The Nature of Time by Julian Barbour

Dear friends,

we live all in the same world and all in his/her individual mind.

The spirit of science is to build up a model of the SAME world that we all agree on it.

Regarding time I do not agree with the Julian that motion and time are ilusions...According to my research time is a coordinate f motion...

yours amritAttachment #1: 2_In_The_Theory_of_Relativity_Time_is_a_Coordinate_of_Motion__Sorli_2009.pdf

Eleven steps to right understanding of time

1. Motion of objects and particles do not happen in time, it happens in space only.

2. Time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure duration and numerical order of massive objects and elementary particles motion into space.

3. As a "fourth" coordinate of space-time time is a "coordinate of motion", it describes motion of massive bodies and particles into space.

4. Space-time is a math model only; space-time does not exist as a physical reality.

5. In a model of space-time we describe motion of objects and particles into space.

6. Space itself is atemporal.

7. Humans experience atemporal space as a present moment.

8. Past and future exists only in the mind; physical past and future do not exist.

9. Time as a coordinate of motion in atemporal space exists only when we measure it.

10. Time as a "coordinate of motion" is not elementary physical quantity as energy matter, space and motion are.

11. Universe is an atemporal phenomenon.

Both space and time are concepts formulated to relate the physical phenomena, all of these show some kind of motion.

Motions may be conceptualized otherwise. A new set of concepts may then emerge. Such concepts are checked by the correctness of theories based on them. Let us have alternate concepts to space and time that cover the entire range of physical phenomena. Merely if quantum gravity needs to be invoked to understand the behavior of black holes, does not mean that gravity has to be quantum in nature or even the quantum mechanics provides the only way to understand the phenomena at micro-level. Alternate explanations may emerge in the future, as Einstein himself indicated that he was not particularly happy with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Carrying one's own bandwagon all the time can be quite distressing for any individual! Openness and unbiased approach appears to be best to follow in the growth of any science worth the name.

Apologies for not responding to the postings until now. I would like to assure Dimi Chakalov that I do live in the same world and do care. However, personal circumstances make it difficult for me to keep up with things in the way I would like. Let me now answer some of the postings.

1. Peter Lynds, Dec. 2nd. In my view, instants have no magnitude. I liken them to snapshots. The basis of all my work about motion and time is that it is the difference between such snapshots that counts. The difference is found by a process called best matching, as I explained in my book The End of Time and in the papers cited on my website platonia.com. The best-matched difference between two nearly indentical 'snapshots' then measures the duration between them. The magnitude is 'between' the snapshots, not in them.

2. Ken Sasaki on Dec. 3rd. Your comments about Occam's razor are certainly correct as far as classical physics is concerned. However, quantum theories of the universe with and without time are likely to be very different and have correspondingly different observable predictions. Unfortunately, we have no such theory as yet with or without time. If my work does have value, I believe it will be for the hints that it may give about how to create a quantum theory of the universe.

3. Mark Stuckey, Dec. 4. Your comment is very well made and was the main reason why Bertotti and I introduced the idea of best matching in order to develop a theory of fields in which permanent identity cannot be postulated. This leads to comparison of complete field configurations. There is a PDF file of my 1982 paper with Bertotti on my website platonia.com if you or anyone else are interested. In my essay I thought it was reasonable to take the short cut; I am confident that the whole theory can go through without "bringing time in the back door".

4. Chris Kennedy, Dec. 4. I described how duration arises only for a Newtonian-type situation. Something similar but much more sophisticated happens in general relativity. It may be that in the scenarios that you describe my way of accounting for the appearance of time fails, as I acknowledged briefly at the end of my essay.

5. anon, Dec. 9. I agree that we only learn about duration through our observations, but I am a realist and make the working assumption that there is a real universe 'out there'. I am not sure whether you are advocating solipsism.

Julian, "solipsistic" only as to "duration" which seems to have no meaning apart from the psychological

Dear Julian,

Thanks for your reply. Can you see though that by asserting/assuming the existence of zero duration instants (the regular definition of an instant), snap-shots (another name for an instant), and nows (the present tense version of an instant), you are also asserting/assuming the existence of time? The same applies to assuming the existence of instantaneous magnitudes, such as velocity, momentum etc. Given that instants would constitute the building blocks of time, it is analogous to saying that water doesn't exist, but that water molecules (or ice-cubes) do (and in relation to instantaneous magnitudes, that things can also be frozen in such ice-cubes). The only difference is that instants have zero size, but this not effect the validity of the analogy.

If one accepts the existence of instants and instantaneous magnitudes, as well as this assuming the existence of time, one must also deny motion and change, which is violently at odds with observation, and I think, reason too. I realise that you do not believe in change and motion, and indeed, neither does one who accepts the standard interpretation of the block universe, so this need not signal a problem, but this leaves one unable to imply any continuity, including even the "sense" of it for an observer. In your work, you argue that there are countless zero duration instants/snap-shots underlying the universe. You argue that such instants are unrelated to each other and they do not progress from one to the next. The problem with this is that it renders it impossible for even a "sense" of succession or continuity to arise. In order for an observer to think that he observes things moving, there must be a succession of these instants for him. Because your model says that such a succession is not possible, even his perception of motion and change is impossible. Indeed, he is unable to even think. Again, this is violently at odds with observation.

If one denies the existence the instants, instantaneous magnitudes, space-time points etc, however, motion and change suddenly become possible, the problems and paradoxes disappear, and this is still completely compatible with relativity and the lack of absolute simultaneity. That is, one gets an evolving block universe (with all times shown by a clock sharing equal footing) that is completely timeless.

Best wishes

Peter

In response to the last two posts, I am afraid the one from anon is too enigmatic for me to understand. With regard to your comments Peter, I agree that they seem reasonable on the basis of our conscious experiences, but direct experience has often proved a hindrance to advance in science. Galileo made this point with tremendous skill. As a theoretical physicist, I come to a position that does seem almost impossible to believe on the basis of direct experience, but I recognize that my theoretical model must contain structure correlated with experience. I believe that my idea of 'snapshot-within-snapshot' time capsules as presented in my The End of Time meets this minimum requirement and puts me very close to Boltzmann's position. I freely admit that at the end I must rely on the unknown way in which structure in the brain can lead to conscious experience.

Dear Julian,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'm somewhat hesitant to say this, as I appreciate the manner of your replies, and I don't at all want to be confrontative (hopefully you won't take the following as such), but you seem reluctant to acknowledge my point that to assert/assume the existence of instants and instantaneous magnitudes, one also asserts/assumes the existence of time. In relation to instants (and instantaneous magnitudes), and although from reading your book, I already know at least part of the answer to this question, can I ask what the basis of your belief in them is?

I agree that direct experience has often proved a hindrance to advance in science. I think Galileo and Copernican vs. Ptolemaic theory, Mach's criticism of Boltzmann, the speed of light being frame independent, or our perception of time flowing, are all really good examples of this. I feel the issue of change/motion being illusionary is somewhat different, however, because, with the exception of what I see as being incorrect assumptions, I think pretty much everything, not only experience, but reason, physical intuition, the need to avoid paradox, etc, points against it too. Indeed, as I think motion and change are the actual basis of physics, without them, I don't see how one can even talk of physics. Of course, physicists who deny motion/change because of their interpretation of gr or qm and the related formalism, still write papers and do physics, but they also still assume change whenever they talk of evolution or accept and work with variable magnitudes or values (i.e. constantly). I find this situation - seeming apathetic acceptance of an overtly contradictory position - somewhat bizarre. Your proposal is obviously immune from this criticism, as there is no assumption of continuity there at all. I'm unable to see though how a changeless physical universe can give rise to the perception of change for physically based observers.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

It poses some interesting conceptual analysis of the thought processes involved that the search for the immutable and unchanging laws of the universe have resulted in the conclusion that the universe is immutable and unchanging. That the dynamic which so overwhelms the physical reality in which we find ourselves is supposedly just an illusion. Is physics static, or is it just the institution of physics which is static?

I agree that time is linearity of motion, not the basis for motion. I also think it is quantized by intervals of non-linear motion, be it quantum fluctuations or geologic earthquakes. Complexity Theory offers some logical support.

Hello All,

I am rather amazed and perplexed to read statements such as, "I agree that direct experience has often proved a hindrance to advance in science."

This is like George Bush's recent statement that to save the free market, he had to abandon free market principles.

Physics, and the quest for *physical* reality rooted in the senses and *physical* models has ever advanced physics.

Do not take my word for it, but listen to those greats far greater than I.

"Gradually the conviction gained recognition that all knowledge about things is exclusively a working-over of the raw material furnished by the senses. ... Galileo and Hume first upheld this principle with full clarity and decisiveness." --(Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions)

"But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts form experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics -- indeed, of modern science altogether." --Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions

"I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning."--Plato

The above quote is hanging in the Boston Museum of Science, and it seems to agree with Albert Einstein, Galileo, and Max Born:

http://www.ilfilosofo.com/blog/2008/04/12/plato-mathematician-quote/

"I personally like to regard a probability wave as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. ... how could we rely on probability predictions if we do not refer to something real and objective? (Max Born on Quantum Theory)"

Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which for them were not products of the imagination but representations of real things."

To reject *physical* intuition and replace it with the nonsensical block universe MDT does away with seems to go exactly against the spirit by which physics has ever advanced, according to Galileo, Einstein, and other noble physicists.

It seems a preposterous conclusion that quantum mechanics, which works so very well, must be thrown out and reformulated for something which MDT shows there is no need for--the block universe.

"In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea ... gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage - if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some experience of this myself. ... No good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous."--(Galileo Galilei)

"my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope." --Galileo Galilei

We must forver keep physical reality in the front and center, along with logic and reason and *physical* intuition--otherwise progress in physics will grind to a halt, as it has for the past thirty years.

Math can be very pretty, but Einstein reminds us that physicists ought pursue *physics,* founded in a physical reality--"Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.""

"It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does not manifest itself." -Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest. Just think what Einstein would have said about entire parallel universes we cannot see!

With an heroic spirit, MDT takes us back to origin of modern physics--to the original papers on relativity and QM, and it humbles itself upon that mountaintop. And when it comes on down, off the shoulders of relativity and QM's giants, MDT presents us with a fundamental view of reality that conforms to all experimental evidence, while not only resolving the paradoxes of the non-locality of the EPR effect and seemingly frozen time in Godel's block universe, but also unifying the resolution of both physical curiosities within a simple physical postulate--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic. In a sense, this is the first theory to predict QM's nonlocality and entanglement, by postulating that the fourth dimension is inherently nonlocal via its expansion--an empirical fact that the timeless, ageless, nonlocal photon agrees with, as the photon surfs the fourth expanding dimension. And not only does MDT predict this, but it also provides a *physical* model for entropy and time and all its arrows and assymetries throughout all realms. And finally, all of relativity may be derived from MDT's simple postulate, as it is in my paper--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions--dx4/dt = ic. A postulate and an equation representing a novel *physical* feature of our universe--a fourth expanding dimension--and the natural, subsequent prediction of all of relativity, qm's nonlocality, entropy, time's arrows and assymetries in all realms, and quantum entanglement.

"I don't believe in mathematics."-- Quoted in Carl Seelig. Albert Einstein.

Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater. --Einstein

Geometry is not true, it is advantageous. --Jules H. Poincare

In Disturbing the Universe, Freeman Dyson writes, "Dick [Richard Feynman] fought back against my skepticism, arguing that Einstein had failed because he stopped thinking in concrete physical images and became a manipulator of equations. I had to admit that was true. The great discoveries of Einstein's earlier years were all based on direct physical intuition. Einstein's later unified theories failed because they were only sets of equations without physical meaning. Dick's sum-over-histories theory was in the spirit of the young Einstein, not of the old Einsetin. It was solidly rooted in physical reality." --Freeman Dyson

Smolin writes in TTWP that Bohr was not a Feynman "shut up and calculate" physicist, and from the above Dyson quote, it appears that Feynam wasn't either:

"Mara Beller, a historian who has studied his [Bohr's] work in detail, points out tha there was not a single calculation in his research notebooks, which were all verbal argumen and pictures." --Smolin's The Trouble With Physics

In Dark Matters, Dr. Percy Seymour writes, "Albert Einstein was a great admirer of Newton, Farady, and Maxwell. In his office he had framed copies of portrtais of these scientists. He had this to say about Farady and Maxwell, in "Maxwell's Influence on the Development of the Concept of Physical Reality": "The greatest change in the axiamatic basis of physics--in other words, of our conception of the structure--since Newton laid the foundation of theoretical physics was brought about by Faraday's and Maxwell's work on electromagenetic phenomena" --p. 33-34, DARK MATTERS

In his book Einstein, Banesh Hoffman tells us: "Meanwhile, however, the English experimenter Michael Farady was making outstanding experimental discoveries in electricity and magnetism. Being largely self-taught and lacking mathemtical facility, he could not interpret his results in the manner of Ampere. And this was fortunate, since it led to a revolution in science. . . Ampere and others had conentrated their attention on the visible hardware--magnets, current-carrying wires, and the like--and on the numbers of centimeters separating the pieces of hardware. In so doing they were following the action-at-a-distance tradition that had devloped from teh enormous success of the Newtonian system of mechanics and law of gravitation. . .But Faraday regarded the hardware as secondary. For him the important physical events took place in the surrounding space--the filed. This, in his mind, he filled with tentacles that by their pulls and thrusts and motions gave rise to the electromagnetic effects observed. Although he could thus interpret his electromagnetic experiments with excellent precision and surprising simplicity, most physicists adept at methematics thought his concepts mathematically naive."--BANESH HOFFMAN, EINSTEIN

It is interesting that Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a primary law not deduced from anything else.

Well, I guess I was dumb enough to even ask, "why relativity?"

And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic. Change is fundamentally embedded in space-time. And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we have a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum nonlocality and entanglement.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

What is the principle of least action in a four dimensional manifold? For surely we need to extend Barbour's 3D analysis in the light of temporal double slit experiments.

See Horwitz 2005 On the Significance of a Recent Experiment

Demonstrating Quantum Interference in Time

(http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507044 ).

Hello Julian! Hope all is well! I was wondering what your take might be on Lee Smolin's most recent comments-- reflecting his epic change of mind--that time is indeed now real.

It is great that Lee is coming around and seeing time as a *physically* real entity. MDT goes a step further in seeing time as a *physically* real entity that emerges because of a more fundamental, universal, hitherto unsung *physical* invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c:

In January 2009 Smolin wrote at The Edge, "THE LIBERATION OF TIME

I would like to describe a change in viewpoint, which I believe will alter how we think about everything from the most abstract questions on the nature of truth to the most concrete questions in our daily lives. This change comes from the deepest and most difficult problems facing contemporary science: those having to do with the nature of time." --http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_9.html

On Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:07 am, I used the word "liberate" in writing, "MDT unfreezes time, liberating us all with free will-the free will to move beyond ST & LQG, which are not inextricably locked into the fixed future of the block universe as Brain Green and Paul Davies would have you suppose. Neither the future nor the past exists. Motion is inherent in the underlying four-dimensional space-time geometry, as the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Einstein noted that all objects are moving through space-time at the velocity c. This never changes. An object stationary in the three spatial dimensions is translating through the fourth dimension at the rate of c. An object stationary in the fourth dimension-a photon-is translating through the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. Hence it is obvious that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. String Theory's greatest contribution to physics has been the utter rejection of the obvious, the denial of common sense, and the institutionalization of thousands of mediocrities to ignore or shout-down any physics that might get in the way of their vast commercial industries which must trump truth-their salaries, benefits, and science-fiction books. Indeed, ST gives full license to make one's ignorance one's arrogance, and thus it is the breeding ground for those with ambitions overshadowing their talents." --http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about204630.html

In January 2009, Smolin writes "There is also no past. The past only lives as part of the present, to the extent that it gives us evidence of past events. And the future is not yet real, which means that it is open and full of possibilities, only a small set of which will be realized. Nor, on this view, is there any possibility of other universes. All that exists must be part of this universe, which we find ourselves in, at this moment."

--http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_9.html

In January, 2007, I wrote, "Neither the future nor the past exists. Motion is inherent in the underlying four-dimensional space-time geometry, as the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Einstein noted that all objects are moving through space-time at the velocity c. This never changes. An object stationary in the three spatial dimensions is translating through the fourth dimension at the rate of c. An object stationary in the fourth dimension-a photon-is translating through the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. Hence it is obvious that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. "

All of this was posted in an amazon.com forum on 11/13/2006 for Lee's Book: The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What comes Next:

http://www.amazon.com/Lee-Smolins-Great-Book-Dimensions/forum/Fx1FYSVRZO4ARYG/Tx3BGVHQPRMS4OD/1

/ref=cm_cd_dp_tft_tp?%

5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books&asin=061891868X&store=books

"Lee Smolin's Great Book : A Dialogue with Lee Smolin / Moving Dimensions Theory"

Over the years I have shared several emails with Lee, Including this one from 9/26/07--I have yet to hear back, but now that he thinks time is real, perhaps he might find some :):

to lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca

date Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 11:56 AM

subject Hello Lee: The Curious Nature of the Photon, Einstein's Annus Mirabilis, and Moving Dimensions Theory

Hello Lee,

Hope all is well with you--just bought a second copy of TTWP to read while in the server room, recovering some lost data. :) Loved it even more the second time around.

If you ever get a moment, would be grateful for any comments on MDT.

Keep up the great work!

Elliot

INTRODUCTION TO MDT

As the hallmark of Moving Dimensions Theory is a simple postulate reflecting an underlying physical reality, let us begin with the simple postulate:

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

That is it. This postulate underlies relativity--length contraction, time dilation, and the equivalence of mass and energy. It underlies quantum mechanics--wave interference, tunneling, entanglement. It underlies statistical mechanics--entropy and time's arrow.

The great power of Moving Dimensions Theory is that the simple postulate, representing an underlying physical reality, explains curious physical phenomena in every realm-from relativity, to quantum mechanics, to statistical mechanics. MDT accounts for quantum entanglement and relativistic length contraction. It accounts for entropy and action-at-a-distance. MDT unifies all of time's arrows, and it shows that all the curious dualities-wave/particle, space/time, and mass/energy, derive from the same source. MDT resolves both the paradox of Godel's block universe/block time and the Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky paradox.

MDT--a simple sentence brought forth by a single individual--is what physics ought to be all about--descriptions of physical reality that unify and explain physical phenomena with simple, concise underlying physical models. And, as MDT predicts relativistic length contraction, entanglement, the constant velocity of light, and wave interference, it is one of the best-tested theories of all time, in addition to being a most fundamental theory regarding the emergent nature of time.

The Curious Nature of the Photon, Einstein's Annus Mirabilis,

and Moving Dimensions Theory

As the contemplation of the photon lead to both quantum mechanics and relativity, let us also begin the presentation of Moving Dimensions Theory by contemplating the photon. Einstein's revolutionary 1905 papers included one devoted to the photoelectric effect--which considered the quantized nature of the photon--and a paper devoted to the electrodynamics of moving bodies--which considered electromagnetic radiation, relativity, and the wave properties of the photon as embodied by Maxwell's Equations. Another 1905 paper discussed statistical mechanics in the form of Brownian Motion, and Einstein's final three-page paper that year commented on the equivalence of mass and energy, as denoted with his famous equation, E=mc 2. Moving Dimensions Theory underlies and unifies all of Einstein's 1905 papers with its simple postulate--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Consider the emission of a photon in free space. One second later, the photon has equal probability of being found anywhere upon a sphere with a radius of 186,000 miles, as the velocity of light, c, is 186,000 miles per second. If we covered the surface of said sphere with detectors, one, and only one, would click. And the photon, although having traveled 186,000 miles through space, will not have aged one iota, for time stops at the speed of light. The photon will have traveled 186,000 miles through the three spatial dimensions, and yet it will not have moved one iota in the fourth dimension. And there lies our first clue to moving dimensions theory. For how can a photon propagate 186,000 in the three spatial dimensions, and yet not budge an inch in the fourth dimension, unless that fourth dimension is expanding, right along with it? Ergo, the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. A photon, as we shall see time and again, is matter surfing the fourth expanding dimension.

Consider two interacting photons that are directed to propagate in opposite directions, as in experiments conceived by Bell and conducted by Aspect et al. One second later, each photon's polarization is measured at detectors separated by 372,000 miles. According to the laws of quantum mechanics and numerous supporting experiments, the measurement at one detector instantaneously affects the measurement at the second detector. It is as if the photons are yet side-by-side for all intents and purposes. This "spooky action-at-a-distance," as Einstein called it, is not so spooky in the context of Moving Dimensions Theory, for MDT states that although separated by 372,000 miles, the photons are yet in the exact same place in the fourth dimension, as the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. So it is that quantum phenomena on the photonic level, as well as relativistic phenomena on the photonic level, are both accounted for with simple elegance via MDT: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Another paper Einstein penned in 1905 was devoted to Brownian motion and statistical mechanics. Drop a thimbleful of food coloring in a pool. The laws of statistical mechanics dictate that there is a high probability that the coloring will spread throughout the entire pool, and never again reassemble in a localized region. That all systems tend towards random disorder is a fundamental law of physics and condition of physical reality, and this too can be accounted for by Moving Dimensions Theory. As the fundamental motion of the universe is the expansion of the fourth dimension relative to the three spatial dimensions, two photons originating from a common origin will harbor a vast probability of being found at great distances from one another one second later--distances far greater than the distance that separates them at their emission. This is because each one has an equal probability of being found anywhere upon the surface of a spherically-symmetric wave front of probability, corresponding to the wave front of the fourth expanding dimension. Recall our system of detectors placed everywhere upon the surface of a sphere with a radius of 186,000 miles--each photon has an equal chance of being found at any detector after one second after they were emitted at a common origin, and chances are that the detectors will be farther apart than the distance of zero that defines the separation between photon's common origin. Hence entropy. Entropy arises because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. All particles undergoing thermal vibrations interact with photons, and all photons reside in the fourth expanding dimension, dragging all of entirety into random disorder.

Yet another paper published by Einstein in his "Miraculous Year" (annus mirabilis), was devoted to the equivalence of mass and energy. Think about the fascinating physical reality implied by Einstein's most famous equation--E=mc2. A kilogram of gold or lead or feathers sitting on a desktop is the same thing as 9x10 16 joules of energy--an exorbitant amount of energy--enough to power, or to destroy, a major city. How is it that a stationary mass possesses such a great energy? It is because the mass, which is stationary in the three spatial dimensions, is yet propagating through the fourth dimension at the rate of c. This is because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Matter surfing the fourth expanding dimension appears at photons. Furthermore, as noted earlier, the photons will propagate at the rate of c through the three spatial dimensions, and yet they will never age--they will stay in a fixed place in the fourth expanding dimension. The primary invariant is c--all matter and/or photons--be it propagating through space or time, or some combination thereof, always, always moves at the rate of c. To be stationary in the three spatial dimensions means to propagate at the rate of c through the fourth dimension. To be stationary in the fourth dimension means to propagate at the rate of c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions. Most objects share motion between space and time, but the overall velocity of propagation through space-time is fixed at c-- this primary invariance can never change, and this reality arises because of the deeper physical reality of Moving Dimensions Theory.

And so it is that Moving Dimensions Theory underlies and unifies the papers Einstein Published during his Annus Mirabilis--his "miraculous year." I highly recommend Harvard University Press's Einstein 1905: The Standard of Greatness by John S. Rigden, about wcich Publisher's Weekly writes,

"The year 2005 will be the centenary of Einstein's annus mirabilis, when he published the five papers that marked him as one of the greatest scientists of all time. Washington University professor Rigden (Hydrogen: The Essential Element) sits readers down in front of his white board and explains what Einstein said in each of these papers, what was significant in them and how the scientific community reacted (not very well, in most cases--for a while). Einstein started off with a bang: in March he proposed that light was not a continuous wave, but was made up of particles. In April he finished what became his dissertation, on how to determine the size of molecules in a liquid (that may not sound very exciting, but this is one of Einstein's most cited papers). In May he wrote his paper on Brownian motion, and then in June came the summit of his achievements that year: the paper proposing his principles of relativity and the consistency of the speed of light (commonly known as the Special Theory of Relativity). Finally, almost as an afterthought, in September came the three-page paper that unleashed his now-famous equation, e=mc2, upon an unsuspecting world. Rigden writes with a rare felicity, free of jargon and with everyday metaphors that Einstein himself would no doubt have appreciated."

I encourage everyone to read Einstein's and Bohr's and Heisenberg's and Dirac's original papers, and contrast their majestic elegance, eloquence, reason, and logic to the snarky death threats and crackpot indexes manufactured by today's "best and brightest," and the accompanying silence from their established elders--the founders of string theory's oppressive regime and hand-waving, reason-subjugating, PBS miniseries. The future book on Moving Dimensions Theory will look back to the giants of yesteryear with deep honor and reverence, so that tomorrow's physics might advance in the spirit of simple Truth and Beauty. Every effort will be maintained to demonstrate that true physics is marked by grace and simplicity, as opposed to obfuscation and bullying. Moving Dimensions Theory is an idea whose time has come, and ideas are bulletproof.

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Moving Dimensions Theory accounts for the aetherless aether.

This simple postulate offers a physical model underlying and unifiying:

RELATIVITY:

1) length contraction

2) time dilation

3) the equivalence of mass and energy

4) the constant velocity of light

5) the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source

QUANTUMN MECHANICS

1) action at a distance

2) wave-particle duality

3) interference phenomena

4) EPR paradox

THERMODYNAMICS

1) Time's arrow

2) Entropy

STRING THEORY'S MANY DIMENSIONS / KALUZA/KLEIN THEORY

1) a fourth expanding dimension can be interepreted as many dimensions, each time it expands

THE UNITY OF THE DUALITIES

1) wave/particle duality

2) time/space duality

3) energy/mass duality

4) E/B duality

GENERAL RELATIVITY

1) Gravitational redshift

2) Gravity waves

3) Gravitation attraction

THE SPACE-TIME BACKGROUND

1) quantum foam

2) the smearing of space and time at small distances

3) Hawking's imaginary time

PARADOXES

1) MDT explains away Godel's Block Universe

2) MDT unfreezes time

3) Resolves Zeno's Paradox

ONE GETS ALL OF THIS FROM A SIMPLE POSTULATE:

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in a spherically symmetric manner, in units of the Planck length, at the rate of c.

--dr. e's email to lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca

date Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 11:56 AM

subject Hello Lee: The Curious Nature of the Photon, Einstein's Annus Mirabilis, and Moving Dimensions Theory)

I also sent other emails regarding Moving Dimensions Theory, including one sent on 4/19/07 which was cc'd to a dozen other physicists.

Lee writes at The Edge, "The view that time is real and truth is situated within the moment further implies that there is no timeless arbiter of meaning, and no transcendent or absolute source of values or ethics. Meaning, values and ethics are all things that we humans project into the world. Without us, they don't exist."

Yes--while time is real, I will yet agree with Einstein over Lee--Einstein writes, "Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever."

Yes--I will have to stick with dx4/dt=ic from here on out to eternity, just as Ludwig von Boltzman has s=klogw on his tombstone and Max Born has xp-px=ih on his.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)Attachment #1: retina2.jpgAttachment #2: 1_2_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

AWT uses a geometric definition of spatialized time. This definition explains, why time has an arrow, the physical meaning of dual time arrow, concept of many time dimensions etc.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/aether-and-definition-of-time.html

Lee Smolin had better jump back on the fence.In my humble opinion.

Einstein is quoted as having said....."But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest."

MDT is nice in that a simple solution resolves such a lot.

I am pleased if it really will open up the minds of scientists to alternative frameworks of explanation.

Rather than the 4th dimension expanding, I would prefer to explain this as all of the matter of the universe changing position along the 4th dimension as potential energy decreases.This change in position along the 4th dimension (if it is visualised as spatial)or change in potential energy(if it is considered in energetic terms only) being equivalent to c measured in 3D vector space.The advantage of this model is that it enables explanation of objective reality without time, but time and relativity to be an emergent phenomena due to the changing position along the 4th dimension, which is change in potential energy.

So there are two separate realities. One, objective reality,in which there is no time and one in which there is time. The latter is subjective reality in which all observations are made and science is conducted.Time is therefore both real and not real depending on the reality under consideration.

The fence is the best place to sit in this situation because any other position on the reality of time would not be taking into account both realities and the Prime Reality Interface that separates them.

Congratulations on your well-deserved winning of the essay contest.

Don l.

What Barbour says in a very complex way can be postulated in three points:

1. universe is timeless (atemporal)

2. with clocks we measure duration of material change in timeless universe

3. time is a mind model in which humans experience stream of material change

yours amritAttachment #1: 4_ETERNITY_IS_NOW_Sorli_2009.pdf

Barbour's universe, if timeless, is also endless(infinite).It is non-existent or imaginary. Before we banish time-keeping in an everlasting bliss, stern science demands some accountability: How can death and radio-active decay be explained away in such an eternal set-up?

The 'astronomers in a crow's nest taking snapshots from above the solar system' is theoretically and experimentally impossible, because such a vantage point is outside the universe; but not outside Barbour's universe, so he should try to prove his point by initially sending a satellite there!

The long and short of my opinion is that Barbour confuses a mathematical universe,where everthing is beautiful and perfect, with a physical universe which is ugly and imperfect. He eliminates the unpleasant duration but that also removes physicality itself.

Dear Dr. Barbour,

It is very likely that it is premature to abandon the progression of time as a physical process. Perhaps our difficulty to understand it merely indicates missing physics.

As human beings we have always felt the need to confine our existence to a limited place in space and time. Maybe this is in order to avoid confronting our smallness in comparison to the immense vastness of the universe. But, gradually over the millenniums we have become aware that the world is much larger than we ever thought. And, now our last holdout will fall; we will come to realize that there is no beginning or end of time.

However, to make eternal existence possible, a dynamic process must exist that makes time progress, and is capable of energizing the world forever. The expansion of both space and time could do this, and the resulting cosmos would agree with all our observations. Furthermore, it would mean the existence of dimensions 'beyond space and time' given by vibrating metrics of spacetime, which could make the missing connection between general relativity and quantum mechanics. It would also explain the origin of Inertia. However, this new insight would require revision of physics going all the way back to Galileo, leaving most modern theories of the universe on the ash-heap of history.

The expansion of both time and space would in effect be an expansion in scale, which would not change Einstein's field equations of General Relativity (GR). Consequently this process, which also might constitute the essence of the progression of time, may proceed 'beyond' the four dimensions of spacetime.

It is a physical process that cannot be modeled by current physics.

But, it may be modeled by a semi-discrete process whereby the cosmos expands in short time intervals terminated by discrete scale adjustments. The resulting Scale Expanding Cosmos (SEC) theory agrees with all observations. With this new model there is no missing dark energy and no accelerating expansion. And, as already mentioned, this new Dynamic Incremental Scale Transition (DIST) process could also explain the progression of time.

Therefore, it appears that our current inability to explain the progression of time merely indicates that we do not yet know enough. As usually is the case, what we do not know may appear mysterious and unexplainable.

Best regards,

Johan Masreliez

The attached paper was published in Physica Scripta.