"Spacetime has No Time Dimension" -- Radical Theory Claims that Time is Not the 4th Dimension (Today's Most Popular)
Scientists at the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, have theorized that the
Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change.
In two recent papers in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar, begins by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency and speed. But, by itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.
This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the Universe is “timeless.”
“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”
“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck's work. It seems that the Universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”
The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.
Without using time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly well-defined without the concept of absolute time.
Other scientists have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless “state space” provides a more accurate framework. The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time.
The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space -- as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs -- can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists.
An example of an experiment in which time is not present as a fundamental entity is the Coulomb experiment; mathematically, this experiment takes place only in space. On the other hand, in the concept of time as a numerical order of change taking place in space, space is the fundamental physical entity in which a given experiment occurs. Although this concept could be falsified by an experiment in which time (measured by clocks) is not the numerical order of material change, such an experiment is not yet known.
“Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable; you cannot prove it or disprove it -- you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.”
In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed.
The paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time.
Some recent studies have challenged the theory that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model) and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.
The Daily Galaxy via physorg.com and physicsessays.org
This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the Universe is “timeless.”
“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”
“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck's work. It seems that the Universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”
The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.
Without using time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly well-defined without the concept of absolute time.
Other scientists have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless “state space” provides a more accurate framework. The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time.
The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space -- as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs -- can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists.
An example of an experiment in which time is not present as a fundamental entity is the Coulomb experiment; mathematically, this experiment takes place only in space. On the other hand, in the concept of time as a numerical order of change taking place in space, space is the fundamental physical entity in which a given experiment occurs. Although this concept could be falsified by an experiment in which time (measured by clocks) is not the numerical order of material change, such an experiment is not yet known.
“Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable; you cannot prove it or disprove it -- you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.”
In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed.
The paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time.
Some recent studies have challenged the theory that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model) and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.
The Daily Galaxy via physorg.com and physicsessays.org
Comments
« "When Everything Travels at the Speed of Light" --Roger Penrose's Weird Universe | Main | Dark Energy --Did Its Onset Trigger Life in the Universe? »
Be it known that this type of advanced thinking will get men nowhere though it will pave the way for clearer realities in physics.
Posted by: por-stair | October 03, 2011 at 05:38 AM
Past, present and future all depends on you point of view. Alpha Proxima is four years in our past but we are four years in their past, so who is right?
Plus, there is no mental speed or time limit, so if the Universe if indeed a hologram, time is not only subjective, but illusionary!
Posted by: Allan W Janssen | October 03, 2011 at 06:17 AM
You mean Proxima Centauri. And it is not four years in our past, we just see it how it was four years ago.
Posted by: Tito | October 03, 2011 at 07:33 AM
Just recently we had neutrinos messured at faster then the speed of light, yet, they did not arrive before they left. Therefore, time does not exist.
Posted by: Bob | October 03, 2011 at 08:14 AM
Bob I think you severely misunderstand the neutrino incident...
Posted by: Thomas anderson | October 03, 2011 at 09:51 AM
all of which I said in my 1987 work The Fundamental Quanta:
space and time do not exist - they are merely temporal systems of measurement (time measures distance between events, space the distance between objects - both require and observer)
there is no time-dilation - my model called The Image-Speed Problem resolved this
gravity is two forces (falling in and spatial distention) and all objects in motion are gravitationally-charged (equivalent to their momentum)
gravitation and magentism are manifestations of the same underlying force, and all forces are manifestations of the single fundamental quanta: motion (motion is not an attendant property of forces or matter but the stuff from which they are made)
it is all so simple it is astounding
Posted by: radii | October 03, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Tito, YES, of course it is Proxima Centauri, and not Alpha Centauri!
And NO,it is not just that we see it from four years ago, it is for all intents and purposes four years in our past since we can never see it as it is today!
Posted by: Allan W Janssen | October 03, 2011 at 02:07 PM
Surely all that exists is in a state of change - and as such, requires time - qualifying, in the process, to be a part of the universe.
The words 'change' and 'time' both describe the same thing, to my mind...
To conceive of something in 3d is an illusion unless its process of change is included in the concept, which makes it a 4d 'event' as another perspective has been included - unless, as the authors argue, this perspective is assumed as such a uni-directional and fundamental aspect of existence that it doesnt qualify as a dimension.
Posted by: jerry | October 03, 2011 at 03:42 PM
I wish I could go 2000 years into the future and see how our understanding of physics and the universe has changed since today. I hope we would all have our hoverboards by then.
Posted by: bill nye "the science guy" | October 03, 2011 at 04:25 PM
My head hurts.
Posted by: tiny tim | October 03, 2011 at 04:35 PM
Time is an observable event; hence, an observer is required.
Time ceases to exist, when 'now time' is not observed.
Humans are on 'fast time' in their 'now time' universe.
But, in the depths of space, time doesn't exist. When
you go outside your 'now time', it becomes meaningless.
Only in 'now time', can the beauty of a God be appreciated.
Posted by: dr burke | October 03, 2011 at 05:08 PM
Not new, Julien Barbour wrote a well reasoned and mathematically supported book called
'The End of Time' over 10 years ago. http://www.platonia.com/index.html
Posted by: sensate | October 03, 2011 at 05:17 PM
The was a young man from Kent
Whose time was favorably spent
Proving constants from Hubble
By checking neutrinos with bubbles
He found they were speedily sent
Posted by: Ken | October 03, 2011 at 07:01 PM
I'd love an explanation in layman's terms, if that's at all possible.
Posted by: Michelle | October 03, 2011 at 10:00 PM
@por-stair:
Paving the way for clearer realities in physics will get us everywhere.
Posted by: aboynamedsu | October 04, 2011 at 03:42 AM
"Time is a number of change" - Aristotle
This is no revolutionary "new" theory.
Posted by: trin | October 04, 2011 at 09:26 AM
If time passes in a forest, can anyone sense it?
Posted by: SB | October 04, 2011 at 09:42 AM
This is a question that I have had since high school. If time is the 4th dimension and time is movement then how could an object move from one end to the other of a 1 dimensional universe? If there is no time then there is no movement. Therefore a 1, 2 or 3 dimensional universe/object would never change. Even if your universe was a line you can still move from one end to the other. This show’s that time is an all together different element and not directly related to the 1st, 2nd or 3rd dimension of space. I still love the concept of space time but I view them as 2 separate layers. They coexist but are independent of each other. Think of counting apples and oranges but stating that the number of apples has a direct correlation to the number of oranges.
Just something to think about… What about a 3 dimensional space with a 2 dimensional time (you could see all your choices as they happen) or even a 1 dimensional space with a 3 dimensional time (every point in the line would coexist at ever other point in the line and eat very point in time)?
Posted by: Blue Seraph | October 04, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Mr. >Gödel< said "all is existing in the same one moment of time". That means every possibility IS to build the ,ONE CIRCLE´. No beginning, no ending in a multiverse...
The nucleus and sourch of creation (only a metapher) is LOVE. From it´s - the nameless numens - perception´ there is no shadow, cause only perfection! Life is a mystery!
Posted by: starsailor | October 04, 2011 at 01:44 PM
This is great stuff - "state space" is the same as "no time" or just - NOW. I used to be into time travel; it made for some great movies and reading. About 8 years ago I started thinking it out and realized that time is a pure human illusion. I've said this here before: Time flow is an illusion constantly reinforced by human schedules, clocks, circadian rhythms, on and on. The past is in our memories and the future our imaginations, an illusion so powerful that we bend the laws of nature to make it real. As the article states, time is simply a tool to measure change and events that happen in our NOW. Point B does not exist until the photon gets there, and only then it can be stated as reaching point B. You can predict it will be there but that's a form of measurement, right? This also rids us of the infinite parallel universes being spun off if I decide to finish typing this... or not.
Posted by: Raygunner | October 04, 2011 at 02:40 PM
I've been saying what this article says for years. The whole unified space-time thing is clearly nonsense. It just proves that fads in science are a real thing and need to be challenged.
There are more big nonsense theories in theoretical physics that need dismantling. A wide application of Occam's Razor through the whole field of theoretical physics is desperately required to stop these guys simply making up stuff to explain stuff they don't understand. They can't see the forest for the maths.
Posted by: Steve | October 04, 2011 at 03:12 PM
Time in absolute sense is non-existent. It is just an experiential reality that is assumed by an experiencer. If there is no experiencer, there is nothing like time. The brain tends to link up two points of actions (motions or processes) with its memory function. This associative memory experience is called time. The universe is perpetuity of motions or processes, chemical or otherwise.
Or else: imagine the beginning or end of so-called time billions and trillions of years before or after, but still the question remains: what was before or will be after that? Saying that time started with big bang and ends with the end of the universe, is partial explanation. Big bang was rather a beginning of a series of processes/motions that would stop one day.
Time is an illusion, but a persistent one for any life form as such having conscious memory.
http://rewiringthebrain.net/
Posted by: Raj | October 05, 2011 at 12:17 AM
Time in absolute sense is non-existent. It is just an experiential reality that is assumed by an experiencer. If there is no experiencer, there is nothing like time. The brain tends to link up two points of actions (motions or processes) with its memory function. This associative memory experience is called time. The universe is perpetuity of motions or processes, chemical or otherwise.
Or else: imagine the beginning or end of so-called time billions and trillions of years before or after, but still the question remains: what was before or will be after that? Saying that time started with big bang and ends with the end of the universe, is partial explanation. Big bang was rather a beginning of a series of processes/motions that would stop one day.
Time is an illusion, but a persistent one for any life form as such having conscious memory.
http://rewiringthebrain.net/
Posted by: Raj | October 05, 2011 at 12:17 AM
Time in absolute sense is non-existent. It is just an experiential reality that is assumed by an experiencer. If there is no experiencer, there is nothing like time. The brain tends to link up two points of actions (motions or processes) with its memory function. This associative memory experience is called time. The universe is perpetuity of motions or processes, chemical or otherwise.
Or else: imagine the beginning or end of so-called time billions and trillions of years before or after, but still the question remains: what was before or will be after that? Saying that time started with big bang and ends with the end of the universe, is partial explanation. Big bang was rather a beginning of a series of processes/motions that would stop one day.
Time is an illusion, but a persistent one for any life form as such having conscious memory.
http://rewiringthebrain.net/
Posted by: Raj | October 05, 2011 at 12:17 AM
In the universe time exists. Time is numerical order of change we measure with clocks. Time in the universe and sure in physics too exists exclusively as a mathematical quantity. Time is not dimension of space. This is biggest misunderstanding of the science of 20th century. Universe does not run in time, time runs in the universe as its numerical order. Universe is timeless as already predicted by Gödel and Einstein.
Posted by: amrit | October 05, 2011 at 12:38 AM