Editor's Choice: The Illusion of the Expanding Universe

I plan on commenting on this article in greater detail at a later time (oh but if time doesn't exist, does that really make sense...?) but this statement demanded an immediate response -

"To get a handle on Mach's viewpoint, imagine a particle spinning out in space. If there were no stars forming a backdrop against which to measure the particle's motion, can we really say that the particle is moving? To Mach, the answer was no, in an empty space there is no distinction between the particle spinning and the particle being stationary."

This is the kind of thing that just makes me groan. If the particle is spinning out in space, the stars aren't going to give me any reference in relation to the particle spin unless the we think of spinning with the particle and seeing the stars whirl by, as if being on a merry-go-round. If the particle is moving in a trajectory through space, as the phrase "a background against which to measure the particle's motion" seems to imply, there's other ways to determine velocity.

That statement is meaningless. Why can't I use some instrument to measure its motion? Since when were the spin of particles determined by what was in the background? Let's say I have a ball in a dark room with no light except from the ball, which is that glow in the dark, kind. The dark room is large enough for me not to see any reflection coming from the light of the ball. Is the ball spinning in place? How to tell? I can bounce something smaller off of it. If it bounces straight back off, then the ball has no spin. If, however, the smaller object bounces off at an angle that deviates from what would be allowed if the ball were stationary, then the ball is spinning.

Good grief..

Amrit:

Actually, Dr. Barbour is perfectly wrong. He's wrong on so many points that it takes up most of a chapter of a book that I have now in proposal form on the nature of time. However, I will leave the discussion of his ideas for a later time and probably a new paper that I will post at scientificblogging.com. In the meantime, however, allow me to deconstruct your statements which followed.

"The universe is in a continuous change."

If this is true, then time is real. Time is the dimension where events take place. In Barbour speak, time is that arrangement of Now slices that he talks about but is, by his own admission, incapable of slicing down to any minimal measurement. If you have change, then you have time, but it is wrong to believe that change equals time, because it doesn't.

"A change n gets transformed into a change n+1, the change n+1 into a change n+2 and so on."

If there is no time, then there is no transformations because those transformations, i.e. "changes" take time to take place. No time, no change.

"Clocks measure a frequency, velocity and numerical order of change. Changes do not occur in time, changes occur in space only."

Wrong. It's called a "space-time" continuum for a reason. Time and space are connected but serve different purposes. Space is where things go - tables, pizza, the moon, whatever. At 1 PM I can have an empty table by a window. At 9 PM I can have a pizza on that table and a view of the moon through that same window. The table and the window never moved yet things changed around them. Why did those things change? Because events took place over time to change them. If you take away time, you have nothing for change to take place in. No time, no change.

"Time is not a part of space. Space is timeless".

Again, "space-time continuum". Minkowski - "from this point on, time and space are inextricably connected". There is zero credible evidence to the contrary.

"In the space there is no past and no future. Past and future belong to the inner time that is a result of neuronal activity of the brain."

Really? If that were true we would not be able to view anything in space. The light reaching us from the sun takes time to get here from the moment of its radiance. Black holes in distant galaxies that we see might not even exist anymore because the light that we observe is millions of years old. Our entire view of the universe consists of looking into the past, a past that your statement says doesn't exist. Well, as Einstein pointed out, time is not absolute and our now, with that light from the black hole, is in the black hole's past from its view point, if it still exists.

Time is real. It is misunderstood, maligned, misrepresented, and denied. None of that changes the fact that time is real and none of that passes vigorous scrutiny, once it is applied.

if hydrogen is cooked in stars to produce all the other heavier elements does that mean everything in the universe is made from just one basic material.

Marcel you wrote:

Stuff I wrote some years ago. May help in your exploration of time ..

Here are 12 properties associated with the nature of Time as may be deduced from known physics

1-Spontaneity: Time runs by itself. Nobody makes time run. Time is spontaneous. We know we can't rush time. This is why our time measuring instruments are based on spontaneous processes; sand falling in the hourglass,...

No evidence time run by itself..........Universe is timeless. Time is run of clocks.

Yours AmritAttachment #1: 1_Physical_Time_Is_Run_Of_Clocks__Quantum_Dream.pdf

Dear friends,

Understanding of time nature requires exact distinguishing between physical time and psychological time.

yours amritAttachment #1: Exact_Understanding_of_Time_Nature_FQXI.pdf

Marshall,

Saying time is real does not make it a foundational element of universal structure. Unfortunately it is as you say misunderstood. It is a muddle of a number of different concepts. It is therefore difficult to get other people to understand what exactly is meant by saying time is not real, when our subjective experience is clearly that of time passing.

The pituitary gland in the brain regulates biological circadian rhythms so we are aware of a sense of time passing even without clocks to observe. Most arguments for the reality of time revolve around that undeniable perception. Memory, mental sense of a passage of time and prediction are useful for survival of an organism. That does not mean that the past or future exist outside of the mental model of reality.Existential time realms are nonsense and are a product of the brain and its processing, rather than foundational to the universal structure, imo.

Time is only useful within physics as a measurement tool for spatial or energetic change, which is occurring within space not space-time. You say that "if you have change then you have time" However that is an imposition of an entirely mental concept onto matter, particle or medium changing position within quaternion space or such a change identified as an energy change, it is not necessary to claim that it is a foundational dimension or component of the universal structure.

Space-time is a mathematical representation of reality built upon a misunderstanding. It is my opinion that there is only quaternion space within which continuous change in position of matter particle and medium occur. Every change in spatial position being an energy change, and every energy change being a spatial change in position of something. This can be represented by the use of 4 orthogonal spatio-energetic dimensions rather than 3 space and 1 time dimension.

You said "Again, "space-time continuum". Minkowski - "from this point on, time and space are inextricably connected". There is zero credible evidence to the contrary." I would say there is zero credible evidence that the imaginary realms of past and future have any existential reality. We do not look into the past when we view light from stars . We see an electromagnetic image of a spatial configuration which no longer has any material existence. It is an illusion not the material reality of the universe.The em radiation has changed position within quaternion space enabling it to be viewed and the matter of the universe has changed configuration within quaternion space, so the material existential universe is not the observed universe.

Dear friends,

keeping Clock as a Measuring System Concept of Time can be abandoned completely.

Yours AmritAttachment #1: Keeping_Clock_as_a_measuring_System_Concept_of_Time_can_be_abandoned_completelly.pdf

Georgina:

Like most time deniers your own comments are self contradictory. When you say that time is only useful as a tool to measure change you're ignoring the obvious - the change would have no place to happen if it weren't for time. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's pretty sad, actually. For example:

"Every change in spatial position being an energy change, and every energy change being a spatial change in position of something. This can be represented by the use of 4 orthogonal spatio-energetic dimensions rather than 3 space and 1 time dimension."

Look up the word "change". I know you think you know what it means but clearly you have forgotten. The changes that you are trying to relate as being energies are not happening congruently. So against what background is this change taking place? Time. Time is what allows change, regardless of the type of change. Energy does not equal time because we know that energy takes place inside of space-time. That is how special relativity was used to develop energetic technologies like radar. Energy happens within the time dimension as well as space.

You can represent many things many different ways but they will only be representations. Mathematics does this all the time. But I'm not talking mathematics, I'm talking physics, and when I talk physics I mean things that have a basis in physical reality and not simply a mathematical representation on a piece of graph paper, nor some psychological construct.

We know special relativity works, hence my reference to Minkowski. All the Barbourish word games in the universe will never change the fact that regardless of how you describe it, I can always pinpoint in every time denier's argument where their rant falls apart. In this case it's your inability to use the word "change" without having a temporal context, no matter how much you may want to wish it away. That simple reason is that all "change" happens in time. Time is where change takes place. Time is not change itself because you can have time with no change, but change needs a dimension within which to happen. That dimension is time.

I've spent 10 years with the nature of time as my fundamental area of research with the full intent to tackle, deconstruct and solve all the major issues. I've read all the arguments against time and the major writers, from Zeno to Barbour, and found them all wanting. In contrast I have developed a theory that can be viewed in line with relativity and quantum mechanics that matches observational and experimental results. It does not replace any of them but reveals additional insights and information. I am about to conduct an experiment that will prove that time is a dimension within which change takes place, much as relativity suggests. The results will also match the predictions of my own theory. In fact, my experiment will disprove your response from above to, that the idea to have change requires time:

"is an imposition of an entirely mental concept onto matter, particle or medium changing position within quaternion space or such a change identified as an energy change, it is not necessary to claim that it is a foundational dimension or component of the universal structure."

Who knows. Perhaps I will name the experiment after you.

My work has resulted in a book proposal that has found an agent. The intent of the book is to meet head-on the debate over the issue of time and settle the argument over its existence, once and for all. As I am in the middle of a series of major projects dealing with my research right now, I'm not going to have the time to keep debating the issue here. When my work is released, it will speak for itself as it will certainly address all aspects of this whole issue of a timeless universe, to devastating effect.

BTW, your comments sound like you've given up on your Universal Timewave Theory. I perused it quickly yesterday and found a few insights that actually match my own theory, though you seem to have overly complicated them and then veered off the track. Then again, it seems like you were trying to explain everything and my theory is only a description of how space and time work, from quantum up to macroscopic. It's not trying to be a TOE or GUT. Solving the conundrum of space and time, as dimensions, is enough.

Dear Marshall Barnes,

You are obviously passionate about your research , your personal view of reality and how it should be described. I have not read the views of others as extensively as yourself but have spent a very long time thinking for myself. Not just about time but how time, gravity and various other foundational questions can be answered with the correct perspective. I have gone beyond considering my personal experience of reality.I am actually proposing that in order to fully understand physics and the unanswered questions it is necessary to have another non temporal construct that is able to more clearly show the spatio-energetic process of change. It is unfortunate that you do not see that I too am talking about physics.

I too know that relativity works. I am not saying that it does not or it is wrong. Only that there is another way of thinking about and representing what is going on. You say "All change happens in time." Well yes it does, if you are working with a model which has time inseparably woven into it. However if you are using a different way of representing the same things time does not have to be included. Time can be represented as a dimension but it is not just a dimension. As you will undoubtedly know, from all the books you have read, time is lots of things to lots of different people.

Yes, I have come such a long way since the universal Time-wave theory which was my very first attempt to understand time when I first realized what a problem it was for science. I was attempting to use a concept of multi dimensional time because at that time I had not really understood how the 4th dimension works. Unfortunately multidimensional time is a dead end imo. The good thing to have come from that first foray is that it did allowed me to solve the grandfather paradox. Although I do not claim that the current model that I have outlined is necessarily the best and only way to model objective reality this perspective does work. I am surprised that you found a copy of the book, I assumed that most had just been binned. I hope it was at least thought proving and you enjoyed the pictures. It certainly got me thinking.

Goodluck with all of your endeavors.

Georgina:

One of the biggest mistakes one can make is to do their work in a vacuum. You say that you haven't read as extensively on the subject as I yet you have spent a long time thinking for yourself. Ignoring the fact that it could be said that you're implying that I haven't been thinking for myself, taking the path that you have means that you develop theories without having a frame of reference as to how they conflict, accurately or inaccurately with other established work. This sets you up for mistakes.

Like Barbour, because you couldn't understand how time works, you have sought to get rid of it by having a "non temporal construct that is able to more clearly show the spatio-energetic process of change." This statement is the physics equivalent to psychobabble, on its face. If you replace time with a "spatio-energetic process of change" how does this process evolve without time to produce the effect of time, which you are trying to, after all, replace? It's like a dog chasing its tail.

I essentially asked you this same question before and you side stepped it. The reason is that it has no logical answer. There is nothing about time that my theory doesn't address with cogent and well documented evidence. Trying to replace something with a representation that then falls apart under direct scrutiny it a flawed model. My model includes everything - from our psychological perceptions of time, our biological inner clocks, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology all the way back to the moment before the Big Bang. I have spent months scouring the internet for every argument against time being real and every question concerning it and labored to answer or resolve each, because if I couldn't do that, then I knew my theory was not complete.

I know that time is a lot of things to a lot of people, but in physics the goal is to obtain an accurate description of objective reality. That means what people think tim is is irrelevant. However, if what people think is a misperception, how that misperception arises must be addressed and answered. Barbour tries to do this, but because he is psychologically driven by his own child-like (his words- not mine) perception or fear of time, he has chosen to runaway from it and hide in a made-up, make believe reality that he calls Platonia which suffers from the same recursive, self-referencial problems your model does. If you claim to have a model that operates without time but you have elements within it that are time dependent, you don't have a model that works. "Process", "Change", "Energy" are all time dependent concepts. Saying that they can have any role in replacing time is utter nonsense. If it weren't you would be able to show me why, directly. On any issue that can be raised, in regards to time, my model has specific and nonself-conflicting answers that don't require rewriting physics as we know it. In fact, as time goes by, I see others getting closer to my theory in their own fashion.

I was actually surprised and impressed initially with your multidimensional time approach and you will probably kick yourself when you see my theory come out because you were on the right track until you veered off and took a few wrong turns. That is why you ended up thinking it was a dead end. My theory also has multidimensional time in it but is handled a little differently and doesn't try to start explaining other phenomena with it that is beyond direct observation. That's what I meant about not over reaching. As for your solving the grandfather paradox, if you don't believe time travel is possible to begin with then that automatically resolves the grandfather paradox. That's no big deal. The GP was actually solved with the Everett Wheeler Hypothesis, but you don't like parallel universes either. I do. It's also one of the things that my theory shows arises inherently from space-time.

I didn't find a copy of your book, I found your web site that has references from it. At some point I'll read it, probably more toward the end of the month. I'm just too busy to study it right now, but I did scan enough of it to see where you started and where you were going.

At any rate, it is now on me to put up or shut up, which I now have to get busy with. I'll probably announce some of my events coming up here in the calendar section, which will allow you to find references to articles and papers on the net. Then you can see how my work and ideas fair in the arena of ideas.

Regards,

Marshall Barnes

P.S. Please excuse any typos as I did this in a hurry...

Dear Marshall Barnes,

With respect I did not say that I have not researched this subject or taken an interest in the views of other people.I said that I have not read about it as extensively as yourself. I have not the slightest idea how you choose to spend your time when you are not reading. Your lack of comprehension of what I am doing is clear from your second paragraph. I have written quite extensively about this on recent blogs and the idea is very clearly explained by myself, Mr. smith and John Merryman. I suggest if you are really interested in how we manage without time you read some of the recent blog material.

The space-time model has been constructed so that within it there is an inseparable fabric of space-time. It is a model of how space and time are experienced. There is temporal separation of objects, which is how we experience objects around us. It takes time to walk across the room from this chair to that window . So they are separated in both time and space. Likewise it takes time for light to be reflected from an object back to the eye. However the objects are not actually separated in time they all exist simultaneously in space without temporal separation. If this space rather than space -time is modeled it is more like a normal map. Where everything is contemporary rather than getting further into the past the further away from the position of the observer. This timeless space is the objective reality in which physics occurs. Not within the spatio-temporal model of space-time nor the spatio-temporal world that is generated by the mind and experienced. Within the objective model I have been setting out on this site energy is a change in spatial position. A change in spatial position is an energy change. All processes occur as a result of spatial changes, which are also energy changes.

You said "I was actually surprised and impressed initially with your multidimensional time approach and you will probably kick yourself when you see my theory come out because you were on the right track until you veered off and took a few wrong turns. That is why you ended up thinking it was a dead end." Thank you so much I am glad you appreciated it. I get so little positive feedback here that I must gratefully accept even the crumbs thrown by my detractors. The initial time sky diving concept is still relevant, imo.As well as the marble on the table top. That is to say even when one marble reaches the end of the table the table is still all there. I can see now that the table can be regarded as just space and the marble matter changing position in space and time need not enter the discussion at all. Since the change in position can be regarded as an energetic change rather than a temporal change. Where as in that book I was considering the table to be time.

It was not merely discounting the possibility of time travel that solved the Grandfather paradox but realizing that it is nonsensical to believe that matter can replicate itself so as to exist in multiple time places rather than just one. When there is no physical mechanism for such replication to occur. By what process can matter just manifest so as to exist in both the present and past not to mention the future. How many tea cups must exist if a new one is created every second as time passes and every other piece of matter too. It is complete nonsense. That is what was set out in "Eternity found". The past does not exist but is remembered or imagined only and can be modeled ito mathematics. The Grandfather paradox is a misunderstanding caused by a misinterpretation of the space-time model.Thinking that the observation and experience is the same as the existential objective material reality. It is not.

There are lots of different ways of explaining ideas and perhaps when you have completed your research and fully explained your ideas I will have a better understanding of your approach. Thank you for taking the time to converse. Good luck.

Unscribing Time

Most still consider time and events as linked. Yet,there is no hand in hand universal cohesion throughout found by scientists and most theoreticians. Currently, we assume events happen chronologically and hence assume linear time and a deterministic progression, e.g. entropy.

Closer looks at the cohesiveness reveal componentness instead.Many events make up what is perceived as one unit or event But many things have to transpire first before something evident is detected by us. We also have to account for our 'tools' of perception as being a limitation of what we are aware of.

Application of time is not found to be uniform. In astronomy, on the progression of the 'universe', there are found areas where progression seems to have come to a standstill in relation other areas. It is like time stopped development of some galaxies, yet elsewhere other events continue unabated. This illustrates that there is not uniform application throughout of time in relations to how things develop.

Perception is important here. Do we detect everything? Can we? Consider what happens to perception when under sensory deprivation. All sense of direction and even sense of self and body are lost. This does happen and so is part of the equation. Currently, we like to believe we detect events as interactive and hence are detectable and we ascribe the link of events and time to them. What do we really know about the universe in total according to such an assumption? Growth is not universal. One can plant seeds both in a fertile area and a barren place. We say: given time, something will grow. No matter how much time passes, in the barren location nothing will develop. So, it is not time as a prerequisite but rather conditions that must arise first. Yet, what if in the universe there is place of sensory deprivation? No orientation really possible, equally directionless in any way? It is said we are on the border of a void. A directionless and perhaps undeveloping area in contrast to what we usually like regard. How could time progression be explained?

Very likely, it is best to reconsider whether time is a primary prerequisite. Rather, conditions should be. For anything to arise, the conditions have to be make it tenable. Without the proper conditions, something cannot develop. If the conditions are not right for developing, then nothing will develop, it will remain like a void. Likewise, when conditions change, then what is there will alter its status accordingly. A small example: we ascribe the greying of our hair as a natural progression. But it is due to conditions, some chemicals change and alter other chemicals which causes the hair to lose certain chemicals and so it changes color and texture. But that is due to conditions not time. After all, there are people on this planet who are eighty or older and you will not find grey or white hairs on them. If we alter the body we will alter its conditions, which have nothing to do with time.

How does this work without being hand in hand with time? Conditions must first arise. They may be reinforced and then with alteration they may decrease. For something to occur in three dimensions but not be dependent on time, the conditions have to first be right or nothing can develop, like with seed on barren ground. So something may develop at one location and if conditions are right at another location, the same may develop elsewhere not linked to the former site. Nor time dependent. Is there found a time scale by which all things develop uniformly and not before or outside such a parameter?

I have a blog against the expansion of the universe, with arguments that show this is impossible.

How the people consider there are evidences for the Big Bang I study these evidences.

I have arguments and Hypotheses in: http://bigbangno.wordpress.com

Thanks.

thank you!

Time and Energy are the two faces of the same coin. Time is just elapsed into an energized "system".

As we know from our refrigerators, when movements are frozen, time is frozen. So, Time just means that something is moving. Or, in other words, that in moving, particles or corpses have "past", "present" and "future" positions in space.

That defines "Time"! :)

Just thought I'd point out that seven minutes is not 560 seconds, it is 420 seconds.

@ WILTON ALANO

not quite. first of all time and energy being two faces of the same coin? never saw this in any physics treaty.

and second of all, when moving, particles have past, present and future you say. but in order to have these you have to have some point of reference otherwise I can easily exchange your past with your future and viceversa. not to mention about the need of a reference when you say present.

P90X Workout DVDs

P90X Workout

P90X

P90x reviews

If the universe is "changing shape" as he suggest, why then is it clearly observable that the vast majority of the universe is seen with red shift? Why is there not more blue shift? Seeing the entire universe moving very rapidly away from us does seem to imply that the fabric of space is pushing everything outward infinitely.