The generally accepted concept regarding our physical worldview is that the universe forms and exists in a four-dimensional spacetime, cons...
The generally accepted concept regarding our physical worldview is that the universe forms and exists in a four-dimensional spacetime, consisting of three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. We can visually represent this arrangement, as well as the changes—typically involving motion—that occur inside spacetime by drawing spacetime diagrams in spacetime coordinate systems. Using this representation, we can describe the relationships and rules characteristic of the physical system, which are related to the changes and which also correspond to reality. In this representation, time, appearing as a unique coordinate, is one dimension of the location of the changes; that is why this kind of physical place is called spacetime, and we consider this spacetime to carry the meaning corresponding to reality regarding the place of physical existence.
The temporal extension of space, the four-dimensional interpretation of spacetime, was introduced by Hermann Minkowski, who used this framework to represent the mathematical relationship formulated by Albert Einstein that forms the basis of the special theory of relativity. Although Albert Einstein—not satisfying with the connection between the spacetime interpretation and physical reality—initially disagreed with this extension and representation of the mathematical relationship of the special theory of relativity, he was eventually convinced by the conclusions that also can be drawn visually from these representations—the space and time contractions by different motions, which are consistent with the theory and also with physical reality—that Hermann Minkowski’s interpretation of four-dimensional spacetime could correspond to our universe.
The spacetime interpretation of reality was later expanded upon and confirmed by the general theory of relativity, which similarly allows us to visualize the light cones distorted by gravity and properly interpret the changes in motion and motion-related properties, such as time. Currently, our generally accepted physical worldview is that we exist in a four-dimensional spacetime continuum carrying special characteristics like having a maximum speed that is unreachable by matter, where the dimensions of space and time can be distorted by motion and gravity, are distorted by the influence of present energy, where the units of the spacetime dimensions can change, and still this spacetime continuum is perceived as the same when referring to itself in every existing state, yet exists differently when compared to different other states—specifically in distances in space and time, and also in the very flow of passing of time itself, hence these are unique and relative measures to any specific different states.
This concept of reality is articulated precisely by the theory of relativity. However, no matter how accurately it corresponds to the reality it describes, it is incompatible with the other, generally accepted, and similarly empirically confirmed theory—quantum theory—which, in a similarly conceptual way, describes reality, specifically the reality of the smallest particles in our world, with great precision. The incompatibility is fundamental; according to our current understanding, the two theories cannot both be valid at the same time and in the same place. It is obvious, however, that we have a single world, in which world, the parts described by the theory of relativity and quantum theory must coexist; they cannot rule out, cannot contradict each other, so our interpretations used for description, no matter how precisely they fit the observations, still do not correspond to reality.
One of the key reasons for this disagreement is undoubtedly the differing concepts of space held by the two theories. One is a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, while the other is a quantum state in perpetual bustle. In order to reconcile these two theories that interpret our world, we must certainly modify our conceptions of space and time as they relate to these interpretations. A key element of this paradigm shift in perspective may be to abandon the interpretation of a physically existing four-dimensional spacetime and instead accept that reality consists solely of spatial dimensions without temporal extension.
Temporal extension is not, by its very nature, a natural extension of space anyway. On the one hand, the spatial interpretation of the dimension of time is only possible after a conversion of the unit of measure made possible by the maximally existing speed; on the other hand, the nature of temporal extension is fundamentally different from that of spatial extension, since in reality, physical things can only move in one direction through time. Although given these dimensional limitations, the spacetime interpretation accurately describes reality, it may nevertheless be more appropriate to regard the four-dimensional spacetime interpretation strictly as a visual representation of our physical reality—something which is not identical to physical reality itself.
We can find physical properties related to space that are similar to this distinctive interpretation: temperature is one such example. We can assign temperature, as a measure of property, to every point in space. We can also discover regularities in the variations of temperature throughout space, and we can assign mathematical formulas to these regularities that correspond to empirical reality; also, in certain spaces, changes in certain movements can result in temperature changes at specific points in space that can be described by mathematical formulas, and we can even represent all these relationships and changes on location-temperature diagrams in coordinate systems. Yet we do not consider temperature to be a physical dimension of space. Even if expressing temperature (or the extent of space) in the same units would require greater creativity than similar agreement between time and space, still, considering the product of the constant speed of light—as a conversion unit—and time as it is a kind of distance of space, even if it can be mathematically equated to the physical unit of spatial extent, still to conclude from this that time also constitutes a truly existing spatial dimension is likewise a creative interpretation, from which the physically existing reality of the statement does not necessarily follow at all.
Perhaps more worthwhile, because it would be a more accurate interpretation of reality, to view time not as a physically existing spatial dimension, but—much like temperature—as a property of a given point of physical space; to regard time as one of space’s properties, without the notion of time having a physically existing spatial-kind extension.
Although time can be regarded as one of the axes of a coordinate system—since such a representation can demonstrate many characteristics of changes related to motion in space—but in the search for physically existing reality, it is not appropriate—because it does not correspond to reality—to interpret time (or, more precisely, the product of the speed of light and time) as a physically existing extension of space. Instead, we would come closer to reality if we regard time as a property of physical systems existing in space, relevant to different points of space, what we can measure using, for example, a clock, just as we do not regard temperature as a physically existing dimension of space extension, but rather as a certain property of the material system related to specific points in space, what we can measure using a thermometer.
If we view time in this way, it can help us interpret our world more coherently, because this perspective on time could not exclude compatibility with quantum theory; we just need to find a way to correctly interpret the physically existing property that we experience and identify as time, a property that we can also measure using our timekeeping instruments.
What we currently understand as time is, in fact, a human concept designed to describe changes in the world (in space) and to serve as a measure for characterizing the speed of those changes through comparison.
Time is the measure of change. In fact, change is the property that physically exists; it is what we can describe through the concept of passage of time. Searching for the reality behind this interpretation of time can be found in the thoughts.
No comments