# If time didn't exist could anything move or even happen?

## Main Question or Discussion Point

I have a question that might have a complex answer.

If time didn't exist could anything move or even happen?

Related Other Physics Topics News on Phys.org
A.T.
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once

Ray Cummings

WHAT DOES QUESTION MEAN

i donno what i m answering but my understanding tells me that body moves in a Δt or even a 'dt'

This questions itself drives the physics behind it to something unreal or to infinity.
Everything cannot ever happen at once as that would require a infinite speed for all the things and particles.
Say for example it takes two hours to travel a distance of 300km. It takes light 8 minutes to travel from the sun to earth etc. Now if everything would happen at once that would mean that the sunlight would have to be everywhere at once because if it starts at one place and travels to the other as it normally does it requires time to do so.

Maybe some others will comment but I think with no time there would be no space and no matter as nothing would have had the time to evolve, but everything happening at once would violate the laws of physics.

WHAT DOES QUESTION MEAN

i donno what i m answering but my understanding tells me that body moves in a Δt or even a 'dt'
This questions itself drives the physics behind it to something unreal or to infinity.
Everything cannot ever happen at once as that would require a infinite speed for all the things and particles.
Say for example it takes two hours to travel a distance of 300km. It takes light 8 minutes to travel from the sun to earth etc. Now if everything would happen at once that would mean that the sunlight would have to be everywhere at once because if it starts at one place and travels to the other as it normally does it requires time to do so.

Maybe some others will comment but I think with no time there would be no space and no matter as nothing would have had the time to evolve, but everything happening at once would violate the laws of physics.
then i feel i answered it correct, atleast in my brain i feel that,

who has said time does not exist,
at moment i pressed i on my laptop and it was a point of time and durtion in which i pressed 'i' is a delta time or even dt

256bits
Gold Member
then i feel i answered it correct, atleast in my brain i feel that,

who has said time does not exist,
at moment i pressed i on my laptop and it was a point of time and durtion in which i pressed 'i' is a delta time or even dt
That is because you are used to the concept of time and using that familiarity in your answer.

With no such thing as time, there would be no distinction between past, present and future events.
So the quote by AT could very well be correct.

I never argued about the quote not being correct I thought more about the physical possibility of such a scenario.

Atleast if that were the case then people who always say "I have no time" would finally be correct...

What I could understand till now is that whenever we say that we are at a particular place or something is in a particular position, we always relate it with time.Because time itself doesn't have any existence.The space that we live in is not just the space,but it is space-time.So if no time,there cannot be any space.That is they are dependent on each other.
I am not sure if my concept can make it clear.

256bits
Gold Member
I never argued about the quote not being correct I thought more about the physical possibility of such a scenario.

Atleast if that were the case then people who always say "I have no time" would finally be correct...
Would they even have the time to say it.

I think all posts are in agreement that in the grand scheme of things having 'no time' would be a lot different.

ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
I have a question that might have a complex answer.

If time didn't exist could anything move or even happen?
The question itself is meaningless, because it is self-contradictory. Why? Because there would be no such thing as "anything", and the concept of "move" would not have existed for you to use to ask that question. Even the word "happen" would make no sense.

How many self-contradictions and meaningless concepts to occur in a single question to make the question itself nonsensical?

BTW, people should read the recent Huw Price's review of Smolin's book "Time Reborn" (Science v.341, p.960 (2013)) before we start to regurgitate all the already-used argument about this. Even in the philosophical argument about time, there was never a serious discussion on whether time "exists" or "is real".

Huw Price said:
To Parmenideans such as Williams and myself, this attitude is just linguistic imperialism, cheeky and rather uncharitable. Of course we believe that time is real, we insist. (It is as real as space is, the two being simply different aspects of the same fourdimensional manifold.) What we deny is just that time comes carved up into past, present, and future.
Zz.

Last edited:
I have a question that might have a complex answer.

If time didn't exist could anything move or even happen?
You basically answered your own question, apart of one glitch: commonly with the word "exist" one means the being of something (see any dictionary). That doesn't apply to the concept "time", which is not a measure of something being but instead, it is a measure of the order of events and progression of physical processes (the word "time" has different, related meanings).

With that in mind we can rephrase your question and turn it around into an answer. Only because things move and events happen, even in a recurring way, it was possible to invent "time" standards (day, year, second).

Dale
Mentor
In this universe, time exists. Therefore, any questions about if it didn't exist are inherently speculative and beyond the bounds of science and the rules of this forum.