Space-time model has no physical existence. Time is not 4th spatial dimension of space. Space is what we measure with roads and time is what we measure with clocks. No signal can move in time. Signal can move in space only and time is duration of its motion. CMBR cannot move from dome remote past which does not exist. Universe is NOW.
Wrinkles in Spacetime
here is the paperAttachment #1: Bijective_Epistemology_and_Space-time.pdf
Dear Ms. Hossentfelder,
You have a complete skin surface. Einstein had a complete skin surface when he was alive. No matter in which direction a normal person looks, the normal person will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed partial solid, liquid and vaporous surfaces. The real Universe consists of an infinite amount of visible surface. The infinite surface is visible because it is lit by an infinite amount of surfaceless light. Please stop writing codswallop about invisible black holes, invisible quantum particles and invisible gravity waves.
Joe Fisher, Realist
"So far she has been working on models involving flat spacetime..."
...and has always blinded herself to the fact that flat spacetime is "an immediate consequence" of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, and that her colleagues reject flat spacetime, thereby implicitly admitting that the postulate is false:
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
Pentcho Valev
Time does not exist as a thing or force.
The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time.
Our rotational surface motion is approximately 1600 kilometers per hour at the equator. We exist on a gigantic merry-go-round. We are immersed in this constant motionary environment, at the same time, as we use this same motion, to measure duration elapsing.
We use the constant period of duration of our planet`s rotational motion, as the baseline measurement for our time keeping systems. Duration elapsing is what our clocks measure. Duration elapsing is what we consciously experience.
We have motion in our timeless Universe.
Infinite surface cannot have a finite flat space/time.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Finite time cannot exist in the infinity of the real unique observable Universe. Neither can finite space. Neither can finite invisible black holes or finite invisible quantum particles.
Joe Fisher, Realist.
The agiotage around the incompatibility of Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics has been a money-spinner for decades so physicists and philosophers do their best to prolong the confusion and not to solve the problem. The following red herring successfully serves this purpose:
"Well clearly special relativity and quantum mechanics are quite compatible, in that QFT represents their unification in some way."
That is, Einsteinians suggest that the absurd relative time established by special relativity is somehow compatible with the absolute (Newtonian) time used in quantum mechanics, and the source of incompatibility is none other than the warping of time by matter as predicted by general relativity. This is silly of course, and although the red herring is omnipresent, it is often contradicted. Scientists obligatorily stress that it is GENERAL relativity that is incompatible with quantum mechanics but then admit, explicitly or implicitly, that "the root of all the evil" is SPECIAL relativity:
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
[link:www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/]"[George] Ellis is up against[/link] one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order - 
A, then B, then C - someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way - C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."
Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
Pentcho Valev
If time does not exist as a thing or force, then finite time, or infinite time, does not exist either.
Wonderful news! Sabine Hossenfelder is very deserving of this grant and will make good use of these resources.
Probing the network of quantum defects in space could prove to be very fruitful because these words simply are another way to rebuild the universe from a quantum aether and not from space at all.
Time is just a property of objects and has both the time dimension of an atomic period as well as the time dimension of the decay of those periods. There are no defects in time since time is just a property of objects. There are plenty of defects in space and space is really just convenient representation for the time delays among objects.
It will be necessary to rebuild our notions of space in order to finally unify all forces...
Steve Agnew,
Hi Steve, I think that you can give no empirical support for this claim:
"Time is just a property of objects and has both the time dimension of an atomic period as well as the time dimension of the decay of those periods. There are no defects in time since time is just a property of objects. There are plenty of defects in space and space is really just convenient representation for the time delays among objects."
James Putnam
Hmmm...this seems so easy that I am not sure why there is a question. An atomic clock measures the frequency of an atomic transition and since every object in the universe (except for space) is made up of atoms and atomic transitions, every object has its own atomic time.
Using two atomic clocks and comparing over time them shows that they drift apart, the so called Allan variance or deviation. The decoherence rate of two initially synchronized clocks represents the second dimension of time for an object.
People measure both of these properties and so they are both empirical, but somehow I do not think this is really the answer to your actual question...
Steve,
"The decoherence rate of two initially synchronized clocks represents the second dimension of time for an object."
"People measure both of these properties and so they are both empirical, but somehow I do not think this is really the answer to your actual question..."
Theoretical constructs "...the second dimension of time..." are support for theoretical constructs "...Time is just a property of objects..."
Evidence of object activity supports claims about object activity. It was the claim about activity of time and space for which I was asking for empirical evidence. What experiments have been performed upon either time or space? Empirical evidence consists of effects. What is the evidence for effects upon either time or space?
James Putnam
CLUES FOR SABINE
Having previously read your article, Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity, and with the intro saying you have the ability to shoot down theories, let me offer a few suggestions/ clues/ pointers, with the best of good wishes on the FQXi grant award...
1. You say, "We know the theories we have right now are inconsistent--when you combine them the answer is nonsense", ...and further, "It is clearly not how nature works, there has to be a better answer".
Quantum Mechanics separates space and time, while Special and General relativity welds them together. There are then two probable options, it is either Space and time are separate or they are one entity, spacetime. This being the case, it is rational to apply the welded entity to Quantum mechanics and see if it also works, and in turn apply space and time as separate entities to Relativity and also see if it works. Where they don't work, why not? Are there alternative explanations that would not require welding of space and time?
2. They said, you have been working on models involving flat spacetime because it is easier to do the math. And you are quoted to have said, "We don't live in flat spacetime -- (...)".
I therefore put this question to you. If we don't live in flat spacetime, where were the experiments conducted on which basis the theory for spacetime rests its validity? If an experiment is conducted underwater, can it be used to substantiate or make theoretically infallible claims of what exists above water? You may have heard of the claim made severally that the domain of applicability of Special relativity is flat spacetime, and you have now said that we do not live in such a spacetime, how then can the NULL experimental findings of Michelson and Morley, 1887 be said to be due to the effect of Special relativity on the behavior of light in the experiment, a theory that applies only in flat spacetime which you have said we are not living in.
If you measure the speed of light in curved spacetime, can it have the same value in flat spacetime? Einstein says No, but some physicists insist Yes. More on this later, if necessary.
3. You say, "People like to talk about 'atoms of spacetime'".
In the intro, it is said that Spacetime is the four dimensional fabric conceived of by Albert Einstein in his theories of relativity. It is therefore clear that talking of atoms of spacetime applies only to the conceptions (or misconceptions) of Special and General relativity and does not apply to Quantum Mechanics, where space and time are separate. When looking therefore through a Quantum Mechanical lens, what people will expect you to look out for are 'atoms of space'. It is noted that in the introduction to the Living Reviews article linked above, you have yourself stated and asked, "For one, this is because Democritus' search for the most fundamental constituents carries over to space and time too. Are space and time fundamental, or are they just good approximations that emerge from a more fundamental concept in the limits that we have tested so far? Is spacetime made of something else? Are there 'atoms' of space?".
The study of space is basically geometry, and the definitions of concepts in geometry recognize the atom of space as the 'point'. The next question then is whether this atom has a minimal length or is of zero dimension? Look at this. I will urge that you shoot down the theory that says the atom of space is of zero dimension. You will thereby be removing infinities that are plaguing our physics.
Finally, the greatest clue of all is to find out whether these 'atoms of space' are eternally existing objects. That is, can they perish and cease to exist, and can they arise out of nothing? If they can, would this not be the most fundamental event underlying all other phenomena in our physics? Would such annihilation and emergence of its atoms create 'wrinkles in space'? Would the disparate lifetimes of the atoms not interfere with the otherwise continuous nature of space, thereby causing discreteness with 'time' being the separator since space cannot do its separation into discreteness? If the universe itself can be conceived in some cosmological theories as arising out of nothing in a Big bang, and annihilating to nothing in a Big crunch, can an atom of space then be eternally existing and be incapable of being extinguished?
All the best as you confront these profound theoretical physics problems.
Akinbo
Correct. Infinity is not durational.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Newton and Einstein failed to notice that all objects have a complete surface and all observable surface travels at the same constant speed. Light does not have a surface, therefore, light is the only stationary spirit in the real Universe.
Joe Fisher, Realist
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."
The two concepts of time are not both true and cannot be reconciled, so either quantum mechanics or special relativity will have to be discarded. In my view, both special and general relativity will be abandoned soon:
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
Pentcho Valev
The socond POSTULATE of thermo and heat tells us that the time is irreversible on the entropical Arrow of time.It is a postulate.The special relativity also,it is a postulate.It is proved you know.It is not because we have these postulates that we cannot analyse the gravitation differently.Special and general relativity are two Tools very important for the classment of our evolution.The mass curves our space time and c is correct.
I have my book near me ."Heat and themodynamics" by Mark W. Zemanski,PhD.
All the équations and works in this book are deterministic and rational.And the second law of thermo is well utilised.If the second law was not a reality, how could you analyses the engineerings correlated with heat, themro, work.....Ask to Stirling about the machine or to an engineer in refrigerators in a thermonuclear industry ???? Mr Valev, you must really rething your foundmentals but it is just a suggestion of course.
Time is not an object. Time is a property of an object. Just like mass, time is just another property. However, time is axiomatic, just like matter. That is, we simply must believe in time and matter and there is no way to prove a belief. However, time and matter make up a very nice axioms for understanding action in the universe.
Perhaps you are asking me to prove that time is an axiom. All I can do is derive a universe from the axioms of matter and time and predict the futures of objects. Thus time and matter make very convenient axioms in which one simply must believe.