Does Distance exist without time?

[Vkothii]

In my opinion, it's actually impossible for there to be a distance between two objects, unless there's a "time" between them, type of thing. The cosmos does not expand (objects in it don't separate from each other) in "no time", because that would imply "no distance".

The nonlocality of quantum objects appears to violate the principle of the (general) relativity of time and distance.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The important understanding I think if we can agree is that if we accept that energy moves at an invariant of 'c' then the whole universe is moving at the same rate. Whether within itself [ mass = energy] or by way of the photon model.
So therefore light speed is time or energy in motion.
The universal change rate for the entire universe accroding to SRT is 'c'

Which is why we have time dilation and length contraction....to maintain this invariance.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The "nonlocality" of quantum objects appears to violate the principle of the (general) relativity of time and distance.

If you are referring to quantum entanglements tunneling etc then you are touching upon the purpose of this thread.
PJ please note....
Take an entangled half particle to the other side of the galaxy and wonder how it is connected to it's brother in a simultaneous relationship given the vast distances that appear to be present.

This of course can only be achieved with zero distance [ dimensionality ] being valid.
Now inertia is able to be seriously explored and why it is invariant and constant.

 

[Tnerb]

It would appear to me that relationships exist over long distances.


And yet that, despite the obviousness of this fact, were some disturbance to occur, would the same relationship exist?

Does this "exist without time" or to use a big word "is this "invarient"?
haha

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

The important understanding I think if we can agree is that if we accept that energy moves at an invariant of 'c' then the whole universe is moving at the same rate. Whether within itself [ mass = energy] or by way of the photon model.
So therefore light speed is time or energy in motion.
The universal change rate for the entire universe accroding to SRT is 'c'

Energy is never not in motion, as it were. That is notable.

Also, there are obvious things that function at far below C. We do not see chemical reactions taking place at the speed of light.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

Take an entangled half particle to the other side of the galaxy and wonder how it is connected to it's brother in a simultaneous relationship given the vast distances that appear to be present.

This of course can only be achieved with zero distance [ dimensionality ] being valid.
Now inertia is able to be seriously explored and why it is invariant and constant.

I disagree. Genuine non-locality does not imply zero-distance between them, only infinite speed. Infinite speed can be attained by something which I have always thought was very analogous to logical necessity.

Indeed, it is even more telling that quantum entanglement observations occur in such a way that they always are of properties which are "if A than B". e.g. "If Entangled1 is up, Entangled B is down | Entangled 1 is up | Thereore, Entangled B is down".

I'm also a Bohmian, QM wise, so it is notable that I am a non-local determinist. I don't know where that precisely fits with the above, but it is something that is worthy to mention to put my cards face up so you know where I am coming from.

 

[Vkothii]

How about the universe before it expanded and cooled sufficiently for the "symmetry-breaking" to manifest itself as 4 distinct forces.
The Wheeler-De Witt equation (cosmic wavefunction) describes the quantum universe, where locality (a time derivative), or energy (momentum) has no meaning at all.

Everything in the universe, before the symmetry-breaking (or when matter condensed and gravity and mass appeared), was entangled, or was the same thing.

 

[Chatha]

you can't have one without the other, even if we are referring only to a single moment

 

[CptBork]

s^2 = (∆x)^2 + (∆y)^2

In a rotated system, we twist coordinates around in space, and we find them as a geometry of distance. The new coordinates are given as:

s^2 = (∆x′)^2 + (∆y′)^2

Being almost identical math, they are easy to remember. In this case, we say that distance is an invariant of these equations. More interesting is that we learn that time is also an invariant of space.

Because of this, we can therefore find the following equation describing a spacetime interval:

s^2 = −(c∆t)^2 + (∆x)^2 + (∆y)^2 + (∆z)^2

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.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Maybe I should have started with this question:
"How big is the universe if all the matter, mass and substance is removed?"
"In other words how much space is left if there is nothing in it?"

and if you have nothing to measure it with or even if you did what would you measure?

There is no separation, there is no reference point to start with etc etc..
Now how does adding back all the substance change what vacant space was?

 

[Quantum Quack]

How about the universe before it expanded and cooled sufficiently for the "symmetry-breaking" to manifest itself as 4 distinct forces.
The Wheeler-De Witt equation (cosmic wavefunction) describes the quantum universe, where locality (a time derivative), or energy (momentum) has no meaning at all.

Everything in the universe, before the symmetry-breaking (or when matter condensed and gravity and mass appeared), was entangled, or was the same thing.

I like this as it is very suggestive of why we have a constant called inertia.

 

[Quantum Quack]

the issue with zero dimensionalism is probably best dealt with by saying that no values can be applied. It can be as huge or as small as needed by the mas that fills it.

As to the distinction between infinite and instantaneousness I do not consider it really worth drawing as apart from language the results are the same thing.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

Maybe I should have started with this question:
"How big is the universe if all the matter, mass and substance is removed?"
"In other words how much space is left if there is nothing in it?"

Well as noted, I am of the view that existence/space is infinite, with or without mass. That is to say, it is not empty, but we would have what amounts to "the quintessence of space in and of itself" left alone.

There is no separation, there is no reference point to start with etc etc..
Now how does adding back all the substance change what vacant space was?

We certainly get nice relative distance scales that make reasonable sense to discuss.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

As to the distinction between infinite and instantaneousness I do not consider it really worth drawing as apart from language the results are the same thing.

They are. But it is worth noting that the two ways to look at it have a dramatic difference.

To say "it travels at infinite speed" is to imply that distance is retained.

"That it doesn't travel at at all" implies that distance is not.

In essence: I am not on board with there being zero dimensionality as the background.

 

[Enmos]

The question is really about exploring the proofs needed to prove that Distance is a reality in that it has existance, only if time is available to travel it.

To prove that distance exist without time ["static" distance is the phrase I use] is what this thread is about.
The following diagram clarifies the notion I hope will entertain you for a few minutes.

Now one can see that 10 LYs is the normal d/t for an object of mass to move to it's destination but this must normally necesitate the use of time to do so.
Thus we can say that we have proved that distance exists as real when time is available.
However if we do not travel does distance exist across a vacuum of vacant space if time is not considered available or even wanted to be used?
For example:
If I am standing on Planet A and I look towards planet B can I prove that the distance is real at any given moment?

If so how can I prove distance as real with out the necessity of time?

[I am sure someone will say that light travels etc so therefore light proves that "static" distance exists. However I would consider this as not being sufficient proof as you still require time for light to travel]

Assume that light is not present nor is EM for the sake of the discussion.
Contention:
Distance across a vacuum is an illusion demonstrated by the presence of mass thus time.
The real distance across a void of vacuum is actually zero if one looks at distance at any given zero duration moment

I want to know what your reason is for bringing this up. Does it have to do with any questions regarding the origin/existence of the universe ?

I can prove it for you, but I don't think you like the way I'll do it

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack:



They are. But it is worth noting that the two ways to look at it have a dramatic difference.

To say "it travels at infinite speed" is to imply that distance is retained.

"That it doesn't travel at at all" implies that distance is not.

In essence: I am not on board with there being zero dimensionality as the background.

to me it is of no importance if you wish to consider vacant space as having infiinite speed distances.
I can understand that because there appears to be dimensionality that infinite speed would be easier to comprehend.
However I think in Physics the notion of infinite speed is something they would rather not deal with and instantaneousness across distance is more palatable.

However can we agree that regardless of which or what, time can be deemed as absolute across vacant space?
In other words one pixel of vacuum shares the same world line as another. Or alternatively if you like as time is meaningless then all vacant space must be the same.
The reason why zero dimensionality is important in concept is that in a zero point time is absolute or infinitely small in duration uniformally regardless of where that zero point(s) may appear in a 4 dimensional universe.
Therefore if vacant space is all made up of an infinite number zero points then vacant space must share the same zero time line.
This is very hard to put forth in a rational way due to the preconceptions I am trying to accomodate. [probably making a real mess of it as I go]

But in essense what this means is that to "transit" or "switch" from one zero point to another can be done instantaneously or infinitely fast, as long as one does not apply energy thus time to do so.

The thread is about proving whether distance exists with out time and as energy determines time ['c'] one can logically conclude that to discover zero distance one does not do so using energy [ time ].
It also allows for constants to exist such as gravity,inertia and unifrom laws of physics throughout the universe and also the removal of the need for photon theory almost completely. [ eventually ]
It also allows for the explanation of other phenonema that currently cannot be explained [ re: other threads in pseudo science]
SRT actually shows this to be the case which is a rather interesting developement from my perspective...

 

[Quantum Quack]

I want to know what your reason is for bringing this up. Does it have to do with any questions regarding the origin/existence of the universe ?

I can prove it for you, but I don't think you like the way I'll do it

Actually no it is not directly relevant [ also I am attempting to keep this thread here in physics and not pseudo science - ] but if you want you can pm me...

 

[Quantum Quack]

There are many reasons for bring this up but mostly it is to help support the release of a theory I call Zero Point Theory.

 

[Vkothii]

"How big is the universe if all the matter, mass and substance is removed?"
"In other words how much space is left if there is nothing in it?"

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.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

However I think in Physics the notion of infinite speed is something they would rather not deal with and instantaneousness across distance is more palatable.

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".

However can we agree that regardless of which or what, time can be deemed as absolute across vacant space?

Yes. Nothing would disturb time.

In other words one pixel of vacuum shares the same world line as another. Or alternatively if you like as time is meaningless then all vacant space must be the same.

Yes.

The reason why zero dimensionality is important in concept is that in a zero point time is absolute or infinitely small in duration uniformally regardless of where that zero point(s) may appear in a 4 dimensional universe.
Therefore if vacant space is all made up of an infinite number zero points then vacant space must share the same zero time line.

Agreed.

But in essense what this means is that to "transit" or "switch" from one zero point to another can be done instantaneously or infinitely fast, as long as one does not apply energy thus time to do so.

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

The thread is about proving whether distance exists with out time and as energy determines time ['c'] one can logically conclude that to discover zero distance one does not do so using energy [ time ].

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.