You’ve drawn many vague conclusions (read: words, not equations or experimental predictions) about the nature of reality from a vague idea promoted by a non-academic. It smacks strongly of pseudo-science.
Julian Barbour’s work is unconventional. Many of his papers border on philosophy and most are not published in prominent journals. His first idea, that time is simply another coordinate parameterizing a mathematical object (like a manifold in GR) and that it’s specialness is an illusion, is ancient. His second idea, that any theory more fundamental than QM or GR will necessarily feature time only in a relational sense (in contrast to the commonly accepted, and beautiful, gauge freedom of all time and space coordinates) is interesting and possibly true, but it is most likely not profound. I can’t read all of his papers, so perhaps he has some worthwhile work.
This post, however, appears to be completely without substance. What is the point?
That the universe as we understand it is best described by a timeless mathematical object (e.g. a manifold equipped with some quantum fields)? This viewpoint, taken by most physicists, has been around since at least the 1920′s. While profound, it has little to do with Barbour’s work, which seems to be the focus of this post.
That the next theory of physics should be expressed with a “relational approach”? This is a nice idea, but one which has (to my knowledge) produced no objective progress in formulating a successor to GR or QM. There are a thousand approaches out there with similar promise...and similar results.
I can’t help but feel that you are wading into waters which are above your expertise.
will necessarily feature time only in a relational sense (in contrast to the commonly accepted, and beautiful, gauge freedom of all time and space coordinates)
I find this contrast you’re drawing confusing. Making it relational is an attempt to justify the gauge freedom.
You’ve drawn many vague conclusions (read: words, not equations or experimental predictions) about the nature of reality from a vague idea promoted by a non-academic. It smacks strongly of pseudo-science.
Julian Barbour’s work is unconventional. Many of his papers border on philosophy and most are not published in prominent journals. His first idea, that time is simply another coordinate parameterizing a mathematical object (like a manifold in GR) and that it’s specialness is an illusion, is ancient. His second idea, that any theory more fundamental than QM or GR will necessarily feature time only in a relational sense (in contrast to the commonly accepted, and beautiful, gauge freedom of all time and space coordinates) is interesting and possibly true, but it is most likely not profound. I can’t read all of his papers, so perhaps he has some worthwhile work.
This post, however, appears to be completely without substance. What is the point?
That the universe as we understand it is best described by a timeless mathematical object (e.g. a manifold equipped with some quantum fields)? This viewpoint, taken by most physicists, has been around since at least the 1920′s. While profound, it has little to do with Barbour’s work, which seems to be the focus of this post.
That the next theory of physics should be expressed with a “relational approach”? This is a nice idea, but one which has (to my knowledge) produced no objective progress in formulating a successor to GR or QM. There are a thousand approaches out there with similar promise...and similar results. I can’t help but feel that you are wading into waters which are above your expertise.
I find this contrast you’re drawing confusing. Making it relational is an attempt to justify the gauge freedom.