-3

One of the interpretation of special relativity states that the time is an illusion and does not really exist. This interpretation promoted Einstein himself in his condolence letter after the death of his friend Michelle Besso(but let's set aside if he actually meant this emotional letter seriously). This interpretation takes into account the determinism that the theory contains. Relativity, contrary to the quantum mechanics, is purely deterministic.

However, I would like to know if there are actually any reasons why to suppose the "nonexistence" of time. Why to chose time from the four dimensions that relativity describes? The theory does not explicitly state we should choose the time dimension to be non-existent, the same can be told about space. Yes, relativity brought to life the problem with definition of simultaneity in time, but the relativity of simultaneity in space is much more trivial and older than the time one.

Also, if we choose to accept that the universe is deterministic and expanding, then the apparent freedom of movement is just as big of an illusion as the one of our perception of time. Because if the universe is deterministic, you have actually no freedom in movement through space - you are predestined to move as you move. If we choose to accept the expansion of the universe, we can also say that we are continuously moving "forwards" in space, let's say from a point our particles were at the moment of the big bang. And probably the point is even out of our reach now thanks to the rapid expansion in the first few moments after the big bang.

Is it only our experience from other fields, like the said thermodynamics, that dictates to choose the interpretation in which we treat time as being "non-existent"? Or are there actual reasons within the relativity itself that the time should be treated as such? Or the apparent empirical observation(irrelevant if time should be an illusion and contradicted in the quantum field theory in which we can interpret antiparticles as particles moving backwards in time and the problem of not enough backwards-time-travelling elements of our world gets transformed into the baryon asymmetry problem) that everything moves forwards in time?

user74200
  • 269
  • 1
    No, I am certainly not implying or considering that the big bang started from a point. I am just saying that if we define some two points in early universe some distance apart and look at them now, they will be more distant than in the early universe thanks to the expansion. If we choose some time before or even during the inflatory period, the two points can drift apart further than what can be reachable by any sublight speed. – user74200 Dec 02 '18 at 22:59
  • 1
    Yes, I just wasn't sure, thanks. Can I ask you to consider the definition of space. By this I mean that on relatedly short scales, space is a distance, in the conventional sense that it takes a certain time to get somewhere. But on a universal scale, I personally think we have to consider space as a relationship between things, as the distance idea implies an edge to the universe (to me at least). Sorry, I know this is handwavey, but I think it might be relevant. –  Dec 02 '18 at 23:11
  • Well, my whole question is about philosophy and interpretation, so it is just a handwavery too :) Talking about the universal structures is tricky and exactly this line of thought led me to this question about the timeless physics interpretation. In my view, what timeless physics interpretation is doing is something like fixing the spatial axis and considering only the rotation of the temporal axis in movement and deducing from this that the time does not exist. But that is forgetting the fact, that during movement the direction of spatial axis is different from the observer at rest, too. – user74200 Dec 02 '18 at 23:33
  • Related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction – PM 2Ring Dec 03 '18 at 01:12
  • 2
    If there is a question here, it seems to be a philosophy question, not a physics question. –  Dec 03 '18 at 02:10
  • 2
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it would be more appropriate for philosophy.SE. –  Dec 03 '18 at 03:05

1 Answers1

0

One of the interpretation of special relativity states that the time is an illusion and does not really exist. This interpretation promoted Einstein himself in his condolence letter after the death of his friend Michelle Besso

Unfortunately, the answer to your question is to correct the mistake in the premise. As written in the letter you refer to, what is considered to be an illusion is the distinction between past present and future. Time is not considered an illusion under any interpretation of relativity. Under the usual “block universe” interpretation the present does not exist. This is far different from time not existing.

Dale
  • 99,825
  • What I mean by the time not existing is the notion that it might not be a fundamental building block of the universe that some theorists seem to accept. What I wanted to come into with my question is, that if we work the other way around, because relativity also speaks of the relativity of distance, and take into consideration that the time actually is fundamental and space is not, what arguments can we meet that would make this approach difficult? – user74200 Dec 03 '18 at 00:02
  • They use this non-existence of a distinction between past/present/future as an argument or a starting point for their view. Sorry if my formulation is wacky, I know that. – user74200 Dec 03 '18 at 00:14
  • You should reference the specific works where “some theorists” make that argument. It is certainly a misunderstanding of the usual block universe interpretation. So if it comes from some other line of reasoning it is not a common one. – Dale Dec 03 '18 at 01:46
  • For example Barbour, The End of Time. – user74200 Dec 03 '18 at 01:47
  • I read that entire book. An incredibly disappointing waste of time. Mathematically he did not get rid of time, he just re-labeled it with a different variable. I think he used theta instead of t, but it did everything that t did. Quite pointless, IMO. Philosophically, he also did not get rid of time he just chopped it up into disconnected pieces that all exist. – Dale Dec 03 '18 at 03:45