Yes of course, but if we can experience and observe the "duration" of events, it is obvious that this is an emergent phenomenon of physical existence and/or change and its duration in spacetime. The universe does not need human symbolic mathematics to process data in a mathematical manner, it just cannot do otherwise. Mathematics is an inherent functional potential of spacetime. Anyone that denies this is rejecting human mathematics as useless for describing universal physics.
Because time does not exist without space. You can measure spatial object or patterns with spatial measurements, but you cannot measure time with time. Time is an emergent result of the 3 measurements posited by Asexperia.
First, that is a contradictory statement. If there is energy then there is no emptiness......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But No, Time is an emergent result of duration of some chronology of physical events. Emptiness is timeless unless it lies "between" 2 physical events. Measurable time must have a beginning and an end or point of measurement. This is why we started counting time with the beginning of the universe and spacetime, i.e. just after the BB and identify the period of 13.8 billion years as the "current" age of the universe. If this were a multiverse there would be time before the BB, because it would not be empty, but in the absence of any evidence, what was before the BB was a timeless but permittive condition.
No, energy needs space to move in. Better to say that energy will create its own timeline as it moves a distance through spacetime.. Time for an event cannot exist before the event, only mathematical permission is required. Tomorrow does not yet exist as a measurable duration of time, but we can safely say that tomorrow will happen, because it will be mathematically permitted. In this Universe there is no emptiness, there is space with its associated time, i.e. spacetime. You can say that energy needs distance in space to move in, but space is not empty. It is a geometrical object (pattern) with duration.
I would say the contrary. Time can exist without space, because time fondamentaly only depend on events occuring alternatively relativ to an observer. Example : You are bound (in platos cave, why not), not moving, so space is nothing for you. But you can "receive" and so for you, without the knowledge of space, it looks like something that appear at your location. Now, let forget the observer at the scale of the human and say the observer is the tiniest possible particle. Is there space relativ to this particle ? No, space is a macroscopic construction and doesent mean anything for the particle. But at least for the particle time is possible, because there are changes occuring to the particles, so external events that occur alternatively "creating time" or better said events that occur and have concequence on other external actions (irreversible actions) create time.
Without space there is nothing to measure. No observer except time itself. But how does time measure itself?
How 'bout this then. 1. Time is based on location (distance coordinate). What time is it? Midnight in Tokyo, dawn in New York or 00:00:00 computer time sync'd across the world. 2. It takes time to traverse a distance which makes time expressable as distance and vice versa. 3. Time is delayed by distance. Minimum c delay between locations even for worldwide sync'd clocks. 4. Time delay has a rate if distance is changing at a rate. The clock reading delay rate looks like time slowing but it isn't. 5. Time has a duration but the start and end of that duration is subject to perspectives which are subject to distance. No distance separation, no effects of motion or gravity on time. 6. Time has a rate. That rate is always c or 1 second per second. Perspectives can interpret that rate differently but that's because their start and end times of duration are skewed by distance. 7. The rate of time c through time limits the max rate of distance through time to c. 8. Light is energy determined by its frequency which is wavelength (distance) over time. 9. Don't get me started on space. P.S. You're not a mod here are you because I'm limited in my choice of forums to fall back on?
"OK, do mathematical relationships in nature mean anything?" [Yes, but we don't know what. Human concepts/relations within the language of mathematics have the their meaning by definition. We don't know the fundamental concepts (if there is such a thing) that determine the structure and behavior of the universe. We use models, forms of representation. A 'timeline' on a spacetime graphic represents (without all the irrelevant detail) a moving object (more like shorthand).] [If we analyze the natural processes accurately, form a corresponding model with a good translation of the relations into a mathematical format, and record results that match predictions, the most we can claim is accurate measurements. It doesn't mean the universe behaves like the model. It's the other way around. Are you using successful prediction to impose the same human methodology onto the inanimate universe? Spacetime is just a term to indicate the interdependency of space and time. Especially when measurements are recorded as temporal intervals of light motion. Minkowski restored 'time' as a measure of distance/motion by replacing 't' with 'ct'. Units of measure are by definition. A randomly selected stick could be defined as a um, and labeled 'stick'. If an international science org. accepted it, then we would measure distances in 'sticks'. It has no meaning beyond its intended purpose. It is not a property of spacetime or the ether, etc. It is a convention, just as coordinates and clocks.] [On my favorite quotes list:Henri Poincare, The Measure of Time, 1898 "We do not have a direct intuition for simultaneity, just as little as for the equality of two periods. If we believe to have this intuition, it is an illusion. We helped ourselves with certain rules, which we usually use without giving us account over it [...] We choose these rules therefore, not because they are true, but because they are the most convenient, and we could summarize them while saying: "The simultaneity of two events, or the order of their succession, the equality of two durations, are to be so defined that the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible. In other words, all these rules, all these definitions are only the fruit of an unconscious opportunism."]
Higgs boson was predicted strictly via mathematics. Yes from a subjective human perspective. From an objective universal perspective they are "unnamed" processes involving inherent objective "values" processed via objective mathematical "functions" (universal constants). The only time Time is in evidence is with "duration" of existence or change. Time does not exist in the future, but emerges along with the chronologies of sets of the present.
