Time and a few other questions

[AWandererAmongstThem]

Greetings everybody! This is the first time I am posting so please be easy on me. I am debating a Christian friend. Now he thinks that believing in a god is a reasonable and defensible position. For example, he brought up the cosmological argument. My friend is practically getting his information from a Dr.William Craig (the Christian apologetic that wrote the book, Reasonable Faith; a mixture of theology and science.) Bullshit in a nutshell. So on to my question, can energy exist without time? How about energy? How did the Big Bang create space? I mean how do you create nothing. Space is the absence of something so how do you create nothing? Is time really a property of our world or is just something we made up in order to tell when things have changed? Thanks for your help!

 

[Ozymandyus]

Space does not precisely exist, but in that objects can be related to each other by a measurement of the distance between them, that distance is space. So the big bang 'created' space by separating the singularity that preceded the big bang into discernable objects.

In short, if there are two discernable objects there is space. If there is a change in an object, there is time.

As far as mass and energy existing without time - I would say yes. The hard thing about it is that Mass, energy, time, and space are all basically part of the same thing. Mass IS energy. Time a measurement of what has happened through the interplay of mass and energy. Certainly I would say Mass and potential energy can exist without time.

At least, that's my understanding of these things, an undoubtedly oversimplified one.

 

[monitoradiation]

Welcome!

Well, to answer your question at a rudimentary level:

Yes, energy can exist without time; the most basic ways to calculate work and energy is W=F*d where F is force and d is the distance over which the force were applied. Other than the fact that usually there's no way to assert force over distance without a temporal construct, the equation in it of itself does not require time.

Secondly, the big bang did not "create" space. the big bang (as far as I'm aware) is an event from which the spacetime continuum expanded. It's not the same to say that the big bang "created" space.

Thirdly, space is not "the absence of something". Space is a dimensional construct. Imagine a graph with Cartesian coordinates of y-x with no lines. That is a 2-dimension construct. We merely live in spacetime, which is a 4-dimensional construct. (edit: 4-D as much as we're physically aware of. It could be 11 or 12 dimensions in reality)

Fourth, I personally do think that time is a measure of change. That's how time is measured, anyway. A standard second under SI standards is defined as:

The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

So by how we "define" time, it is indeed measured with respect to change. However, your question seem to go to whether or not time is absolute (ie absolute time vs relative time). As far as I know, there is no absolute inertial reference for space, and no absolute time.

 

[Aught3]

Check out this thread for some additional info http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=636&hilit=origin+of+the+universe

 

[AWandererAmongstThem]

I thank you all for answering my questions with clarity.

 

[Fordi]

Yes, energy can exist without time; the most basic ways to calculate work and energy is W=F*d where F is force and d is the distance over which the force were applied. Other than the fact that usually there's no way to assert force over distance without a temporal construct, the equation in it of itself does not require time.

But F = mA, where A = (d/t)/t

You need time to measure against to have force.

The actual units of a Joule are

.

 

[monitoradiation]

Fordi, that's what I said in the rest of the stuff I wrote after the equation. I might've needed to be more clear about what I meant by "no way to assert force over distance without temporal construct".

To assert a force you necessitate some form of "time" ie acceleration; however, that is not to say that "time" itself is an independent dimension as OP was asking about. I perceived that he is asking whether or not an absolute timescale is required for energy to exist. In actuality what you need is a standardized unit of "change" over which to measure. That is to say, time requires matter and energy to exist, and vice versa, but not in the way I think the OP suggested.

What I'm getting at is that, suppose the universe had no matter nor energy in it, is there still a temporal construct? My answer would be no. Time exists only because matter and energy exist - matter, energy, and "time" are intrinsically linked and I wouldn't say that one is a requirement for the other. Even so, I would think that energy existed "before" time (if that even makes sense) as time seems like a byproduct of energy's existence.

OP's question regarding energy existing without time is to me the same as asking whether or not a "heads" side of the coin can exist without the "tails" side.

Edit: and potential energies such as the GPE and the such are in units of kgm,²/s,² but I don't tend to think that there is a temporal requirement for them to exist. The reason why there's that s,² in the denominator is owed to the fact that we have to measure change, and we're conditioned to think that a "second" actually means something in an absolute time-esque sense. I hope that clear it up a little bit.

 

[Ozymandyus]

But F = mA, where A = (d/t)/t

You need time to measure against to have force.

The actual units of a Joule are

.

However, you can measure certain units of potential energy without reference to time.. Elastic potential energy or chemical potential energy for example. Ultimately energy in action is the way we talk about energy... energy is the stuff that makes events happen and happening requires time. But the ability to make stuff happen can be measured without reference to time, which Is why I said you could say that potential energy exists outside of time.

So energy clearly creates time, but time does not create energy: energy's existence does not NECESSITATE time. Potential energy can exist without reference to a time frame, and in fact that is the kind of situation we get when we are talking about the big bang. How long was there only the singularity that we now call our universe 'before' the big bang? Such a statement means little or nothing from our own temporal reference point, but doesn't change the fact that there was clearly mass and potential energy 'before' the big bang.

 

[aeroeng314]

What's interesting is that energy and time are linked through the uncertainty principle in the same way that position and momentum are linked.

 

[Squagnut]

So on to my question, can energy exist without time? How about energy? How did the Big Bang create space? I mean how do you create nothing. Space is the absence of something so how do you create nothing? Is time really a property of our world or is just something we made up in order to tell when things have changed? Thanks for your help!

To touch on the can energy exist without time? question, IMO no it can't, not if you mean without the flow of time. Of course, this would be impossible to verify experimentally (anyone got a time-stopper?), but I'd guess if time stopped then the universe would cease to exist. Please bear in mind that energy E = mc,², and we can determine neither mass (m) nor the speed of light (c) without time (indeed, we cannot do anything without time). In a quantum version of the same equation, λ = h/p, both wavelength (λ) and momentum (p) have temporal aspects. But broadly, we cannot say anything about energy existing without time because then we are not talking about the universe we're in, which is the only one we know anything about

Time isn't something we made up in order to tell when things have changed. Rather, things change, and that's how we know which direction time flows in.

There is, by all accounts, a lot more to space than nothing.

 

[Pulsar]

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to give satisfactory answers to such questions, because the concepts involved are the very foundations of our reality.

A few things: space and time are two aspects of the same thing: space-time. One cannot exist without the other. Energy and matter are also two sides of the same coin, E=mc^2. As aeroeng314 noted, energy and time are linked with each other through the uncertainty principle. And the uncertainty-link between position and momentum (which involves mass and velocity) hints at a connection between space, time, and mass/energy. Moreover, mass/energy shape and 'bend' space-time through general relativity. And empty space does not exist: virtual particles are constantly created and destroyed, causing a vacuum energy. In other words, all these fundamental concepts are connected to each other, they cannot be disentangled, and the relations between them are described by the laws of physics.

The Big Bang theory describes the expansion of space-time and the evolution of the matter/energy within, from a highly dense state in the past to its current state and beyond. We don't know what happened at the very first moments, because our current understanding of physics fails at that point: general relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other at the earliest moments, so a new physical theory is needed. In other words, we can't start at t=0 (and we can't say whether the universe started with a singularity). Instead, we can thusfar only describe the universe from a slightly later time, the Planck Epoch, with "everything in place": space, time, and energy. Maybe one day M-theory, loop quantum gravity, or another new theory can give us insights about the beginning of the universe. Perhaps it was the result of an event in a larger 'Multiverse', or perhaps our universe is going through an eternal cycle of expansions and contractions.

But even if (and that's a big if) we can answer this one day, one can always ask: "Where did that come from? Was there once nothing?". This is a more fundamental problem, a logical one. Can we imagine nothing? Does that concept even make sense? Look at the question "Did time always exist?" This is a circular problem, because the word 'always' has a temporal meaning in itself. So I don't see a way to reduce these concepts much further. After all, you need 'something', some set of fundamental postulations, to start any form of reasoning about the world we live in.

Short answer: 'nothing' never existed, because 'nothing' doesn't make sense.

 

[Aught3]

can energy exist without time?

Isn't it more the other way around; in a system with no energy there would be no time.

 

[Ozymandyus]

To touch on the can energy exist without time? question, IMO no it can't, not if you mean without the flow of time. Of course, this would be impossible to verify experimentally (anyone got a time-stopper?), but I'd guess if time stopped then the universe would cease to exist. Please bear in mind that energy E = mc,², and we can determine neither mass (m) nor the speed of light (c) without time (indeed, we cannot do anything without time). In a quantum version of the same equation, λ = h/p, both wavelength (λ) and momentum (p) have temporal aspects. But broadly, we cannot say anything about energy existing without time because then we are not talking about the universe we're in, which is the only one we know anything about

Time isn't something we made up in order to tell when things have changed. Rather, things change, and that's how we know which direction time flows in.

There is, by all accounts, a lot more to space than nothing.

Well the question is, if it was possible to look at one slice of the universe, a single moment in time where nothing was changing - in that one billionth of a nanosecond do energy and matter still exist? Yes, of course. Just because you are only taking into account that single moment, and no longer have any reference to time when only considering the data in that moment, does not mean that energy and matter cease to exist. They still most certainly exist, only in an unchanging state.

The problem is the same with any named thing - there is no single word that refers to something that exists AS SUCH. Every word just refers to a characteristic of being that we use to group things together. In essence, this is just a problem with the way humans think, not actually anything that has bearing on some peculiar aspect of the way the universe works.

 

[Squagnut]

Well the question is, if it was possible to look at one slice of the universe, a single moment in time where nothing was changing - in that one billionth of a nanosecond do energy and matter still exist? Yes, of course.

To do so would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, since we could determine both the momentum (zero) and position (it's there!) of any particle. There's a distinction between looking at the universe through a tiny slice of time, even a billionth of a nanosecond (which may be a long time to some subatomic particles), and removing or stopping the temporal dimension, which is how I have interpreted the question. We're dealing with no time, not a little bit of time.

 

[Squagnut]

Thinking about this more, it would be impossible to identify a single moment of time. A moment of time in one place may not be the same as one in another place, due to relativity. Time is not absolute. Even if we could play god, if the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s then in a billionth of a nanosecond, light travels 0.000000000299792458 m, or the diameter of a couple of atoms. Looking at the universe through this slice of time would give us a very clear picture at our macro level of observation but a very fuzzy picture at a micro level.