Military Gear & Army Surplus Gear Blog

Time does not exist: Carlo Rovelli at TEDxLakeComo

Time does not exist: Carlo Rovelli at TEDxLakeComo


Translator: SILVIA ALLONE
Reviewer: Robert Tucker Time. Time does not exist. I have 15 minutes to convince you of it. Take two watches. Hopefully better than these old-fashioned
pocket watches of my grandfather. A bit more precise, okay? Make sure that they show the same time. They show the same time, the same as here, around 2:45. Now, try raising one of them
and lowering the other. Keep them like that for a while: one, two, three. Then bring them back together and see what they show. If the watches are a little more
precise than these, they no longer show the same time. The watch held higher reads faster, and the watch held lower reads slower. This is a fact. Obviously, with watches like these,
it’s not very easy to see that. They’re not precise enough. However, today there exist
extremely precise watches. That’s one of them. It’s the Boulder atomic clock in Colorado, one of those that are used to fix
the official time in the United States. We have similar ones
in Italy, in Florence, lots. There are also smaller versions,
more commercial versions, that are good enough
to observe this effect with. They are in small boxes. If you take one and put it low down, and put another high up, when you bring them back together again,
they no longer show the same time. Time goes faster higher up, and slower lower down. It’s a fact. For instance, imagine you have a twin brother, you are the same age,
you grew up together. Imagine that your brother
goes to live in the mountains, and you go to live by the sea. If much later you meet up again, your brother will be older,
and you will be younger than he. It’s not just watches that are influenced by the strength
of the gravitational field, but all phenomena connected with time. Aging, the speed of our thoughts,
a flower coming into bloom. Everything. A swinging pendulum. Time goes faster higher up,
and slower lower down. You see, when at the beginning of the 90s, the first satellites for GPS
were sent into orbit, for the sat nav devices
we have in our cars to tell us where we are, physicists told engineers, “Be careful, up there,
on the satellites, time goes faster.” To work, the device needs to receive
messages from a satellite. On satellites, there’s a clock. The clock goes faster than
what we would expect down here, so they’d need to take that into account. The engineers said, “Oh, okay.” However, the entire project was, and is,
a project of the American military. GPS is operated by the US military. So, heading up the project
were American generals. The American generals were army generals. When told time goes slower,
faster, etc., their response was: “Time goes slower? Faster?
I don’t believe it.” So, the first satellites were sent up
with a double system that could work taking or not taking
into account this effect. The version that didn’t take
this effect into account didn’t work. The GPS would not work if it didn’t take into account
the fact that up there time went faster. So, even the American generals
could not be other than convinced that time went faster up there. What does this mean? It means time is not
what we imagine it to be. We cannot think of a unique time
that flows the same everywhere. Somehow, we need to think that higher up, lower down,
more to the right, more to the left, for who moves more slowly,
for who moves faster, time goes at different speeds. We need to change how we see the world, from a single clock beating the time, to many clocks, each with its own time. The world is a choir of these clocks
that go at different speeds. Strange and difficult. But if you think about it, it’s not the first time we’ve changed
how we see the world, is it? Is the Earth flat or round? This room, is it stationary
or is it moving? Stationary. No, we know it’s moving,
travelling very fast around the sun. (Hesitation) A swallow comes from another swallow, its mother was a swallow,
its grandmother, and so on, swallow, swallow, swallow. I was born from a human being,
who was born from another human being, from another human being. So it’s impossible I and a swallow
share the same ancestors. Not the case. We and the swallows
have the same, common ancestors. So, what’s this all about? We tend to develop simple,
natural ideas about the world that are wrong. Not because they are
not adaptable to our lives. They are adaptable to our lives,
indeed that’s the case; they refer to, are good on, our scale. They are no longer good
when we look at life, not on a scale of 10, 100 or 1,000 years,
but on a scale of millions of years, or when we think about
what happens very far away, with very fast, very small,
or very big objects. There’s an example I really like
and think useful in understanding time, that about high and low, right? Things fall from high to low. That is high, and this is low. It’s one of the basic structures
of the world as we see it. We organize our world
in terms of high and low, right? So in the universe, there’s high and low. Okay? A universal direction,
which is higher or lower. This isn’t entirely true. What’s high here is low in Sydney. What’s more, if we leave the Earth,
there’s not really high and low. Astronauts, we saw the pictures,
they move in any direction. The notion of high and low
doesn’t exist out there in the universe; it’s a notion appropriate only here to us. It’s convenient and useful
to organize phenomena around us, but it becomes useless and meaningless
the moment we leave our planet and go to the moon, as our astronauts did. In all these cases, we find our simple way
of looking at the world is wrong, and things are a little more complicated. The nice thing is that
in all these cases, including time – I’m coming back to time – Nowadays, it’s easy to think
that the Earth is round, and that outside of it
there’s no high or low. We’ve seen the pictures taken
by the astronauts of Apollo 11 on their way to the moon. The Earth is round. But we knew that before. Some of us already knew
that the Earth was round, right? Aristotle knew, Anaximander knew
that the Earth was round and flew. The Earth is moving. Now we’ve seen it from beyond it, but Galileo and Copernicus deduced it
without needing to see it. Darwin didn’t see
species change; he deduced it. How did they deduce these things? Simply by starting
with what we know about the world, observing, and putting
together known facts, and noticing that the known facts
can be better understood if we change our conception
of the structure of, our way of looking at, the world. In this way, all these people came
to understand something new, something crucial. The fact that time goes
slower lower down and faster higher up, that we nowadays observe: we just need to buy
those very precise clocks, and anyone can see it’s the case. It was understood before it was observed, by Einstein, almost 100 years ago,
97 years ago, in 1915, who was simply trying to clarify the ideas
of the physics of the world of his day. On one hand, Einstein had Newton’s theory,
the great theories of mechanics; on the other, he had electromagnetism. Endeavouring to combine these two things in order to have
a coherent picture of the world, he realized that time doesn’t go
at the same rate for everyone, that there are many different times,
that time goes at different rates. This was 100 years ago. The same thing is happening today. Because, today, we are again
in the same situation. Today, we have the great inheritance
of Einstein’s very beautiful theories, which, for a century,
we have discovered work perfectly. We have confirmed them, we’ve seen there are black holes, etc. Alongside it, throughout the 20th century,
quantum mechanics was advancing. This morning we heard Marco telling us
about the world of particle physics, all in terms of quantum mechanics,
an outstanding theory of motion, but which doesn’t work well
with Einstein’s theories, with general relativity. So science tried once again
with endeavors to use what we know
to try to gain greater insight. In 1963, two brilliant America scientists, Joe Wheeler, the man
in the black and while photo, and Bryce DeWitt, the man
in the color photo, simply took Einstein’s
general relativity equation, Einstein’s theories, and quantum mechanics, and put them together
and wrote an equation that Wheeler called “DeWitt’s Equation,”
and Dewitt “Wheeler’s Equation,” and everyone else, a bit fed up,
“Wheeler-DeWitt’s Equation.” It’s that one there,
but I won’t go into details. An equation that to start with
was very confusing. It was studied a lot,
and today we continue to study it. Today, the theory has been developed, and we can write it more precisely, and we can better understand
its significance. That’s what I work at. This equation has a characteristic
that was stunning at the time, and left everyone open-mouthed. This equation was created putting together
all that we know about the world from one end to the other. It has the characteristic as follows. All equations, if you remember
something of school physics, all the important fundamental
equations of physics from Galileo to Newton,
Maxwell, Einstein, and so on, they say how things change with time – back to time again – and so they all have “t,” time, in them,
whether it’s velocity or acceleration, changes in time, there’s always
time in the equations. This equation here
doesn’t have time in it, the variable “time” has been left out,
it’s vanished, it’s not there. It’s as if trying to write
all we know about the world, time is no longer there. What does this mean? That is what I’ll try to explain
in the remaining four minutes. If you listen to me carefully, I hope I’ll be able to make clear to you what it means to write an equation
to describe the world without time. Let’s go back to simpler physics. The first thing that those
who enroll in physics study is how a pendulum moves, for example,
or something else that moves. We need to describe
how its position changes with time. So we need to measure the position
and the time with a clock, right? We look at the position
and what the clock reads, make a chart, and write an equation that describes
how the position changes with time. But, here, we are not observing time; here, we are looking at
the hand’s position, right? The hand is moving, and this is moving. We’re just describing
how this position shifts when the hand’s position shifts. And if you think about it,
it’s what we always do. We always describe something
as a function of something else. Clocks are just things
among others that move, but that have the characteristic
of all moving together … more or less all together. What does this mean? It means that we can do without time and just talk in terms of
how the pendulum moves as a function of the position of the hand. Instead of saying,
“I woke up at 8 this morning,” I could say that I woke up
when the sun was in a given position, that I started talking
the moment the lights went off, and so on and so forth, with no reference to time at all. Let’s take “high” and “low,” for example. I could say this is high, and this is low, or I could avoid mentioning
“high” or “low.” I could say this is towards
that bright light there, and this is towards
the red circle underneath me. If I’m on Earth, I complicate life. But if I’m an astronaut in a capsule
and say to my friend, “Hey, Anderson, could you pass me
that clock up there?” he’ll reply, “Where’s up there?” But if I say “the one towards
the red mat” instead, he’ll be, “Oh, the one
towards the red mat.” So the notion of high or low
is meaningless when we leave the Earth. Well, the notion of time
becomes meaningless, disappears, as soon as I leave normal space and enter one where I have to use
quantum gravity, this equation here. And where is this space? Where things are extremely big
or extremely small: there where we’re still without
clear ideas on the world. If we observe the extremely small, observe on an extremely small scale, space, space itself fluctuates, spikes, it’s like a stormy sea, but what it is, is space-time
in the extremely small, as if time jumps. These two clocks, each weaving
its own path at a different speed, in the smallest of places, they go
forward and backward, they move, etc. On this extremely small scale, our notion of time is no longer good,
no longer useful, no longer works well. So we have to re-describe
the world in terms of those variables, one by one, without reference to time, as if we had a lot of clocks
that had lost their hands, and we could only see
how one moves in respect to the other. Imagine, to give you an idea, how we think about the world
as a combination of things that move, that change, that dance, all together, in time to a conductor of an orchestra who gives the beat:
1, 2, 1, 2 … all together … 1, 2. This picture no longer works
for the small. In the extremely small,
there’s no unique beat for all, and the world is as if it were a dance
of every microelement with its neighbor, but not all together. What’s the moral of this whole story? Time is a useful concept, it organizes our daily experiences, but it is not a fundamental concept. Just as “high” and “low”
are very useful concepts, but don’t work anymore
when we leave our everyday surroundings. This is true of a lot of things. It’s this that I love about science. What science teaches us
is that our image of the world, our perception of the world, is very often wrong, limited, working only in our usual surroundings. The human race is like
someone born in a small town where everyone behaves in the same way, until they leave and say,
“Oh, but there’s more. We can eat different things,
say different things, speak different languages,
have different ideas.” Humanity leaves behind
the smallness of its thoughts and discovers that everything’s different: species transform from one to another, “high” and “low” are not real, time is not what it seems. The world is bigger, more beautiful,
more diverse, and more thought-provoking than what it seems at first sight, this thing, a little banal,
with “high” and “low,” with people that move,
and rocks that fall. It’s much richer. And to understand that,
we have little need of ancient knowledge. Ancient knowledge, all ancient knowledge, what our forefathers taught us, really only applies here. If we look a little further,
it’s no longer valid. As was said in the first video today,
the universe is endless. We were born in a tiny,
little corner of it, have ideas that apply
only to this tiny, little corner, when we then start
to look a little further afield. I think what we discover at each step – and I’m concluding – is far more extensive,
more beautiful, more complex, than any of the ideas
our forefathers told us about, or our moms and dads taught us. And this beauty that overwhelms us, this mystery that always lies before us to which we gain access,
step by step, little by little, but which forever remains boundless, draws us, fascinates us,
and we want to get to see it. This, for me, is science. Thank you. (Applause)


Reader Comments

  1. I'm sorry but the comparison with alto e basso only proves there is no privileged direction in time, NOT that time isn't fundamental…

  2. What about time of living things, does it go back to space after they die, and after it makes sure that they are  really dead? Does time know the separation point or line between death and life? thanks.

  3. Time Doe Not Exist.

    For us reality is presence of objects in space. In fact, we are objects in space dependent on presence of other objects (planet(s), stars…etc). If there are no objects in space we don't exist. Therefore, the universe is objects in space.
    Width, length and height are directly associated  with objects, and indirectly associated with space. That is if we are measuring distance in space we are indirectly assuming 'if there was an object in that space then its one side equals that distance(length'). If we have no objects in space we would have no length width, height and even the ideal time; because we don't even exist.
    If all the objects in space are removed we would have only space, which is nothing. Inside nothing time (or any thing) does not exist. Therefore, time does not exist inside space; time does not exist inside any thing.

    We are using our mind born time as a reference for objects, motion, change of state ….etc. in objects.

    Therefore, time is not real not natural, and does not exist as real.
    Thanks.

  4. Time is just human language.

    If time does exist in space and if time registers all events in space  taught in relativity theory
     then why do we need security cameras while we could read all events from time?

  5. They say " past present and future is just an illusion, both exist right now connected, and both dinosaur and humans exist now together"
    Clearly this is absolutely wrong, because past present and future are just human views of nature state. They are not time by themselves, and time is just man made ideal (imaginary) tool. Right?
    Thanks.

  6. le temps n'existe pas en effet ( il se déploie pour nos perceptions à travers des relations uniquement ), seul le présent existe.

  7. Complimenti al prof. Rovelli per la sua indubbia capacità di essere semplice e parimenti professionale e comunicativo.
    Al di là però delle succose suggestioni che può suscitare la sua disquisizione, qui c’è qualcosa che non quadra.
    Dunque… Il prof. Rovelli vorrebbe convincerci che il tempo NON ESISTE. Però ci parla di più tempi diversi che PASSANO, e poi ci rende noto che, all’interno di una certa equazione integrata, il tempo NON COMPARE. S’è capito però che nel mondo macroscopico il tempo COMPARE come un parametro riconducibile ad una ulteriore coordinata spaziale, e PASSA. Allora ESISTE eccome! Solo che ancora non è stato chiarito COSA ci possa essere dietro la sensazione dello scorrere di esso, ossia quali processi e strutture della realtà ne caratterizzino la natura, sotto la validazione sperimentale della SCIENZA e sotto la validazione concettuale della LOGICA (IN VERITA’ IL SOTTOSCRITTO UNA RISPOSTA NON FINALE MA ALMENO COERENTE CE L’AVREBBE).
    Poi l’indeterminazione/quantizzazione dei processi microscopici produce, a valle della loro gigantesca sommatoria, l’esperienza del tempo macroscopico come SENSAZIONE CONCRETA (SEPPUR INGANNEVOLE SECONDO LA MIA CONCEZIONE) DEL SUO FLUIRE.
    Insomma, secondo me, il tempo ESISTE come SENSAZIONE INGANNEVOLE e affiancata al tempo della fisica macroscopica, e SI PUO’ provare a svelare COSA c’è dietro.

  8. The best thing about knowing spanish it helps me undrstand italian somehow but no mater the language time does not exist

  9. Dal mio punto di vista il tempo è un ritmo, il ritmo con cui l'universo
    si rigenera, così come si rigenera un'immagine telvisiva.

  10. Il fatto che a livelli subatomici ci siano miriadi di orologi ognuno con il suo tempo, non implica necessariamente l'abbandono dello studio del tempo, semmai va ridefinito ma non tolto.

  11. This is brilliant. Our perception creates our reality therefore a change of our perception of time could (I am practising to see if it is possible) create or cocreate a happier world. 🙂

  12. For those who are complaining about the absence of the subtitles, let me assure you that you are not missing anything: he's just saying that "the time doesn't exists" but without explaining why, without giving a single example or any evidence. Moreover he's not a good speaker. In conclusion, even if he's saying the time doesn't exist, I really feel that I have waste 15 minutes of my life.

  13. If time does not exist then even premature ejaculation does not exist. So I wonder, is physics right or medicine?

  14. Time is an illusion created by the brain. And velocity is also an illusion, because velocity is distance/time. So, Parmenide was right when he said that movement is an illusion.

  15. Il tempo non esiste… ed ho un quarto d’ora per convincervi di questo!! I fisici non hanno il senso dell’umorismo

  16. Fantastico divulgatore di fisica e scienza …è riuscito appassionare anche me che sono soltanto un semplice ascoltatore …grazie

  17. non capisco una cosa: come fa a dire che in alto è il tempo a scorrere più velocemente e non l'orologio a funzionare più velocemente?

  18. did anyone notice the huge irony of the countdown digital clock during this talk about time not exisiting…..avete notato l'orologio digitale??? ..che ironia brilllante……hehehehe

  19. Hi All, you can actually use the "gear icon" to auto-translate from the Italian — or Spanish I guess — subtitles into any language. I have watched with English auto-translation from Italian combined with my amateur Italian fluency and felt good about the accuracy. I think you must first select Italian, then select Auto-translate… anyway hope that helps!

  20. Mi ricorderò di non affittare mai un appartamento all'ultimo piano di un grattacielo allora. Secondo la sua teoria di ciò che è in basso invecchia meno rispetto a ciò che è in alto.

  21. Quando lo spazio e il tempo non esistono più, (la quantistica si avvicina ormai sempre più a questa realtà IMMATERIALE) non esiste nemmeno la formula matematica per descrivere questa non esistenza. Voler continuare a cercare il non essere (il vuoto assoluto, l'immateriale, chiamatelo come volete) con gli strumenti dell'essere (il numero che faccia il conto di un qualche costituente materiale), è come voler giocare a calcio con una tuta da subacqueo. Se esiste l'immateriale, non si può misurare con gli strumenti adatti a misurare la materia. Dovrebbe essere ovvio, ma certa scienza (non tutta per fortuna) si ostina in questo pur molto banale errore tecnico di base, elementare, per un puro e semplice dogma: tutto DEVE essere materiale, sennò è inspiegabile quindi non può essere accettato. E certo che finché si cade nel banale errore di cui sopra, usare fli strumenti della materia per cercare di studiare l'immateriale, si girerà sempre nel vuoto antiscientifico di una ridda di teorie cangianti e tutte indimostrabili, buone solo a dire di esse "la teoria più accreditata al momento è che…". Questa non è ovviamente scienza, è ipotesi senza mai sintesi.

  22. Time itself is human invented concept for the sake of convenience! It doesn't exist on itself, but rather changes that occur do! When you see people getting older, gowing up, stars born and die…what you see are "changes"! And TIME Got nothing to do with that! Simple as that! I do not speak italian, so i fon't know what he is talking about here, just wanted to weigh in!…

  23. Also wanted to add to my previous comment! The speed of changes to occur depends on the set of probabilities of each single and particular individual of succumbing to the moment of realization! As soon as you realize it, the change then occurs! Its one of our sensory flaws, just like visuals…our brains fools us into drawing picture of "reality" for us and sending it via physical medium (which are our eyes!) to project it into something we call "the whole" …the same way brain fools us to perceive changes as if they were happening according to our sensory limitations, that we knew about and learned about since childhood…thus comes the concept of so called "time"…

  24. Grande il prof. Rovelli, mi ha sempre affascinato ed è uno degli scienziati che più stimo. In pratica da quello che ho potuto capire, il tempo è solo una nostra percezione, un nostro "senso", non è una cosa fisica, materiale. Quello che intendiamo noi è il cambiamento e lo spostamento dei corpi a livello macroscopico(se non erro)

  25. 10:50 Rovelli non ci dire cazzate anche un'equazione che descrive il moto di un proiettile può essere privata del tempo e quello che ne esce è la traiettoria nelle coordinate x e y. Ciò è un fatto di banale matematica. Il fatto è che noi percepiamo degli eventi che si sviluppano nel tempo e in questa coordinata vogliamo averne descrizione. Quindi l'equazione che mostri non ha nulla di sconvolgente. Dicci piuttosto come nasce la percezione del tempo…che è la cosa non ovvia! (porca puttana)!

  26. Chiedo scusa.. Ma quello che avevo capito è che all'aumentare della velocità il tempo rallenta.. Quindi per un oggetto collocato sulla cima dell'Everest che ha una velocità angolare superiore a quella di un oggetto posto in pianura, il tempo dovrebbe rallentare… Qui si dice il contrario.. Come non detto.. Ho tralasciato il discorso della minor gravità… 😀

  27. Il titolo è sbagliato . Il tempo esiste ed ha infinite direzioni . Per un punto passano infinite rette . Per uno spazio passano infiniti tempi

  28. He said that the clock that is higher reads a time that is later than the one which is lower. It would actually be the opposite. The clock which is higher is further away from the center of the Earth than the other one, thus it has a higher tangential speed. This means that time would pass slower for it, than the clock which is lower. So, it would actually read a time that is earlier than the one the other lower clock (it is the opposite of what he said). It is basically a twin paradox on an extremely small scale (the clock that is higher is the twin that goes on the spaceship, time passes slower for him, so his clock would be early, not late).

  29. He basically exlpain how the concept of "time" is a useful thing (that we use to organize our lives) here on planet heart… But not exactly in the outer space. He also tells that, regarding the placement of an object (like a clock) in that precise moment, is a proven fact that time runs at a different speed .. Apparently time goes faster at higher altitudes, while run slower over the sea level. The eg. he gives is that gps satellites, needs to be calibrated in order to work for us as good as they do. Just because of this…
    He also said that the concept of "top and bottom" are useful just here on our planet… Eg. An astronaut, to an other space mate, won't say "pass that bag of water under you…" There's no under there's no above.
    Basically… As these are very useful well defined concept, they remain that only at human size life. (not in the universe, nor at microscopic dimensions)

    P. S. In an other talk, he also said that time is affected by gravity, wich I think is nearly adaptable to this last considerations.

  30. Non one knows why these theories are always so badly explained. One thing is for sure: they are not so difficult to understand like they want us to believe.

  31. the professor Rovelli is perfectly right. Time doesn't exist. The ancient great Indian doctrine told the same and also the philosopher Kant. We can't accept this concept because we are feared of death but it doesn't change the fact that time doesn't exist.

  32. Consiglio di leggere il racconto Storie della tua vita da cui è stato tratto il film Arrival. grazie a questo tedtalk ora apprezzo di piu racconto e film eheh. Ma quindi alla fine mi chiedo se siamo riusciti s capire come funziona il magnetismo o no. Devo fare qualche ricerca alle superiori non si sapeva ancora. Saluti

  33. Unfortunately, "if I have two things expressed as a function of time then I can also express one as purely a function of the other" does not make a very convincing argument that time is in fact non-existent. It may well be for all we know, but it does not follow from the point he seems to be making.

  34. Chiedo scusa ma forse l'informazione degli Astronauti sulla luna è sempre stata una grande menzogna studi sono fatti è molto chiari come risultato non sono mai arrivati sulla luna

  35. Riflettendo sul tempo che non esiste, per la prima volta riesco ad immaginare e trovare quasi "logico" anche il mondo quantistico, comprese quelle che erroneamente consideriamo probabilità, ma in realtà è il concetto di tempo (che usiamo in modo sbagliato secondo la nostra percezione abituale) che ce le fa sembrare tali. Inoltre, sempre a livello puramente di immaginazione, finalmente riesco a vedere la fisica quantistica non in contraddizione con la relatività generale, senza che si generino strani paradossi a volerle mettere insieme. Secondo me è davvero una intuizione geniale, quella che il tempo non esiste. Chiaramente il lavoro duro sarà quello di riscrivere tutta la fisica senza il tempo e dimostrare che funziona meglio delle leggi che adoperiamo oggi.

  36. NOTICE: Subtitles EXIST!!! Do NOT miss this video!
    "

    Click on "CC" to enable captions.
    —> Click on "Settings" –> Select "Subtitles/CC" –> Select "Auto Translate" –> Choose the language that you prefer.
    I chose English and it works very very perfectly!
    "
    steps copied from one of the comments(NEWKNOWLEDGE
    ).

  37. I have a problem in the phrase "looking back in time". My very simplistic view is that a "moment" at my location is the exact same "moment" at any point in the universe or beyond the universe. The fact that the very distant "moment" can take numerous light years to tell us that it (a particle, a group of particles a star) has just had its moment for me to observe that moment on earth I will need to live all most forever to witness the arrival of that moment at my location . The conclusion that I draw is that each and every particle has a "moment" in which every other particle has a mathematical fix in space. If you will, a "Universal General Positioning". What the human race is observing is "Change" in the absolute coordinates of all partilces in what ever form. Being that is the case, the need to have a "dimension of time" becomes redundant. After all, the measurement of time is one that we humans have invented and is a concept to allow us to organise when and where our bodies our things, our World can be coordinated. Given that, once Einstein got to Special Relativity he got stuck on General Relativity and then he really got hung up that Gravity is observed but cannot be explained. Einstein had a buddy, a mathematician, who he turned to with his problem. His problem was given that a particle with mass is travelling in a straight line through space how can a second particle travelling through space on a different trajectory be mathematically cleared to meet with each other. Thats when Herman Minkowski offered a solution which was to cause a depression, a vortix, in which a particle can be taken through a change of direction by following a straight line which has been curved. It is referred to as Minkowski Space Time. This clever solution has never been proven and has led science, in my humble opinion up a blind alley trying to bring together Special and General Relativity together as one.

    The concept of travelling back through time is therefore binned as to travel, "to return", to a original form would infer all the particles of the universe would have to conform in a mathematical relationship to each other coincidental to the form that is anticipated by travelling back in "time". Similarly, the concept of travelling forward through time would infer an arrival in the future would need all the total elements of the Universe to be in lock-step in accordance with the mathematical lock on their postions at that "time" chosen. If time is binned it will make the understanding of our universe that much easier as I feel confident the solution will turn out to be a very precise but simple one

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *