Back in 1908 J.M.E. McTaggart published his proof of The Unreality of Time in Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 17 (1908): 456-473. Arriving only a few years after Special Relativity I suppose it was taken as nothing but an elaborate joke by scientists and laymen alike, perhaps with the omission of McTaggarts own collegues. Be that as it may, so far his ideas in this matter has been mainly overlooked by the relativity scientists and I think it is time to do something about that because, you see, he was right.
However, nothing seem to indicate that anything is wrong with Special Relativity. All consequences that so far has been verified by experiments are in agreement with predictions. How can that be if some of the most important discoverys of Special Relativity deal with something that does not exist? To be sure, according to McTaggart Time is simply a memory of past moments and an expectation about future moments. As such it has no physical qualities at all. McTaggart arrived at this conclusion using logic whereas I had the same surprise insight when pondering over possible mechanics of discontinuous time and time dilation.
So, if Time does not exist, then the present moment must somehow keep a record of what has transpired and forecast that which is to be. How that might work is what the "Dynamic Present" was invented to show.
The Dynamic Present has some extra qualities that Time does not have. Most of those deal with the origin of quantum effects. One is rather conspic, Absolute Simultaneity, which already has been verified by a number of experiments investigating Einsteins "Spooky action at a distant". Even when the results of the tests of Bell´s inequality pointed towards a non-local reality, these results never were allowed to challenge Special Relativity on the matter of the Relativity of Simultaneity by pointing out that a non-local action is a simultaneous action. This insight I would suggest is rather overdue and also time to do something about!
How then does the theories of relativity actually work in order for us to have remained ignorant of the nonexistence of Time for so long?
They compare what happens at the present moment with what is recorded by the Dynamic Present to have happened at earlier moments in order to present a prognosis about what probably will happen at later moments."Time" is simply the memory of past moments where actions have been captured and stored as vectors by the alleged dynamic capabilities of the Present. Using an arbitrary number (for instance the second) as a label and using the number of seconds by which the moment on hand is removed from the present moment the record of that or any other moment can be recreated using the continually updated record stored in the present moment. This is what Relativity is doing behind the curtain and it works really well as everybody know. Relativity does not need "Time" to do this.
What then about Time Dilation? Transformations between two different inertial system? Same here. Time dilation does not need Time. What time dilation does is to limit the moving inertial systems access to the actionvectors stored in the present in such a way that the closer the system speed is to the speed of light, the less action is available each moment to do work like for instance moving the hands of a clock. Therefore the action from more present moments are needed for the same work to be done and so we think time has slowed down.
Since the theories of relativity work fine without time, we have had no reason to suspect that Time does not exist. The theories of relativity has obscured the view so to speak.
I can see that professional physicists and other enlightend students of physics and philosophy would be deeply suspicius of my speculations. After all I am just a layman at large. Given the status of physics today I do however think some new idéas are called for if only to counteract the "fairytale physics" delivered by some scientific programs on the telly and by magazines that claim to bring the reader the latest news from the physics frontier.
Because I am a layman with no mathematic skills at all I am presenting this as I would describe a car. That is, I can drive but would have a hard time calculating the Carnot Cycle if you see my point...
Ok then, what exactly, without the mathematical dress, is the present moment? In my view it is a dynamic alias for our complete universe, where the dynamic qualities are the same that we find in any elastic solid, only maybe a bit more accentuated given the speed of light. This our elastic solid universe is oscillating because of the event we have named The Big Bang. The oscillations are mainly volumevise and very rapid so that each single cycle of oscillation constitute a very brief present moment which for this reason have a certain duration. This duration I suggest, would probably be at the order of plancktime, which is about 10ˉ⁴⁴s. My reason for choosing plancktime is because this is the shortest imaginable and presumably also undividable duration that comes to my mind.
Do we have a problem here?. You might want to point out that plancktime is also time, however brief. Well, yes, we call it duration or time, but it is actually just a complete cycle of oscillation. In other words, a space thing rather then a time thing. These oscillations of the fabric that make up the three dimensions of space is the origin of all quantum effects. As the sole source of energy in the universe it drives all other oscillations in the fabric of the universe by resonance.. This include the actionvectors of the present moment, the longitudinal (sound)waves of matter and the transverse waves of light. It also includes gravitation.
When Einstein had generalized relativity by including accelerated reference frames the main result came out as a theory of gravitation. Because neither Einstein nor anyone else suspected that time actually does not exist the equations, which also include time as a major ingredience, painted the now very familiar picture of the spacetime universe. That picture is false. Our universe is not the serene place this picture has lead us to believe. Instead the elastic fabric of our universe will stretch by the longitudinal soundlike oscillations of matter each single cycle of oscillation. This stretching of the fabric will be amplified locally by all the matter nearby since the resonating simultaneous stretch of the fabric around all matter in the universe will point in the same direction during each 10ˉ⁴⁴s cycle of oscillation. As the stretch around the matter alters between zero and a maximum during the 10ˉ⁴⁴s cycle, any object that happen to be in that area around the matter will be accelerated towards the center of the matter in question. Consequently the matter of our our Sun pulls the surrounding fabric along with planets and all towards its center each 10ˉ⁴⁴s.
I do not think I am wrong in my assessment of the large picture. Outlining this scenario without equations would, I hope, help other laymen like myself to accsess and evaluate the ideas and perhaps also help them to form a healthy suspicion of all the fantastic stories we are served by popular media. Another hope of mine is that these ideas may become the subject of a fair and thorough evaluation by proper scientists. If you have the patience to go through all pages you will probably find that while the ideas have evolved a little since those from 1998 and 2000, the main message remain the same: Time is not what we thought it was. In fact, it does not even exist.
Please let me know If there is anything else, but to serve the same message over again, that I can do to get things going.
Want me to come and try to persuade you in person? In Gothenburg it would cost you a tramticket. Going other places might be a bit more expensive.
Writing a scientific paper is not my piece of cake and I do not master the necessary mathematics to be able to suggest any valid test to verify the Dynamic Present. Consequently the future progress and evolution of this model is free for anyone with the necessary skills to take a shot at. I would happily assist.
If you want to drop me a line the email address is: email@example.com
You may also use the comments dialogue above, on your right.
All the best!
[ Back to top ]