Does Time exist? How \'Time travel Paradoxes\' can\'t happen without \"the past\". by Matthew Welcome Marsden

Hi Teresa,

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, essentially I'm trying to point out that (according to my analysis), despite very widespread opinion, in "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies", it in no way, whatsoever seems to prove the existence of a past, a future, or thing called "time" at all !

Instead, the paper seems only to "assume" a thing called time exists, and is involved in the motion of matter. But, critically, and IMO, misleadingly, the findings of the paper are expressed "as if" the existence, and function, of a thing called "time" is proven elsewhere.

(Though no external citation proving "time", to any extent at all, is given).

Very critically however, because "electrodynamics", does elegantly, and logically deduce the very unintuitive, and unexpected result that moving "oscillators" run slow, many, many experts seem (IMO) to just assume, that the dilation of an oscillator (eg an atom, or "3d" mechanism etc) moving in a simple physical direction, "confirms" in some way that there "is" a hidden fourth dimension of "time" to the universe, an invisible and intangible "future", and an invisible, intangible record of all events, created and stored in a "temporal past" (in some undefined and unproven way) that may be theoretically accessible.

To me this seems to be an extraordinarily massive over extrapolation of the observed facts, and possibly the greatest example of confirmation bias in science.

Thus, I'm suggesting, that to be taken seriously, any expert, stating that "Relativity proves time exists", (as a basis for supporting the theory of time), should be able to show precisely, how and where, (I.e. in which actual piece of text or mathematics), they think Relativity actually proves the existence of a past, and/or future.... And thus 'time'./b]

(If any reader can cut/past such a section, or link, please do).

( ps The other FQXI contest entries,

"Time Travel,Timeless Answers to Prof Brian Cox's Science of Dr WHO." , and,

"Time travel, Worm hole, billiard ball' paradox, Timelessly. (re Paul Davies- New scientist article)"

Are 'shorter' :)

Thanks again,

Matt Marsden

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2243

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2244

Dear Teresa,

Thank you for that, I looked at your "Physics Needs A Paradigm Shift" video, but didn't understand enough of the qm terms to really understand it.

Were you saying that because we perceive real solid objects on the classical scale we should consider matter is like this all the way down? (or did I completely misunderstand ?). I must admit I know only the broadest concepts of qm.

But I still think what I have to say, on the possibility that the theory of time may be completely unfounded, and unnecessary, should be very relevant to all areas of physics. Partially because the few layman's books I have read on qm seem to have references to Relativity as their basis for taking "time" to be a real phenomena at some scale. And it is the details, or foundations, behind some of the reasoning in Relativity that I am questioning. Specifically where Relativity is assumed to prove and address a thing called "time" wherein fact it only explores motion in 3 dimensions,

I liked your quote "... questioning the foundations again and again" and I hope that's what I'm doing here re asking questions like - " where precisely does Relativity prove the existence of a past / future, or flow, or existence of a thing called 'time' ?".

Re your questions, - how to you see the relativistic space-time?-

RE Relativity, I am agreeing with basically all of the mechanics of relativity, but contesting that the 'time' aspect of its interpretation (as opposed to just motion in 3 dimensions) is not proven at all in SR, and the theory of time is unfounded, provides no solutions, and is not necessary to explain what we observe.

Thus, what I am suggesting, very seriously, is that we should take a step back and recheck our foundational assumptions behind the 'time' aspect of relativity. Specifically, anyone can check the opening sections of "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" and see that Einstein in no way at all proves the existence of, or need for, a thing called 'time' for things (machines, photons, etc) to be able to exist and move.

Specifically, "electrodynamics" says (paraphrased)...

If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time.

[we must be...] quite clear as to what we understand by "[u]time[/u]."

If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."3

If you read this carefully, you can see there is only the "assumption" that there is a thing called time, and that a motorised hand on a numbered dial (a "watch") is some way shows this. But all that is shown is that a large object (a train) and a small object (a "watch" hand) can be moving or stationary, and their velocities compared.

Imo, In no way at all does this prove (to any extent) there is a past, or future, or thing called time. This is far more important than it may seem, because many, many experts seem to assume relativity proves "time" in some way, and thus assume Relativity in some way proves the existence of an entire, unobservable "fourth dimension" to the universe... this is a truly massive claim, based at it's heart on no more than an over-extrapolation of (other, genuine) conclusions drawn from the fact the speed of light is constant.

Without a proof of the existence of "time", Einstein's light "clocks", are more accurately called light boxes, or light oscillators, and are seen to prove only what they prove. Which is that "moving oscillators, oscillate more slowly than expected".

This tiny detail wipes out all interpretations of relativity being about a "fourth dimension" that actually exists, and is merged with space. Instead, all that is seen is a 3 dimensional world in which matter exists and interacts, not heading into a "future", or leaving a "past" behind it.

Specifically, where the paper suggests we

"describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time",

It clearly does not do this. Instead Electrodynamics just describes the motion of a material point, to the motion of another material point (the tip of a rotating hand). Thus any "dimension" (measurable quantity) *actually* being referred to is nothing more than the speed or location of another simple object. And not, unless proven, also a mysterious "measurable quantity" of a thing called "time" that also "passes" as things exist and move.

The concept space-time comes from Minkowski's interpretation of SR, in which it seems he too assumes that SR's dilating light boxes prove the existence of a thing called time.

It is agreed that as any such light box, or oscillators ( e.g. any object, machine, being etc)are moved through "space" , the rate of oscillation is dilated. Thus (movement through) space and "change" are related, in a simple 3d way. But imo, Minkowski seems to see the oscillator as definitely, also, being to do with the "passing" of a thing called "time", and thus concludes space, and a thing called "time" are related... and thus seems to jump to the conclusion this time thing must be as real as this space thing.... etc.

And GR is thus interpreted "as if" Time is proven by SR, and shown to be merged with space... and thus the further findings of GR are (imo) wrongly taken as being even more "proof" that an extra dimension of time exists, and thus the initial misunderstanding (that an oscillator proves there is time and a temporal past), becomes even more buried.

In short, I think Relativity is correct in showing length contraction, mass increase, constant speed of light, laws of physics appearing the same in all frames, and dilated rates of change for objects in motion. But unless proven otherwise this is all just happening "now" , and imo, Relativity does not in any way prove or confirm "time".

(I hope that addresses your first question, ill mention string theory separately)

mm

Hi Joe,

Thank you for your comment, I`ll catch your video (I haven't grasped your point either way yet to have any thoughts on it), and I hope it does well in the competition. Re my video being "Long-winded",or "abstraction filled" I have to politely disagree. The talk I give here covers a very large number of (imo) critical misunderstandings about what seems to be a very messed up theory about a completely abstract, invisible intangible "thing", on which no one can even agree a working definition.

If I am correct in what I am suggesting, then I may be genuinely showing people why me may be completely wrong to assume "time" or any aspect of it exists, and how instead, matter just existing and interacting may be enough to completely mislead us into thinking a past, and thus thing called "time" exists.

I would challenge anyone to address, and offer possible solutions to, so much of such a large and unscientifically opinion based subject in a shorter or more concise speech.

Without specific references, readers will be unable to tell whether I have been inconcise, or whether you might have not understood the content.

If you point to the 2 specific example parts of the video you think are the most long-winded, and the most abstraction filled, I`ll be happy to acknowledge that, or show where you may have perhaps misunderstood me. The content of the video is a very refined version of the "brief history of timelessness" book, the whole point of which is to bring the totally abstract concept of time in line with concrete reality.

mm

Hi Teresa,

Just a quick note of 11 dimensional string theory, I know virtually nothing about string theory - only what I have read in the odd article etc - however I understand that the concept of extra spatial dimensions is such that the inverse square law of interactions tailing off with distance is modified so as to fit with certina observations.

e.g. if I am correct - in 3 dimensions forces (like radiation, gravity etc) tail off at a rate of 1/r^2

in 4 spatial dimensions this would be 1/r^3, and so on ( e.g. n dimensions leads to 1/r^n-1 ).

ALL, that I am suggesting, is that every thing seems to just exist, and be moving, and interacting "now" (to use a leading term).

Many may assume that Relativity 'proves' time ( through time dilation), and thus my statement above must be wrong. But as I suggest a thorough look at 'on the electrodynamics of moving bodies' seems to show Einstein only assumes time exists - and thus relativity may only show 'rate dialtion' "now".

Thus re string theory - if the 11 dimensions suggested are 3 spatial, time, and 7 others, I am just suggesting the time dimension may be completely bogus, and whatever the other 7 dimensions may be , the time dimension should be replaced with the concept of things just existing and moving, (at dilated rates, in warped space, etc depending on local circumstances), "now".

Thus I would suggest timelessness should greatly simplify any thinking around theories like string theory - whether it is on the right track or not.

All the best, (hope you caught the other videos)

Matt

Hi Teresa,

nice to hear from you again, i tried to vote on your video, but FQXI kept asking me to login in, even though i was...and asked me for a code that i couldn't find any reference to :(

(i get tired of so many computer systems expecting me to solve little puzzles every time i wan to do something :)

any clues?

matt