Einstein misunderstood the
special theory of relativity
There is no existing future
...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is
only an illusion, although a convincing one.
Most physicists do not believe time flows from future into past. Instead
they accept the idea that events merely exist in spacetime. This idea is
called the ‘block universe' idea; the term was coined by William James.
Advocates of the block universe commonly that the notion of time's flow
is simply a mistake or else that it is a subjective feature of psychological
time to be explained, say, by a person's having more memories and more
information at later times.
In 1952, in his book Relativity, Einstein writes:
Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.
Einstein said: Time is only an illusion. The existence of the future follows from
Minkowski`s World of space-time.
There is no difference between the past and the future in the 4-dimensional space-time-world. The present is only an illusion.
Is this a true picture of our real physical world?
Roger Penrose gives the following reason for this hypothesis:
Even with quite slow
relative velocities, significant differences in time-ordering will
occur for events at great distances. Imagine two people walking
slowly past each other in the street
Fig. 5.22. Two
people A and B walk slowly past each other, but they have differing
views as to whether the Andromedean space fleet had been launched at
the moment that they pass each other. (p. 201)
According to relativity,
there is not really such a thing as the `now` at all. The closest
that we get to such a concept is an observer`s `simultaneous space`
in space-time, as depicted in Figure 5.21, p. 200, but that depends
on the motion of the observer! The `now` according to one
observer would not agree with that of the other. 1
Concerning two space-time events A and B, one observer
U might consider that B belongs to the fixed past and
A to the uncertain future, while for a second observer V,
it could be A that belongs to the fixed past and B to
the uncertain future! (See Fig. 7.1). We cannot meaningfully assert
that either one of the events A and B remains
uncertain, so long as the other is definite.
Fig. 7.1. Can time
actually `flow`? To observer U, B can be in the `fixed`
past while A lies yet in the `uncertain` future.
Observer V holds the contrary view!
discussion on p. 201 and Fig. 5.22. Two people pass each other on the
street; and according to one of the two people, an Andromodean space
fleet has already set off on its journey, while to the other, the
decision as to whether or not the journey will actually take place
has not yet been made. How can there still be some uncertainty as to
the outcome of that decision? If to either person the decision
has already been made, then surely there cannot be any
uncertainty. The launching of the space fleet is an inevitability. In
fact neither of the people can yet know of the launching of
the space fleet. They can know only later, when telescopic
observations from earth reveal that the fleet is indeed on ist way.
Then they can hark back to that chance encounter, and come to the
conclusion that at that time, according to one of them, the
decision lay in the uncertain future, while to the other, it lay in
the certain past. Was there then any uncertainty about the
future? Or was the future of bothpeople already `fixed`?
It begins to
seem that if anything is definite at all, then the entire space-time
must indeed be definite! There can be no `uncertain` future. The
whole space-time must be fixed, without any scope for
uncertainty. Indeed, this seems to have been Einstein`s own
conclusion (cf. Pais 1982, p. 444). Moreover, there is no flow of
time at all. We have just `space-time`--- and no scope at all for a
future whose domain is being inexorably encroached upon by a
This is Penrose’s mistake. There is no proof of the existence of events lying
before A’s simultaneous “now time.” Not the slightest proof exists
„ In fact neither of
the people can yet know of the launching of the space fleet.“
The existence of future events is in contradiction to Occam's Razor!
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349).
Stephen Hawking explains in A Brief History of Time:
We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed.
simultaneousness does not mean now-simultaneousness, but is only a
process of synchronisation and does not contain the existence
of events outside of the cone of light, for such events are
Arthur Eddingtons writes:
The correct statement for space-time is my
and not the temporal existence of a four-dimensional world of space-time.
The widespread view that relativity completely confounds past and future
is completely wrong. However, in contrast to relative past and
future, absolute past and future are no longer separated from each
other by an infinitely narrow present. The thought imposes itself
that one can perhaps call the neutral zone absolute present, but I on
my own part would not consider this a happy designation. It is far
more fittingly characterized with the designation “Absolute
elsewhere.” We have as a matter of fact eliminated the now-lines
and have limited the present (now) to here=now in the absolute world
of the present. [...]
Events in the absolute future are not absolutely elsewhere. It would be
possible for an observer to depart from here=now and to arrive on
time in order to be present at the event in question, for the speed
needed for this is less than the speed of light; relative to such an
observer’s world structure, the event would be here. But no
observer is able to be present at an event in the neutral zone
belonging to his here=now, since the speed needed for this would be
to great. The event is thus not here for any observer who proceeds
from here=now, here,consequently it is absolutely elsewhere. [...]