3 ms·
I try to stay educated about modern physics, but this article leaves me scratching my head. The idea that time is just a measure of change, and all we really ha
by mycroftiv 15y ago
I try to stay educated about modern physics, but this article leaves me scratching my head. The idea that time is just a measure of change, and all we really have is sequences of observations and a causal structure is not new at all. I have seen "timeless" proposals (for instance Julian Barbour's ideas) that seem both more radical and better supported than what I can understand of this summary of the work.
I can't tell if they are proposing something new, or just trying to change some of the vocabulary and mental models we use for current physics.
- smosher 15y agoI feel the same way. What's present in TFA isn't enough to convince me of anything. What I'm concerned about is this: how does this work with quantum weirdness such as post-selection and entanglement? If I had answers to those questions I might understand what they're proposing. (With a peer-class time dimension I can imagine those two effects in non-spooky ways. Without it they seem hopelessly spooky.)
- thejbf 15y agoTime is better implied as a consequence.