## Non reality of time and new relativity theory.

Throughout the ages, time was an essential question for physicists and even more at present. Nowadays, physicists are trying to unify Quantum Mechanics and Einstein General Relativity theory, to get an overall theory, which would represent completely the universe, from infinitely small dimensions to infinitely large, and time is a major element for this unification.

However, does time really exist? Why is there an “arrow of time” while the equations of physics are reversible with variable time? This question of the real existence of time is a headache for scientists and philosophers, and a real nightmare for physicists.

Even today, there is no clear answer to what is called “time” and why there is an “arrow of time”. A great number of physicists’ claims that time do not exist, but it seems to be only a belief without a demonstration of its non-existence and without an analysis of the consequences it can have on our knowledge of the universe. A non-exhaustive list of these physicists is : Dan Romalo, Carlo Rovelli, Philippe Klein, Craig Callender, Marc Lachièze-Rey, Philippe Boulanger, Julian Barbour, George Snowdon, Sandra E baron and Peter Wamai Wanjohi, Florian Girelli et al, McCormick, Chris Kennedy, etc…

From the analysis of all these scientists’ thoughts, the following conclusions can be resumed as follows:

– Julian Barbour sees the arrow of time as the pages of a book and although he does not believe in the real existence of time, he cannot give another definition,

– Carlo Rovelli explains that we can express the equations of Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity without time in these equations, but since he does not question the General Relativity theory, time has inevitably an existence through the notion of space-time universe,

– George Snowdon points out that there is maybe a difference between duration of event and time,

– Sandra E baron and Peter Wamai Wanjohi think that the notion of time comes from the movements of objects in the universe.

The two last statements are of importance to understand why time is not a real entity in the universe.

The problem of the reality of time was discussed first in the 18th century, and it gives rise to discussions between great mathematicians like d’Alembert and Euler. It arose when scientists wanted to relate the increase of velocity and acceleration, which is not so obvious.

It was d’Alembert (1717 – 1783) who expressed it in the following form, with dt as a duration (i):

∅*dt=dv (1)

where ∅ * dt is “the quantity to which the increase of velocity dv is proportional”, ∅ being what we call acceleration.

It is very important to stress here that “dt” is not a differential increase of time, like in differential calculation, but only a constant small “duration”. Following d’ Alembert, the expression ∅ * dt must not be separated in elements, since “dt” is a “duration” and that we cannot derive velocity v by a “duration”.

Consider now a body with velocity v, experiencing an increase in velocity (dv) on a distance interval (dx), v being the velocity on interval (dx). The “duration” dt of this event is:

dt= dx/v (2)

Then the expression (1) becomes:

∅*dx/v=dv (3)

Now x and v are real entity and we can multiply (3) by v and obtain:

∅*dx=v*dv (4)

Even then, one can see that for a given interval dx, in order to have a given increase of velocity dv, the acceleration needed is proportional to velocity v.

Since: v* dv=1/2*d(v2)

Then: ∅*dx=d(1/2〖*v〗^2) (5)

This is expressing that the acceleration on a small interval dx is equal to the variation of velocity square divided by two.

The force F = m * ∅ can be expressed by:

F*dx=m*v* dv = d(1/2*〖mv〗^2) (6)

A force exerted along a distance interval dx, gives rise to a variation of its kinetic energy.

And the expression of the force in differential form becomes:

F=d(1/2*〖mv〗^2)/dx (7)

One may make the objection from the above that the expression (3) is not correct, since the velocity is increasing during the interval dx, due to acceleration, and then duration dt cannot be equal to dx/v. A more exact derivation of duration dt can be done, taking into account the variation of v between x and x+dx. This calculation gives the same result as equation (2) when dv goes to zero.

Unfortunately, the expression physicists are using nowadays, attributed to L. Euler in 1752, expresses the accelerated force of a real matter body in function of time, as the derivative of the velocity v of the matter body versus time and multiplied by mass of the matter body m:

F=m*dv/dt (8)

It is interesting to show how this expression was established (ii).

It comes from Galilée experiments with balls rolling on inclined surfaces. He obtains that position x of the ball obeyed to the law:

x=1/2at^2 (9)

with a as the constant acceleration.

Increase in position between t and t+δt is given by:

δx=atδt+1/2aδt^2 (10)

In order to break free from δt, Leibnitz and Newton decided to make δt going to zero and obtain:

δx/δt=at (11)

and then they define instantaneous velocity as:

v=dx/dt (12)

and acceleration as the second derivative of x versus time.

However, it is more understandable that the acceleration force of a real matter body is the x derivative of its kinetic energy.

Since everything in the universe is moving or is transforming with a certain processing with its own speed, it is then obvious that what is real in the universe is not time but velocity! Moreover, since energy is the source for motion and/or processing of bodies, we can say that what is real in the universe is energy.

Now since time does not really exist in the universe it is necessary to explain the meaning of what we call “time”, and more over what gives rise to what we call the “arrow of time”.

What we know for sure as a fact, is that our occupations, our way of living, etc… are driven by the earth rotation on itself. It is a practical way of knowing the speed of our actions and compares them to the moving earth. Then we call an earth revolution a day, we divide the day in 24 hours, and divide the hour in minutes and seconds.

Historically, man defines “time” only to measure “duration” of an activity relative to the moving earth. They define a small interval of “duration” by using dt = dx/v meaning it gives a small interval of position due to velocity.

But then physicists came up with the velocity equal to dx/dt. But there is no reason to define velocity. Velocity is a real entity in the univers and we would have then to define a metric to compare velocities to each other’s, in the same way as we do it for space with meter as a metric.

Wikipedia in its introduction on the definition of time (iii) says the same: “there is no time measurement in the same way as there, for example, a measure of the electrical charge. In what follows it will be necessary to understand “measure of duration” instead of “time”. The measure of the duration, which is the elapsed time between two events, bases itself on periodic phenomena (days, oscillation of a pendulum …) or quantum (time of electronic transition in the atom for example)”.

It means that to calculate the speed of a body, we compare the travel of the body in space divided by Earth speed on a fraction of the ground Earth rotation. This is nothing to do with an absolute time!

It is what we call time but in fact, it is a measure of “duration”, and it is seen that it is only a way to compare what we are doing with the velocity of the earth! Other beings in the universe could do the same for their universe and it would be different from ours. If by any chance they came to visit us, they would measure duration for the duration between two events, and we will have only to know the rule from passing from one to the other means of measuring duration. Events in the universe are real and seen by anyone all the same.

What we call “time” is the comparison of the velocity of our actions compared to the moving Earth.

We can conclude from what precedes that both elements, which have a physical reality in the universe, are space, speed (energy), and not time.

What gives rise to the famous “arrow of time”?

We have to think that since time is not a real entity then it is something else that gives the arrow of time.

A good example for this is the case of the broken glass. For some physicists there is a non-null probability that a broken glass can take its original constitution. This is because in all equations of physic, when we use time, time can go plus or minus. Then why in reality do we think that time can only take a plus value and so give rise to the “arrow of time”?

Taking the case of a glass, making it is the result of a process perfectly defined and there is no way of doing it by chance. It needed to have a qualified personnel, adequate materials, and energy processing. But also when somebody let a glass fall down, since everything in the universe is moving or transforming, when the broken glass is on the floor, all universe keep moving and there is no way to get back to the state of the universe where it was before the glass fall down. It is certain that even by taking the pieces and with a trained personnel and a new process it will not give the original state and anyway the universe is not in the same state either. There is no chance to go back to the beginning of this situation.

Physicists say that it is due to the entropy of the system (the glass) which is rising. In thermodynamic for example, a system is said reversible if temperature of the sources and the system are identical. Then there is no exchange of energy and entropy is stable. If there is non-uniformity of pressure, temperature, density, then there is exchange of energy in the system and entropy is rising. In this case, it is said that the transition is irreversible.

It is clear for the glass being broken that there is an exchange of energy and the entropy is rising.

We can say that the “arrow of time” is due to irreversibility of the states of the universe, itself due to exchange of energy. Everything in the universe is moving or changing states by consuming energy. In our daily activities, we are always moving and changing interior states by consuming energy.

The movements of the Earth allow us in an obvious way to define what a day is and what a year is. The rest is only the division of this cosmological event. All the observers in the universe simultaneously observe the movement of the Earth whatever their speed of travel is and thus the simultaneity of the events is a fact.

It is now clear that there is no time passing but simply energy consuming and entropy rising, meaning we are always passing from one state to another one, and that process gives rise to the “arrow of time”.

If time does not really exist in the universe then what is an instant (“instant of time”)?

What we call an “instant of time” can be explained by a “configuration of the universe”, meaning in this expression “configuration of the universe” that all entities in the universe are characterized by a position in space.

Let us suppose for the sake of the demonstration that the speed of light is infinite and then with our technology, a photographic view of the universe is a space representation in 2D of all the constituents of the universe. It is easy to understand that this representation is very complicated to express in simple terms. It is difficult to say that, for one of the fixed configuration, the Earth is precisely situated with respect to the sun, and that the other planets and all the Galaxies are precisely situated there and there …

Then to avoid this problematic we give a name to a particular configuration in space of the universe.

In the past, several calendars have been used. Each one was starting from a time zero defined from special events. For example (iv) romans empire have used the founding of Roma, in Japan it was the accession to the throne of a new ruler.

From this starting “configuration”, astronomers were able to represent the universe and its evolution from this reference starting point.

Starting from its position in space, each particle has the ability to move, to change from one position to another one. Then, after measuring position and velocity of matter bodies in the universe, astronomers are able to predict what can be a next configuration of the universe, from a previous one, when one of a specific chosen body has moved to a specific distance.

To conclude from the above, the problem is that in physics duration became time and time became a real entity!

The conclusion for the non-existing time is that the notion of a space-time universe is nonexistent also, and obviously Einstein General relativity theory is untrue.

Nevertheless there is a need to explain how all the laws of physics are true in all moving reference frame. Maybe no one have already heard of a new relativity theory proposed by Young-Sea Huang forty years ago (v).

The basic principle of the transformation of the new relativity theory, transformation from a reference frame to another one with a constant velocity between them, is to do it in the velocity space rather than in a space-time coordinates. This transformation is called the diﬀerential Lorentz transformation and is transforming physical quantities instead of space-time coordinates, to make laws of nature form-invariant. It makes transformation of infinitesimal virtual displacements between the two reference frames using the speed of light as a reference constant velocity.

The differential Lorentz transformation is just like the Lorentz transformation, but in its differential form. It makes a great difference, since with this differential transformation, simultaneity of events is maintained. As said by the author, time and space are of Newtonian nature.

Didier Viel.

PS: this is an extract of the book published on Lulu.com : “Time doesn’t exist. And many other things (Big Bang, Black matter, Black holes,…)

i http://www.persee.fr/doc/rhs_0151-4105_1994_num_47_3_1214

ii http://stockage.univ-brest.fr/~acolindv/telecharger/meca_physique/partie_2.pdf

iii https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temps

iv https://www.herodote.net/532_a_726-synthese-27.php

v Young-Sea Huang. An alternative to relativistic transformation of special relativity based on the ﬁrst principles. arXiv:0812.5029v1. 30 Dec 2008.