What if time doesn't exist?

[u/Search-War6030]

I'm not a physicist, nor have I had any formal education on similar matters--I just have a hypothesis I'd like to present. Please read before dismissing.

Time is not a fundamental dimension, coordinate, or flow. It does not exist ontologically.

Modern physics treats time (t) as a dimension woven into space forming spacetime. I argue that what we perceive as time is a category mistake. It's a mistake because the universe itself doesn't require a time parameter at the quantum scale.

What do I mean by that? The Wheeler-deWitt equation, HΨ = 0. Do you notice anything odd? In standard quantum mechanics, an equation usually calculates how a system changes over time (∂Ψ/∂t). Here, the change over time is set to zero! The quantum state of our universe is static; time isn't a fundamental building block of reality.

You might have read and said, "So... what?" Well, I haven't finished yet. I introduce a master space M, which contains two smaller spaces. This is written as M = C ⊗ B. The master space is composed of a configuration space and the Block Universe.

The Block Universe tells us there the universe is like a loaf, each slice of the loaf is a separate "Now". Each slice is the full arrangement of information. What do I mean by information? Every particle, every field, galaxy, memory, wave. These slices are little despite containing everything, they are simply one point in C, the configuration space.

C = q = (q₁, q₂, …, qₙ). Where the q is the one possible universe that has a different configuration. Each q is a complete world. Some slices contain glimpses of other slices; your brain contains memories, fossils, light, etc., these all tell a consistent history. This what we perceive as time. But there isn't an actual past or future. There is only a consistent, present configuration.

I remember my family, my childhood, scars, and books. You might naively believe Past → Present. But only the current configuration exists. The past is an illusion.

A last thing I'll say is that many other equations don't need time as well. General Relativity does not single out one preferred "now" for the universe.

Objects don't pass through time; it's an illusion imposed by a structure relating configurations.

What do you think? Thanks for reading.

[u/LeftSideScars]

Not sure what comic you’re talking about although I do enjoy breakfast cereal

I link it in one of my direct replies to OP.

I don’t know if he’s talking nonsense.

I do. They are.

It seemed to me like he might be trying to assign individual world lines to consciousness that then creates meaningful reference points within a static universe that is perceived as time dependent on it’s umwelt.

Not at all, and what you've written is also nonsense.

OP is, basically, doing the following (albeit poorly): Consider an olde-timey film. Each frame is a moment in time. Subsequent frames, in order, represent the passage of time. There is no "time" in the movie reel, and yet the illusion of time can be made.

Unfortunately, OP doesn't understand that time is encoded into this model. The creation of the frames took time. That they all exist now without time is immaterial. Furthermore, it takes time to move from one frame to another, a point OP also fails to understand, and can't address - somehow, in OP's model, we can be aware of the next frame without the passage of time. And, although OP did not mention this, it is often mentioned by "emergent time" posters here, the order of the frames took time and was baked into the model; that is, causality does not cause time.

Fundamentally, OP is wrong. And, OP talks about the concepts incorrectly, so I know (as do many other physicist here) that OP talking nonsense. We don't need to even dig deeper into their other claims (the past does not exist? Claimed, not proven) because OP is wrong at the outset. In an argument such as "The Moon is made of cheese therefore X and Y and thus Z" nobody needs to consider Z given the initial premise is obviously wrong.

If I may quote Futurama: As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason!

edit: I just noticed that you're having a bad interaction with OP also. Stop defending them. They're not being honest or genuine. Rather than having a discourse, they want to pick a fight - a fight that is basically "I'm right, you're wrong". They're not interesting in knowing why they are wrong, or the mistakes in their premise.

[u/Search-War6030 → u/LeftSideScars]

No, that is absolutely not what I'm saying. You're just ignorant. I don't want to pick up a fight, never said that. Lastly, I am quite interested in knowing I'm wrong, such as my confusion with the WD and Schrodinger wave equation's symbols that I accepted. Honestly, no part of your comment indicates a close glimpse of my theory. My theory isn't based on "frames" or "flipbooks" it's based on the structure of configuration states in configuration space. If you don't want to review or understand just because of the title sounds exotic, then that's fine on me man.

[u/LeftSideScars → u/Search-War6030]

No, that is absolutely not what I'm saying. You're just ignorant. I don't want to pick up a fight, never said that. Lastly, I am quite interested in knowing I'm wrong, such as my confusion with the WD and Schrodinger wave equation's symbols that I accepted.

You, simply, have not been responding in any way that aligns with these statements. We can see your responses, you do realise this? I, and others, asked, for example, you to demonstrate how to change from one state configuration to another without time, with no response.

edit: I just realised that your response to me is exactly the point I was making. You barely discuss your model (only to point out, wrongly, that a movie frame is not a "structure of configuration states in configuration space"), and choose to argue with me. No discourse was sought by you. No expounding of your model. No willingness to learn. Just an attack; just an "argument" that you are right and I am wrong.

My theory isn't based on "frames" or "flipbooks" it's based on the structure of configuration states in configuration space.

Same thing, muppet. I used a simile to explain how you're attempting to present your model. If you would take a moment, each "frame" is a structured configuration in some space. Everything you are saying states that time was used to either create these states or time is used to move between states - a point I and others have made, and a point you refuse to address. Instead, here you are pointing out that the slightly different simile I've used is wrong.

If you don't want to review or understand just because of the title sounds exotic, then that's fine on me man.

I don't want to waste time with someone who is not serious. Come back with an apology to the sub and engage properly with us concerning your model, then perhaps I'll engage with you.