If there is no energy, does time exist?

[TheFrogger]

Yes. On a graph we may have x,y,z AND the value that is stored at that location (time.)

 

[Michael 345]

Mick, are you out of bed yet?

Just had breakfast 9am

Thanks for the link at end of your post

Physicist Argues Time Is Real
Headline above says it all and appears to back my understanding of TIME

So at least you and I appear to have our ideas from dialing physicist

Will read in detail your link, again thanks and hopefully learn more about this puzzle

Of course not. I'll take my ball and go home too.

Unlike the above. Because I refuse to continue to supply answers to S questions and recieving nothing in return characterised it as above.
Problem as I saw it I was willing to stay around with my bat and ball while S was putting on about how he had a bat and ball but never put up

Much as I said about theist who keep saying ' yes we have evidence ' but coming up empty handed

A quick note for you to chew on before I get back in more detail

Time stops everything from happening at the one instant

I take the position that EVERYTHING Universe wide does indeed happen at the same instant, called NOW.

YES space is

space is what stops everything from being in the one spot

and the distance of space and the maximum speed of light, which is the maximum speed of the transfer of information, gives the illusion of TIME

To be continued

Cheers

 

[James R]

exchemist:

James, a slightly tangential question: I don't know much about Noether's theorem, but that the invariance of the laws of physics with position in space leads to conservation of momentum, while the invariance in time leads to conservation of energy calls to mind two common expressions of the Uncertainty Principle, arising from the non-commuting of their respective QM operators. This does not feel like coincidence. Do you know of a reason why QM pairs these quantities in the same way that Noether's theorem does?

I can't help you with that. I think my knowledge of quantum mechanics is probably comparable to yours in this regard. The various versions of the uncertainty principle follow in QM from the non-commutativity of the relevant operators. I think there is probably a connection there, as you do, but I haven't followed up on exactly what the connection is.

Maybe Q-reeus can actually do something useful for a change and help with this. Or somebody else.

 

[Michael 345]

Time has direction, and always moves/flows towards the future

No - no such animal as time with direction. You should know it's a human thought just as a expression to convey a idea. Plus a direction would not be a property

Time has order, and obviously we always see one event follow another that follows another.

One event following another is AGEING of the WHOLE of the Universe with we always see the local effect

A thing/entity/model need not be physical to be real.

Shock - horror - wash your mouth out - you have just given succour to theist and their claim of a non physical invisible smart man in the sky

be physical to be real

never said it had to be - but but but has to be detectable

magnetic field

Is detectable as is gravity, though both invisible. Not a problem

You, it seems have read a book [I forget which one] that sees time as you put it and you seem to like that description

The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville

My reference for you, highly recommend

is time fundamental

Agree but as I understand no method of detection has been devised as is the same for inches

 

[Michael 345]

Of course not. I'll take my ball and go home too.

Don't think you have one

 

[Q-reeus]

exchemist:


I can't help you with that. I think my knowledge of quantum mechanics is probably comparable to yours in this regard. The various versions of the uncertainty principle follow in QM from the non-commutativity of the relevant operators. I think there is probably a connection there, as you do, but I haven't followed up on exactly what the connection is.

Maybe Q-reeus can actually do something useful for a change and help with this. Or somebody else.

Thanks, in a way, James R for confirming my observation elsewhere we are personal foes. You have the clear advantage in this rat infested sewer known as Sf, of having a loyal coterie of shits eagerly coming in to bat for you: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/divide-and-confuse-backfires.162132/

Now, concerning the on-topic matter of connecting (one of) Noether's theorems to HUP, I have no real expertise there and defer to what e.g. Wikipedia has to say:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugate_variables

I could link to other sites where there are various opinions not always agreeing, but why bother.

 

[wegs]

wegs:


It's sounds like you're looking for a cause for time - a reason that time exists.

What I would say, in the first instance, is that science doesn't really look for ultimate causes, most of the time. Science's job is to describe or model the world as we find it. We observe that stuff doesn't all happen at once, so we build this concept called "time" into the models.

Energy is another kind of model. It is particularly useful because it is often a conserved quantity, and physicists find such quantities to be very useful for solving problems and modelling systems.

In fact, things go deeper than that in physics. There's a really powerful theorem due to Emily Noether which says that for every symmetry in nature, there is an associated conserved quantity. For example, it is an observation that the laws of physics do not vary depending on our spatial location. If we carry out the same experiment in two different locations, under the same conditions, then the results will be the same. From this, it can be shown that momentum is a conserved quantity, which is rather interesting and unexpected.

So what about time? Well, another observation is that the laws of physics don't seem to care much about whether we do the same experiment yesterday, or today, or tomorrow. The results are the same, regardless. So, there's some symmetry in time, and there should therefore be a conserved quantity that goes along with it. It turns out that the relevant conserved quantity that comes from time symmetry is energy. So, time and energy are related in quite a deep way.

At the risk of harping on a theme I've raised before, it is important to realise that energy isn't a substance. Mostly, designating the "zero" point of energy is completely arbitrary, so when you say a system has no energy (i.e. its energy is zero) that doesn't really imply anything very special under a lot of circumstances. In particular, the fact that some system or other has zero energy shouldn't have any special effect on time - at least not in terms of causing time not to exist or something.


I don't like that statement much. We are only confident in the accuracy of our best big bang models back to a short time after the start of the universe (specifically, from about $10^{-43}$ seconds after the start). To push things back further to look for first causes, we need better models.

Using current models, though, we run into problems if we try to talk about times "before the big bang". It's a similar problem to trying to talk about points on the Earth's surface that are north of the north pole. We hit a conceptual or logical wall - a singularity, if you like.


Arguably, there's zero net energy right now, when you consider the entire universe. Maybe that has always been the case. As for "before the big bang", we tend to hit that wall I just mentioned. Some people would argue that it is actually meaningless to talk about time or energy before the big bang.


We don't know. We don't know whether the big bang had a cause, or what that cause was if it had one. There are hypotheses out there, but still a long way to go before we get definite answers.


Modelling and trying to explain things doesn't change them. It can change us - our understanding of our world and our place in it.

Not so much looking for a 'cause' for time, but does time depend on something else to exist in the first place.

I'll return to your post a bit later, didn't want you to think that I didn't appreciate you taking the time to explain this as you have.

 

[paddoboy]

No - no such animal as time with direction. You should know it's a human thought just as a expression to convey a idea. Plus a direction would not be a property

Like I said, the issue of time is controversial, but I see it as a part of the multi dimensional frame work we call spacetime.
I also see such effects as change, movement etc, as occurring in time, not causing time.
We also see effects we label as caused by a magnetic field...we feel the effects that we label gravity...we also obviously see the aging process...we call that time. we see both space and time as variable concepts, dependent on our FoRs, and also how in some ways they are interchangeable.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html
And of course your universal now can never really be put to any test, because the speed of light is finite. We can never determine a universal now, only a now as defined by the speed of light. Think about it.
Here's another rundown on time....
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time-20160719/

 

[Michael 345]

We can never determine a universal now, only a now as defined by the speed of light. Think about it.

Will try to get to your reference later thanks

I don't follow how a Universal NOW is defined by the speed of light

Only the INFORMATION about what is happening on the other side of the Universe is not available to us

We, I would contend, obviously exist NOW, as does the other side of the Universe at our NOW, except if it just happens to have been destroyed, but you understand what I mean.

What you appear to be advocating is we have our NOW and the other side of the Universe has a different NOW at a different moment

My thinking is NOW does not work like that

Again we only lack the INFORMATION due to the speed of light limitation (ie distance)

We don't lack the moment ie NOW

The NOW is Universal

Got to run

 

[Seattle]

You don't believe in time but you do believe in NOW. What are the properties of NOW, with data and links please. I'll be waiting.

 

[Michael 345]

You don't believe in time but you do believe in NOW. What are the properties of NOW, with data and links please. I'll be waiting.

Would be strange not to believe in NOW since I live, as does everyone else, in NOW

As for PROPERTIES, pick all, I mean ALL, every single atom of the Universe, list the properties of everything in existence in the Universe, bundle them all together, that bundle of properties represents reality and as such are the properties of NOW

As for data and links, will let you select your favourite item which exists in the same reality as yourself

NOW is the only reality in existence (unless anyone has another they can produce)

 

[paddoboy]

Would be strange not to believe in NOW since I live, as does everyone else, in NOW

We all certainly live in a personal now, but they need not be the same.
My cousin living on planet X orbiting Proxima Centauri version of now, will not be recognised by me until 4.5 years later.

 

[Michael 345]

We all certainly live in a personal now, but they need not be the same.
My cousin living on planet X orbiting Proxima Centauri version of now, will not be recognised by me until 4.5 years later.

True, but but but you have just confirmed light left from cousin, coincidentally, as light left from yourself at a Universe NOW moment, the only difference being location that being your not be the same

Both light beams pass and cousins arrives to yourself and your light beam arrives at cousin, both beams AGED 4.5 light years old, which is exactly the same amount of AGE as you each have accrued to arrive together at the current Universal NOW moment

As for being same, not sure what you are trying to say

What I note - you and cousin are separated by large distance and it takes 4.5 light years before information from each other reaches the other

Sorry do not see TIME

See two light beams each AGED 4.5 light years and both lock step in reality from the start of each journey to the finish

 

[wegs]

wegs:

Okay, I'm finally ready to get into this lol

It's sounds like you're looking for a cause for time - a reason that time exists.

Not so much a cause, as much as does time need energy to exist? I don't know why that is confusing to me.

What I would say, in the first instance, is that science doesn't really look for ultimate causes, most of the time. Science's job is to describe or model the world as we find it. We observe that stuff doesn't all happen at once, so we build this concept called "time" into the models.

I know. But, I understand this reply based on you thinking that I was asking if time has a cause.

Energy is another kind of model. It is particularly useful because it is often a conserved quantity, and physicists find such quantities to be very useful for solving problems and modelling systems.

In fact, things go deeper than that in physics. There's a really powerful theorem due to Emily Noether which says that for every symmetry in nature, there is an associated conserved quantity. For example, it is an observation that the laws of physics do not vary depending on our spatial location. If we carry out the same experiment in two different locations, under the same conditions, then the results will be the same. From this, it can be shown that momentum is a conserved quantity, which is rather interesting and unexpected.

So what about time? Well, another observation is that the laws of physics don't seem to care much about whether we do the same experiment yesterday, or today, or tomorrow. The results are the same, regardless. So, there's some symmetry in time, and there should therefore be a conserved quantity that goes along with it. It turns out that the relevant conserved quantity that comes from time symmetry is energy. So, time and energy are related in quite a deep way.

Ahhh...gotcha. Okay.

At the risk of harping on a theme I've raised before, it is important to realise that energy isn't a substance. Mostly, designating the "zero" point of energy is completely arbitrary, so when you say a system has no energy (i.e. its energy is zero) that doesn't really imply anything very special under a lot of circumstances. In particular, the fact that some system or other has zero energy shouldn't have any special effect on time - at least not in terms of causing time not to exist or something.

But wait, doesn't energy come in different ''forms?'' Light, motion, heat, etc...when I think of energy, I think of those ''forms'' of energy. Going with what you're saying, let's see if I get this correct -- energy is essentially the power to do work, whether that power is fueled by heat, light, or motion?

I don't like that statement much.

Sorry.

We are only confident in the accuracy of our best big bang models back to a short time after the start of the universe (specifically, from about $10^{-43}$ seconds after the start). To push things back further to look for first causes, we need better models.

Using current models, though, we run into problems if we try to talk about times "before the big bang". It's a similar problem to trying to talk about points on the Earth's surface that are north of the north pole. We hit a conceptual or logical wall - a singularity, if you like.

Why is it a problem? We simply don't know what occurred or existed before the BB, so why would that be a problem? We should rely on our confidence, even if it's limited. We didn't create the limits.

Arguably, there's zero net energy right now, when you consider the entire universe. Maybe that has always been the case. As for "before the big bang", we tend to hit that wall I just mentioned. Some people would argue that it is actually meaningless to talk about time or energy before the big bang.

Okay, I see...but why couldn't time and energy legitimately exist before the BB, we simply couldn't observe it? Is it because it brings up the question of infinity?

We don't know. We don't know whether the big bang had a cause, or what that cause was if it had one. There are hypotheses out there, but still a long way to go before we get definite answers.


Modelling and trying to explain things doesn't change them. It can change us - our understanding of our world and our place in it.

I wonder if we'll ever have definitive answers. But...we can keep striving to learn more. Thanks, James for replying, and sorry to bring you more questions.

 

[Seattle]

Time and energy could exist before the Big Bang. That is unknown territory.

My view is that time isn't a "thing". It's an emergent quality (as they say) rather than fundamental.

 

[wegs]

Time and energy could exist before the Big Bang. That is unknown territory.

My view is that time isn't a "thing". It's an emergent quality (as they say) rather than fundamental.

I just did a quick google search...and you are not alone in your thinking.

Time emerges from ''entanglement.'' Just another quantum mystery, I reckon.

Every time that I think I'm getting somewhere, the rug gets snatched from under me!

 

[Seattle]

I just did a quick google search...and you are not alone in your thinking.

Time emerges from ''entanglement.'' Just another quantum mystery, I reckon.

Every time that I think I'm getting somewhere, the rug gets snatched from under me!

But that's not a flying rug. We can imagine a flying rug but we know they are not real.

 

[wegs]

But that's not a flying rug. We can imagine a flying rug but we know they are not real.

I see what you did there. Cross pollinating threads, are we?

For shame!

 

[paddoboy]

I just did a quick google search...and you are not alone in your thinking.

Time emerges from ''entanglement.'' Just another quantum mystery, I reckon.

Every time that I think I'm getting somewhere, the rug gets snatched from under me!

Best understood imo by our overwhelmingly supported model we call the BB, that is space and time [as we know them] evolved at t+10-43 seconds.
How they existed [if they did] at that first quantum/Planck instant is unknown.
Take that along with the fact that the BB is only applicable to the observable universe.

 

[wegs]

Best understood imo by our overwhelmingly supported model we call the BB, that is space and time [as we know them] evolved at t+10-43 seconds.


How they existed [if they did] at that first quantum/Planck instant is unknown.
Take that along with the fact that the BB is only applicable to the observable universe.

Did you know that the BB model isn't universally accepted, but it's the most encouraging model that we have to help us understand the evolution of the universe? I'm not a naysayer, just adding that, though.