Does A Place Where Time Does Not Exist, Exist?

Could there actually be a place of no time? Curious, what kind of space would it take up? Would it even occupy space? Hmmm.. Thoughts?

reply to post by seeknoevil


I don't see why it shouldn't take up space. It just wont DO anything. Take a look at the Planck-time (10^-43s) - what happens between these intervalls? ARE there intervalls?

reply to post by seeknoevil


Dead center of a black hole...if light can't escape then time has to stop somewhere in the equation....I suggest.

Otherwise being dead is still up in the air for an explanation.

Originally posted by seeknoevil
Could there actually be a place of no time? Curious, what kind of space would it take up? Would it even occupy space? Hmmm.. Thoughts?

I think such a "place" did exist, prior to the spreading of the four linear dimensions of space-time and before the big bang.

I see time as one of these four linear dimensions and so I would assume that whatever "pushed-out" the time dimension, also "pushed-out" the spatial dimensions too. So in this scenario, no time would also mean no space.

Perhaps the force that spread the linear dimensions was the substrate of the Higgs field and perhaps this was spread with the big bang or perhaps it preceded it (my pet theory)?

Good to think about though, thanks.

Originally posted by seeknoevil
Could there actually be a place of no time? Curious, what kind of space would it take up? Would it even occupy space? Hmmm.. Thoughts?

Everything and anything you could ever imagine or conceive exists within IMAGINATION.

Einstein said it too: Imagination is more important than Knowledge.

It's a nice quote, and it has its applications, though it can also be argued that Knowledge is just as important as Imagination, because if you don't have the knowledge to tell the difference between imagination and reality, jumping off of buildings with a cape can get you killed.




If you want to be technical though, as far as a 'real' space goes, then I'd have to say that such a space would be outside this universe, in between other other universes in the multiverse, if that is, a multiverse exists.

My belief is that time doesn't exist as we understand it. It's not linear or constant. The perception of time is merely a condition of sentience and therefore an internal device, rather than an external reality. What is really there is simply entropy. Time is our interpretation of entropy.

Having said that... There, then, is no time where there is no sentience. It's really just the proverbial tree in the woods, but on a larger scale.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? No, because sound is merely a waveform until it vibrates an object capable of translating the wave into something else.

My .02 cents.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


true!

but id say different things exist,, and those different things are effected by entropy differently,,, and those differences and rates are measured and graphed,,,, and a constant graph of these differences through time creates a rhythm,,, and all those different consistent rhythms are what we use as measurements of time,, just as we use consistent mathematical balanced markers to measure distance...

Originally posted by SarnholeOntarable
reply to post by seeknoevil

 

Dead center of a black hole...if light can't escape then time has to stop somewhere in the equation....I suggest.

Otherwise being dead is still up in the air for an explanation.

Of course we don't know since we have no way to observe the inside of a black hole.

But if we are going to guess, I'd say that's the best guess in the entire thread so far. We know time appears to nearly stop to an outside observer near the event horizon of a black hole...so it's not that much of a stretch to wonder if time could stop completely inside, at least to an outside observer. My prediction is we'll never know, but that is a good guess.

Honestly the only thing I can think of is the tv remotes pause button.

You hit pause and time for whats playing just freezes

reply to post by seeknoevil


Well , time is just another man made restriction .... so time doesn`t actually exist.
There isnt a clock on the moon old chap.

to answer the original OP question ,

No their is not such a place... Their WAS such a place before the beginning of the universe as Space AND Time where created together before that their was no time.....

The center of a black hole is still bound by time, it just slows down exponentially however this effect is relative to you either falling into the black hole or observing the effect from the outside.

I suggest you take a look at the following video "does time really exist ?"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by SarnholeOntarable
reply to post by seeknoevil

 

Dead center of a black hole...if light can't escape then time has to stop somewhere in the equation....I suggest.

Otherwise being dead is still up in the air for an explanation.

Of course we don't know since we have no way to observe the inside of a black hole.

But if we are going to guess, I'd say that's the best guess in the entire thread so far. We know time appears to nearly stop to an outside observer near the event horizon of a black hole...so it's not that much of a stretch to wonder if time could stop completely inside, at least to an outside observer. My prediction is we'll never know, but that is a good guess.

edit on 23-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Time at the event horizon might seem stop, to an outside observer, but it would speed up to someone traversing the event horizon. In fact, they'd probably be able to watch the whole history of the universe until it ended, before they hit the singularity (maybe only 20 km away) at faster than the speed of light!

Originally posted by chr0naut
Time at the event horizon might seem stop, to an outside observer, but it would speed up to someone traversing the event horizon. In fact, they'd probably be able to watch the whole history of the universe until it ended, before they hit the singularity (maybe only 20 km away) at faster than the speed of light!

You've got it half right. They might be able to watch the history of the universe, but that would be the result of their clock running slower relative to everyone else's, not faster. They would see everyone else's clocks run faster, but not their own. I'd say the effect of watching the history of the universe is still a result of their clock slowing down, not speeding up.

Originally posted by Hefficide

My belief is that time doesn't exist as we understand it. It's not linear or constant. The perception of time is merely a condition of sentience and therefore an internal device, rather than an external reality. What is really there is simply entropy. Time is our interpretation of entropy.

Having said that... There, then, is no time where there is no sentience. It's really just the proverbial tree in the woods, but on a larger scale.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? No, because sound is merely a waveform until it vibrates an object capable of translating the wave into something else.

My .02 cents.

~Heff

Could not have said it better myself, you are right. Time only exists in the human mind. Therefore it also does not exist in the same place of conception. The human mind is your answer OP, a place where time both exists and doesn't exist. Quite the paradox

Whoa...theres a real mind bender.

"time isn't a straight progresson from A to B, Actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, its more like a Big Ball of Wibbly Wobbly, Timey Wimey...stuff." And that is the best I can explain what time is haha.

For real, I've always wondered if time only exists because we say it does. What if 'time' is a human invention? Interesting to think about.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by chr0naut
Time at the event horizon might seem stop, to an outside observer, but it would speed up to someone traversing the event horizon. In fact, they'd probably be able to watch the whole history of the universe until it ended, before they hit the singularity (maybe only 20 km away) at faster than the speed of light!

You've got it half right. They might be able to watch the history of the universe, but that would be the result of their clock running slower relative to everyone else's, not faster. They would see everyone else's clocks run faster, but not their own. I'd say the effect of watching the history of the universe is still a result of their clock slowing down, not speeding up.

edit on 23-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

No, I think I have got it fully right.

In no case does time stop. It just progresses at different rates due to relativistic time dilation effects.

Although time may seem to be tending towards zero flow from our perspective external to the event horizon, it does not ever actually reach zero. From our viewpoint, the evidence of a traverser of the event horizon stops with the last bit of light that escapes just before the event horizon, and to us, never reaches the singularity.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by chr0naut
Time at the event horizon might seem stop, to an outside observer, but it would speed up to someone traversing the event horizon. In fact, they'd probably be able to watch the whole history of the universe until it ended, before they hit the singularity (maybe only 20 km away) at faster than the speed of light!

You've got it half right. They might be able to watch the history of the universe, but that would be the result of their clock running slower relative to everyone else's, not faster. They would see everyone else's clocks run faster, but not their own. I'd say the effect of watching the history of the universe is still a result of their clock slowing down, not speeding up.

edit on 23-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

No, I think I have got it fully right.

In no case does time stop. It just progresses at different rates due to relativistic time dilation effects.

Although time may seem to be tending towards zero flow from our perspective external to the event horizon, it does not ever actually reach zero. From our viewpoint, the evidence of a traverser of the event horizon stops with the last bit of light that escapes just before the event horizon, and to us, never reaches the singularity.

cool,,, and time being defined as the transformations of energy/matter since the big bang?

because as long as the universe began,, that was the beginning of time ( for this universe),, and there for any event that happens in the universe takes place at a certain point after the beginning,,,

black holes began at a certain point after the beginning of time and will most likely end at some point after they began,.,., this is a measurement of time of a black hole?

I think if anything the concept for black holes stopping time,, is really that they destroy matter,,, and with no matter/energy. information... no measurement or amount of time or rate or orbit of energetic reaction can be calculated...

Originally posted by Hefficide

My belief is that time doesn't exist as we understand it. It's not linear or constant. The perception of time is merely a condition of sentience and therefore an internal device, rather than an external reality. What is really there is simply entropy. Time is our interpretation of entropy.

Having said that... There, then, is no time where there is no sentience. It's really just the proverbial tree in the woods, but on a larger scale.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? No, because sound is merely a waveform until it vibrates an object capable of translating the wave into something else.

My .02 cents.

~Heff

From a metaphysical or philosophical standpoint it may be arguable that time is a fiction but physics views it otherwise.

It is fundamental, discrete and essentially linear. The rules that cover its variability are relativistic and apply equally to the other three spatial dimensions.

Just as it is a nonsense to say that the direction 'up' is a fiction and only the other directions are real, it is a nonsense to say that the direction 'time' is not real.

Since the upper limit for physical motion is the speed of light, we can measure time in meters with every second being equivalent to 299,792,458 meters. You may then substitute this knowledge into ANY physics formula with a time value and can apply standard methods and receive answers that accord with observed physical parameters. Time follows all the same rules as any other spatial dimension.

Time is not philosophical, it is fundamental to our knowledge of physics. You cannot remove the value 't' from the equations and expect them to give you relevant answers.

The real problem that I believe most people have is that there is an "arrow of time" that prevents us from viewing in one direction (the future). I suspect that when we understand why, that we will also understand why we can't see the higher dimensions as well. Unfortunately, the theories why we have an arrow of time are complex and unproven at this moment. Usually, when we find a new theoretical construct that accords a true understanding of nature, it is relatively simple and mathematically beautiful, so I don't think we really have the true reason for the arrow of time just yet.

reply to post by chr0naut


There are some theorists who contend that time, in fast, is illusory. In fact there are people who find it easier to reconcile general and special relativity if time is removed from the equation.

So my thoughts are based in science and published papers that I've come across over the years.

Math is a wonderful tool. My issue with math is that it tends to break down when we begin to apply it to the micro and the macro. Physics falls short in these areas. To me this supports the idea of a fractal universe.. Anyone who has played with fractals knows that they have transitioning phases. You begin with one view, it alters for a period, and then, eventually, it returns to its original shape. Over and over again. Recently a graphic interpretation of dark matter was released and it looked amazingly like tissue. This adds to the puzzle. I think that traditional mathematics currently lacks the language to explain this transitory phases in the fractal process. Oh and this tangent is on topic because if the universe is fractal - then it is also, in some ways, static and a static universe is directly in line with non-linear time theories. We all know that math often ends up hitting walls - and failing. This is exactly what gives rise to reinterpretation and theory.

Of course these are just the thoughts that make sense to my mind. I cannot prove them and offer them only as food for thought for others. The caveat here is that you cannot prove otherwise. So we stalemate.

Oh, and one more note. A fractal universe also tends to explain the mystery of quantum entanglement. If there are superstructures, beyond our ability to see, due to perspective, then they can readily explain things.

My .02 cents.

~Heff