Special Relativity

Much of the century-old debate surrounding the status of thermodynamics in relativity has centered on the search for a suitably relativistic temperature; recent works by Chua (2023) and Chua and Callender (forthcoming) have suggested that the classical temperature concept – consilient as it is in classical settings – ‘falls apart’ in relativity. However, these discussions typically assume an unproblematic Lorentz transformation for – specifically, the Lorentz invariance of – the pressure concept. Here I argue that, just like the classical temperature, (...) the classical concept of pressure breaks down in relativistic settings. I discuss how this might suggest a new thermodynamic limit – a u → 0 limit – without which an unambiguous thermodynamic description of systems doesn’t emerge. (shrink)

Conventional elements play an integral role in measuring time. Clocks unavoidably require a chosen standard of synchrony. The periodic process selected for the standard is not imposed upon us in any way. Conventionalism, in this regard, offers an insightful perspective on temporal measurement. The strong formulation of this doctrine is, however, questionable. After elaborating on strong conventionalism, it will be argued that it has three downsides: (i) it fails to properly distinguish between highly stable natural processes and complete randomness, as (...) periodicities differ in terms of regularity; (ii) it does not explain that a clock actually measures something, to wit, parts of its own path along its worldline in spacetime; (iii) and relatedly, it omits the distinction between a temporal interval as a physical quantity and the arbitrarily chosen unit of time, leaving the distinction between temporal quantities and units a mystery. (shrink)

This paper presents a two-stage critique of B-theory, the dominant view that temporal reality consists of a four-dimensional block universe with no objective becoming. Stage one establishes an undercutting defeater: B-theory lacks epistemic warrant for its central claim that the manifold possesses determinate relational ordering. I demonstrate that temporal becoming is the sole phenomenon through which precedence relations are detected, and that once becoming is denied, no warrant remains for asserting that slices stand in objective earlier-than/later-than relations. Every attempted rescue—through (...) coordinates, metrics, entropy, causation, quantum mechanics, or physics itself—presupposes the ordering it is invoked to establish. -/- Stage two establishes a rebutting defeater through a two-horn dilemma. Even granting charitably that temporal ordering exists, the manifold structure is compatible with infinitely many sequential arrangements (the Permutation Problem). With no mechanism to select among them, the probability that any specific ordering obtains is 1/∞ = 0 (the Selection Problem). B-theory faces an exhaustive choice: either no determinate ordering exists, or the probability that B-theory's described ordering is actual is measure-theoretically zero. Under both horns, B-theory fails. -/- Finally, I demonstrate that relativity—traditionally invoked to refute becoming—actually requires becoming to avoid this collapse. Relativity's formalism presupposes determinate temporal ordering, which only becoming can warrant. The century-long consensus is reversed: relativity does not vindicate the block universe; it depends on the temporal flow B-theory denies. (shrink)

This paper presents a two-stage critique of B-theory, the dominant view that temporal reality consists of a four-dimensional block universe with no objective becoming. Stage one establishes an undercutting defeater: B-theory lacks epistemic warrant for its central claim that the manifold possesses determinate relational ordering. I demonstrate that temporal becoming is the sole phenomenon through which precedence relations are detected, and that once becoming is denied, no warrant remains for asserting that slices stand in objective earlier-than/later-than relations. Every attempted rescue—through (...) coordinates, metrics, entropy, causation, quantum mechanics, or physics itself—presupposes the ordering it is invoked to establish. -/- Stage two establishes a rebutting defeater through a two-horn dilemma. Even granting charitably that temporal ordering exists, the manifold structure is compatible with infinitely many sequential arrangements (the Permutation Problem). With no mechanism to select among them, the probability that any specific ordering obtains is 1/∞ = 0 (the Selection Problem). B-theory faces an exhaustive choice: either no determinate ordering exists, or the probability that B-theory's described ordering is actual is measure-theoretically zero. Under both horns, B-theory fails. -/- Finally, I demonstrate that relativity—traditionally invoked to refute becoming—actually requires becoming to avoid this collapse. Relativity's formalism presupposes determinate temporal ordering, which only becoming can warrant. The century-long consensus is reversed: relativity does not vindicate the block universe; it depends on the temporal flow B-theory denies. (shrink)

We present a scalar-tensor framework for gravitation derived from Anisotropic Weyl Symmetry (AWS), a local scaling invariance that distinguishes between temporal and spatial conformal weights. This symmetry imposes a structural factorization of the intrinsic mass parameter into two relational channels: an energy channel (mE ) governing quantum phases and time dilation, and an inertia channel (mI ) governing spatial propagation and kinetic response. We derive the Ward identity γI − γE = 4γS , demonstrating that this factorization is protected by (...) the renormalization group flow of a background scalar field S. In the non-perturbative regime, the coupled scalar-Maxwell system admits stable, finite-energy soliton solutions (“tempons”), suggesting a unified origin for massive particles as topological excitations of a relativistic optical vacuum. Furthermore, we derive the thermodynamic equation of state for this vacuum, revealing that gravitational potentials act as entropic heat sinks with exponentially enhanced heat capacity (CV ∝ e3S ), providing a mechanism for accelerated cosmic structure formation via gravitational cooling. The theory predicts a violation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle in the relationship between internal binding energy and inertial recoil, yielding a falsifiable signature for precision quantum metrology: the ratio of inertial mass variation to frequency shift must be exactly δmI /δω = −3. This prediction is testable with next-generation atom interferometry and atomic clock networks. (shrink)

The Unified Information-Density Theory (UIDT) version 3.5 proposes that vacuum information density, represented by a fundamental scalar field S(x), generates the Yang–Mills mass gap through non-minimal coupling to gauge dynamics. Building upon earlier formulations, this revision advances the framework from a purely theoretical construct to a phenomenologically constrained model. -/- Canonical parameters are derived self-consistently, yielding Delta = 1.710 +/- 0.015 GeV, kappa = 0.500 +/- 0.008, and gamma ~= 16.339. These values demonstrate numerical closure and consistency with lattice QCD (...) results. -/- Version 3.5 integrates enhanced renormalization group analysis, BRST gauge consistency proofs, and a hierarchical vacuum energy suppression mechanism. Cosmological calibration is achieved through 2025 observational data from DESI DR2 (Dark Energy Survey Instrument) and JWST CCHP (Carnegie–Chicago Hubble Program), fixing the holographic information scale at lambda = 0.66 nm and predicting H0 = 70.4 +/- 0.16 km/s/Mpc and S8 = 0.757 +/- 0.002. A redshift-dependent gamma evolution, gamma(z) = 16.339 * (1 + 0.0003z - 0.0045z^2), provides a natural mechanism for dynamical dark energy consistent with DESI’s phantom-crossing preference. -/- Scientific assessment classifies results as Category A (mathematically robust derivations), Category B (lattice QCD alignment), Category C (cosmological calibration), and Category D (unverified experimental proposals). UIDT v3.5 thus represents a specific, falsifiable framework requiring rigorous independent verification, offering a potential pathway toward resolving the Yang–Mills mass gap problem and unifying quantum field theory with cosmological observations. -/- This revision transitions the theory into a phenomenologically constrained model by integrating 2025 observational data from DESI DR2 and JWST CCHP. -/- Keywords: Yang-Mills mass gap; information-density field; vacuum structure; lattice QCD . (shrink)

Recent debates in Foundations of Physics have highlighted a tension between radical relational approaches that eliminate time as a fundamental variable and renewed arguments for preserving an underlying ordinal structure. While Rovelli, Barbour, and Page–Wootters propose that all dynamics can be expressed through timeless correlations, Mozota Frauca and Ellis have recently contended in FoP that physics cannot dispense with the asymmetric “before/after” relation that grounds causal explanation. This paper introduces a physical mechanism by which such ordinal structure can be realised (...) without reinstating absolute time. Each physical event is described as the closure of a lawful relation—the directed completion of an emission–absorption pair that converts open potentiality into realized fact. Every closure involves a finite local generative interval Δτ, defined operationally as the minimal time resolution of the participating clock or detector. The ensemble of these directed closures forms a self-organising partial order whose cumulative growth constitutes the empirical order ordinarily described as time. Using Special Relativity as a case study, the paper shows how worldlines grow tick-by-tick from local clocks, how null connections serve as generative relations, and how energy–mass balance holds across closure cycles. The model predicts that quantum non-local correlations should remain perfect only within a coherence horizon set by Δτ—offering an empirical route to confirm or falsify the generative-layer hypothesis. In this framework, spacetime geometry records what has been realized, while time itself emerges as the topology of ongoing realization. (shrink)

An existential threat to humanity is that we might never be able to travel intergalactically and will eventually go extinct from some inevitable disaster in our own galaxy. In the short paper, dressed as a type of constructive dilemma, I argue that we can use stationary time travel into the far past as a means of intergalactic travel. I also consider non-stationary time travel into the past, but conclude this type of time travel is extremely limited. The means for intergalactic (...) travel—stationary time travel to the far past—that I'm proposing is far-fetched, even fanciful. But we must first propose the right question before we can get the right answer. And I take the question proposed to be a worthy question to ponder, about a problem that many consider to have no answer. (shrink)

The nature of time remains a profound challenge in physics. Relativity’s four-dimensional spacetime suggests a “block universe” where all events – past, present, future – equally exist, contradicting our experience of an unfolding now. Quantum mechanics, by contrast, introduces indeterminacy and wavefunction collapse that single out the present moment when possibilities become actual. Thermodynamics adds an “arrow of time,” distinguishing past from future via entropy increase, yet fundamental laws are time-symmetric. Cosmology confronts temporal boundaries: a Big Bang origin, a potential (...) end of time, and horizons beyond which events seem inaccessible. We synthesize Existential Realism (ER) – a present-centric two-tier ontology – as a resolution framework that reconciles these puzzles without altering empirical predictions. ER posits that only the present exists (is concrete), while past and future remain real as structured but non-present aspects of the world. This simple distinction – existence vs. reality – yields a dynamic cosmos where events continuously migrate from real possibility to present existence and into real historical facts. We show how ER preserves Lorentz symmetry while restoring an objective becoming, aligns quantum physics with a single actual world (embracing collapse without “many-worlds”), grounds the thermodynamic arrow and causality in the accumulating record of the present, and provides a coherent picture of cosmological time-beginnings, endings, and information flow across horizons. Potential experimental implications are discussed, from quantum measurements to black hole observations. ER emerges as a rigorous yet intuitive ontology bridging physics and the lived experience of time, suggesting that time’s flow is no illusion but rather the lawful collapse, transition, and migration of reality into existence – one present moment at a time. (shrink)

Bell’s theorem reveals a profound puzzle: quantum measurements on entangled particles exhibit correlations across spacelike separations that defy classical locality. Traditionally, resolving this “spooky action at a distance” has seemed to demand either a block-universe view (with all outcomes laid out and equally real in a static 4D spacetime) or a retreat from realism (e.g. treating the wavefunction and collapse as mere calculation tools without objective reality). Existential Realism (ER) offers a middle path. Within ER’s two-tier framework, outcomes come into (...) existence only in their local present moments, while entangled correlations remain real as non-present structures that condition and delimit those outcomes. This framework maintains a genuine temporal becoming (only present events are fully actual) even as it acknowledges a deeper causal structure that extends beyond the present. As a result, ER can reconcile quantum nonlocality with a present-centric view of time: the entangled “realities” provide structure across distance, but only manifest as present existences when observed. In this paper, we articulate how Bell nonlocality can be understood within the ER framework – preserving relativistic causality (no faster-than-light signals) and the reality of quantum correlations without invoking an eternal block universe. We show that Bell’s experiment, far from undermining a dynamic present, strengthens the case for ER’s two-tier framework of time by demanding a category of reality beyond immediate existence. Each measurement outcome “collapses” into existence locally, even as a holistic, non-local reality ties the outcomes together. Thus, Bell’s nonlocal correlations become an argument for a nuanced realism of time: one in which only the present exists, but much more than the present is real. The result is a conception of nature that upholds both the physical reality of quantum phenomena and the experiential truth of an unfolding present. (shrink)

With the classical distinction between context of discovery and context of justification considered by many to have been overcome, heuristics (understood in a broad sense) has increasingly rekindled the interest of philosophers of science. Building on this trend, a heuristic approach to the Voigt transformation (based on Rescher's Aporetics) is first presented - an issue on which there seem to be no precedents in the literature. Second, the value of this approach is defended from a philosophical (and, indirectly, pedagogical) viewpoint. (...) By using this approach, several conceptual links in the theory of space-time can be highlighted (links which go unnoticed in classical hypothetical-deductive methods leading to the Voigt transformation). In particular an interesting connection with the Lorentz transformation becomes apparent. (shrink)

The axiomatization of physical theories is a fundamental issue of science. The first-order axiomatic system SpecRel for special relativity proposed recently by Andréka et al. is not enough to explain all the main results in the theory, including the twin paradox and energy-mass relation. In this paper, from a four-dimensional spacetime perspective, we introduce the concepts of world-line, proper time and four-momentum to our axiomatic system SpecRel+. Then we introduce an axiom of mass (AxMass) and take four-momentum conservation as an (...) axiom (AxCFM) in SpecRel+. It turns out that the twin paradox and energy-mass relation can be derived from SpecRel+ logically. Hence, as an extension of SpecRel, SpecRel+ is a suitable first-order axiomatic system to describe the kinematics and dynamics of special relativity. (shrink)

Fragmentalism denies the view that we have perspectival representations of a non-perspectival world, arguing instead that the world itself is intrinsically perspectival and composed of fragmented sets of facts. We first examine the arguments put forth by Fine and Lipman, who challenge the notion of a single, coherent reality. Then, we critique their “standard” fragmentalist interpretation of Special Relativity and contend that it neglects the unifying role of invariant structures—such as the spacetime interval and the covariance of physical laws—that underpin (...) the relativistic framework. Extending the analysis to General Relativity, we show that gravitational effects curve spacetime, undermining the idea of stable, idealized inertial frames and with them, the notion of clear-cut, isolated fragments. We also consider flow fragmentalism, which grounds fragments in causal relations rather than inertial frames, but argue that this move puts into question the very notion of fragments as metaphysically distinct. Drawing on the principle of equivalence and symmetry reasoning revealed by General Relativity, we conclude that fragmentalism is not metaphysically necessary and cannot exclude the possibility of a unified reality. (shrink)

It is widely acknowledged that the Galilean Relativity Principle, according to which the laws of classical systems are the same in all inertial frames in relative motion, has played an important role in the development of modern physics. It is also commonly believed that this principle holds the key to answering why, for example, we do not notice the orbital velocity of the Earth as we go about our day. And yet, I argue in this paper that the precise content (...) of this principle is ambiguous: standard presentations, in both physics and philosophy, fail to distinguish between two principles that are ultimately inequivalent, the “External Galilean Relativity Principle” (EGRP) and the “Internal Galilean Relativity Principle” (IGRP). I demonstrate that EGRP and IGRP play distinct roles in physics practice (e.g., EGRP is connected to the concept of Galilean invariance, but IGRP is not) and that many classical systems that satisfy IGRP fail to satisfy EGRP. I further show that the Relativity Principle introduced by Einstein in 1905—which is not restricted to classical systems—also leads to two inequivalent principles, an external one analogous to EGRP, and an internal one analogous to IGRP. I conclude by noting that the phenomenon originally captured by Galileo’s famous ship passage is much more general than contemporary discussions in the philosophy of symmetries suggest. (shrink)

We propose a novel cryptographic framework leveraging quotient space mappings of space-time configurations. By exploiting equivalence classes derived from spatial and temporal projections, our method embeds cryptographic keys into redundant space-time channels, enabling fault-tolerant and secure communication. Unlike traditional cryptography, which relies on computational hardness or quantum properties, our approach uses topological redundancy to protect against interception and channel corruption. The framework is particularly suited for deep-space communication, where delays and lack of synchronized references challenge conventional methods. Applications include interplanetary (...) messaging, enhanced quantum key distribution, and distributed data storage. (shrink)

One of the most intuitive views about the metaphysics of laws of nature is Tim Maudlin's idea of a Fundamental Law of Temporal Evolution. So-called FLOTEs are primitive elements of the universe that produce later states from earlier states. While FLOTEs are at home in traditional Newtonian and non-relativistic quantum mechanical theories (not to mention our pre-theoretic conception of the world), I consider here whether they can be made to work with relativity. In particular, shifting to relativistic spacetimes poses two (...) threats to FLOTEs. First, the lack of a privileged spacelike hypersurface in relativistic spacetime makes it unclear how to understand what produces what. A survey of several conceptions of the nomic production relation compatible with relativity reveals all of them to be lacking. Second, relativity motivates a four-dimensional block universe conception of time, according to which all events that will ever occur already exist. On such a view, it's unclear what work there is to be done by FLOTEs. I consider how a proponent of FLOTEs might respond, but conclude that these combined threats seriously undermine the prospects of a productive conception of laws. In short, if spacetime is relativistic, laws are not productive. (shrink)

Breaking the Cosmogenesis Paradox: We propose a radical ontology where vacuum is fundamentally composed of closed-loop faster-than-light (FTL) potential energy strings—Meta Energy Loops (MELs)—that self-cancel to maintain net-zero energy. This substrate spontaneously generates reality through geometric symmetry breaking: -/- Particles emerge as localized loop slowdowns (vₗₒₒₚ ≤ c) -/- Spacetime arises recursively from loop transformation dynamics -/- Fundamental constants (α, mₑ, m_μ, m_τ) derive from twist topology -/- QED and GR unify at Λₗₒₒₚ = 10¹⁷ GeV via loop braiding -/- (...) Crucially, we derive: (i) Maxwell's equations from loop twist currents (ii) Particle mass hierarchy via winding quantization (iii) Gravitational lensing from time field compression (iv) Planck-scale blackbody radiation from thermal loop collapse -/- Testable predictions: (a) Frequency-dependent photon deflection Δv/c ∝ Eᵧ² (b) Exotic lepton at 12.6 ± 0.3 TeV (c) CMB y-distortion enhancement at z > 10⁶ -/- This framework resolves the "something from nothing" paradox through geometric recursion—without presupposing spacetime or quantum fields—while maintaining full compatibility with established physics. (shrink)

This paper refines the cosmic fate scenario of the Time Field Model (TFM) by introducing a dissipation-driven stabilization framework, replacing conventional models of heat death or cosmic bounce. We rigorously model the dissipation rate Γ in TFM's wave-lump dynamics, deriving its evolution from Friedmann equations and local field gradients. Our results predict localized re-expansions (“mini-bangs”) even as global energy decays. Simulations using high-performance computing (HPC) tools—including modified Einstein Toolkit and Boltzmann solvers—indicate observable shifts in the CMB power spectrum and gravitational (...) wave echoes detectable by LISA. These findings unify Planck-scale black hole cores and large-scale cosmic structures under a single mechanism, suggesting the Universe approaches an asymptotic, non-singular end-state—neither collapsing nor decaying into thermal death, but stabilizing through persistent, localized anomalies. (shrink)

The Time Field Model (TFM) interprets entropy growth via time wave decoher ence, thus circumventing Boltzmann’s “past hypothesis.” Micro-Big Bangs locally reset entropy while fueling cosmic-scale structure, and black holes regulate wave compres sion through Hawking radiation. Here we unite the logistic entropy model (quantum to-classical transition) with observational predictions, including non-Gaussian CMB anomalies, black hole ringdown distortions, and supernova luminosity deviations if cosmic expansion is partly entropy-driven expansion. This paper consolidates TFM’s approach to energy dissipation, the arrow of time, (...) and large-scale evolution, while refining parameter contexts and clarifying wave-lump formation. (shrink)

Dark energy, traditionally modeled as a cosmological constant (Λ) or a dynamical scalar field, is reimagined in the Time Field Model (TFM) as an emergent phenomenon driven by stochastic time wave dynamics. TFM posits that cosmic acceleration arises from micro–Big Bangs—quantum-scale energy bursts that generate space quanta—and entropy-driven expansion governed by time wave interactions. This framework elim inates Λ, predicting an oscillatory dark energy equation of state w(z) and unique observational signatures: • Hubble Tension Resolution: H0 ≈ 72kms−1Mpc−1 via entropy-coupled (...) ex pansion. • Supernova Luminosity Deviations: δm(z) ≈ 0.02 sin(ωz), detectable around z ∼1. • Gravitational Wave Background: ΩGW(f) ∝ f−1/3, arising from micro–Big Bangs in the nHz–µHz range. TFM emphasizes testability and aims to unify dark energy, dark matter, and aspects of quantum measurement within a single stochastic framework. (shrink)

According to our ordinary, commonsense notion of time, there is an absolute fact of the matter about simultaneity whether two events happen at the same time or not. There is also an absolute fact of the matter about duration—how much time elapses between two events. However, according to a straightforward reading of special relativity, these commonsense notions are wrong. If we take any ordinary process, such as the ticking of a clock, we find that it proceeds at different rates from (...) different perspectives—perspectives that seem to be equally legitimate. According to a straightforward reading of special relativity, simultaneity, duration, and even the order in which some events occur, turn out to be perspectival, or frame-dependent, rather than objective. I will first explain why this is, and then I will go on to explore some further philosophical consequences. (shrink)

A Model Bridging General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, and Quantum Thermodynamics. This paper proposes a two-layer fiber bundle space model where spacetime is composed of Planck-scale discrete units -Space Elementary Quanta (SEQ) and Sub-Planck-scale elastic substrate. (i)Time emerges from irreversible state transitions of the SEQ network, with each step corresponding to a calculable entropy(S=∏mᵢ, i∈N) from transformation matrices governing spatial changes. (ii) Matter itself is a manifestation of compressed space: SU(3) symmetry mediates local SEQ compression, storing energy as mass while (...) stretching surrounding space to generate gravity. The Higgs field stabilizes compressed regions via symmetry breaking, acting as a "quantum lock". (iii)This model explains why time slows near massive objects—local deformed SEQ network undergo fewer state transitions frequency. (iv)The model makes testable predictions, including a chiral asymmetry in electron-positron magnetic moments due to their distinct coupling to the fixed-spin SEQ ground state. (v)It also resolves black hole singularities by imposing an upper limit on SEQ tension. (vi)By establishing a correspondence between metric-scale geometry and quantum resonant frequencies, an alternative framework is presented.(vii) By treating spacetime as a dynamic quantum-elastic network, this framework bridges general relativity, quantum field theory, and thermodynamics. (viii)A GR Reformulation of Electromagnetic Interactions within the Quantum Elastic Spacetime Framework. (ix)This work presents a physical picture that accounts for the initial low entropy, the generation of matter and dark matter, and the observed anomalies in galaxy rotation curves during the early cosmic stage. (x) Degrees of Freedom in the Future and The essence of life in This Model. (xi)This model sets the resonant frequency and resonant axis vector of SEQ as two generalized coordinates in Hamiltonian formalism with the fundamental assumption of invariant spatial topology, naturally yielding global energy conservation and simplifying the Hamiltonian formulation of the system. (xii) Crucially, the framework offers mechanistic explanations for a broad spectrum of quantum and relativistic phenomena. It provides intuitive physical pictures for the non-additivity of the speed of light, wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, parity non-conservation, the electron's 1/2 spin, the neutron electric dipole moment problem, the fractional charge of quarks, the nature of energy in nuclear reactions, muon decay, the Structural Origins of Fermion Generations and Neutrino oscillation.(xiii)This model explains quantum entanglement through global energy conservation while preserving local causality. ★★★Model Originality Statement★★★:(1)Fundamental Structure: A Dual-Layer Substrate with Topologically invariant Space Configuration and SEQ spin with chirality fixed.(Section 1); (2)Time and Multiplicative Entropy: A Computable, Non-Statistical Entropy.(Section 2,3,4,5,6); (3)Mass-Gravity Unification: A Dual Expression of Spatial Elasticity. (Section9,10,12); (4)Mirror Relation Postulate Between Spacetime Geometry and Quantum Resonance Frequency. (Section 13); (5)Electromagnetic Waves: A Physical Picture Based on Maxwell’s Vortex Model and Topological Fiber Structure. (Section 14);(6) Cosmological Interpretations: Alternative Explanations for Cosmic Acceleration, Dark Matter and Galactic Rotation Anomalies. (Section 9.1); (7) Randomness of Evolution, Degrees of Freedom in the Future and The essence of life in This Mode. (Section13, Appendix 2); (8) The fixed chiral spin of SEQ assumed in this model can explain parity violation and the scarcity of antiparticles, while also providing a physical picture of the Higgs mechanism. (Section7,Section10,Section11); (9) The unique 'layered dynamic structural matrix' configuration of the SEQ network. (Section 11). (shrink)

This paper introduces the Time Field Model (TFM) as a spacetime quantization approach, wherein time is promoted to a fundamental scalar field with wave-like excitations. When the energy density of these time waves surpasses a Planck-scale threshold (ρcritical ∼ c5 ℏG2), discrete space quanta nucleate—initiating a phase-transition-like process closely resembling cosmic infla tion. We incorporate a Lagrangian derivation to explain how the time field couples to emergent space quanta, and show how a lattice-based formulation avoids contradictions between discrete and continuum (...) pictures: on small scales, space is inherently discrete, but on large scales, the metric recovers smooth geometry consistent with general relativity. Building on TFM Papers #1–3, which established time as a two-component field driving micro– and macro–Bang expansions, this work unifies those concepts under a single threshold-driven mechanism, providing a testable blueprint for a quantum–gravitational basis of cosmic expansion and emergent spacetime, with signatures detectable by next-generation cosmological surveys. (shrink)

We refine the Initial Spark in the two-component Time Field Model (TFM) as a singularity-free, quantum-gravitational nucleation event that triggers a macro–Big Bang (the “Spark”) outside our observable domain. This drives inflation-like ex pansion in distinct cosmic regions, potentially leaving multiverse-like bubble collisions as observational imprints. Building on wave-based quantum gravity, cosmic inflation, and high-frequency gravitational-wave phenomenology, TFM unifies these phenomena under a single two-field formalism. Observational probes include CMB V-modes, bubble collisions, and ultra-high-frequency gravitational waves (f > 109 Hz) (...) accessible to next-generation detectors. (shrink)

While the original TFM framework employs a single effective field T, this revision introduces T+(x,t) and T−(x,t)—two complementary components whose wave-like interactions enrich microscopic phenomena while preserving the original large-scale results. These subfields globally cancel (T ≡ T+ + T−) but allow local quantum anomalies, bridging quantum mechanics and general relativity under a single theo retical umbrella. Matter–antimatter asymmetry arises from regional T+/T− imbalances, while global cancellation ensures net-zero energy. TFM explains galaxy rotation curves and the Planck 2020 CMB data (...) without invoking unseen dark matter or dark energy. We present a Lagrangian formulation, show how “micro–Big Bangs” (continuous localized energy bursts) and “macro–Big Bangs” (rare large-scale surges) emerge naturally, and propose falsifiable experiments using gravitational-wave detectors, Casimir experiments [4], and near-field quantum probes. This expanded edition details how charge, spin, and mass follow from time-wave interactions, high lights the topological stability of “Dynamic Time Loops” (DTLs), and connects TFM predictions with Planck 2020, SPARC galaxy data, and ongoing gravitational-wave ob servations. As such, TFM serves as a comprehensive candidate for a unified “Theory of Everything.”. (shrink)

The Recurring Big Bang Mechanism (RBBM)positsthat micro–Big Bangs—localized energy bursts occurring continuously in a fluid-like, two-component time field—collectively drive the expansion of the universe. Building on Paper #1 (The Time Field Model), where time is decomposed into two fields T+(x,t) and T−(x,t), we show how construc tive interference between T+ and T− produces small inflation-like bursts (micro–Big Bangs). Despite these local surges, global near-zero net energy is preserved due to near-destructive interference on large scales (see Paper #1, Sec. 2.3). Wederive (...) the energy-threshold condition for micro–Big Bangs, referencing the TFM Lagrangian from Paper #1 (α1,α2 definitions). We outline wave equations in a sta ble background, and describe numerical simulations illustrating how localized anoma lies nucleate and then dissipate. Comparisons with observational data—including Planck 2018 CMB measurements (fNL = −0.9 ± 5.1) and cosmic-acceleration con straints—demonstrate that RBBM can replicate key features of ΛCDM without in voking dark matter or dark energy, while offering novel predictions (e.g. a stochastic gravitational-wave background from bubble collisions, overlaid with the NANOGrav 12.5-year sensitivity). This framework sets the stage for Paper #3, wherein an ex tremely rare macro–Big Bang (the “Initial Spark”) triggers large-scale expansion out side our observable domain. Micro- vs. Macro-Big Bangs: Micro–Big Bangs are frequent, lo calized expansions. Macro–Big Bangs differ fundamentally in scale/trigger condition (Paper #3), involving Planck-scale wave interference collapses beyond δEc. The Ini tial Spark (Paper #3) requires δESpark ≫ δEc, governed by β/α2 1. (shrink)

Scientific principles can undergo various developments. While philosophers of science have acknowledged that such changes occur, there is no systematic account of the development of scientific principles. Here we propose a template for analyzing the development of scientific principles called the ‘life cycle’ of principles. It includes a series of processes that principles can go through: prehistory, elevation, formalization, generalization, and challenge. The life cycle, we argue, is a useful heuristic for the analysis of the development of scientific principles. We (...) illustrate this by discussing examples from foundational physics including Lorentz invariance, Mach’s principle, the naturalness principle, and the perfect cosmological principle. We also explore two applications of the template. First, we propose that the template can be employed to diagnose the quality of scientific principles. Second, we discuss the ramifications of the life cycle’s processes for the empirical testability of principles. (shrink)

In the classical ideal, a physical theory provides understandable dynamic explanations and yields novel predictions of phenomena. Relativistic Physics (RP), namely the special and general theories of relativity and relativistic cosmology, does not meet this ideal. This discrepancy has been addressed by transforming the classical ideal into a ‘relativistic methodology’, where it is accepted that nature is not fully understandable, predictions are prioritized over dynamic explanations, new phenomena may be accommodated in an orderly fashion with the aid of additional hypotheses, (...) and anomalous data may be disregarded. Relativistic methodology and the enduring confidence in RP stem from tradition, where physicists who have learned to conceptualize reality through RP see it as the only alternative. Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend have taught us that to fully understand a theory’s weaknesses, it must be juxtaposed with an alternate theory, and that its replacement requires a superior theory. Here, RP is confronted with Tuomo Suntola’s Dynamic Universe (DU). Suntola claims that DU matches or surpasses RP’s predictive accuracy for several central phenomena from the terrestrial to the largest cosmological scales, while adhering to the classical ideal and cohering with quantum mechanics. If this claim withstands scrutiny, DU deserves further attention from physicists, philosophers and funding institutions. (shrink)

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. In a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics, what we might traditionally call dynamic behavior or (...) causal relationships is reinterpreted as static patterns across the dimension of time described as correlations. If particles are statically patterned to behave a certain way through the dimension of time, one does not need a causal mechanism to account for their behavior. It is the wrong assumption that cause and effect in physics are real that leads to the imaginary belief in the real existence of quantum fields. A superdeterministic interpretation of the universe is one where all events, whether past, present or future, are predetermined and already exist in our static block universe and correlations between those events can produce patterns of behavior in those events through the dimension of time. (shrink)

In this paper, we will introduce a novel argument (the “Region Argument”) that objects do not have frame-independent shapes in special relativity. The Region Argument lacks vulnerabilities present in David Chalmers' argument for that conclusion based on length contraction. We then examine how views on persistence interact with the Region Argument. We argue that this argument and standard four-dimensionalist assumptions entail that nothing in a relativistic world has any shape, not even stages or the regions occupied by them. We also (...) argue that endurantists have viable ways of preserving shape despite the Region Argument. The upshot of these arguments is that contrary to conventional wisdom, considerations about shape in relativity support endurantism rather than four-dimensionalism. We conclude by examining the implications of our discussion for the debate over Edenic shapes, noting that endurantists have a satisfying response to skeptical arguments about Edenic shapes similar to the one they have against the Region Argument. (shrink)

The shift from classical to relativistic physics significantly altered our conception of time. From a picture of space and time as autonomous concepts, and of reality as divided into moments of time, relativity theory introduced a picture of four-dimensional spacetime, and a 'static' or 'block universe' conception of time. This paper considers how exactly relativity theory clashes with our ordinary folk conception of time and what this ultimately means for how we should think about the nature of time.

Zeno's paradox of Achilles and Tortoise is relevant only when Achilles and the tortoise move at different speeds but not if they ever move at the same speed but different directions. Or not relevant if there is in addition a kind of space in which they move at the same speed contrary to appearances. -/- According to a principle of special relativity the more an object moves in coordinate space the less it moves in coordinate time. If the relative speed (...) between Achilles and the tortoise is v, after T passage of time, from the point of view of the tortoise, Achilles moves vT in coordinate space and wT in coordinate time. The framework of special relativity wholly describes the motion of both if v^2 + w^2 = C^2 where C is the speed of light. -/- Achilles and the Tortoise phenomenally (ordinary 3-dimensional conception of space) move at different speeds, but noumenally (in 4-dimensional spacetime) move at the same speed C. (shrink)

From the comparison of time in inertial frames, possible types of transformations between inertial frames are deduced. This elementary deduction directly relates the properties of time with the type of transformations. When all inertial frames measure the same time (time is absolute), the transformations are Galilean. When each inertial frame has its own time, different from the times of other inertial frames (time is not invariant) the transformations are Lorentz-like with the same positive parameter k. The parameter k is the (...) supremum of possible velocities in an inertial frame, the same for all inertial frames. Einstein's postulate about the invariance of the speed of light says more: there is a uniform motion with the supremum k, which is exactly the motion of light in a vacuum. At the end of the article, attempts to reduce the special theory of relativity to the principle of relativity are criticized. (shrink)

Many philosophers have been attracted to a restricted version of the principle of indifference in the case of self‐locating belief. Roughly speaking, this principle states that, within any given possible world, one should be indifferent between different hypotheses concerning who one is within that possible world, so long as those hypotheses are compatible with one's evidence. My first goal is to defend a more precise version of this principle. After responding to several existing criticisms of such a principle, I argue (...) that existing formulations of the principle are crucially ambiguous, and I go on to defend a particular disambiguation of the principle. According to the disambiguation I defend, how we should apply this restricted principle of indifference sensitively depends on our background metaphysical beliefs. My second goal is to apply this disambiguated principle to classical skeptical problems in epistemology. In particular, I argue that Eternalism threatens to lead us to external world skepticism, and Modal Realism threatens to lead us to inductive skepticism. (shrink)

The problem of time involves an overlap between physics, philosophy, psychology and neuroscience. My talk will discuss the role of time in physics but also emphasize that physics may need to expand to address issues usually regarded as being in the other domains. I will first review the mainstream physics view of time, as it arises in Newtonian theory, relativity theory and quantum theory. I will then discuss the various arrows of time, the most fundamental of which is the passage (...) of time associated with consciousness. I will argue that this goes beyond both relativity theory and quantum theory, so that one needs some new physical paradigm to accommodate it. A new paradigm is required anyway to describe quantum gravity and this may elucidate the nature of both time and consciousness. (shrink)

Metaphysicians who are aware of modern physics usually follow Putnam (1967) in arguing that Special Theory of Relativity is incompatible with the view that what exists is only what exists now or presently. Partisans of presentism (the motto ‘only present things exist’) had very difficult times since, and no presentist theory of time seems to have been able to satisfactorily counter the objection raised from Special Relativity. One of the strategies offered to the presentist consists in relativizing existence to inertial (...) frames. This unfashionable strategy has been accused of counterfeiting, since the meaning of the concept of existence would be incompatible with its relativization. Therefore, existence could only be relativistically invariant. In this paper, I shall examine whether such an accusation hits its target, and I will do this by examining whether the different criteria of existence that have been suggested by the Philosophical Tradition from Plato onwards imply that existence cannot be relativized. (shrink)

Between 1908 and 1912, while working in Vienna, Philipp Frank wrote a dozen articles on relativity: the principle, as Einstein originally denominated it, or the theory, as others came to call it. This work was primarily responsible for his appointment in 1912 as Einstein's successor as Professor of Theoretical Physics at the German University in Prague. The paper places these articles into their narrower and broader historical context and relates them to the work of others.

In this two-part essay, we distinguish several senses in which general relativity has been regarded as “locally special relativistic.” Here, in Part 1, we focus on senses in which a relativistic spacetime has been said to be “locally (approximately) Minkowskian.” After critiquing several proposals in the literature, we present a result capturing a substantive sense in which every relativistic spacetime is locally approximately Minkowskian. We then show that Minkowski spacetime is not distinguished in this result: every relativistic spacetime is locally (...) approximately every other spacetime in the same sense. In Part 2, we will consider “locally specially relativistic” matter theories. (shrink)

In this two-part essay, we distinguish several senses in which general relativity has been regarded as “locally special relativistic.” In Part 1, we focused on senses in which a relativistic spacetime may be said to be “locally (approximately) Minkowskian.” Here, in Part 2, we consider what it might mean to say that a matter theory is “locally special relativistic.” We isolate and evaluate three criteria in the literature and show that they are incompatible: matter theories satisfying one will generally violate (...) others. We then consider what would happen if any of those criteria failed for a given theory. (shrink)

Proposed quantum experiments in deep space will be able to explore quantum information issues in regimes where relativistic effects are important. In this essay, we argue that a proper extension of quantum information theory into the relativistic domain requires the expression of all informational notions in terms of quantum field theoretic (QFT) concepts. This task requires a working and practicable theory of QFT measurements. We present the foundational problems in constructing such a theory, especially in relation to longstanding causality and (...) locality issues in the foundations of QFT. Finally, we present the ongoing Quantum Temporal Probabilities program for constructing a measurement theory that (i) works, in principle, for any QFT, (ii) allows for a first- principles investigation of all relevant issues of causality and locality, and (iii) it can be directly applied to experiments of current interest. (shrink)

This textbook bridges the gap between the level of introductory courses on mechanics and electrodynamics and the level of application in high energy physics and quantum field theory. After explaining the postulates that lead to the Lorentz transformation and after going through the main points special relativity has to make in classical mechanics and electrodynamics, the authors gradually lead the reader up to a more abstract point of view on relativistic symmetry - illustrated by physical examples - until finally motivating (...) and developing Wigner's classification of the unitary irreducible representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group. Numerous historical and mathematical asides contribute to the conceptual clarification. (shrink)

I argue that notions of relative fundamentality need to be invoked if there is to be something substantive at stake in the debate between proponents of Harvey Brown's dynamical approach to relativity and defenders of a more traditional interpretation of spacetime. I will review some problems that stand in the way of the advocate of the dynamical approach making good on their claim that dynamical symmetries are more fundamental than spacetime symmetries.

The experience of time passing is a fundamental part of the human experience, but what is the relationship between conscious experiences in time and the relativistic nature of space and time? It is natural to think that our phenomenal experiences are realised by neuralevents in our brains. And it seems plausible that the order of these neural events makes a difference to our phenomenology. Yet, relativity theory entails that in some cases these neural events lack objective temporal orders. Instead, their (...) temporal order is different relative to different, equally valid frames of reference. How then is this relativity compatible that intuitively there is only a single, objective way in which things appear to us? This question is at the centre of this thesis. I will present the context of the debate within the theory of Special Relativity and how different problems seem to arise between consciousness and Special Relativity. I will then introduce some basic key concepts for understanding Special Relativity. After introducing the foundation of the problem and a specific formulation that provides the structure of the rest of the thesis, I will present four different possible solutions to the problems, analysing their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, I will use one of the proposed solutions, the objective objection, to argue that the problem never actually arises to begin with and that it is based on a misreading of Special Relativity. I also argue that the objective objection is much more general than its originator proposes. (shrink)

In what follows, I will provide some elements for constructing Mariátegui’s plural spatiotemporal conception of history. I will do so by focusing on the two books he published in his lifetime: The contemporary scene and Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality. In a footnote in the Seven Essays, the reader encounters a concept that opens up the problem of plural temporality in Latin American Marxism: relativismo histórico (historical relativism). This will be the keystone concept upon which certain fragments of Mariátegui’s (...) writings will be put together to construct the concept of plural temporality. This involves taking a detour through what Mariátegui understood by relativismo (relativism). In that detour, we find that Mariátegui’s use of relativismo consists in translating and assimilating the insights of one of the pillars of contemporary physics: Einstein’s theory of relativity. For Mariátegui, the relativistic theory of spacetime undermined the old “absolutes” of the positivist unilinear philosophy of history. I then argue that Mariátegui, through his friend and comrade Hugo Pesce, assimilates and translates the “revolutionary” theory of spacetime as a weapon against the unilinear philosophy of history and as a resource to construct a concept of plural spatiotemporal concept of history. Re-situating Mariátegui’s work along this axis puts some pressure on certain Bergsonian and Sorelian readings that overemphasize the importance of Myth and Humanity as a “metaphysical animal” and thereby tend to underemphasize or outright suppress his creative assimilation and translation of the sciences of his time. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Relationism, Substantivalism and Space‐time Conventionalism about Space‐time Black Holes and Singularities Horizons and Uniformity Conclusion.

One of the key episodes of history of modern physics – Paul Dirac’s startling contrivance of the relativistic theory of the electron – is elicited in the context of lucid epistemological model of mature theory change. The peculiar character of Dirac’s synthesis of special relativity and quantum mechanics is revealed by comparison with Einstein’s sophisticated methodology of the General Relativity contrivance. The subtle structure of Dirac’s scientific research program and first and foremost the odd principles that put up its powerful (...) heuristics is scrutinized with special emphasis on the highly controversial tenet of “mathematical beauty.” It is contended that despite the relentless Dirac’s remarks denigrating the controversial role of philosophy one can trace its indirect influence through Arthur Eddington’s and Hermann Weyl’s whimsical mathematical models. Accordingly, the milestones of Dirac’s research programme realization in the distinctive context of the applied epistemological doctrine are indicated. (shrink)

Attempts to establish a dialogue between the natural sciences and theology were made in the 20th century along with, among other things, the arrival of new groundbreaking theories in physics, but these attempts met with many content-related and methodological challenges. Philosophy, which plays an essential role as an intermediary in this relationship, has often proven to be a significant obstacle. The failure of neo-Thomism’s reception to Einstein’s theory in Poland led the Polish cosmologist, philosopher, and theologian Michael Heller to introduce (...) the concept of philosophy in science as a possible basis for dialogue. It proved fruitful, and years later, Heller was awarded the Templeton Prize for building bridges between science and theology. As it later transpired, the notion of philosophy in science has considerable intellectual potential for enriching the dialogue between natural sciences and theology. This article briefly discusses some examples of how the theory of relativity was received by some Polish neo-Thomists. Furthermore, the paper presents the sources of inspiration for Heller’s approach and the benefits it offers. Finally, another project that he named the theology of science is also discussed. (shrink)