Does Time Cease to Exist Without Matter?

[phinds]

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...

The is at the heart of my question, which, after all this discussion I am beginning to see as more of a philosophical one than a physical one (I'm not happy about this). My question is not and never has been whether or not time can be measured (I agree it cannot) or whether or not it has any effective meaning (I agree it does not), in the far-future scenario. My question has been, and remains, does it EXIST --- does it in some physical sense continue to "flow" as it now is flowing. Turns out, as can be seen in this thread, that's not as simple a question as I had hoped and is apparently more philosophical than I would have preferred.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

Saying that time ceases to exist is just a scientific cop-out. Just because it can't be perceived doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If it ceases to exist, then how does it renew? How did it begin in the first place? It just spontaneously came into existence? Rubbish! I can't think of anything in nature that is not ultimately cyclical.

Every time I think about questions such as this (the beginning or end of existence), it inevitably leads me to conclude that time and space are infinite.

 

[shifty88]

the flow of time is an illusion perceived by an observer to make sense of his or her conscious perception of change.
Time is not intrinsic to the universal laws of nature, rather it is intrinsic to the human psyche. It is simply a concept used in the human mind to explain the passage of one event to another.
It is a tool that we use to describe the motion of 'stuff' in the universe. Time does not exist.

 

[OCR]

My question has been, and remains, does it EXIST --- does it in some physical sense continue to "flow" as it now is flowing.

No, in the condition you describe in your first post, time does not exist.

At least, according to...

People before me believed that if all the matter in the universe were removed, only space and time would exist. My theory proves that space and time would disappear along with matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_argument#Einstein.27s_resolution



OCR

 

[phinds]

Saying that time ceases to exist is just a scientific cop-out. Just because it can't be perceived doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If it ceases to exist, then how does it renew? How did it begin in the first place? It just spontaneously came into existence? Rubbish! I can't think of anything in nature that is not ultimately cyclical.

.

Although I tend to agree w/ you, one of the things I've found is that the universe doesn't give a flying <expletive deleted> what you or I think, and what you have posted is just personal speculation with no tie to any factual information.

 

[phinds]

the flow of time is an illusion perceived by an observer to make sense of his or her conscious perception of change.
Time is not intrinsic to the universal laws of nature, rather it is intrinsic to the human psyche. It is simply a concept used in the human mind to explain the passage of one event to another.
It is a tool that we use to describe the motion of 'stuff' in the universe. Time does not exist.

Interesting personal opinion but with no tie to any factual information not really helpful in resolving the question.

 

[phinds]

No, in the condition you describe in your first post, time does not exist.

At least, according to...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_argument#Einstein.27s_resolution



OCR

Fabulous llink. Thank you.

I don't "get" it, but I did figure out some time back that Einstein was smarter when alive than I am now, so I tend to listen to him.

 

[phinds]

that time might as well not exist after you die.

Yes, but that's not relevant to the question at hand, in which I already posited that WHETHER it exists has no practical meaning but is the question anyway. My question is not whether it is "meaningful" or "practical" to say that it exists, but DOES it exist.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

Although I tend to agree w/ you, one of the things I've found is that the universe doesn't give a flying <expletive deleted> what you or I think, and what you have posted is just personal speculation with no tie to any factual information.

Definitely. However, when there are two equally valid solutions to a problem, the simplest solution is always more correct. Show me where in nature anything ever spontaneously comes into existence and I will reconsider my perspective.

 

[OCR]

Thank you.

You're welcome,

Paul (OCR)

 

[phinds]

Definitely. However, when there are two equally valid solutions to a problem, the simplest solution is always more correct. Show me where in nature anything ever spontaneously comes into existence and I will reconsider my perspective.

You should read more on quantum mechanics. Stuff pops into existence CONSTANTLY at the quantum level, and at least one model says our entire universe started that way, so your point is totally at odds with current understanding of how things work. You are probably, like me, more comfortable in a Newtonian universe where that weird stuff doesn't happen, but whether we like it or not, it's what happens.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

You should read more on quantum mechanics. Stuff pops into existence CONSTANTLY at the quantum level, and at least one model says our entire universe started that way, so your point is totally at odds with current understanding of how things work. You are probably, like me, more comfortable in a Newtonian universe where that weird stuff doesn't happen, but whether we like it or not, it's what happens.

Even in QM things don't just come into existence. Matter is energy. Energy is never created or destroyed. It is the essence of infinity.

Edit:
Now that I think about it, if we are being semantic, it actually addresses your original question. If matter didn't exist, then the universe is pure energy and time would still exist. In order for time not to exist there would have to be absolutely nothing and that conflicts with the law of energy conservation.

 

[phinds]

Even in QM things don't just come into existence. Matter is energy. Energy is never created or destroyed. It is the essence of infinity.

.

If I understand it correctly, your reading of QM is incorrect. Stuff DOES just pop into existence. Any QM-knowledgeable folks care to jump in here?

 

[shifty88]

Interesting personal opinion but with no tie to any factual information not really helpful in resolving the question.

I don't think you will find a satisfactory answer to your question. We don't understand time enough


I ask you this. If time is not a figment of the imagination(which i can accept), and also not a tool to measure motions caused by the expansion of space and other forces, or a higher dimension; then what is it.

If time ceases to have a meaning when heat death is reached it suggests to me that time is not a law of nature. Would gravity and electro-magnetism cease to exist also?


I don't know the credentials of the author to this link.
http://www.timephysics.com

 

[phinds]

If time ceases to have a meaning when heat death is reached it suggests to me that time is not a law of nature.

I agree, but that's just restating my question, which is "DOES it exist after heat death?" Not "does it have meaning" (it doesn't seem to in any practical sense), just does it exist.

Again, this is getting way more philosophical than I had hoped, but based on the intersting facts and opinions stated so far in this thread, that now seems inevatible.

 

[shifty88]

will this do.

No

:D

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

Heat death does not suggest zero energy, only that the energy is not usable.
The energy would be completely homogenous in the universe (as vacuum energy?).
Since energy has mass, I think this means that it would still affect gravity and you cannot have effects without time.

 

[phinds]

Heat death does not suggest zero energy, only that the energy is not usable.
The energy would be completely homogenous in the universe (as vacuum energy?).
Since energy has mass, I think this means that it would still affect gravity and you cannot have effects without time.

Yes, this is consistent with QM's statements that "quantum foam" / "quantum fluctuations" cause stuff to pop in and out of existence. If that keeps happening forever, then even the arrow of time will be preserved, because it's not likely that they will pop OUT of existence before poping INTO existence.

That doesn't answer my fundamental question, BUT ... I think it's a satisfactory answer in a practical sense and if QM is right, then my fundamental question is meaningless because there IS no condition under which nothing exists.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

Hypothetically if nothing at all exists then like others have said, time and space have no meaning. How do you describe the dimensions of nothing?

 

[budrap]

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?

Yes, in this sense: Space is nothing more than our conceptual understanding of the behavioral interactions of matter and energy. Which is to say that there is no such thing as "space" that exists independently of the matter and energy properties by which we define it.

 

[phinds]

Hypothetically if nothing at all exists then like others have said, time and space have no meaning. How do you describe the dimensions of nothing?

Yes, I agree with that, but my quandry was in the assumption that there could be a condition in which space existed without matter, and even further, that such a condition could be a very-far-future extrapoltion of the existing universe. I now think that's a thought experiment that would have no basis in reality because there WOULD still be particles, and if QM is right there would also be virtual particles popping in and out all the time, so it would seem that the stated conditions for my original question are impossible and thus the question has no meaning.

Still, I have found this to be a very entertaining and informative thread.

 

[phinds]

Yes, in this sense: Space is nothing more than our conceptual understanding of the behavioral interactions of matter and energy. Which is to say that there is no such thing as "space" that exists independently of the matter and energy properties by which we define it.

What you are saying is consistent with several posts I've seen here, and seems to make sense, BUT ... I think "space" and "distance" are not the same thing. That is, I don't know how to define what it is that is inbetween to particles "out in space", but I do know how to define the distance beweeen them.

So "space", by this logic, is just an amount of "nothing" between things. But by that logic, then "time" exists the same way "distance" exists. This STILL circles back to the arguments in this thread that say that without matter, without something happening, then time has no meaning.

There is no meaning to "measure the distance between non-existance entities", nor would there be to "measure the time between things that don't happen".

 

[budrap]

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.

I am indeed saying that time does not exist independently of the physical processes with which we measure it, that time is a characteristic of physical processes. And I'm saying that not because I simply feel that way about it but for the straight forward scientific reason that I know of no empirical evidence supporting the view that time has an independent existence.

Elsewhere in this thread you ask for factual information rather than opinions so let me turn that request back on your original question. In it you assume that time exists independently now and ask only if it will exist in some hypothetical future in the absence of matter and energy. My question to you then is what factual information supports your assumption that independent time exists now?

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

This is actually not an irrelevant discussion at all, in fact it's very relative (haha, pun!).

I think this really gets down into exactly what Einstein meant about time and space being the same thing. It's normal for people to think of time and space as being some sort of entities, but they are not and this was Einsteins big breakthrough. It's all relative.

Energy is the paint AND the canvas of the universe. At least, that is how I understand it. Another way I think about it is that absolute zero is the 5th dimension ... but now I'm stretching.

 

[shifty88]

Another way I think about it is that absolute zero is the 5th dimension ... but now I'm stretching.

Interesting. How so?

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

Interesting. How so?

If we insist that our universe must be in something, then that something would be a 5th dimension. If we define our universe as encompassing all matter and energy, then outside (in/out would be the 5th dimension) of the universe would be nothingness, void of all energy, which is absolute zero.

However, insisting that the universe is contained in another dimension only begs to what that other dimension is contained in, ad infinum. So let's not go there.

 

[Ynaught?]

Yes, I agree with that, but my quandry was in the assumption that there could be a condition in which space existed without matter, and even further, that such a condition could be a very-far-future extrapoltion of the existing universe. I now think that's a thought experiment that would have no basis in reality because there WOULD still be particles, and if QM is right there would also be virtual particles popping in and out all the time, so it would seem that the stated conditions for my original question are impossible and thus the question has no meaning.

Still, I have found this to be a very entertaining and informative thread.

There would still be virtual particles ONLY if the vacuum had an expectation value greater than zero. If the VEV is greater than zero then space-time would have an intrinsic energy all its own, apart from matter, energy and their dark verities). If a condition could be reach where the universe reached a time (literally) when there was no matter and no energy (absolute zero) and the VEV was equal to zero, then time and space would lose all meaning. It is somewhat in line the Big Rip (though that idea is centered on runaway inflation but the end result would be the same).

Alternately, in a universe where the VEV is greater than zero, quantum fluctuations occur, even when entropy is maximized. As Chalnoth pointed some pages back, the arrow of time would be lost, but the dimension of time would remain, just as the dimension of space would remain. Space-time is a requirement for virtual pair production but the arrow of time is not. In fact, in the production of virtual particles, one of the pair can be viewed as moving backwards in time while the other is moving forward. While both are moving in time, there is no way to determine which is going which direction (apart from arbitrary assignment).

 

[salvestrom]

People in the quantum forum told me virtual particles don't exist. Since the debate has come around to them and their relation to space, does anyone have a differing opinion?

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

In fact, in the production of virtual particles, one of the pair can be viewed as moving backwards in time while the other is moving forward. While both are moving in time, there is no way to determine which is going which direction (apart from arbitrary assignment).

Admittedly I don't have a very firm grasp of QM, but I don't really get the premise for an arrow of time. Does it imply that it's possible to rewind time? Or is this just a way of describing the illusion created by a limited frame of reference?

Without a before and/or an after, then there is no time. I'm pretty sure we exist, so we already have a frame of reference that can't be ignored.

 

[shifty88]

Admittedly I don't have a very firm grasp of QM, but I don't really get the premise for an arrow of time. Does it imply that it's possible to rewind time? Or is this just a way of describing the illusion created by a limited frame of reference?.

There's nothing in the law of physics that prohibits a pile of broken glass from leaping up onto a counter and re-assembling itself into a wineglass (cliché example i know) effect preceding cause.
Its just very very unlikely that it will happen because of entropy says that its overwhelmingly more likely that an object will go from a high entropic state to a lower one.

How often have you seen a pile of sand being blow about by the wind to assemble into a sand castle.

 

[Radrook]

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.

We might think of it in the following way. There is an eternal moment-an eternal present, an eternal now that doesn't change or move. Let's compare it to a canvas moving images and we ourselves are projected. The sequential moving imagery which include all other sequential sense impressions we perceive as motion we call that perception time.

The canvas on which they are projected is the eternal now. Remove the images and sense impressions accompanying them and only the canvass, or the eternal now remains. However time, as interpreted via the sequential images, and sense impressions is gone.

One way that I came to a greater appreciation of this was via mediation when all thoughts are suppressed. Then the eternal moment in which we were born and which has been with us all along is perceived.


Addendum

An event on the canvas happens now = present
An event on the canvas has happened = past
an event on the canvas might or will happen = future

past present and future = stream of time.


We tend to forget the quiet canvas of eternity and focus on the projections that move across it's static form instead.

 

[phinds]

We might think of it in the following way. There is an eternal moment-an eternal present, an eternal now that doesn't change or move. Let's compare it to a canvas moving images and we ourselves are projected. The sequential moving imagery which include all other sequential sense impressions we perceive as motion we call that perception time.

The canvas on which they are projected is the eternal now. Remove the images and sense impressions accompanying them and only the canvass, or the eternal now remains. However time, as interpreted via the sequential images, and sense impressions is gone.

One way that I came to a greater appreciation of this was via mediation when all thoughts are suppressed. Then the eternal moment in which we were born and which has been with us all along is perceived.


Addendum

An event on the canvas happens now = present
An event on the canvas has happened = past
an event on the canvas might or will happen = future

past present and future = stream of time.


We tend to forget the quiet canvas of eternity and focus on the projections that move across it's static form instead.

Very elegant and all, and I don't wish to be rude, but I don't get what any of that has to do with physics.

 

[Radrook]

Very elegant and all, and I don't wish to be rude, but I don't get what any of that has to do with physics.

Then perhaps you should report it to a moderator to have it removed.

 

[Ynaught?]

People in the quantum forum told me virtual particles don't exist. Since the debate has come around to them and their relation to space, does anyone have a differing opinion?

Here is an answer to the question form Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

 

[phinds]

Here is an answer to the question form Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

Very interesting. It seems that in QM, as in politics, you can choose your point of view and then find experts who will swear that it is the one true story.

 

[salvestrom]

Very interesting. It seems that in QM, as in politics, you can choose your point of view and then find experts who will swear that it is the one true story.

I guess what I'm really after is a confirmation that 'virtual particles' is a label for an actual physical event, no matter how unrelated the terminology is to that physical reality. There are fluctuations in the quantum field going on between two repulsing or attracting charges, right?

 

[petm1]

How long was the duration before the beginning of Einstein's calendar and how long will the duration be after it has played out? Just because you are unable to continue counting relative durations does not mean that the durations stop, like death it is only our local perception that gets left behind.

 

[phinds]

How long was the duration before the beginning of Einstein's calendar and how long will the duration be after it has played out? Just because you are unable to continue counting relative durations does not mean that the durations stop, like death it is only our local perception that gets left behind.

Maybe, maybe not. That's what this whole thread has been about. You are taking exactly the point of view that I started out with, but I'm less convinced now than I was.

 

[dimensional]

I don't think this is an answerable proposition, at least not to any scientifically satisfying degree. If something is literally immeasurable in any conceivable way, how can it be said to exist? But of course your original perspective makes sense as well. *Is* time just the correlations between physical events?

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

How long was the duration before the beginning of Einstein's calendar and how long will the duration be after it has played out? Just because you are unable to continue counting relative durations does not mean that the durations stop, like death it is only our local perception that gets left behind.

I agree.

The thing is that time is just a concept to describe the procession of events. What is the lowest and highest numbers in the number system?

If there was a beginning, then there was undoubtedly a before the beginning, just as there will be an after the end. Even if that moment before and/or after was infinite and unknowable.

T-1 is before T, it doesn't matter what T is.

 

[shifty88]

Take a look at this link. I found it quite helpfull. Allthough i don't know the authors credentials its seems like he knows what he is on about

http://www.timephysics.com/what-is-time.html

 

[phinds]

Take a look at this link. I found it quite helpfull. Allthough i don't know the authors credentials its seems like he knows what he is on about

http://www.timephysics.com/what-is-time.html

Mildly interesting, but I find it somewhat silly to conclude that time is just a construct of the human mind. I think time exists whether we do or not, as Dave pointed out way back up somewhere in this thread.

 

[phinds]

I am indeed saying that time does not exist independently of the physical processes with which we measure it, that time is a characteristic of physical processes. And I'm saying that not because I simply feel that way about it but for the straight forward scientific reason that I know of no empirical evidence supporting the view that time has an independent existence.

Elsewhere in this thread you ask for factual information rather than opinions so let me turn that request back on your original question. In it you assume that time exists independently now and ask only if it will exist in some hypothetical future in the absence of matter and energy. My question to you then is what factual information supports your assumption that independent time exists now?

I cannot argue with your statements. You may well have it right. That's all at the heart of my original question. I started out believing strongly that time exists independent from matter and motion, but I am now much less convinced of that. I remain firmly convinced that time exists independent of human observation and that to think otherwise is just silly, and it is this belief that lends (to me) some credence to my continuing, albeit less firm, belief, that time may exist independent of matter and motion.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

You can think of it how you want, independent or dependent. It's a matter of perspective only.

Just like numbers. Do numbers really exist or is math just a construct of the human mind? If you start counting from 1, was there a before 1?

The scientific argument would be, do you care what is before 1? Does it make any difference, if all we know is definable with positive numbers?

Personally I would say it does make a huge difference (to know if time is finite or not), but there is no practical application for knowing.

 

[juanrga]

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.

As the Nobel laureate said once:

Time is previous to existence

 

[salvestrom]

I find myself considering two view points.

1) Time is a consequence of the universe, a property of space under compression. Not even that, merely a construct for measuring something we can't define in the absence of the construction.

2) Time is the absolute driving force of our universe, without which there would be no beginning, no expansion, no movement or anything else. More precisely, movement through the dimension of time started expansion, causing the beginning. Sort as if time were an explosion, upon whose leading shockwave space now expands.

 

[DaveC426913]

3) Time is simply a dimension, much like the other 3 spatial dimensions. No point in the universe can be uniquely defined without specifying four coordinates. The major difference between the time-like dimension and the space-like dimensions is that have no control over our speed or direction through the former.

 

[salvestrom]

3) Time is simply a dimension, much like the other 3 spatial dimensions. No point in the universe can be uniquely defined without specifying four coordinates. The major difference between the time-like dimension and the space-like dimensions is that have no control over our speed or direction through the former.

This description can be used for either 1 or 2. In particularly it corresponds most directly to 1.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

This description can be used for either 1 or 2. In particularly it corresponds most directly to 1.

Time is neither a consequence or a force. Only a unit of measure.
Energy is the cause for change, not time. Time is how we quantify change.

 

[salvestrom]

Time is neither a consequence or a force. Only a unit of measure.
Energy is the cause for change, not time. Time is how we quantify change.

Energy does nothing without time. The quantifying of the interval of two changes is a human construct using arbitrary units. The interval as a reality is something different. It is unhelpfully also named time.

The interval could easily be seen as a force or a consequence. It is intimately linked with space. Under compression it passes slower. In expansion it may pass faster, depending on how one defines the expansion. A ballon's expansion is stretching of the material. The expansion of a territory is a growth in the amount of land it encompasses. The former necessarily includes an increase in the passing of time. The latter does not.

Space and time, linked, means that passing time - an increase in the dimension of time - expands space - an increase in the dimension of space (this would seem to support the idea of the growth of space). With nothing to oppose this, space will expanded indefinitely.

Taking the balloon analogy, the center is the beginning of time, the interior the past, the surface the present, the outside the as yet unreached future.

I propose this as a logical extension of the concept of spacetime. In this it might be seen that spacetime is presented as a driving force for the development of the universe purely by its very nature.

This is only one point of view on the nature of time, as reflected in a prior post of mine where I put forward two different concepts of time which give different answers to the OP's original question.