If there is no energy, does Time exist?

#11
(Jul 11, 2019 04:20 AM)Leigha Wrote:
(Jul 10, 2019 04:47 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jul 6, 2019 07:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: If time is basically the measure of change, and if there is no energy then there is no change, would it be safe to assume that within a system absent of energy, Time wouldn't exist? (In this hypothetical scenario, there are no quantum fluctuations) 

What are your thoughts?


Stored energy or the potential for work resting in the relational structure and properties of components could arguably be static (in an idealized scenario). But it couldn't be permanently unchanging, since there would be no justification for ascribing concepts like "work" or energy and its units of measurement to such arrangements to begin with. Or the reverse of abstracting those ideas from a changing version of the latter, as their origin.

Energy as active work (kinetic) would entail change (as movement) and accordingly the interpretation of a so-called passage of time objectively occurring.
In the stored energy scenario, would time come into play? Would stored energy provide ''change?'' It doesn't seem like it would.

How would you have stored energy without any change. The only way (that I can envision) not having change is to have matter so spread out and temperatures so cold (absolute zero) that there is no movement. I don't think quantum physics would even allow this scenario would it?
Reply
#12
(Jul 19, 2019 04:38 AM)Seattle Wrote:
(Jul 11, 2019 04:20 AM)Leigha Wrote:
(Jul 10, 2019 04:47 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jul 6, 2019 07:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: If time is basically the measure of change, and if there is no energy then there is no change, would it be safe to assume that within a system absent of energy, Time wouldn't exist? (In this hypothetical scenario, there are no quantum fluctuations) 

What are your thoughts?


Stored energy or the potential for work resting in the relational structure and properties of components could arguably be static (in an idealized scenario). But it couldn't be permanently unchanging, since there would be no justification for ascribing concepts like "work" or energy and its units of measurement to such arrangements to begin with. Or the reverse of abstracting those ideas from a changing version of the latter, as their origin.

Energy as active work (kinetic) would entail change (as movement) and accordingly the interpretation of a so-called passage of time objectively occurring.
In the stored energy scenario, would time come into play? Would stored energy provide ''change?'' It doesn't seem like it would.

How would you have stored energy without any change. The only way (that I can envision) not having change is to have matter so spread out and temperatures so cold (absolute zero) that there is no movement. I don't think quantum physics would even allow this scenario would it?

I guess when I consider ''stored energy,'' it's not be used yet, so there would be no change occurring until it is utilized at a later time. I'm not sure if I'm thinking of it quite right, but that's how I process stored energy in terms of change/time.
Reply
#13
(Jul 19, 2019 04:50 AM)Leigha Wrote:
(Jul 19, 2019 04:38 AM)Seattle Wrote:
(Jul 11, 2019 04:20 AM)Leigha Wrote:
(Jul 10, 2019 04:47 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jul 6, 2019 07:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: If time is basically the measure of change, and if there is no energy then there is no change, would it be safe to assume that within a system absent of energy, Time wouldn't exist? (In this hypothetical scenario, there are no quantum fluctuations) 

What are your thoughts?


Stored energy or the potential for work resting in the relational structure and properties of components could arguably be static (in an idealized scenario). But it couldn't be permanently unchanging, since there would be no justification for ascribing concepts like "work" or energy and its units of measurement to such arrangements to begin with. Or the reverse of abstracting those ideas from a changing version of the latter, as their origin.

Energy as active work (kinetic) would entail change (as movement) and accordingly the interpretation of a so-called passage of time objectively occurring.
In the stored energy scenario, would time come into play? Would stored energy provide ''change?'' It doesn't seem like it would.

How would you have stored energy without any change. The only way (that I can envision) not having change is to have matter so spread out and temperatures so cold (absolute zero) that there is no movement. I don't think quantum physics would even allow this scenario would it?

I guess when I consider ''stored energy,'' it's not be used yet, so there would be no change occurring until it is utilized at a later time. I'm not sure if I'm thinking of it quite right, but that's how I process stored energy in terms of change/time.

Just to reiterate: It takes an imaginary scenario to disassociate energy from change (at face value). Away from that idealization, a stored potential for work is always leaking via activity at the micro-level. There are also fluctuations or fleeting virtual particles in the vacuum yielding modified states; and absolute zero (killing motion that way) is an asymptotic quest -- approached but never achieved. There's always activity at the micro-level (temporal change).

Our sensations, inner experiences, and language mediated thoughts entail change -- and verified detections or measurements entail conscious experience. So it would be or at least seems impossible for us to have immediate relationships to co-existing, different states of spacetime without such being contaminated with our perception of those being temporal changes or a passage of time. Kind of like suggesting that dead bodies could corroborate the existence of the world. They can't, bodies have to be of functional status -- tainted with life and awareness. Existential "evidence" comes inherently infected with biological byproducts: The neural epiphenomena of experiences and the conception of their content as something "moving". Or deeming that content to be constantly annihilated/replaced and such an ephemeral existence being projected onto our everyday, objective model of be-ing in general.
Reply
#14
(Jul 11, 2019 05:15 AM)C C Wrote: In the "real world" (not thought experiments) there's never a completely stationary system of perfect storage since even at absolute zero there is still motion at the micro level, as well as uncertainty. 

The important question is - is there _observable_ change?
Reply
#15
(Jul 19, 2019 04:50 PM)billvon Wrote:
(Jul 11, 2019 05:15 AM)C C Wrote: In the "real world" (not thought experiments) there's never a completely stationary system of perfect storage since even at absolute zero there is still motion at the micro level, as well as uncertainty. 

The important question is - is there _observable_ change?

In a world with no motion, who would be observing it?
Reply
#16
That's my question...or brings up another question. If no one is around to observe it, does time still exist?
Reply
#17
(Jul 19, 2019 09:14 PM)Leigha Wrote: That's my question...or brings up another question. If no one is around to observe it, does time still exist?

I don't think my question was your question :Smile What I mean was that if humans are around to obverse, there can't be a no motion Universe. We are alive and full of motion.
Reply
#18
(Jul 19, 2019 09:14 PM)Leigha Wrote: That's my question...or brings up another question. If no one is around to observe it, does time still exist?


In physics, "observer" can be short for an observational frame of reference(generic): A particular mathematical context from which affairs are evaluated from (like in SR). So if a construct or system should require taking such a reference frame into account for conducting measurements of time, then obviously it's necessary. IOW, "observer" may not denote a conscious witness, but be a potential feature of whichever invented coordinate complex.

Switching to more of an everyday meaning: A clock apparatus replacing a literal biological type of "observer" can measure time (indeed the latter itself needs the device for accuracy). But the apparatus alone lacks understanding and internal representation of itself performing that function. It is minus manifested evidence and intellectual conceptions that it or anything else even exists, much less changes. So beyond that one would be entering metaphysical territory, or scientific realism exploits at best, where people are just projecting their personal doctrinal preferences about time upon a non-psychologically mediated brand of existence.
Reply
#19
(Jul 19, 2019 10:19 PM)Seattle Wrote:
(Jul 19, 2019 09:14 PM)Leigha Wrote: That's my question...or brings up another question. If no one is around to observe it, does time still exist?

I don't think my question was your question :Smile What I mean was that if humans are around to obverse, there can't be a no motion Universe. We are alive and full of motion.
I did also add ''or''...and ''another''  Dodgy
(Jul 19, 2019 11:30 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jul 19, 2019 09:14 PM)Leigha Wrote: That's my question...or brings up another question. If no one is around to observe it, does time still exist?


In physics, "observer" can be short for an observational frame of reference(generic):  A particular mathematical context from which affairs are evaluated from (like in SR). So if a construct or system should require taking such a reference frame into account for conducting measurements of time, then obviously it's necessary. IOW, "observer" may not denote a conscious witness, but be a potential feature of whichever invented coordinate complex.  

Switching to more of an everyday meaning: A clock apparatus replacing a literal biological type of "observer" can measure time (indeed the latter itself needs the device for accuracy). But the apparatus alone lacks understanding and internal representation of itself performing that function. It is minus manifested evidence and intellectual conceptions that it or anything else even exists, much less changes. So beyond that one would be entering metaphysical territory, or scientific realism exploits at best, where people are just projecting their personal doctrinal preferences about time upon a non-psychologically mediated brand of existence.

This really helps, thanks CC. The topic of time sometimes confuses me because how we view time in terms of past, present, future has nothing to do with my original topic question. It's easy to get a little tripped up.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)