I am not appealing to a PhD analysis, or interminable discussions over the philosophies of time or space... Here is the format for those who do not wish to go through the link:
For there to be time dilation without time, the thing we call entropy cannot be time itself. Things can change without reference to time, motion is absolute in this sense. The interpretation of so called ''time'' dilation should be called into question as it is not a true reference to ''moving through time.''
Einstein's explanation of time dilation was a literally ''frame differentiation'' in such a way, that you could argue that the relativistic moving body that leaves Earth, say goes to Alpha Centuri in only a few days, would come back and find they have ''moved back in time,'' ie. (time travelled) and we have tended to think this means, we have physically moved through ''time'' differently in such a way, that one clock was slow enough that they now exist in a different time.
Einstein would have believed that this ''different time'' existed in a different space - and this is where we come to explain how to solve all the time travelling problems and the issue of paradoxes that arise from them. Well; good arguments exist that the twin paradox, is not really a paradox... but the issue of how a system travels in ''time'' is no more better questioned through bringing up the key subject of whether time is actually a dimension of space!
If time is not a dimension of space, as Minkowski eagerly implied from the work of Einstein's special relativity and then general, then ''moving through time'' and ''moving through space'' become different things and I have a thought experiment to show why, a person that travels far from Earth on a rocket, will still come back and they haven't travelled through time at all, but dilation will be result of spatial dilations which affect the rate of change of systems.
The Thought Experiment
As stated, we often are told of the twin paradox in which one twin leaves to go to a distant system and returns to find everyone has remarkably aged, but something always interested me in this theorem, there was first of all, no paradox  and secondly why did Einstein consider this as an experiment that was a thought experiment which involved physics in the far regions of space which is unlikely to be within our technological capabilities for a long time? A simple thought experiment involving a fast Earth-orbiting clock would have sufficed in such a case, but our understanding of the possibility to jump to different frames in time, wouldn't have been as conceivable, which is why I think Einstein first led the physicists on this path.
To show why first of all the twin paradox is not really a paradox, I came to believe is key and relevant to understanding why time travel doesn't happen by you ''jumping through'' a symmetry of spacetime to another spacetime, with unique and different positions in those dimensions.
As most know, any reference frame is good enough... (except for some exceptions I will talk about later), there is from first principles no preferred reference frame so if a twin travels fast away from Earth, due to the equivalence principles, you can argue that from either frame, you are acceleration or the distant moving subject is accelerating. Just as the passenger in Einstein's train thought experiment demonstrates a person at rest in a moving train could argue the passengers outside are the one's moving. So why did Einstein not take his experiments to the orbits of space and argue the twin experiment in such a way?
I knew Einstein was aware that his experiment would be tested for a gravitational dilation in the clock tower of (what was it?) Harvard? Either way, a fast moving, near half the speed of light, orbiting Earth would have been a thought experiment which sufficed his dilation situation and would have leaded to a more rational view of the systematics going on here.
1. The observer travelling round Earth is not moving backward in time, because if he was, the reference frame of Earth would have to travel forwards in time.
2. Therefore the same happens no matter how far you move from Earth, no one has literally moved through time, because it would actually contradict the order of time in the opposing reference frame.
I think based on this, worm holes, the idea we can physically travel through time, have to be abandoned, including this sacred notion of how time and space are [often cited as] ''inextricably linked.'' They are not linked at all, in fact there may be no such thing as time and recently, I have no heavier argument than the one I came to myself. Many forgot, in the twin paradox, that no does actually physically travel forward or backward in time, because it would contradict a more local thought experiment which I hope was clear enough. If not, here is the rough of it:
- A relativistically moving observer implies there is a dilation in the change of things not time itself because if it were:
- The system would be violating the order of things since in the opposing reference frame there time frame must go backwards and so:
- What they really come to agree on, is the amount of time passed in respect to the slow moving frame with the fast since in the ‘’rest frame’’ the time did not go backwards but continued to proceed forward.
Time is a subjective phenomenon from circadian rhythm and has nothing to do with an external dimension that has physical effects in the world. The idea that things ‘’can move through time either faster or slower’’ must be abandoned unless that is, it will be an understanding of this through the relativistic no-preferred frame theorem. In which case, if the internal clocks of a moving system indicate a change, this is an entropy difference and nothing more. It just means, that time dilation needs to be rewritten explicitly as a space dilation only.
There are problems though, if time is not fundamental alongside courtship with space, then the beauty of curvature arising manifest observable from the unification that was implied through relativity explaining a wide range of physical and testable theories. I don’t want this beauty to disappear anywhere, I only want my article to show that an interpretation of a relativistic system (does not move through time). No more than we do …. In fact, on online forums I often said to obscure and amateur forums to questions involving ‘’does time travel exist’’ for me to answer ‘’we time travel all the day.’’ I mean it as a joke really - the ability to truly time travel implies itself a specially preserved reference frame, since the frame you moved in would imply either:
- You moved back in time
- The world around you moved back in time
But someone has to remain stuck in the present moment? Or no one does…. I prefer the latter here, because if someone does stay in the present moment then this would imply someone is capable of moving [that frame of time] from his own, and jump to a different time, in a different location of space, a phenomenon that has been accepted from the unification of space and time itself. This is the true mistake of relativity.
Einstein’s Famous Comments
…. Upon the death of his friend, he said these words, not to quote, ‘’those who believe in quantum mechanics, knows that the distinction of past, present and future are but stubborn illusions.’’
Einstein had a very popular view of time which many people in the lay and prof alike, have tapped into, that is, that the past, present and future, all exist side-by-side … and this statement would have been the true interpretation of relativity, but probably would not have been, if people considered the local orbit thought experiment first, because it would imply neither frame really moves through time. It would mean ultimately, that all systems can ‘’age’’ at different times, but this is nothing but a rate of change, and it is this abstraction, our minds created the false concept of time.
Edited by Dubbelosix, 11 February 2019 - 06:15 PM.