The Fully Relativistic
SpaceScape
ABSTRACT
In this work, we will show you how Newtonian time (a time which flows) can only be called into question in this paper. Instead, we will argue there is no evidence an external time for the universe and the flow of time is in fact an illusion; we will argue it has only existed so long because of a fanciful idea that science clung onto since Minkowski proposed it, a little after Einstein published his special theory. What we will find in this work, is that Einstein most likely didn't think time was fundamental and was aware that his general relativity predicted static time for the universe. Time falls out of general relativity in three ways, one way is by describing evolution as a symmetry of the theory, one is directly from the Wheeler de Witt equation and the third is that GR really says you cannot think of time without matter. To satisfy a proper understanding of time, we must conclude that if GR is telling us global time doesn't exist then it cannot be fundamental to the universe and the evolution within it. However, local time can exist because it is emergent, it is induced when the universe becomes cool enough to allow matter to appear (Higgs Mechanism). In this sense, time is emergent when matter appears in our universe. We will also investigate mathematical tools to see how viable it is to describe a theory of timeless physics.
And in the beginning: There was the definition of time
This will not be an easy paper to simply write out and explain, it will probably take about several reads to understand it as well. The problems are numerous and in this paper, I must tackle these issues efficiently. First of all, we need to define what time is. Newton, the father of classical physics defined time as:
Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time ...''
And concerning absolute space, he said
Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space ... Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another.
Thinking time flows equably without any reference to anything external, means that time flows relative to the human being. This ''flow of time'' has been in physics literature for a very long time and the conclusions are startling. And though there is nothing external which we can say is in any reference to time, means that any mathematical we use in our equations, assume immediately without any evidence that there is an external time present without the observer.
We of course, do not believe in any absolute space or time in the context Newton implied them. In Newton's picture, the universe was a pure vacuum with no quantum activity. In the quantum picture, time doesn't even have a flow. In relativity, there is no true ''flow to time'' either, because fundamental to it is the relativity of simultaneity which argues all events actually happen side by side... time itself was an illusion.
Now, this external, intrinsic flow to the observer, which seems to extend from past to future... isn't actually the way modern scientists think about time at all [1]  If time really existed in the quantum sense it would instead be sharp beginnings and ends, fleeting moments of existence which are not continuous. This is the quantum picture of time.
The relativity of space says it is continuous. Minkowski (Einstein's teacher) extended his relativity principle to say spacetime is continuous also as a fourth dimension of space. (1)
The quantum picture of time at first differed with the relativity of time. But sooner or later, the mistakes would show.... Minkowski space was probably based on faulty principles including the idea that time is continuous or discrete... it turns out that time probably doesn't exist at all (this still leaves open the question of whether space is fundamental, maybe something I will tackle in a future paper) (2). Minkowski when he extended Einstein's idea's made time as a fundamental property of the universe. When Paul Dirac was asked about he thought, he said he was ''inclined to disagree to think that four dimensional unity was fundamental.''
Einstein had a bit of a schizophrenic nature on time concerning ''some'' comments over his career, but I think it's clear Einstein never considered time fundamental within physics. He was definitely more than aware that his very own GR which is hailed to this day through experimentation was essentially timeless. After Minkowski had published his theory on four dimensional space, Einstein was known later in his years to comment that the mathematicians ''butchered his theory'' as he knew it.
Before Minkowski's idea shot off, Einstein's theory was still basic in how they were interpreted and Machian relativity almost vanished from the minds of physicists altogether; though, not many know, but Einstein was heavily influenced by the idea's of Mach, one of the founding fathers of relativity. Actually Machian theory was more truer in the general relativistic sense Einstein intended his theory than the fourdimensional case proposed by his teacher Minkowski.
To be relativistic, you need to talk about each point in space; but points in space are not really physical, only interactions are. This happens because General Relativity is manifestly Covariant which makes sure that the laws of physics remain the same in every coordinate frame. This allows physicists to use diffeomorphism invariance, a beautiful mathematical consequence in which the universe isn't desccribed by a cosmological ... instead it arises as symmetry of the motion of the theory. In other words, it's measuring change using diffeomorphisms to describe ''time without time.''
Machian relativity doesn't use time either to describe the evolution of systems, instead as he famously put it
''we arrive at the abstraction of time, from the changes of things.''
Interestingly, Leibniz also made a similar argument, believing that space in itself made no sense, unless speaking about locations. Time in itself made no sense, unless inferred from the relative movement of bodies... But Mach's idea's where already bubbling, he wanted to advocate a holistic relativistic model
''When, accordingly, we say that a body preserves unchanged its direction and velocity in space, our assertion is nothing more or less than an abbreviated reference to the entire universe.''
Gravitation and Inertia, p. 387
On this relativistic ''spacescape'' I call it, changes of physical systems in this universe are our definition of time, without it, if systems did not change, there would be no way to define time at all. Here is one way to articulate the problem, if change is the true definition of time and change happens in space then time isn't space itself, it's a measure of disorder in space. The closest thing we have to the definition of time as we understand it, is entropy and this thermodynamic law gives rise the cosmological arrow of time as it is known using popular science buzzwords. (Later I will provide a ''toy'' model towards a theory of everything using entropic gravity, the entropy part being our definition of the measure of change and gravity being described from the entropic laws).
To believe there is an order to things which gives rise to a ''direction'' in time is a very wrong picture to adopt within relativity because of simultaneity. The relativity of simultaneity forbids us from absolutely saying every event in the universe can ever be agreed upon. Because of this, it argues that events may as well happen sidebyside. Time appears between moving observers which dilates when thing happen in different frame of references; in a funny sense, it is time dilation that gives rise to time [anime *]. Also, there is no place in the universe we can point to and say ''it all happened there.'' In fact, according to modern theory, the big happened at every point throughout space. So where is this linear view of time, with a definite past to some definite future? It's completely analogous to applying concepts like ''up'' and ''down'' in the universe because there are none. So equally, there is no ''true'' arrow in space for the evolution of things either. There is only a measure of change in a given instant.
Not only is Newtonian time linear, but he implies it is external flowing to us. To this day, many many years later, no physicist has ever shown evidence of this. Time is not an observable and so cannot be ''measured'' in the quantum sense; it doesn't have any corresponding Hermitian matrix. One can ''measure'' time in relativity, but it isn't a true quantum measurement, nor should any scientist really believe a clock measures time... it measures a mechanical change and we measure this by the displacements of it's hands. There is also nonon trivial operator for time in physics.
So as you can see, so far the definition of time is tricky, but Newtonian time is most likely incorrect thinking that external time exists. There are no problems with understanding a subjective time existing... in fact there are internal gene regulators in the brain which act a theory to why humans have a sense of time at all, many animals have these internal circadian rhythms; so we have a perfectly reasonable biological explanation for the subjective experience of time. The sense Newton gave his flow of time without relation to anything external, probably because there is no way you can physically relate something external with time (the measurement of time is illdefined in relativity whereas in quantum theory, time isn't an observable). Time is likely emergent, induced from the presence of matter fields; this would mean time isn't fundamental after all and there are many great reasons to think this might be the case we will get into later.
With all the definition nonsense out of the way, let's just get to some hard facts about the model of timelessness. Why is it a problem? How does time fall out of physics?
ref.
(1) Recent experiments have shown spacetime still to be continuous to great degree by measuring the time taken of distant photons. This was to measure how ''grainy'' space time was.
(2)  Markopoulou has already offered a theory in which time is fundamental but space isn't. She argues that the quantum theory of gravity will essentially be spaceless. I have already surmised myself that maybe not only time is not fundamental but maybe space isn't either: this could provide a reason to entanglement  systems continue to be ''connected'' because separation is a macroscopic illusion and isn't fundamental for quantum systems allowing intrinsic nonlocality. Perhaps the final theory will not only be timeless then, but also spaceless. The trick is to able to describe ''time without time,'' just as General Relativity does.
[anime *] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re..._Animation.gif
As you can see in this online animation, events A, B and C all occur at different times depending on the motion of the observer. Because no one can agree on when an event happens, time appears to be an illusion where the past and future are simply products of the human mind. Our distinction of the past and future is called the psychological arrow of time; there are biological gene regulators which play the role for our perception of time and the different speeds at which perception happens. Note the latter phenomenon is biological, while simultaneity is a relativistic phenomenon.
The Time Problem of Physics
It is true in fact, that time falls out of physics in several different ways, in this work we will investigate a few of these approaches, one of the most famous is the Wheeler de Witt equation. You see, in the 1960's Wheeler came to de Witt for help constructing a theory of quantum gravity.
To do this, de Witt quantized the General Relativistic equations to find what has become familiar as
Such a simple equation, it is in fact the timeless Schrodinger equation. What he found was that if you apply quantum mechanics to the universe, you find out it doesn't have a fundamental clock!
This was an interesting equation for some other reasons as well: Apparently, this ''field of gravity'' was unlike any of the other quantum fields they dealt with in quantum theory. It was manifestly real, the field wasn't a complex one. Fields in quantum mechanics are inherently complex, so this was an unusual feature of quantum theory.
But moreover, it showed that gravity wasn't what it seemed. Later I will propose a way in which scientists might look forward to: This will require a better understanding of gravity (in which there is no universal agreement with any theory as thus far)  we will see later though, the problem might be it is not a quantum field any way.
Before we close off this small section of this work, I want to explain not to be deceived by the idea that time hasn't been used in relativity, of course, special relativity incorporates it without any troubles. The unification of GR to SR might find a deep philosophical breakdown of space with time. Already, motion in GR is described by no time parameter while in special relativity, moving observers experience time.
It turns out there is a solution: the problem lies in the use of ''observer.'' In quantum field theory, an observer can be a particle, doesn't need to be a conscious moving observer measuring the time it take for light to reach one place to another (this is misnomer), you are actually measuring your own time, not the photons. Instead, particles can act as observers and when you apply these principles in a cosmological approach, you do find time disappearing  at least our ability to describe it. We will find out later why this is.
The Model Towards the Fully Relativistic SpaceScape
When we think about Minkowski space, it treats one of it's four space dimensions as an imaginary dimension to account for time. A popular way to think about space and time, is that they form a single system that stretches perhaps... forever.
In many ways, it is a bit like a landscape. Time and space in this unified picture make a landscape for all the events inside the universe. However, we are arguing of course there is no time... we argue time is a measure of change [in] space, it isn't space itself. Treating it as a dimension of space is treated as faulty in this work. Change is what defines time, if there was no change, there would be no way to describe time.
Change then will be described in a 'spacescape' which was just a fancy way of saying ''arena'' and the arena of space is where statistical averages (particles) interact and change with respect to each other  configuration space is the arena in which the physicist works. This fully space theory of relativity, is probably more relativistic if you can imagine such a thing, than even Minkowski space time. Minkowski space time assumes there is an external time coordinate, whereas this space theory correlates strongly to Machian Relativity which describes ''time without time''.
Around Newtons time, he knew there where three different ways you could describe motion in the universe,
1. With an asbolute spacetime background
2. With boundary conditions at spatial infinity
3. By Machian relativity
It was considered that 3. was the hardest of the approaches which said motion was relative and holistic (in the sense that motion is driven in a causal manner by all other systems in the universe). Minkowski relativity slices up in space and time using Lorentz boosts and you can go from coordinate frame to another. Machian relativity is quite different indeed, it says that any point is relative to every other point in the universe.
Now... points in space themselves are not physical according to modern relativity, only interactions are. It is believed that the laws of physics should be the same in every coordinate frame, similar to the Lorentz boost allowing you to go to one coordinate frame to another, diffeomorphism invariance allows you to shuffle freely between coordinates in GR. The motion then in GR arises as a symmetry of the theory, you don't actually have a time parameter. This is important, because while special relativity describes moving observers and uses a notion of local time, General Relativity actually acts a lot more like Machian Relativity at times. The technical difference between the boost and diffeomorphism, is that the boost preserves a spacetime interval naturally and Diffeomorphisms shuffle coordinates without any reference to time, again, the motion appears as a symmetry of the theory. The addition General Relativity has done with the motion is to be able to say points themselves are not physical, which means Machian Relativity needs to account for this.
In Machian relativity, how can points be relative to each other but points are not physical in themselves only their interactions are?
While Lorentz transformations preserved the assumption the rules of physics should be the same in every coordinate frame, it is General Covariance that allows General Relativity to assume the laws of physics are the same in every coordinate frame. As it turns out, Einstein solved this problem concerning how to give meaning back to coordinates in space. Basically you get physical points back when you consider the entire world line and their interaction. (Already, you need to think ''holistically'' about a systems history, than just a point, might we find you also need to think of the universe holistically as well?)
There are other valid reasons to think Machian relativity has to describe the world, as we saw earlier, one of the popular timeless problems is when you quantize GR you get back the Wheeler de Witt equation, which is really just the timeindependent Schrodinger equation. Moreover, the probabilities are for complete threegeometries and the values of matter fields on them which involves the complete configuration of the universe: not for values of some metric on some underlying manifold [1]. This means already, we are getting a sense of Machian relativity when we have to think holistically about the universe as a whole. Indeed, it wasn't long until Einstein realized the metric tensor could describe such a system.
Now we can see how points in Machian Relativity can be physical; we have to formulate the theory not only with relative positions in Machian Relativity but it also must make world lines relative, to give positions a physical meaning. To say Machian Relativity not only makes the points but world lines physical, is akin to General Relativity dragging matter with the metric under Diffeomorphisms. So how do we write this new definition of Machian Relativity?
I believe it is an important realization that position and world lines need to be included into Machian relativity. This isn't about ''replacing'' current General Relativity, it's doubtful any theory will better it for a long time to come. Instead, we want to incorporate a timeless understanding using Machian relativity (which in many ways already satisfies many contentions GR makes), again, this is largely due to Einstein being heavily influenced by Machian relativity. Points as it turns out, can be physical in Machian space just so long as you include their world lines and their interactions.
Well, a frame work for relative distances was made by Julian Barbour (which can be found at the end of this chapter). Already, Barbour is attempting to bridge some ''gaps'' from Machian relativity to General Relativity. The Kinematic concept is Relative Configuration Space or (RCS) for short and goes on to express it in terms of a Newtonian manybody system consisting of particles in a fixed threedimensional Euclidean space. Each point are all distinct relative configurations of these Nparticles (to this, I add world lines and their interactions to be fully consistent with GR).
The Newtonian mechanics of a universe of Ngravitating particles in Euclidean space is given quite beautifully by Julian Barbour. These particles will have a mass where and then a metric can be written
The metric is flat and too simple to yield nontrivial dynamics which can be obtained by the conformal factor which Barbour derives an action
You can go on from here to derive the Euler Langrange equations once you define a kinetic energy term
It should be explained, that the equation doesn't explicitely depend on which usually plays the role of time. In fact, as Julian Barbour says, it is much more illuminating to think of it in it's timeless form, in which our kinetic energy absorbs that with a new term
Note, that has been playing the role our generalized coordinates, we will now convert to normal convention.
The kinetic energy is related to the action with a derivative
We can also absorb that term again to simply write the timeless action
As explained, Julian Barbour has indeed wrote out a very nice framework for the theory. And it encorporates these holistic, relativistic idea's Mach wanted to think of the universe. Mach was no doubt influenced by the Newtonian idea that all matter in the universe effected all other systems. Mach believed inertia itself was a property induced by all the systems in the heavens, as he once said:
''You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?''
You can feel a bit of this theory in Machian Relativity as well when he argues all systems are relative to each other in the universe, their positions are relative to all other systems. At least in my work, that may only be true if you consider their world lines and their interactions with it. But this subject of inertia brings me to a last discussion which will take us to Julian Barbour's idea which are largely responsible for my interest on the subject.
Relativity says there is a problem, if motion is indeed relative then how do you locally define inertia? Well, actually, Julian Barbour has presented many idea's over the years that might help pave a way to an understanding of how to solve the time problem. He has dedicated work to show that Machian Relativity deals with changes of systems where positions are only relative to each other. He defines it by taking a generic solution of the Newtonian many body problem [2] of celestial planets [3]. Instead of giving time to systems described by their various configurations, you can simply give a sequence of the events. He omits the information (he says which is characterized by six numbers) which describes the position and orientation of the system, he does this by specifying the semimetric  and finally, he omits the scale information (he calls one number) contained in the metric (separation). He says this is best done by normalizing them by the square root of the moment of inertia
''The resulting information'' he says, ''can be plotted as a curve on phase space.''
But perhaps more importantly he seems to have solved this problem about how one defined inertia within the theory; it keeps all the valuable information that the original Machian theory was based upon and that involving relative positions.
[1] http://www.platonia.com/barbour_emergence_of_time.pdf
http://www.platonia.com/barbour_nature.pdf
http://www.platonia.com/barbour_bert...s1982_scan.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0309089v1.pdf
[3] All types of motion may contribute to any understanding of time. This includes then changes of celestial bodies. Time is just a measure of change, there is no specification about whether the change is using planets or the displacement of particles.
Julian Barbours model: http://www.platonia.com/barbour_nature.pdf
Barbour's paper is interesting for another reason, he does understand that it is hard to reconcile the local time experienced in special relativity to the universal time, and he mentions this within the first page of this work. The distinction I believe is which is more fundamental, emergent time, or cosmological time? Clearly the universe is more fundamental than the matter fields contained within it, which are required to define time itself. Special relativity then satisfies the low energy range. In the high energy range, special relativity isn't able to define time at all.
Just so there is no confusion, the high energy range concerns itself with highenergy physics of early cosmology. During very early cosmology, the universe was extremely hot  too hot for matter if you like. The universe then begins to cool down and when it has cooled down sufficiently, matter appears. At this range, special relativity appears consistent. So, the question of how they make sense of each other, that is special relativity and timelessness of general relativity, may just be an application of environment!

 Follow
 1
 17042014 13:32
Last edited by Graviphoton; 17042014 at 13:39. 
 Follow
 2
 17042014 13:33
Tools of Timelessness
Ok... so if we actually can deal with relative positions then what about all our mathematical tools that use time to describe, say action... how do you understand any of that without time?
Well, actually, we have quite number of the tools required to describe timelessness already. We already have a timeless Schrodinger equation. There is also a timeless action using only generalized coordinates
This is also related to momentum
With there being a timeless action, there is also naturally a timeless path integral that exists in quantum mechanics [1]. The reference given is an important one, it will propose an action using the variational principle, an approach that was favored in this next citation [2]. In this work, we will not even attempt any quantum picture of ''time.'' If there is a ''quantum time'' we can be sure it doesn't fit into the Newtonian picture of time in which it flows from the past to the future. Instead, quantum time would be made up discretely of very quick beginnings and ends. However, actually discovering how pixelated reality is has shown to be difficult, spacetime has been shown to be pretty much smooth down to small scales so far by measuring how long it has taken for light to reach us from some distant event.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.5436v4.pdf
[2] http://www.fqxi.org/data/essayconte...ime_FQXiEs.pdf
Induced Time and Matter Clocks
On the macroscopic scale, time really does appear real to us and I suppose within the context of a field theory coupled to special relativity, you could define easily in a model where matter acts as clocks. In fact, the definition is wellrecognized that, if only radiation fields existed Penrose says, ''time essentially disappears.''
Well, that was within the context actually, of his own Cyclic universe theory, but it uses the same physics. In his model, the universe get's so large that matter eventually evaporates away, into gravitational radiation no doubt and all you are left with ''is radiation fields,'' he concludes ''and so time somewhat disappears.'' And then later, time reemerges with a new beginning all over again.
Instead, we want to remove the idea of cyclic models and ask the same question by taking into consideration a fact about the model: when big bang happened, how do you define time because matter did not appear until the electroweak symmetry breaking?
I am sure Penrose had caught onto this question at some point in his life, as it is a completely valid one. If you are using the disappearance of matter fields to remove time, then how could the universe have a beginning to time, if there were no matter fields about initially? The universe in this respect from relativity, was also timeless. There were no moving clocks to define time inside the universe.
The previous part which spoke about similarities and differences between Machian Relativity and General Relativity was talking about coordinate phenomenon and these coordinates ''problems'' was considered for many years by Einstein in what he called his hole argument. It is maybe interesting to point out, that Einstein finally settled with an understanding he was happy with. As we learned, a point in space is physically meaningless, Einstein believed that the hole argument implied that the meaningful definition of location and time is through matter itself! Isn't that interesting? Einstein appears to be saying time itself is meaningless without the presence of matter.
You can actually show that matter can have internal clocks (a way for matter to have a local experience of time) by recognizing some very basic physics equations. So how do you give 'time to matter?' Let's take a look at two equations
If you don't recognize the first one you're not a particle physicist. If you don't know the second one, you don't read much science. But take my word for it, these two equations are universallyaccepted and when you string them together you find the clock of matter:
DeBroglie was the first to recognize that an electron could have an internal clock and work by David Hestene's has shown that there has been some experimental confirmation for this using channeling experiments. This local gauging of time to matter is important. It's how relativity even defines time; it's more fundamental say, than using two moving human observers. It's much more enlightening to think of matter being the fundamental mediator of time itself. Certainly, this was Einstein's final conclusion after his ''struggle with the meaning of coordinates,'' as he called it when he finally came to understand that location and time can only be meaningful when you have matter fields in the picture.
This brings us back to the thoughtexperiment, if the universe began with only radiation fields, how can relativity say there was any time present? Effectively, it can't. How do you deal with gravity without time?
Entropic Gravity
It was found, by some very clever scientists that you can retreive Einstein's field equations from statistical mechanics.
Earlier I explained that our best definition of time was change and so if we want to talk about the evolution of the universe, we should really be thinking of it in terms of entropy. Entropic gravity could perhaps describe our universe consistently within GR  the perk of using entropy like this is because of the way entropy makes use of every system in a statistical sense. In Machian relativity, time is also defined by the changes of systems relative to the positions of other systems. Time of course, is a measure of change.
Well, entropy is the perfect tool to describe that change and now we know it is theoretically possible to recover general relativity from those equations. What a simple and yet beautiful theory it would be, if at the framework it was really depending on two wellknown facts of physics, one of them being Einstein's famous relativistic field equations, the other a classical thermodynamic law. Is it possible we can create a proper understanding of gravity using only these two instruments? I think it is.
Being entropic, means gravity is also not fundamental; this might be the best route we can take since it appears that gravity so far is best seen in light as a pseudoforce (not a true fundamental field). Of course, being emergent in this manner means it could work well in principle with geometrogenesis (the theory which proposes that matter, geometry (and time) are emergent properties of the universe). We know that General Relativity really says that time is unthinkable without matter fields. Perhaps not only is time and matter emergent, but perhaps then also geometry.
There are now well over several scientists in this respect working in this field to attempt to find ways to falsify these idea's. Entropic gravity was heavily criticized for not producing measurable predictions (it only predicted already known facts)... I think it is foolish throwing away a theory because it makes the right predictions, that isn't the way you falsify a theory. It's an odd reason indeed not to like a theory.
Final Thoughts
When I discuss this subject to people, very few understand it. The major task is understanding how we can even talk about things without time. I've shown, some of these tools already exist. But conceptually, the popularity of spacetime has become deceptively massive and almost threaded into the minds of physicists and layman alike.
How do we unthread this train of thought?
Well first of all, we have to correct popularized definitions; such as, one that is hailed in almost any popular science book at your local store, that Einstein said ''space, time, matter and energy are all one and the same thing.''
If Einstein did make this statement, he never actually gave the fuller meaning, which doesn't actually state this at all. When it comes to time for instance, he realized in his General Theory that it was meaningless to even talk about time without matter. The interdependency of spacetimematterenergy is actually... spaceenergy first it seems, then mattertime gets folded into the mix, because if we take our current model of the universe, it tells us matter appears after a radiation epoch. Einstein was settled with his idea, that matter and time needed each other to be defined, so we must take this seriously. If the universe arose in radiation fields first, Einstein would it appears be forced to admit there is no way to even define time! The early universe was static until matter fields appeared, then we can begin to talk about time.
So hopefully the popular understanding of relativity can be nipped in the bud, because it isn't actually fully true: You can have space and energy no problem, but in Einstein's hole argument, you can't have time without matter.
The Wheeler de Witt equation is also a nice prediction from wedding quantum mechanics with general relativity, we get back a timeless Schrodinger equation. If quantizing general relativity leads to the correct picture, then Bryce deWitt did this in the 60's for Wheeler and ever since he called it ''that damn equation!'' The fact that coordinates can be freely exchanged without a time parameter describing evolution as a symmetry of the theory goes hand in hand with this timeless nature of GR.
The cosmological consequences of not having a time parameter for the universe could be huge. It can predict for instance, that energy is not conserved. Without a cosmological there is no way to mathematically conserve it's energy; in itself, this could be a prediction our universe is leaking energy, so this makes testable predictions. There has already been work underway to see if the universe is leaking energy [1].
To finish off, we already know what time is; Mach said it best
''we arrive at the abstraction of time, from the changes of things.''
I like to tell myself, most people will agree that time is a measure of change: And in most instances I am correct, almost no one ever challenges this view. If there is no dispute change is the true definition of time, then how has there been a major paradigm shift of understanding, from making time an abstract from the changes of things, to something which is by definition a space dimension?
It's because people, even physicists tend to cling onto fashionable idea's. It's helps to promote books, helps to promote your name for being able to talk about science in a simplistic way for audiences understand. Is it true though?
After reading Einsteins real conclusions about how he defined time, would you believe the statement that spacetimematterenergy are all interdependant? Of course you'd question it, I did. I once thought the same thing, but Einstein actually said matter and time where unthinkable without each other within his theory. As I mentioned before, if we take the modern view of cosmology correctly, there where no matter fields originally.The universe has to undergo a Planck Epoch. It then had to undergo a unified electrostrong phase before the electroweak symmetry breaking occurred, then matter appears, this is directly after a radiation epoch of pure radiation fields.
Can we afford to hold on to time like we have?
I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, time is very meaningful because we draw that meaning from the changes of things. A lot of physics would be difficult without the use of time, while other parts of it no doubt will start to make sense. But this was no doubt a leading factor to why many physicists dared not to think of position as being relative, because at the crux of it, it would lead to a more complex theory. Interestingly, if we can learn anything from physics in the last 100 years is that Occams Principle, in principle almost never works. Quantum theory is far from rational and it has proven this time and time again.
If it wasn't so blatantly obvious that time is an abstraction rather than an objective phenomenon, quantum physicists could have been accused of hiding a secret. Rather, it's came from a faulty understanding of what Einstein really said about the unity of spacetime and matterenergy. It turned out that time was more an emergent phenomenon with matter because both could not be thought of without each other. This faulty premise needs to be fixed, or the next generation of physicists will tend to cling to fashionable idea's that have no direct confirmation at all.
Now to end... a map has been given to the physicist now how to solve the time problem. It exists as a temperature problem of the universe, Special Relativity theory can only be applied to the low energy range, meaning that time emerges when matter appears in the universe. Special theory describes this effect quite well: Machian Theory coupled to General Relativity can help with a more fundamental picture of reality, where relativity is forced to admit it cannot define time without the presence of matter fields. The motion of systems in this fundamental theory will not deal with a time parameter, but instead a complex configuration (probably) threegeometry space where motion generates time.
[1] Tamara M. Davis http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...eakingenergy/
Other sources
[1] No flow to time, George Ellis http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0240
In this work, Markopoulou does a good job explaining timelessness in GR. In her work, she attempts to take a radical new view on it's solution, by making time real, but space not http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1861 
 Follow
 3
 17042014 15:56
Rather ironically, I don't have the time to read all that!
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 
 Follow
 4
 17042014 21:53
it makes a refreshing change from the usual stuff in CC.

 Follow
 5
 18042014 10:14
(Original post by the bear)
it makes a refreshing change from the usual stuff in CC.
Thanks.
I hope it was clear enough. I know it is a bit of a longread and in some area's I tend to repeat myself. Getting the message across to layman on the internet that time doesn't exist in GR has been a difficult battle.
It is the truth and it doesn't matter how many papers I link, some of them just can't let go of their definition of time, ie. many believe it really exists ''out there.''
There is no evidence an objective time exists. Explaining the subject and trying to remain clear about it is difficult, it's not a greatly written subject (in one area). Timelessness has about several different versions and a lot of them appear from definition problems within the theory. 
 Follow
 6
 18042014 10:17
I think just as important, the term ''observer'' in special relativity is misused. Because an observer can read the hands of a clock, many take this as evidence we can measure time. But a clock measures change, so this isn't true at all. No one can see ''time'' even though I have had layman claim they can. The term observer in relativity isn't as fundamental as the term ''observer'' in quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, what can be observed is given by ''observables'' and time is not an observable. In quantum mechanics, there is no true notion of measuring ''time.''

 Follow
 7
 18042014 12:29
The student room isn't a physics journal you know

 Follow
 8
 18042014 13:48
(Original post by Graviphoton)
Thanks.
I hope it was clear enough. I know it is a bit of a longread and in some area's I tend to repeat myself. Getting the message across to layman on the internet that time doesn't exist in GR has been a difficult battle.
It is the truth and it doesn't matter how many papers I link, some of them just can't let go of their definition of time, ie. many believe it really exists ''out there.''
There is no evidence an objective time exists. Explaining the subject and trying to remain clear about it is difficult, it's not a greatly written subject (in one area). Timelessness has about several different versions and a lot of them appear from definition problems within the theory. 
 Follow
 9
 18042014 15:34
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
The student room isn't a physics journal you know
This is how I am creative 
 Follow
 10
 18042014 15:35
(Original post by the bear)
time is a very strange concept the more you think about it. we just take it for granted & arrange our lives using it, without really knowing what "it " is...
We seem to draw meaning from a definition of change: change appears to be how ''we'' define time. But if there was no change, how could we define time, how could we say time passed?
Equally, if time is defined by change and change happens in space, then setting on equal grounds as a space dimension just seems like quite a leap. 
 Follow
 11
 18042014 15:36
Wow. A serious post on TSR that actually made me learn something. I am impressed OP, keep it up.
Posted from TSR Mobile 
 Follow
 12
 18042014 15:37
(Original post by majmuh24)
Wow. A serious post on TSR that actually made me learn something. I am impressed OP, keep it up.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I am glad you learned something. Thanks! 
 Follow
 13
 18042014 15:44
(Original post by Graviphoton)
I am glad you learned something. Thanks!
Are you saying that absolute time doesn't exist or that we are in a state of complete timelessness? Also, what about the effect of gravity on perceived time, or is this just a change in the symmetry or asymmetry of the universe?
Posted from TSR Mobile 
 Follow
 14
 18042014 16:10
(Original post by majmuh24)
I'm not quite sure I fully understood everything, so I might have a few questions, LOL
Are you saying that absolute time doesn't exist or that we are in a state of complete timelessness? Also, what about the effect of gravity on perceived time, or is this just a change in the symmetry or asymmetry of the universe?
Posted from TSR Mobile
As far as absolute space, or even time, no scientist (and I am no scientist) but no scientist actually thinks of spacetime as absolute... like an aether for instance would play such a role. The closest thing we have to an absolute spacetime are the quantum fields of quantum mechanics which would play such a role, but ever since Einstein proposed this ''quantum aether'' it never really took off. Perhaps because any connotation to aether theories generally receives bad press.
The effects of gravity, or any kind of dilation related to time, must be rephrased: When a moving observer travels close to the speed of light, do they not experience time slow down?
Instead, they experience the measure of change slow down from their own frame of reference, the world outside continues normally. As you move faster and faster and approach the speed of light, you cannot define motion action outside from your frame of reference very well. Before anything has a chance to do anything, any changes outside, is stretched so things appear to move slower for you.
This measure of change, needs to be how we redefine things like gravitational dilation or moving observer timedilation, are really all ...
... dilations of changes.Last edited by Graviphoton; 18042014 at 16:11. 
 Follow
 15
 23042014 22:25
(Original post by Graviphoton)
Getting the message across to layman on the internet that time doesn't exist in GR has been a difficult battle. 
 Follow
 16
 23042014 22:32
(Original post by Mr M)
It's a battle worth fighting G. Share more of your wisdom with us. Do.
Wisdom?
More like knowledge of the theory. I have no more wisdom than you.
Timeless theories in physics are almost ignored by most. There are some scientists out there trying to make something of it. Only because I have some knowledge of GR can I give a model that might suit a further beyond the standard model theory. 
 Follow
 17
 23042014 22:41
(Original post by Mr M)
It's a battle worth fighting G. Share more of your wisdom with us. Do. 
 Follow
 18
 23042014 22:44
(Original post by ThatPerson)
Are any of OPs posts genuine science/maths or is it just gobbledegook (for lack of a better word)? 
 Follow
 19
 23042014 23:14
(Original post by Mr M)
May I direct you to The Repulsive Principle? Start at post 46 to avoid turning your brain to mush.
lol... listen bud, I don't know what games you are playing, but if you have nothing to add the comments in the OP why say anything at all?
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
Updated: April 23, 2014
Share this discussion:
Tweet