We employ the concept of time in order to measure the duration of events. Correspondingly, we determine a given object’s speed rate by calculating its relocation through space per a given unit of time. However, recent research work by physicists suggest that the time measurement doesn’t exist.
In two recent publications for Physics Essays, Amrit Sorley, David Fiscaletti, and Dusan Clinar note that even though we might be used to thinking of time as an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of an independent variable (time t is often delayed on the X-axis of graphs representing the evolution of the physical system), we never actually measure t itself. What we do measure are the given object’s properties such as frequency or speed rate. That is, we measure the differences (change) occurring in the object’s properties. These changes are being mutually compared, and in accordance with their continuity of identification and examination, we (notionally) move the arrows of a steady measuring mechanism (clock), which is what we call time. But even the clock’s steady measuring is defined by changes in the states of its own mechanism. Thus, by juxtaposing the changes occurring in two physical systems, we examine a given object’s change in properties, based on the changes in the properties of the steady measuring mechanism (i.e. changes in another object’s properties). Therefore, as far as reality is concerned, time in itself appears to be a non-existent mathematical value. This means that “time” is in the state of variational (changing) interrelation with space, which in its turn, is interrelated with the changes in the object’s properties. In this line of thought, notions of “absolute time” or “fourth dimension” are out of the question. The four-dimensional space-time is consisted of three spatial coordinates, which cause, but are also resultant of, changes in the object’s properties. In other words, the occurrence of change inside the properties of objects causes, but is also caused by, the appearance of the space-time continuum. The Universe in itself appears to be timeless. The point of view that considers time as a physical entity in which material changes occur is replaced with a more convenient one in which time is just a numerological order to these material changes (still frames). Such point of view is better consistent with the physical world and better explains instantaneous physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, the transmittance of information in the EPR-experiments and many others. The roots of this idea can be traced back to Einstein’s relativity, which marked the shift from the perception of time as a grand cosmic clock towards one in which it’s treated as a mathematical value (frame of reference). As Sorley points out: “Time does not have an independent existence; it only exists insofar as we use it to measure the continuity of events. Such is mu conclusion.”
The researchers are planning to prove that quantum space has three dimensions. As Sorley further elaborates: “The idea that time is the fourth dimension of space has not made much progress in physics and, strictly speaking, is in conflict with the formalism of the special theory of relativity. Now we are developing a paradigm for three-dimensional quantum space based on the work of Max Planck. Apparently, the universe is three-dimensional from the macro level to the micro level in the Planck volume, which is also three-dimensional. In this three-dimensional space there is no “length reduction”, there is no “time dilation”. What really exists is the speed of material changes in the relativistic Einstein sense.” In other words, the change in the properties of a given object results in change of the space-time.
That is, any changes that a given object might be experiencing result in changing its parallel reality, and vice versa.
Researchers offer an example to this concept of time: imagine a photon moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points consists of Planck length sections, each of which represents the smallest distance that a photon can travel (the fundamental unit of this movement is Planck time). When a photon travels the Planck distance, it moves exclusively in space, but not in absolute time, scientists explain. A photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 “precedes” its position at point 2 in the sense that number 1 precedes number 2 in the numerological order. And the numerological order is not equivalent to the temporal order, since 1 has not arrived earlier in time than 2 – they are both present in simultaneousness. In practice, these are two states of the photon unfolding at the same time, or inside “timelessness”. It turns out that continuity is only possible in purely numerological terms, i.e. in accordance with the numerological order’s generally accepted property of progression. This is how t is being mathematically verified. What else can be derived is that a single object (photon) appears to be in two simultaneous states – there is an object (state 1) or there is no object (state 0). The object is popping in and out of existence, which corresponds with the actual state of things – electron or proton, quark or quant, alternatingly appearing and disappearing. A given electron appears as a particle only when it is being observed…that is, only when there is a focus upon it.
Other scientists similarly point out that the mathematical model of space-time does not correlate with physical reality, and suggest that timeless space will allow the creation of a more accurate model. Therefore, what seems as a more accurate definition for the fabric of reality is the timeless “space-state”.
In this conception of time, time accounts for the numerological order to the changes taking place in space, whereas it is space alone that constitutes the fundamental system where the experiment (motion and change are unfolding) is taking place. Time appears to be a set of still frames, which reflects the material changes in the properties of the objects, and which has been arranged in a continuous sequence in accordance with the numerological order’s accepted progression property. “Based on experimental data, we can say that time is what we measure with the help of the clock: and with the help of the clock we measure precisely the numerological order of material changes, that is, the movement in space.”
The researchers emphasize the fact that such standpoint forbids the idea of time travel, since time in itself does not exist. “From our standpoint, travelling in time – either in the past or future – is not possible. There can only be travelled in the space-time as the examination of different still frames reflecting the changes in states, which is what we call motion.”
Space, motion and change (choice) of the states remain interconnected. Thus, in order that there might even be such thing as existence (mass and space), there must be an oscillation between 0 and 1 – there is object (state 1) and there is no object (state 0). What underlies this dual system is the standard correlation between distance and speed, where the distance is Planck’s length (1.61×10−35 meters) and the speed is the speed of light (299 792 458 m/s). The notional “time” for which the states to one such system are changing (oscillations) amounts to 1.61×10−35 meters/299 792 458 m/s = 5,3 x 10-44/sec.
The changes of the states between existence and non-existence are the possibility for choosing each “next” frame at that frequency of oscillation. For example: I exist (state 1) and I choose (state 0) to take (state 1) a step (state 0) by advancing into a frame, in which my foot is already placed (state 1)…The latter is readily present, and I have realized “motion” as a change of the state inside space – the foot has been already moved. In practice, I have Chosen a new frame, which is occurring at the rate of 5,3 x 10-44/sec. Everyone who’s unable to detect (due to lacking camera equipment that would be able to capture that process) the speed by which these frames are shifting, perceive (accept) the overall process as “motion”. Just like how we perceive the shifting of frames in cinema or animation as motion, when the frame rate is exceeding 24 frames per second (fps).
It turns out that in practice, space itself is a function to an oscillating system in three main states – between the nothingness (state 0) and I exist (state 1, which is actually constituted by two states in itself – the possibility for choosing a single frame out of the infinitely many existing ones (virtually existing state “-1”) and the frame that I have chosen, which has readily been turned into a fact (state existing in actuality “+1”)).