Julian Barbour - The End of Time - The Next Revolution in Physics

An arena is the totality of places where one can go in some game. But who is playing the game and where? In Newton’s game, individual objects play in absolute space. In Mach’s game, there is only one player – the universe. It does not move in absolute space, it moves from one configuration to another. The totality of these places is its relative configuration space: Platonia. As the universe moves, it therefore traces out a path in Platonia. This captures, without any redundant structure, the idea of history. History is the passage of the universe through a unique sequence of states. In its history, the universe traces a path through Platonia.

However, such language makes it sound as though time exists. I may have inadvertently conjured up an image in your mind of the universe as a lone hiker walking the fells in northern Platonia. Properly understood, the Machian programme is much more radical. For no Sun rises or sets over that landscape to mark the walker’s progress. The Sun, like the moving parts of any clock, is part of the universe. It is part of the walker. Of course, to say that time has passed, we must have some evidence for that. Something must move. That is the most primitive fact of all. In the Newtonian picture, as in Feynman’s quip, time can pass without anything happening. If we deny that, the grandstand clock must go. There is nothing outside the universe to time it as it goes from one place to another in Platonia – only some internal change can do that. But just as all markers are on an equal footing for defining position, so are all changes for the purposes of timing. We must reckon time by the totality of changes. But changes are just what takes the universe from one place in Platonia to another. Any and all changes do that. We must not think of the history of the universe in terms of some walker on a path who can move along it at different speeds. The history of the universe is the path. Each point on the path is a configuration of the universe. For a three-body universe, each configuration is a triangle. The path is just the triangles – nothing more, nothing less.

With time gone, motion is gone. If you saw a jumbled heap of triangles, it would not enter your head that anything moved, or that one triangle changed into another. When Newton’s superstructure is removed, Newtonian history is like that jumbled heap of triangles, except that it is a special heap. If you picked up each triangle – I call that picking up an instant of time – and marked its position in Triangle Land, you would find that the marks of the triangles form a continuous curve.

This was the decisive picture that crystallized in my mind about 1971. At that stage I had no thought of applications to quantum mechanics, and no inkling that it might lead to the replacement of one clearly delineated path through Platonia by a mist that hovers over the same timeless landscape. We had a blackboard in our kitchen in College Farm, and I wrote at the top it it: The history of the universe is a continuous curve in its relative configuration space.’ My wife, perhaps understandably, was rather sceptical about the progress I was making. After all, fourteen words were not much to show for seven years of thought. But the clear formulation of the concept of Platonia was the important thing. It shifts attention from the parts of the universe to the universe itself. It shows that time is not needed as an extra element, the Great Timekeeper outside the universe. The universe keeps track of itself. In one instant it is where it is, in another it is somewhere else. That is what a different instant of time is: it is just a different place in Platonia. Instants of time and positions of the objects within the universe are all subsumed into the single notion of place in Platonia. If the place is different, the time is different. If the place is the same, time has not changed. This change of viewpoint is made possible only because the universe is treated as a single whole and time is reduced to change.

I think the reason why I take the possibility of a completely timeless universe more seriously than almost all other physicists is this background that came from thinking about Mach’s principle. As we shall see, Platonia is the natural arena for the realization of that idea. Many years after I had first recognized that Platonia would provide the basis for the solution to the Machian problem, I began to see that it had deep relevance in the quantum domain too. The problems of the origin of inertia and of quantum cosmology form a seamless whole.

(1) (p. 61) I have written at considerable length about the early history of astronomy and mechanics and the absolute versus relative debate in my Absolute or Relative Motion ? This has recently been reprinted as a paperback with the new title The Discovery of Dynamics (OUP, 2001). I still hope to complete a further volume bringing the story up to the present, and much has already been written, but my plans are in flux because of the developments mentioned at the end of the Preface and at various places in these notes. Readers wanting a full academic (and mathematical) treatment of the topics presented in Parts 2 and 3 of this book are asked to consult the above and the papers (Barbour 1994a, 1999, 2000, 2001), which cite earlier papers. For references to recent developments see p. 358 and my website (www.julianbarbour.com).

(2) (p. 64) In the main body of the text, I mention the importance of the fortunate circumstances of the world in enabling physicists to avoid worrying about foundations. Another very important factor is the clarity of the notion of empty space, developed so early by the Greek mathematicians, which deeply impressed Newton. He felt that he really could see space in his mind’s eye, and regarded it as being rather like some infinite translucent block of glass. He and many other mathematicians pictured its points as being like tiny identical grains of sand that, close-packed, make up the block. But this is all rather ghostly and mysterious. Unlike glass and tiny grains of sand, which are just visible, space and its points are utterly invisible. This is a suspect, unreal world.

We are not bound to hang onto old notions. We can open our eyes to something new. Let me try to persuade you that points of space are not what mathematicians would sometimes have us believe. Imagine yourself in a magnificent mountain range, and that someone asked, ‘Where are you?’ Would you kneel down with a magnifying glass and look for that invisible ‘point’ at which you happen to be in the ‘space’ that the mountain range occupies? You would look in vain. Indeed, you would never do such a silly thing. You would just look around you at the mountains. They tell you where you are . The point you occupy in the world is defined by what the world looks like as seen by you: it is a snapshot of the world as seen by you. Real points of space are not tiny grains of sand, they are actual pictures. To see the point where you are in the world, you must look not inward but outward .

The plaque near the grave of Christopher Wren in St. Paul’s Cathedral says simply: ‘If you seek a monument, look around you.’ The point where you are is a monument too, and you see it by looking around you. It is this sort of change of mindset that I think we need if we are to understand the universe and time.

To conclude this note, a word about what is perhaps the most serious problem in my approach. It is how to deal with infinity. As so far defined, each place in Platonia corresponds to a configuration of a finite number of objects. Such a universe is like an island of finite extent. One could allow the configurations to have infinite extent and contain infinitely many objects. That is not an insuperable problem. The difficulty arises with the operations that one needs to perform. As presented in this book, the operations work only if the points in Platonia, the instants of time, are in some sense finite. There may be ways around this problem—Einstein’s theory can deal beautifully with either finite or infinite universes—but infinity is always rather difficult. There is something ‘beyond the horizon’, and we can never close the circle of cause and effect. In short, we cannot build a model of a completely rational world. Precisely for this reason Einstein’s first and most famous cosmological model was spatially finite, closed up on itself. The constructions of this book are to be seen as a similar attempt to create a rational model of the universe in which the elusive circle does close.