanks again.

Paul

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth, thanks for that response. I think perhaps your concept is mathematically viable, although I'm not sophisticated to know, but the thing about it that doesn't stike a sympathetic chord in my thinking is that it would then seem to imply that the arrow of time, in this far future, would not have to be "pointing in the same direction", if you see what I mean, as it is NOW, and that doesn't seem to make sense.

Well, in the far, far future, the arrow of time will cease to exist in our universe. A new universe with a different arrow of time may be born from our universe, but will necessarily be disconnected from it (a new arrow of time within our universe would be a contradiction).

I realize that NOT what you said, and it's an implication that I am deriving from your statement. You didn't say it could turn around, you said it wouldn't exist, but I continue to find it confusing and I can't seem to get a good handle on the distinction between the "dimension" and "arrow" concepts.

Well, one of the ways this is classically described is with billiards. If you imagine an interaction where two balls collide, there simply isn't any way to know whether you're watching that video forward or in reverse. The far future of our universe will be like that: there will still be all sorts of quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, but a movie of those fluctuations will look the same whether played in either direction.

But if, instead, we imagine a break, where the billiards player strikes the 15 balls collected together, causing them to scatter, then we have a definitive arrow of time: the collection of 15 balls is a very low-entropy configuration, and it is obvious that this isn't an instance of fifteen balls coming together spontaneously to push off one other ball. It's an instance of one ball striking the collection of 15, breaking them apart. That definitive arrow of time is a consequence of the increase in entropy of the system. When the entropy stops increasing, there won't be any arrow of time any longer.

 

[phinds]

Well, in the far, far future, the arrow of time will cease to exist in our universe. A new universe with a different arrow of time may be born from our universe, but will necessarily be disconnected from it (a new arrow of time within our universe would be a contradiction).

Yeah, that part I got OK.

Well, one of the ways this is classically described is with billiards. If you imagine an interaction where two balls collide, there simply isn't any way to know whether you're watching that video forward or in reverse. The far future of our universe will be like that: there will still be all sorts of quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, but a movie of those fluctuations will look the same whether played in either direction.

But if, instead, we imagine a break, where the billiards player strikes the 15 balls collected together, causing them to scatter, then we have a definitive arrow of time: the collection of 15 balls is a very low-entropy configuration, and it is obvious that this isn't an instance of fifteen balls coming together spontaneously to push off one other ball. It's an instance of one ball striking the collection of 15, breaking them apart. That definitive arrow of time is a consequence of the increase in entropy of the system. When the entropy stops increasing, there won't be any arrow of time any longer.

Helpful. thanks.

 

[nihilius]

If then cannot be true.


If thencannot be true.

Your statements are false regardless of whether there's matter or no matter.

Maybe, if we interpret motion as perception of motion, a settlement would be possible.

 

[penomade]

Well, one of the ways this is classically described is with billiards. If you imagine an interaction where two balls collide, there simply isn't any way to know whether you're watching that video forward or in reverse

the rate of accelerations differ when played backwards. Immediately after the collision, in forward direction, the speed of a ball maybe relatively high, but it gradually diminishes as it moves forward. And that shows when played in reverse.

 

[Chalnoth]

the rate of accelerations differ when played backwards. Immediately after the collision, in forward direction, the speed of a ball maybe relatively high, but it gradually diminishes as it moves forward. And that shows when played in reverse.

Ah, yes, well, for this thought experiment ignore friction.

 

[shifty88]

why ignore friction, wouldn't that be the force responsible for the ball slowing down

 

[Chalnoth]

why ignore friction, wouldn't that be the force responsible for the ball slowing down

Because I'm trying to draw your attention to the nature of the collision, not what happens before or after said collision.

 

[shifty88]

Because I'm trying to draw your attention to the nature of the collision, not what happens before or after said collision.

Didn't see your big post about the 15 billiard balls being a metaphor to describe the arrow of time as a consequence of entropy.
I totally missed the 'metaphor'.

 

[leonstavros]

I just stumbled on to this thread and you got me thinking about time being dependent on matter so I thought if matter in quantum scales is probabilistic is time probabilistic also? I mean how can you time anything below the atomic scale?

 

[budrap]

There is no empirical basis for the assertion that time exists independently of the physical processes by which we claim to measure it and therefore while the assertion may raise interesting philosophical considerations it should be considered inconsequential to scientific thought. The concept of time is simply a useful human generalization that has arisen from repeated observations of physical processes.

 

[phinds]

I just stumbled on to this thread and you got me thinking about time being dependent on matter so I thought if matter in quantum scales is probabilistic is time probabilistic also? I mean how can you time anything below the atomic scale?

There are some interesting threads on this forum that discuss whether or not perhaps time is quantized in some way, but it's not a question that current physics is able to resolve.

 

[phinds]

The concept of time is simply a useful human generalization that has arisen from repeated observations of physical processes.

I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind with that, but it seems to overly trivialize time.

 

[salvestrom]

@budrap: Time is part of the way we measure the separation of events. Whether we use human inventions such as the second, or simply say 'it took awhile', these things relate to an actual property of the universe that exists regardless of how we describe it.

@penomade: Only showing the moment of collision, which is quite reversible, is hiding the wider reality of the balls suddenly moving with no apparent cause, overcoming friction and finally striking the tip of the cue, using additional energy sucked in from sound to generate more force to shunt the cue away.

 

[DaveC426913]

@penomade: Only showing the moment of collision, which is quite reversible, is hiding the wider reality of the balls suddenly moving with no apparent cause, overcoming friction and finally striking the tip of the cue, using additional energy sucked in from sound to generate more force to shunt the cue away.

No. The process is reversible, and energy is conserved. It is just an unlikely sequence events events given entropy.

 

[minio]

Maybe stupid question, but if time is dependent on matter would there be time, if there are only photons? Or are they considered matter in this case?

 

[salvestrom]

No. The process is reversible, and energy is conserved. It is just an unlikely sequence events events given entropy.

My remark about additional energy was referring to the energy 'lost' when the cue strikes the ball producing a sound. In order to physically reverse the process that energy needs to be put back into the cue. While this is mathematically a reversible process, physically I know of no process that would allow it, anymore than the embers of a fire can regain the radiated heat. I consider these things beyond unlikely.

 

[gendou2]

If you want to measure the passage of time, you can use a clock.
So far as I know, a clock must be a physical entity made of matter.
If you assume no matter, there can be no clocks, so no way to measure the passage of time.

Maybe stupid question, but if time is dependent on matter would there be time, if there are only photons? Or are they considered matter in this case?

I cannot think of a way to make a clock out of photons alone.

On the other hand, the expansion of the universes reduces the temperature of the CMBR.
You might be able to get a rough measure of cosmological time this way.

 

[phinds]

If you want to measure the passage of time, you can use a clock.
So far as I know, a clock must be a physical entity made of matter.
If you assume no matter, there can be no clocks, so no way to measure the passage of time.

.

Which is EXACTLY what I said in the original question that started this thread. What's your point? My question is NOT whether we can measure time under the stated condition but whether or not it exists if it can't be measured. In all practical terms, it's a useless question, but it's my question non-the-less.

 

[budrap]

I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind with that, but it seems to overly trivialize time.

The point is that time cannot be demonstrated to exist independent of the physical processes by which we claim to measure it and therefore the concept of time as an independent phenomenon doesn't have any scientific basis. This is not an attempt to trivialize time but to attribute to it only those characteristics that have an empirical foundation. Think of it as the Occam's Razor approach, minimizing extraneous assumptions

 

[budrap]

@budrap: Time is part of the way we measure the separation of events. Whether we use human inventions such as the second, or simply say 'it took awhile', these things relate to an actual property of the universe that exists regardless of how we describe it.

The assertion that time is "an actual property of the universe" as opposed to a property of material processes lacks, I believe, any empirical support and therefore isn't really scientifically substantive.

 

[phinds]

The point is that time cannot be demonstrated to exist independent of the physical processes by which we claim to measure it and therefore the concept of time as an independent phenomenon doesn't have any scientific basis. This is not an attempt to trivialize time but to attribute to it only those characteristics that have an empirical foundation. Think of it as the Occam's Razor approach, minimizing extraneous assumptions

I can't see it that way, somehow. It seems pretty much like you're saying there IS no such thing as time (I don't think that's what you are saying, but I don't know how else to describe my reaction). I like Dave's post #13, but it doesn't invalidate your point of view.

 

[DaveC426913]

My remark about additional energy was referring to the energy 'lost' when the cue strikes the ball producing a sound. In order to physically reverse the process that energy needs to be put back into the cue. While this is mathematically a reversible process, physically I know of no process that would allow it, anymore than the embers of a fire can regain the radiated heat. I consider these things beyond unlikely.

Precisely. That is what defines the direction of time. We do not see shards of glass leap together then back onto a shelf where they nudge a person's elbow.

The pool cue and break is analogous to the universe right now. Low entropy, clear direction of time.

The pool table after ten minutes is analogous to the universe trillions of years from now. Very high entropy, no direction of time.

I film the billiard table on a video camera for ten minutes. I play it back to you but only the last minute - and I don't tell you whether I play that minute forward or backward. Can you tell by looking at that minute which direction I played it? Nope.

(Note, by the way that it works whether or not you include friction. If you allow friction then, after 9 minutes all the balls are motionless - no direction of time. If the billiard table and balls are frictionless, then after 9 minutes they are still careening around completely randomly. Either way you have lost the arrow of time in the video I show you. The universe, being a closed system, conserves its energy, thus it is equivalent to the frictionless version of the pool table.)

The original point of comparing the universe to the billiards table was that, trillions of years in the future, there are no low-entropy objects such as pool cues or atmospheres. You just have a uniform soup of billiard balls all with random motion. They carom off each other but, since they're all just billiard balls bouncing around, there is no further increase in entropy, no increase in disorder. Thus the arrow of time is lost.

See?

 

[lukesfn]

.
The original point of comparing the universe to the billiards table was that, trillions of years in the future, there are no low-entropy objects such as pool cues or atmospheres. You just have a uniform soup of billiard balls all with random motion. They carom off each other but, since they're all just billiard balls bouncing around, there is no further increase in entropy, no increase in disorder. Thus the arrow of time is lost.

According to the Poincare Recurrence Theorem, the balls on the billard table will return to near to there starting position after a finite amount of time which can be estimated.

As I undertand, Entropy and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics are relative to an observer. I'm not sure if there can be an observer in a matterless universe, but I would assume events continue to occur separated by time weather observed or not because I personally assume that the moon still exists even if I am not looking at it.

I guess that weather or not time needs matter ends up a bit like asking if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound. I depends on how you define time for one thing.

 

[Ynaught?]

The assertion that time is "an actual property of the universe" as opposed to a property of material processes lacks, I believe, any empirical support and therefore isn't really scientifically substantive.

So do you believe the same goes for space?

 

[DaveC426913]

According to the Poincare Recurrence Theorem, the balls on the billard table will return to near to there starting position after a finite amount of time which can be estimated.

As I undertand, Entropy and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics are relative to an observer. I'm not sure if there can be an observer in a matterless universe, but I would assume events continue to occur separated by time weather observed or not because I personally assume that the moon still exists even if I am not looking at it.

I guess that weather or not time needs matter ends up a bit like asking if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound. I depends on how you define time for one thing.

Now that I think about the far, far future where the universe is just a lukewarm homogenous soup, I can begin to conceive of a universe where time is ambiguous. If nothing evolves from one state to another, then what does it mean to have time pass?

 

[salvestrom]

Now that I think about the far, far future where the universe is just a lukewarm homogenous soup, I can begin to conceive of a universe where time is ambiguous. If nothing evolves from one state to another, then what does it mean to have time pass?

This is the crux of it really. Many posters here argue time hasn't every really existed, but noone's been brave enough to try and explain the chronological separation of events. Others are suggesting that it exists currently, but won't in a future where nothings occurs and nothing can record it. Your post is something of a middle ground. It might exist, but is it really relevant?

Perhaps we can consider a separate space in a potential multiverse where beings have discovered how to peer across the void and watch other 'universes'. What is their take on the state of our far future? They can still record time via their own watches, but absolutely nothing will happen. I realize the thought leaves a loophole through which we can escape by saying 'well, as long as time passes somewhere...'.

We should also consider that recording the interval between two non-events is something we do everyday in the present and real world. Particularly when waiting for someone who is late.

In reference to your (dave's) response to the response to the billiard balls. I totally get where you are coming from, but I feel the reality is that there are some seriously complex interactions that we could watch happen and know if it were reversed. Your second point about the far future I also understand and gets right to the heart of the topic... which we seem no closer to resolving, as awesome as it is.

If you'll excuse me, I've decided to go tell Chalnoth quantum mechanics is wrong...

 

[Lord Crc]

This seems analogous to the big bang. Perhaps there was something before the big bang but if we can't measure any effects from it then it's irrelevant to us and we say that it doesn't exist.

It's my understanding that measuring "actual" time, which enables motion, requires an increase in entropy. If the universe is in a state where there is no way to increase the entropy further, then it will be impossible to measure time, and thus it might as well not exist.

Then again I'm just a layman so...

 

[lukesfn]

It's my understanding that measuring "actual" time, which enables motion, requires an increase in entropy. If the universe is in a state where there is no way to increase the entropy further, then it will be impossible to measure time, and thus it might as well not exist.

In the second law of thermodynamics, Entropy isn't required to increase, only forbidden to decrease. Also entropy can be calculated differently from different perspectives.

It is possible that the universe could have constant entropy and that we exist in a vacuum fluctuation but that wouldn't stop us from measuring time.

What the 2nd law really tells us is that is imposible to observe the passing of time perpetually, regardless of what the universe does, entropy will get you in the end. It's not possible to live for ever. So, perhaps it's accurate to say that time might as well not exist after you die.

 

[OCR]

recording the interval between two non-events

Would be a nifty trick, wouldn't it?...



OCR