If nothing can be created or destroyed, is it impossible for time to exist?

[jjjjj]

Title says everything. Discuss.

[insane_alien]

why would that makit it impossible for time to exist?

[jjjjj]

Because a moment of time would be replaced by another one? Also, would motion/change be impossible?

[michel123456]

It reminds me the Eleatics, some 2500 years ago.

[lemur]

Time is not a substance. It is simultaneity of energy-motion in different clocks (i.e. moving systems) within the same context of spacetime dilation. There is/are no such thing as time except the physical laws that all matter-energy tends to conform to in its behavior. It is these physical regularities that cause clocks of similar construction to run at the same speed in the same gravitation and velocity. Likewise, it is consistency in the effects of energy on matter that cause a minute to be the same length today as it was yesterday. If the behavior of matter-energy changed, time could elapse differently. Maybe it would speed up, slow down, and sometimes stop or go backwards. Maybe events would happen in totally random order. Maybe 1kg would suddenly weigh 1g and fall toward the moon instead of the ground and the sun would orbit around venus while the Earth orbits around the sun. All these things seem implausible and even ridiculous because physics has interpolated regularities of motion and physical behavior. It is these regularities that cause different events to be comparable in terms of standardized motion increments described by the word, "time." The reason multiple clocks can be synchronized is because of physical regularities, not because there is some unifying force called time propelling them.

[michel123456]

Time is not a substance. It is simultaneity of energy-motion in different clocks (i.e. moving systems) within the same context of spacetime dilation. There is/are no such thing as time except the physical laws that all matter-energy tends to conform to in its behavior. It is these physical regularities that cause clocks of similar construction to run at the same speed in the same gravitation and velocity. Likewise, it is consistency in the effects of energy on matter that cause a minute to be the same length today as it was yesterday. If the behavior of matter-energy changed, time could elapse differently. Maybe it would speed up, slow down, and sometimes stop or go backwards. Maybe events would happen in totally random order. Maybe 1kg would suddenly weigh 1g and fall toward the moon instead of the ground and the sun would orbit around venus while the Earth orbits around the sun. All these things seem implausible and even ridiculous because physics has interpolated regularities of motion and physical behavior. It is these regularities that cause different events to be comparable in terms of standardized motion increments described by the word, "time." The reason multiple clocks can be synchronized is because of physical regularities, not because there is some unifying force called time propelling them.

 

This is your point of vue, and I bet you are wrong.

 

that cause a minute to be the same length today as it was yesterday

 

We don't know that.

[lemur]

This is your point of vue, and I bet you are wrong.

 

We don't know that.

 

Any reasoning to go with this?

[michel123456]

Actual definition of time is based on tautology. We don't know a thing about the "rate" of time. We use to assume that the tic tac of the clock is regular, but it is an assumption based on nothing. We are observing that the tic yesterday is the same as the tac today, but we are measuring and comparing time with time. If time changed in the meanwhile, we would still measure the tic & tac are the same.

in this diagram from Ned Wright's tutorial, the rate of Time is transformed, and everything works fine:

[pioneer]

Time naturally moves in only one direction; to the future. We can theorize about going back into time, but such natural data even if it exists, is not there yet. Putting theory aside, for all practical purposes, based on the known data, one could say that time moving forward is about as much a law of physics as energy conservation and entropy of the universe increasing. With energy and entropy, these can increase or decrease on a local scale, but time does not appear to change direction, regardless of local or global scale.

 

If time was a potential, like the other two laws, it is not a potential like other potentials, since it has one direction.

 

What that suggests is that time moving forward does not give off something equivalent to energy. We can lower energy in one place, and use the output to increase energy elsewhere, but with time, time can move forward, but it has no output which can make time move backwards elsewhere.

 

Something we also know about time, through mathematics, is at the speed of light, all finite time expires in an instant. If we go the other way, away from C, the same universal scales of time appear to last longer. This all suggests the forward movement of time occurs because C is the lowest potential state of time, with C being the ground state of the universe. The farther from C we go, the more time potential it appears is within the universe.

 

An analogy is having a huge heat sink of superconductor ( C ) and a tiny bead of warm iron (finite time). The extreme proportions pulls the heat in one direction, with very minimal heating in local media because the conduction is so fast.

 

We don't normally model with C as the ground state, but mono-directional time implies this.

Edited December 7, 2010 by pioneer

[michel123456]

Interesting Pioneer.

Time naturally moves in only one direction; to the future.

 

comment: We are moving through time in only one direction.

 

By the way,Time is not alone. There are other things that have only one direction.

 

(is this philosophy & religion?)

 

The question was :

If nothing can be created or destroyed, is it impossible for time to exist?

 

I don't understand the cause to effect relation. If nothing can be created or destroyed, why should it be impossible for things to change through time?

 

And

We don't know what time is in the first place. We don't know what nothing means, and we don't know anything about creation. Finally, we don't know what "exist" mean. The only thing we know something about is "impossible" and "destruction".

Edited December 7, 2010 by michel123456

[Incendia]

Time is a dimension so doesn't really exist in the first place...so yes...

[rigney]

Time is a dimension so doesn't really exist in the first place...so yes...

 

Someone said earlier that nothing can be created nor destroyed. To me, the statement is absolute. Time is only relevant to us humans. Change is natures way (the universe), of keeping track of how things are getting done. All else is totally irrelevant to these continual happenings.

[michel123456]

Time is a dimension so doesn't really exist in the first place...so yes...

 

Space is made of 3 dimensions. I guess you don't question the existence of space.

And we know from physics that time & space are interlaced. Physicists talk about Spacetime. What is time for me can be space for another.

So, if you believe that space exist, why do you question the existence of time?

[Incendia]

It does exist but doesn't...I wish I could articulate understanding...I know what I mean...

 

This solution may be better than the non-oddly-specific answer:

 

Yes...What has time got to do with nothing? How would the ability to create or destroy nothingness affect time?