Can reality exist without time ?

Reality—as we know it—would not exist without time or space. Space and time are both part of the same continuum: "space-time"; they are inextricably bound.

Imagine a world without time. This timeless world would be at a standstill. But if some kind of change took place, that timeless world would be different "now" than it was "before." That period—no matter how brief—between "before" and "now" indicates that time must have passed. Thus, time and change are related—because the passing of time depends on changes taking place. In the real world, changes never stop happening.

What is time? Even the most advanced theoretical physicist is hard put for a fully satisfactory definition. He/she cannot say for certain when time started, when it will end, or even if it really exists in the philosophical sense. Yet measurement of time is the basis of all science, for the scientist can study only what changes with time. Astronomers chart the history of the universe in “big time:” the passage of billions of years. Physicists and engineers subdivide “little time” into billionths of a second. Biologists have discovered that animals and plants measure time too—even the smallest single-celled organisms depend on biological clocks to keep themselves synchronized internally and externally.

No one can say exactly what time is. Yet, the ability to measure time is what makes our way of life possible. Most human activities involve groups of people acting together in the same place, at same time. People could not do this if they did not all measure time in the same way.

Time is what allows us not only to measure the duration of events, but also to determine when events in space occurred in relation to other events in space. This requires the establishment of a universal time-scale that can be used to compare the events—the determination of which depends on precise mathematical calculations derived from astronomical observations.

Just as events can occur at different points in space—at the same point in time, they can also occur at different points in time—at the same point in space. This brings us to realize that they must in some way be related.

We live in a four-dimensional universe, the "fabric" of which is given the term "space-time." We are familiar with the three dimensions of space (length, breadth and height), and with that of time. But we rarely think of time as just being another dimension to our universe—basically because it is difficult. It is just about impossible to imagine a four-dimensional universe. We often give points in space a discernible position by assigning them three coordinates to establish their distance in all three dimensions, relative to other points in space. However, in order to establish the exact position of events in "space-time," the only difference is that we must specify four coordinates for the event (three for space and one for time).

To answer the question Yes. Inorder for time to stop you must reach the speed of light and you would need something that would allow this such as a car spaceship ect. Which in theroy would stop time around you, for everyone else that was not incased in this vehicle, so they would be frozen in this state until you decrese speed. As you are traveling at light speed you would still be able to function as normal and move around or do whatever you need to do. So for you reality would not stop, it would stop for everyone else, because they ar not moving as fast. A clock is really not an acurate way to measure time anyway. Twenty-four hours is how we measure a day on earth, because thats how long it takes the planet to rotate around once. Actually it takes a little less than 24 hours, which is why the "time" of the sunset and sunrise is different each day. Other planets rotate at differnt speeds so their days are different. The 24 hour clock system was created so you could meet someone at a certain time or know when to go to work ect. It is simply a mesurement of the day and night to make things run smoothly for us. You could change the 24 hour system to whatever you want and time would still continue at the same rate it would just be measured differently. At one time there was no space and then we had the big bang. That created space, so if there was no space it would be as it was in the begining, and everything that is in the universe would be all clumped together still.

Read Julian Barbour's "The End of Time", in which he explains how one could reformulate Einstein's general theory of relativity without using time as a parameter.

It's a paradox, but sometimes we can have physical systems in which it's not possible to assign a meaningful time parameter, even though "it seems that things are certainly happening". Solutions to certain differential equations allow generating functions in which we could designate the parameter as the time variable, but frequently there is no such possible generating function, so that we're precluded from using any such parameter. The analogy in geometry is Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries, where with Euclidian geometry, there is only one line through a point that's parallel to another, while the other two state that 1) there is none, and 2) there is many. When there are "too many intertwining spacetimes", we can't assign a meaningful time axis, except only locally. But when you examine the very tiny, or local, you then could run into the problem of distinguishing between time and causality. How do we define time if we can't tell direction or even identity?

Take a cue from the study of Topology, where the topic of "metric spaces" (which the concept of time depends on) doesn't come until well after a long definition and analysis of simpler topological spaces. Metric spaces do not simply "pop into place" out of nothing at all, there has to be precursors to metric spaces.

Such a condition existed at the introduction of the big bang, the singularity that appeared was not a particle, it was a pin point of pure energy. No time existed at that point because there was no moving matter until the heat of the point began to expand and condense into the first subatomic particles, that was the beginning of time and space. Time is taken away from matter when it goes beyond the event horizon of a black hole where time cannot exist, nor does space exist there. If your single particle has nothing to interact with there is no time because there is no event.

Interesting question.

If you take the theory that time is the fourth dimension, and that though moving forwards and backwards in the 3 other dimensions is possible, it is possible to only move in one direction in the fourth dimenson. Either forwards or backwards. Therefore, without time, there is no motion, because motion requires a rate, and a rate of motion requires time.

But if you took away space, then technically you'd be taking away the first three dimensions, and therefore the perticle would have no volume, and would only exist in the fourth dimension.

I may be wrong with my thoughts, but I'll probably think on this question for a while.

Ha, ha . . . it somewhat is Schrödinger's Cat. in case you place a cat in a field with a sealed vial of deadly gas, are you able to understand for specific in spite of if the cat is alive or lifeless. apparently the test would stay away from using sound as a determining element so, the respond is we don't understand. In a feeling the cat exists in a state of flux till ultimately that's condition is declared. This has been further out in test wherein the two the placement or the fee of a particle could be measured yet, the two can't be primary concurrently. a lot of this phenomenon is by using the way physicists degree the debris. An electron microscope working example, degree debris with the help of bouncing electrons off of them. the disadvantage to this technique is you may not degree something smaller than an electron and the bouncing action oftentimes sends the challenge tumbling in a marble like effect. this is why as quickly as you recognize the placement the very test has brought about a transformation in speed. This has further a pair of lot of innovations storming and an excellent variety of have posited we are an necessary area of certainty as observers. whilst this would or won't be authentic, one element's for specific; if we weren't right here to computer screen and degree it is not suitable in spite of if certainty existed. on the different hand, most of the Universe is in keeping with electric powered fluctuation and because our bodies use electrical energy to interpret what suggestion is carried with the help of the photons we % with our eyes, there is not any reason to discard the belief of the observers as energetic contributors. We do emanate electric powered fields and who's attentive to how they have interplay on the ecosystem. in line with danger those fields are altered each and every time emotion transformations or each and every time we call a clean field wherein to greater healthy the Universe.

My take on it is that if there is no time then there is no "medium" (for want of a better word) in which change can occur.

If no change can occur then to say that something exists is meaningless because change, I think, defines what we mean when we say that something exists.

It's kinda like saying "Imagine an infinitely large car. Now, what can you see through the window?". If you can see through the window, it's not infinitely large, and therefore there is a contradiction in the question.

It's the same with space.

Yes. Existing is not determined on how much time passes. Sure, every living organism functions on the passage of time, but that is because we live in a reality where time passes, and we think 'time' is needed to function. I'm not sure anything living could ever understand a reality without time, but assuming all realities can't exist without time is presumptuous. We can't understand it, but nobody can say there isn't a reality that can't exist without time.

Hmm-m...cute Pic by the way...nice to meet you.

This is really some high powered conjecture you pose for us...

If you take away "time"...as in stop time for a moment...not sure how to do that.

If you take away "space"...as in remove the entire place where a particle was found to exist? Not sure how to do that...

Have you visited hubblesite.org? Go there and look at their gallery of photos. If you do that I think you will begin to see why I am having a problem thinking of situations like you propose...

Cheers,

Zah

I don not believe we can ever achieve light speed . Which would be the only way time grinds to a halt . Theoretically I'm sure it's possible . but reality and time are still there . we just stepped out side of it by going faster . Reality and time go hand in hand .