Does Distance exist without time?

[Reiku]

That equation only holds in flat space, and technically it should be expressed in terms of differentials so that it applies to accelerating reference frames as well. These matters aside, the equation only shows how the distance and times between two events are related as seen by various different reference frames. For timelike events, you can always find a reference frame in which both events are separated in time but not in space, and for spacelike events you can always find a frame in which the two events are separated in space but simultaneous in time. The Minkowski metric, which is essentially the formula you have written, gives relationships between space and time for various events as seen by different observers. In no way does it say that one cannot exist without the other.

In general, independent of any physics, there is nothing to say that distance wouldn't exist even if we had no time frame in which to measure it. We just wouldn't be able to perceive it, which is different from saying that the physical thing does not exist in and of itself.

Yes, i know. The equations where shown in this respect, as a simple demonstration that distance and time are invariant. However, what do you mean by ''independant of any physics,'' because, surely its commonsense that we wouldn't have any equations describing distance and time, without a knowledge of physics, and including relativity?

More to my understanding, is that if distance is not real, then myself sitting here, and an australian on the other side of the world, may as well be sitting together, and that doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Reiku]

There has been some speculation before in the past, concerning spooky action at a distance, might require certain information to move at superluminal speeds. It may not have anything to do with the postulation of a non-distance between two objects.

 

[Tnerb]

So the relationship connection has nothing to do with this?

 

[Reiku]

It may not

Hence ''may'' however. If we know distance exists, then subluminal speeds are inadiquate to answer for great distances, like 3 million lightyears...

...so that answer may lye in the fact that not ALL information moves at the same speeds.

 

[CptBork]

Yes, i know. The equations where shown in this respect, as a simple demonstration that distance and time are invariant. However, what do you mean by ''independant of any physics,'' because, surely its commonsense that we wouldn't have any equations describing distance and time, without a knowledge of physics, and including relativity?

Firstly, as I said, the equation you wrote doesn't say that distance can only exist with time. All it tells you is how time and space between fixed sequence of two events will differ for different observers in a flat space. It does not say that time and space are invariant, it says that the spacetime distance is invariant, which is not at all the same thing. Distance varies between observers, as does time, but the Lorentz coordinate transforms still preserve the spacetime distance $$ds$$, calculated from $$ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2$$. I am writing this equation in terms of differentials, so the actual spacetime distance is calculated as an integral, but I don't want to overcomplicated the issue (assume non-accelerating observers, so the equation reduces to your version). When $$ds^2<0$$, the pair of events is spacelike, and you can find an observer who will see the the events occuring simultaneously, but separated by a distance. If $$ds^2>0$$, the pair of events is timelike, and you can find an observer moving such that they see both events occur in the same place but at different times. So in one case you have distance without time, and in the other case you get the reverse. Minkowski's metric does not say in any way whatsoever that space and time cannot exist without each other. I believe your concept of invariance is flawed in this regard, and you misunderstand what is meant by spacetime invariance.

More to my understanding, is that if distance is not real, then myself sitting here, and an australian on the other side of the world, may as well be sitting together, and that doesn't make any sense at all.

Well the question is whether distance could philosophically exist without time. Kind of like asking whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if nothing is around to hear it. In terms of physics, it's a silly question because every observer witnesses the passage of time unless they're travelling at lightspeed. But here's a purely philosophical argument for you. Say you had divine powers and could bring all time in the universe to a complete halt. Let it sit there for a while while you enjoy your lunch. Then after lunch, you go back and turn time back on. Are all the distances between the various objects in the universe suddenly reset to 0? If not, the quantity of distance must have been preserved in some form, perceivable or not, so that it could be restored as soon as time is restored.

Now for a physics argument- consider a beam of light travelling through space, unable to perceive the passage of time. The light beam does not see time pass between events nor does it see any distance separating objects along its direction of motion. However, the beam of light can still be interfered with by external forces, which themselves can depend on distance, affecting what happens to the beam of light, i.e. whether or not it hits a lead plate and gets absorbed. So to argue that distance is meaningless without time doesn't necessarily hold any water.

 

[Reiku]

Ok, first thing, we are going to have to agree to disagree about the equations. The rotations mangle the two together, and ofcourse an observer is needed. This is because special relativity is an observer-dependant theory... but anyway...

...Distance is a quality found in space, that requires an observer to measure the distance between two points, but since it is undeniably a volume of space between two points, without the distance, all else would fail, including the relativistic concept that spacetime and matter and energy are all one thing.

And yeh, i agree with the last part too.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



I am not so sure. Non-locality breaks finite speed either which way. But if we really wanted to think of it in one way, infinite speed is better owing to Occam's Razor, considering we retain dimensionality, while zero-point breaks dimensionality and locality. "The simplest theory is better".



Yes. Nothing would disturb time.



Yes.



Agreed.

ok we seem to be making progess! Ha

I disagree here. Any action, even entangled, would imply a difference between A and B, therefore, a difference between At1, At2, Bt1, and Bt2.

ahh but do we need to take action? [ now we are getting to the key of it ]

Action of course implies time therefore energy....of course as soon as you apply time or energy we are in 4 dimensional space.

The key is of course how to switch points with out using energy to do it.
The answer lies in the old cliche [brute force vs skill]

The problem is that one has not discovered zero distance yet. To move at all to anyplace, even in empty space, from one point to another, even entangled, even at infinite speed, is to change. Therefore, there is time. All change is time-based.

same response as above ...change requires time/energy and yes it is impossoble to do as time and energy use places you in 4 dimensional space.

 

[Quantum Quack]

How about: you can't have distance or time, if you don't have matter?
If you have matter that can clump together (for whatever reason), or condense, then you have space between the clumps.

This basic principle is pretty much scale-invariant, from quarks and leptons, to gas and dust clouds, and galaxies.

Until the "cosmic wavefunction" underwent the phase change that saw the quarks and so on actually appear so they could clump together and make some space, there wasn't any space, or any matter, there was just a wavefunction with no dimensions.

Which is the same cosmos we see now, what we can see of it. It's undergone a phase change, so there's all this matter, and inertia, and planets, stars, and us, the observers.

It appears to be "our job", as observers, to figure out why or how the phase change occured. The inflationary theory, driven by dark energy is one of the ideas, the Wheeler-De Witt is another. Maybe they're the same idea...?

P.S. Are you a Jack Sarfatti fan?
P.P.S. Yes, that's a loaded question.

actually a quick google and a read at wiki tells me tha maybe I should study some of Jacks work and ideas...

And I understand I think why you feel the need to load the question...ha

To be honest Zero Point Theory is derived from personal experience whilst recovering from a stroke some years ago...[am still recovering I might add]

 

[Reiku]

Zero-distance would be contact.

 

[Quantum Quack]

More to my understanding, is that if distance is not real, then myself sitting here, and an australian on the other side of the world, may as well be sitting together, and that doesn't make any sense at all.

Makes perfect sense to me...though. Inertia is not something you can treat in isolation. Why do you experience it do you think?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Zero-distance would be contact.

yes and no as we are talking dimensionals and yes at a very low intensity that is not commonly perceived, we are actually touching as it were.
"Absolutely Everything is in a relationship with absolutely everything else"
In fact if this not the case absolute nothingness would be existant.

Prince James may remember an old discussion along these lines ages ago in the philosophy forum.
Zero point Theory is not about absolute nothingness for even refering to the word zero imparts a relative value.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

ahh but do we need to take action? [ now we are getting to the key of it ]

Action of course implies time therefore energy....of course as soon as you apply time or energy we are in 4 dimensional space.

The key is of course how to switch points with out using energy to do it.
The answer lies in the old cliche [brute force vs skill]

I'm at a loss for any mechanism whereby one could accomplish this. All change, even "non-energy" (which seems odd to even say) implies automatically time. You're bucking against what amounts to an analytic truth. "

 

[Prince_James]

Prince James may remember an old discussion along these lines ages ago in the philosophy forum.
Zero point Theory is not about absolute nothingness for even refering to the word zero imparts a relative value.

I vaguely recall it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



I'm at a loss for any mechanism whereby one could accomplish this. All change, even "non-energy" (which seems odd to even say) implies automatically time. You're bucking against what amounts to an analytic truth. "

well given the general reluctance of science to even accept the SRT position on zero space this is not surprising.

There is a method yet to be tested by us humans and involves "timing" or "synchronisation" and not much else. Ever heard of a tetarac? [ spellings*]
But to get this into the realm of understanding would take another rather long journey.
To do with the nature of mass and what it is and how it functions as a space time distortion thus generating 4 dimensions from zero

 

[Reiku]

yes and no as we are talking dimensionals and yes at a very low intensity that is not commonly perceived, we are actually touching as it were.
"Absolutely Everything is in a relationship with absolutely everything else"
In fact if this not the case absolute nothingness would be existant.

Prince James may remember an old discussion along these lines ages ago in the philosophy forum.
Zero point Theory is not about absolute nothingness for even refering to the word zero imparts a relative value.

For that to even be remotely possible, we would need to be talking about conditions like infinite density, where everything, all of matter, is stacked up.

 

[Quantum Quack]

For example:
with the use of "timing " or "synchronisation" solar cell efficiency would soar to about 180% prior to melt down. [ which is better than the currrent effciency of about 38% [if I recall]
How can it be 180%?
because we are using only half the potential in the first place to measure with.
so the actual or real efficiency we have currently is about 19%

 

[Quantum Quack]

For that to even be remotely possible, we would need to be talking about conditions like infinite density, where everything, all of matter, is stacked up.

which is why we have gravity because the mass is not stacked up. Gravity being a form of inertial drag as the 4 dimensions strive to become zero again.
edit: sorry but that was a hell of a mouthful to post
reference needed to self governing singularities such as that which a galaxy spirals around.

 

[Reiku]

But when the values reach zero, for instance

$$(E=Mc^{2})+(E=-Mc^{2})=0$$
and reducing it, we know c is certainly not zero, so
$$E=Mc^{2}_{+E}$$
$$Mc^{2}=0$$

Are calculations we use in two instances i know of. The first, is when we are mathematically adding all of the energy in the universe, with the negative energy within the vacuum. The second instance is when there is an infinite negative area in spacetime, but since big crunch hasn't happened, or big rip, there must be actual values right now. So for instance, distance needs to mean, a duration between one thing, and another thing. If there is no duration, then there is zero-distance.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But when the values reach zero, for instance

$$(E=Mc^{2})+(E=-Mc^{2})=0$$
and reducing it, we know c is certainly not zero, so
$$E=Mc^{2}_{+E}$$
$$Mc^{2}=0$$

Are calculations we use in two instances i know of. The first, is when we are mathematically adding all of the energy in the universe, with the negative energy within the vacuum. The second instance is when there is an infinite negative area in spacetime, but since big crunch hasn't happened, or big rip, there must be actual values right now. So for instance, distance needs to mean, a duration between one thing, and another thing. If there is no duration, then there is zero-distance.

e=mc^2 is actually not correct as an energy mass equation if interepreted using the photon model. IMO

If zero dimensions exist photons are no longer required to "bridge" our lack of understanding of gravity and inertia and are rendered obsolete.
even at atomic levels we still have zero space between particles that can be accomodated using a form of resonance over zero distance. The separation and not the distance being the governing factor as to the speed an object changes to "reflect" or emmulate the change that the energy imparted requires.
so acceptance of zero dimensional space would require a re-write of current space time understandings... a big ask hey?

The notion of non-simultaneity is no longer valid.
And when you look up at the sky you are seeing what is there to be seen and not an illusion created by our photon light model.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I know this is really hard to comprehend but if you took an zero duration photograph of the universe at any given moment between our future and past light cones you would actually be taking a photograph of nothing.
The universe is effectively temporal only not only to the observer but also to the mass itself.

"temporal mass" is not easy to understand but it is the nature of how time distorts zero space yet maintains a state of zero at the center between past and future.

The human anaolgue is unconsciousness.