Time - Change the word from sound to time

[Ted Evans]

1) Hypothetically, IF, there was a universe without any living creature, would there be time?

1a) I do not think so but the belief could change.

2) How would it be measured?

3) I believe I read that time is a measurement of a distance traveled, is that incorrect?

4) Same questions about mathematical and space-time, if there was no living creature, would those exist?

5) IF, time created at the BB, how was it measured and by what methods?

6) If time was not created at the moment of the BB, what, if any, effect would it have on distances traveled by all components in the “explosion” or, rapid expansion if you prefer?

7) Again, hypothetically, what effects would it have on the creation of the universe if time was not created at the same instant? Or can that even be determined?

 

[bobhikes]

1) As long as there is change there is time, time is a measurement of change.

2)It would be measured as it is today by the the amount of change. It would take an intelligence to understand the measurement but the measurement would still exist.

3) I don't believe I have ever heard that definition, If I had to guess it probably confused with the definition for the speed of light.

4) As long as material exists space exists, as long as change happens time exists. Does light exist if there is no life. Space is a thing, time is a measurement just because life doesn't exist they still exist waiting to be discovered.

5) Time has always existed because change has always existed.

6)Time is only a measurement it has no effect on things.

7) If change never happened, the only way time could not exist, the universe would not exist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1) Hypothetically, IF, there was a universe without any living creature, would there be time?

In BB theory we are part of the universe, so that does not happen. It is like asking what if a triangle only has 2 angles. In BB theory with general relativity we are intrinsic to the universe, a feature and a part without which the universe is not complete. Even an atom different is a different universe altogether.

2) How would it be measured?

In measurements passage of time is relative depending upon your velocity, showing that space is not Euclidean. This means geometry has different rules than what we normally use for things. Because of Einstein the shape of space is thought to correlate to Riemann spaces instead of Euclidean ones. Spaces and times add up, but its not the same. There are multiplications and divisions plus limited time travel possibilities. Lines are not straight, and drawing the shape of space is mostly impossible.

5) IF, time created at the BB, how was it measured and by what methods?

It is not created at the BB but is part of the BB and of space, according to the BB theory. Outside of that theory you have weaker theories, and its possible time could start or stop that way. BB is convenient, because it explains the star distances velocities etc. so far. It appears to be the right theory.

4) Same questions about mathematical and space-time, if there was no living creature, would those exist?

In BB theory we just are part of the universe. Change one thing and its not the same universe. Remember also that if indeed everything unifies a point in the past (as it currently appears) then if one atom was different then the entire universe would be, and also all atoms are connected together through time. All things connect despite the appearance of great distances and time spans.

6) If time was not created at the moment of the BB, what, if any, effect would it have on distances traveled by all components in the “explosion” or, rapid expansion if you prefer?

Then there is no BB. Time is as real or unreal as atoms and whatever else is in space.

7) Again, hypothetically, what effects would it have on the creation of the universe if time was not created at the same instant? Or can that even be determined?

Time literally is not separate from gravity or distance. They are all one blob, and that does not depend on BB theory but relativity. Also matter is energy, so if you add the observations of BB Theory then everything is all one blob: energy, matter, time, distance and gravity. There is no real passing of events or step taken from A to B. Everything is part of Space.

 

[Polymath257]

1) Hypothetically, IF, there was a universe without any living creature, would there be time?

Yes, of course there would be. That was the situation for the early universe, after all.

1a) I do not think so but the belief could change.

I don't know how to interpret this.

2) How would it be measured?

What do you mean? Time is measured by changes, hopefully periodic ones, but that is not required.

3) I believe I read that time is a measurement of a distance traveled, is that incorrect?

Yes, that is incorrect. Time is a measurement of change. Motion (distance traveled) is one type of change. But time can also be measured by other kinds of change. For example, changes in electromagnetic fields are a common way.

4) Same questions about mathematical and space-time, if there was no living creature, would those exist?

Again, of course. That was the condition of the early universe, after all.

5) IF, time created at the BB, how was it measured and by what methods?

Whenever time exists, it is measured by change.

6) If time was not created at the moment of the BB, what, if any, effect would it have on distances traveled by all components in the “explosion” or, rapid expansion if you prefer?

The answer to this is complex. Space and time together form a four dimensional geometry. That geometry is, in turn, defined by the density of mass and energy. The motion of mass and energy is determined, in part, by the geometry.

If there is no actual singularity at the BB (which is required for time to go before the BB), the same equations are still applicable.

7) Again, hypothetically, what effects would it have on the creation of the universe if time was not created at the same instant? Or can that even be determined?

Sorry, but it does not and cannot work that way. Mass, energy, space, and time are in symbiosis. Look up general relativity sometime.

 

[Ted Evans]

Thanks to all for the comments but I am still struggling with getting a grasp on time in a hypothetical universe without life. Everything that I have found on the subject is about measurements, quantities, distances etc., which all seem to require intelligent life. The quote below is just an example. Can anyone provide a link that explains how there can be “time” without it being measured?


“Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.[1] In classical, non-relativistic physics it is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually described as a fundamental quantity. Time can be combined mathematically with other physical quantities to derive other concepts such as motion, kinetic energy and time-dependent fields. Timekeeping is a complex of technological and scientific issues, and part of the foundation of recordkeeping.”

This may not be a "scientific" example but it illustrates what I am trying to understand.

Star X is in location A, star Y is in location B, two light years, by man's measurements apart, both were formed from the singularity, therefore and without some intelligence to use some unit of measurement, how could there be "time"?

 

[Quintessence]

The existence of time is not dependent on the existence of biological organisms as humans know them. It would be awfully anthropocentric to think that.

To me the more important question is why this thread is in the "Evolution Vs. Creationism" subforum when the topic seems to have nothing to do with either. Did you mean to put this in General Debates?

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks to all for the comments but I am still struggling with getting a grasp on time in a hypothetical universe without life. Everything that I have found on the subject is about measurements, quantities, distances etc., which all seem to require intelligent life. The quote below is just an example. Can anyone provide a link that explains how there can be “time” without it being measured?


“Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.[1] In classical, non-relativistic physics it is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually described as a fundamental quantity. Time can be combined mathematically with other physical quantities to derive other concepts such as motion, kinetic energy and time-dependent fields. Timekeeping is a complex of technological and scientific issues, and part of the foundation of recordkeeping.”

This may not be a "scientific" example but it illustrates what I am trying to understand.

In physics, ALL things are defined operationally: how do we measure them? This is for *our* purposes to help us keep track and understand what is going on.

But, there is nothing wrong with, for example, the universe existing long before living things appeared. We can even, now, measure aspects from those times.

Star X is in location A, star Y is in location B, two light years, by man's measurements apart, both were formed from the singularity, therefore and without some intelligence to use some unit of measurement, how could there be "time"?

There is a problem with understanding here. The two stars did not spring fully formed from a singularity (even assuming that there was a singularity--which is not necessarily true in quantum gravity). For example, the sun formed about 5 billion years ago, but the universe 'started' (actually, the current expansion phase started) about 13.8 billion years ago. So there was almost 9 billion years before the sun formed.

So, because it takes light to travel from distant galaxies to us, we can watch now processes that happened millions of years ago in those galaxies. We see changes and therefore time, which *we* can measure.

Without us, the changes and time would still be there, but no measurements of such would happen. In fact, those changes *did* happen long before us.

 

[Ted Evans]

The existence of time is not dependent on the existence of biological organisms as humans know them. It would be awfully anthropocentric to think that.

I understand that is what you think, others think differently. Since you did not answer my questions, I view your assertion as your opinion only.

To me the more important question is why this thread is in the "Evolution Vs. Creationism" subforum when the topic seems to have nothing to do with either. Did you mean to put this in General Debates?

So "time" is not a part of creation, is that what you are saying? Strange since most "scientific" sources seem to mention "time" quite often in the subject of creation, or have you missed that?

 

[Polymath257]

I understand that is what you think, others think differently. Since you did not answer my questions, I view your assertion as your opinion only.

So "time" is not a part of creation, is that what you are saying? Strange since most "scientific" sources seem to mention "time" quite often in the subject of creation, or have you missed that?

Creationism is not the same as believing in creation.

 

[Ted Evans]

In physics, ALL things are defined operationally:

Thanks for the comments, my day is going to be somewhat busy but I will get back to your post and also in the other thread about "questions" answered, so you do not think I am avoiding you.

 

[Quintessence]

I understand that is what you think, others think differently. Since you did not answer my questions, I view your assertion as your opinion only.

[/COLOR][/FONT]

Um... okay. I responded to the question that I wanted to. If you want to think it's somehow my "opinion only" that time's existence is not dependent on biological organisms, er... well... I'm not sure how to respond to that, honestly.

[/COLOR][/FONT]So "time" is not a part of creation, is that what you are saying?

No - I'm saying this is the "Evolution Vs. Creationism" subforum. It's a forum for discussing and debating the intersection between biological evolution (a scientific theory) and religious/mythological accounts of the origin of species. Your thread doesn't seem to have anything to do with that argument. Can we move it to General Debates?

 

[McBell]

1) Hypothetically, IF, there was a universe without any living creature, would there be time?

1a) I do not think so but the belief could change.

2) How would it be measured?

3) I believe I read that time is a measurement of a distance traveled, is that incorrect?

4) Same questions about mathematical and space-time, if there was no living creature, would those exist?

5) IF, time created at the BB, how was it measured and by what methods?

6) If time was not created at the moment of the BB, what, if any, effect would it have on distances traveled by all components in the “explosion” or, rapid expansion if you prefer?

7) Again, hypothetically, what effects would it have on the creation of the universe if time was not created at the same instant? Or can that even be determined?

So basically, in a nut shell, what you are claiming is that unless time is measured, it cannot exist?

 

[Ted Evans]

[/COLOR][/FONT]

Um... okay. I responded to the question that I wanted to. If you want to think it's somehow my "opinion only" that time's existence is not dependent on biological organisms, er... well... I'm not sure how to respond to that, honestly.

OK, my error, I was thinking especifically about this question.

The quote below is just an example. Can anyone provide a link that explains how there can be “time” without it being measured?

No - I'm saying this is the "Evolution Vs. Creationism" subforum. It's a forum for discussing and debating the intersection between biological evolution (a scientific theory) and religious/mythological accounts of the origin of species. Your thread doesn't seem to have anything to do with that argument. Can we move it to General Debates?

Again, my apologies, "Evolution Vs. Creationism" was the only subforum that I saw that seemed to be relevant to the subject, I was not aware that it was limited to "biological evolution" only and from reading other comments, it seems there are others that are not aware of the limitation also. Which group would you recommend for the "creation" of the universe subject that would be relative? Would you recommend moving the two threads that I have started? Should all the threads that do not meet the criteria of "Evolution Vs. Creationism" be moved also?

Creationism - "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Could this be the cause of my misunderstanding?

 

[YmirGF]

Special thanks to @Brickjectivity @Polymath257 and @Quintessence for saving me the time to explain this simple concept. The OP, in my view, shows a distinct misunderstanding of the nature of time otherwise the writer would not think the questions worthy of answering.

 

[Ted Evans]

So basically, in a nut shell, what you are claiming is that unless time is measured, it cannot exist?

No, I am asking a question if it does exist if there is no intelligence to measure it and for a link that explains it. Every thing that I have read, "time" is a dimension that is measured.

"Space and time are relative (i.e., they depend on the motion of the observer who measures them)" Einstein

 

[McBell]

No, I am asking a question if it does exist if there is no intelligence to measure it and for a link that explains it. Every thing that I have read, "time" is a dimension that is measured.

"Space and time are relative (i.e., they depend on the motion of the observer who measures them)" Einstein

My apologies.
It still sounds like you think if nothing was around to measure it, it can not exist.

 

[metis]

Simply put, all "time" is is sequencing. The gap between A and B, however, may be measured in different ways and it can also be affected by different factors, such as relativity.

 

[Ted Evans]

It still sounds like you think if nothing was around to measure it, it can not exist.

No, I am not saying that it cannot, what I am asking is if there is no intelligent life with a time standard for a bases how can it be proven that time was there? My question comes from the articles that I have read about it. That is why I asked if someone could provide a link that would explain how time could exist if there was never any intelligent life to measure it. When someone says star A is x number of light years away, what is that unit based on? Is it not based on the rotation of the earth for those that are measuring it? If that is true and if there is no earth, no sun, what is the unit of time and what is it based on?

 

[Quintessence]

The quote below is just an example. Can anyone provide a link that explains how there can be “time” without it being measured?

Perhaps asking another question will help you arrive at an answer to this for yourself.

How can there be dimension (length, width, height) or weight without these things being measured? ​

It's much the same kind of question. In both cases, we're talking about fundamental properties of reality that are readily understood through basic observation (so basic, that I doubt I could find a reference for something so obvious, sad to say). Attaching a number to these observations is not necessary, but very useful for certain purposes. Regardless, I'm a biologist, not a physicist... if you're really interested in the study of time, I would head over to your local public library and scope out their collection.

I was not aware that it was limited to "biological evolution" only

It isn't... as I said, it's for discussion of the "controversy" of biological evolution as it conflicts with mythical/religious accounts of origins. Maybe your topic fits into that, but from the OP, I just wasn't seeing the connection.

Which group would you recommend for the "creation" of the universe subject that would be relative? Would you recommend moving the two threads that I have started?

Well, technically biological evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, but that's one of the misconceptions that's an important part of the debate. I don't feel inclined to move such threads, but like I said, I'm not quite seeing how this topic relates to the origins of the universe and of life. Maybe that's just my misunderstanding of where you intend to go with this?

 

[metis]

If I can interject.

When someone says star A is x number of light years away, what is that unit based on?

It deals with the speed of light in terms of how long would it take the light to get from star A to the observer.

Is it not based on the rotation of the earth for those that are measuring it?

Very little as the rotation of the Earth would be a drop in the ocean, relatively speaking.