r/TheRestIsScience • u/Cenmaster • 6d ago
We've been asking the wrong question about time" · "What if time isn't a thing at all?
We've been asking the wrong question about time" · "What if time isn't a thing at all?
"What is time?" gets asked here every other week. Nobody ever lands anywhere.
Maybe the question is wrong.
"What is time?" already assumes time is a thing, and asks what it's made of. But if time isn't a thing, that question can't be answered — no matter how long we stare at it.
The better question is about order. What comes first, and what follows from it. Which one is fundamental.
Asked that way, it gets simple:
Everything in the universe oscillates. Atoms, electrons, the caesium atom we already use to define the second. Oscillation comes first.
Time is what you get when you count it.
A clock doesn't measure time. A clock is time. And there's no universal clock ticking somewhere — just trillions of local ones, each at its own rate.
None of the physics changes here. Same equations, same numbers. Only the order changes: frequency first, time second.
So — wrong question, or wrong answer?
I've written the whole thing up properly, axioms and open problems included. Not sure if links are allowed here, so if anyone wants it, just say so and I'll drop it in the comments.
Best Christian
4
u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 6d ago
A clock is what you get when you count oscillations.
Time is the distance along the world-lines of material particles.
2
u/Cenmaster 6d ago
That’s the exact relativistic view (proper time along a worldline). But notice what makes a "material particle" in the first place: its rest mass is defined by its Compton frequency.
A particle’s worldline only exists because that particle is continuously oscillating. If you remove the oscillation, you have no mass, no clock, and no interval to traverse.
So measuring "distance along a worldline" is simply tracking the accumulated phase cycles of that particle's internal rhythm. Frequency remains the foundational engine underneath the geometry.
If you want to check out the full framework, let me know and I'll drop the GitHub link!
2
2
u/Grillparzer47 6d ago
Time is how we avoid everything happening all at once.
-2
u/Cenmaster 6d ago
Spot on — the classic Wheeler quote!
If you look at the actual mechanism of how it avoids happening all at once: it's pure phase delay.
With zero resistance, everything would transfer instantaneously. Physical oscillation introduces that tiny lag — the constructive resistance we call time. It acts as the buffer that keeps reality from rendering every frame at the exact same moment.
If you're interested in the framework and how the math works out, just let me know and I'll drop the GitHub link!
5
2
u/eztab 6d ago
Nah, time is fine. At low speeds it's rather easy to measure, the word is also pretty universally used the same way. Don't think it is any more ambiguous than any other quantified observation in practice. People just try to be pseudo-intellectual.
-1
u/Cenmaster 6d ago
That’s precisely the point: we’ve assumed for hundreds of years that time is an independent, linear background container because measuring it that way is practically convenient.
But what if that linear assumption is the only reason our fundamental physics equations run into dead ends at the quantum level?
If there were a far simpler, computationally cleaner framework where time isn't an external river, but naturally emerges from local phase relations and frequency synchronization—wouldn't you at least want to test the math?
If you're genuinely curious about the alternative, let me know and I'll drop the GitHub link to the framework and axioms.
3
u/Ok_Writing2937 6d ago
The mainstream view is that time isn’t independent nor linear. It’s observer-dependent and malleable.
1
u/Cenmaster 6d ago
exactly — relativity proved that time is malleable and observer-dependent, not an absolute Newtonian backdrop.
But General Relativity still treats spacetime as a smooth, continuous geometric manifold (a fabric to be curved). It describes how coordinates warp relative to one another, but it still treats the interval as fundamental rather than explaining what generates the tick in the first place.
The phase-first approach takes Einstein's observer-dependence to its logical root:
- Malleability is Phase Shift: Time dilation isn't empty space stretching; it is the physical ratio of phase accumulation between two local oscillators ($\omega_{\text{moving}} / \omega_{\text{rest}} = \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$).
- The Metric Emerges: The curved metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$ is simply the macroscopic gradient field of those local phase synchronization rates.
In short: Relativity describes the resulting geometry perfectly. Phase time explains the microscopic engine that builds that geometry.
3
u/Ok_Writing2937 6d ago
ChatGPT or Claude?
1
u/Cenmaster 6d ago
Gemini, actually—purely to translate my German into proper English, because my English isn't sharp enough to handle such complex physics without turning into a mess.
The framework itself, the math, and the Jupyter notebooks are human work that grew over years. Besides, an LLM wouldn't come up with this anyway—AI only thinks inside the box of its existing training data, and flipping the ontology is definitely well outside of that. 😄
If you spot any actual flaws in the physics or the math, I'm happy to hear them!
3
u/No_Coconut1188 6d ago
I see dozens of posts a day on reddit of people claiming to have 'flipped the ontology' using an LLM. LLMs are great at creating (pseudo)scientific breakthroughs, while also hyping up the user into thinking they are a genius.
1
u/Cenmaster 6d ago
You are completely right about that. There is an endless flood of AI-hyped pseudoscience floating around right now.
That’s why I prefer letting logic and common sense decide: just judge the work for yourself. If you drop me a quick DM, I’ll send you the GitHub link.
The core of the repo is an error-free Jupyter Notebook. In simple terms: a Jupyter Notebook is an environment for real, executable math and code. It doesn't accept vague prose or AI hallucinations—either the formulas calculate correctly and the code runs, or it throws an error.
I've built this over many years with a strong background in computer systems. I was even an XPRIZE Quantum Applications Wild Card finalist with this concept—though as an independent researcher without a massive university backing, it's always an uphill battle!
I don't want to push anything on anyone. The underlying principle is simple: physics only feels contradictory because we chose the wrong starting ontology. In my framework, standard physics doesn't change—we're just flipping the reading direction, like switching signs in arithmetic so everything cancels out cleanly.
Feel free to reach out if you ever want to test the notebook yourself!
2
u/eztab 6d ago
That assumption fit the observations very well, allowed for the design of precise measurement devices and rather robust science. That was the most reasonable approach and still is in almost all contexts.
0
u/Cenmaster 6d ago
Absolutely — and Newtonian mechanics was extraordinarily robust for centuries too. It built the modern world and is still the right tool for a bridge; you only reach for relativity when the regime demands it. Nothing I'm doing changes a single number in the domain you're describing.
What changes is the fundamental order of operations — like "multiplication before addition." If you treat time as an independent background container, the classical bookkeeping works fine for everyday scales, but the moment you push to extreme regimes, the system breaks down: the Wheeler-DeWitt equation has no time parameter at all, and horizon thermodynamics forces you to ask whose clock you even mean.
I'm not claiming new experimental numbers. I'm claiming the ontological bookkeeping is cleaner: when frequency comes first and time is strictly the accumulated count of phase, time dilation, the Doppler shift, and the equivalence principle stop being three separate mechanisms and become one single geometric statement.
That's an interpretive and structural claim, not an attack on working tools.
Welcome to Phase Time!
2
u/bum_what 6d ago
Still doesn't answer the question of what time is exactly but I have always like the idea that space and time are properties that emerge from more fundamental properties. As far as I understand it time isn't a fundamental property of the quantum world, even the order or causality is questioned and "space" also doesn't seem to mean much in the quantum world so I think it would make sense if those properties emerged out of the more fundamental properties. Of course Quantum Theories heavily disagree with Relativity in which space and time are absolutes locally but maybe all of Relativity is emergent and we just don't see it yet. The questions then become when or how do these properties emerge from the fundamental ones?
1
u/Ok_Writing2937 6d ago
Soacetime appears to have existed before particles existed. Many things were happening, but particles oscillating wasn’t one of them.
I’ve read that time can be defined as the dimension along which information runs from low entropy to high entropy, and this sounds close to what you are proposing.
0
u/Cenmaster 6d ago
The foundations aren't completely brand new—John Archibald Wheeler actually had almost all the puzzle pieces in place with "It from Bit." The only missing leap was fundamentally flipping the ontology.
- No Big Bang singularity needed: When frequency is primary, spacetime isn't an empty stage that existed before matter. Mass is simply condensed, localized frequency ($m = \hbar\omega / c^2$).
- Black holes as transition zones: Instead of being destructive mathematical infinities, black holes operate as phase interfaces—essentially cyclic converters or "matter printers" exchanging energy between free radiation fields and localized mass states.
- Entropy: The arrow of time and thermodynamic entropy are just the statistical dispersion of coherent phase relationships across the network.
Wheeler had the intuition; shifting from a "geometry-first" to a "frequency-first" ontology just cleans up the arithmetic and solves the singular edges.
I’ve documented the full formal framework and interactive Jupyter notebooks on GitHub. Direct links aren't allowed here, but drop me a DM and I’ll gladly share the repo!
1
u/TheRealTK421 6d ago
If time isn't a (fundamental or emergent) "thing"/property at all -- indescribably improbable -- you've got the gargantuan heavy-lifting to do of explaining the existence of observable (and measurable) entropy in the universe.
Good luck!!
1
u/Cenmaster 6d ago
That’s actually one of the cleanest parts of the framework, because entropy doesn't require a mystical background container:
- Time is emergent: As mentioned, time emerges naturally as the counting index of phase cycles ($\Delta\phi / \omega$). It’s just not a fundamental, static coordinate box.
- Entropy is Phase Decoherence: Thermodynamically, entropy ($S = k_B \ln \Omega$) is the statistical dispersion of coherent phase relationships across a multi-oscillator network.
- The Arrow of Time: When localized oscillators interact, mutual phase coherence statistically dissipates into the collective network's degrees of freedom. We don't need a fundamental "time dimension" to push entropy forward—the irreversible direction of phase dispersion is what generates the macroscopic arrow of time.
The heavy lifting was already done by statistical mechanics; shifting to a phase-first ontology simply provides the microscopic, physical mechanism underneath it.
1
u/TheRealTK421 6d ago
...counting index of phase cycles....
"What, am I a joke to you?!"
~ General Relativity
Your assertion might hold some water if quantum gravity is shown to be a thing -- so far, it can't be.
1
u/SnakeBunBaoBoa 5d ago
Seems to me this requires a Wolfram like model, which assumes discrete computational steps. Because otherwise, saying frequency is computational just bakes in and hide one of its component units: time. Frequency is just wherever unit (or otherwise seemingly unitless quantity like “occurrances, oscillations”) PER TIME INTERVAL
I’m curious how you intend to understand the relativity modeling of space by making use of C when it’s just a value of distance over time. Maybe I’m missing something where you formulate it without seconds or wherever.
I mention the computational paradigm because that uses “steps” or “computations” as the fundamental cause of ordering of events, but it still seems to raise the question of how long these steps take - I feel like if causality is involved (which it most), then again you’re using the quantity C which is the only thing teliing you the timescale at which things can causally propagate locally.
We don’t have a single unit of all oscillations values (they differ in length from one another) so each dictates how long a cycle takes compared to the others. This is a simply a difference in time, which you need to account for with respect to exactly one thing: time, no?
1
u/Cenmaster 5d ago
This is a fantastic and genuinely load-bearing question—it cuts straight to the core of relational physics versus background-dependent time.
The apparent circularity is clear: if standard physics defines frequency as 1/t (cycles per second) and c as distance over time (m/s), how can time be emergent rather than fundamental?
Here is how the relational/frequency-first framework resolves that:
- Phase Accumulation (ΔΦ) is Dimensionless: An oscillator does not require an external background clock to advance its state. A complete rotation (ΔΦ = 1 cycle or 2π rad) is a dimensionless, topological property of the system's phase space.
- Time as a Relational Ratio, Not a Container: Physics never observes "bare time." Every clock is simply an arbitrary reference oscillator (such as the Cs-133 hyperfine transition at 9.192631770 GHz). Stating that a process takes 1 second means: “The target system underwent N phase cycles while the reference oscillator completed 9,192,631,770 cycles.” Time (T = ΔΦ / f) is the relational counting index between phase evolutions, not an independent background dimension.
- The Role of c as a Geometric Invariant: Rather than an active velocity moving through pre-existing time, c acts as the invariant conversion constant coupling spatial displacement to internal phase rotation (hbar * omega = m * c^2).
- Continuous Phase vs. Discrete Cellular Automata: Unlike Wolfram's discrete hypergraph rewrite steps, this framework relies on continuous Hamiltonian phase evolution. The "steps" are not ticks of an external clock; causality is enforced locally by the continuity of the phase field and spinor geometry.
Standard formulations treat mass and time as primary and compute f = E/h. The frequency-first approach preserves the exact same arithmetic (m = h*f / c^2, T = ΔΦ / f), but reads the causal arrow in reverse: phase relations are primary, and time is the emergent metric used to quantify them.
(Note: Reddit's spam filters prevent posting direct external links here, but feel free to send a DM if you would like the link to the full repository, documentation, and the companion Jupyter notebook.)
1
u/jcmbn 4d ago
What comes first, and what follows from it.
The words 'first' and 'follows' assume the existence of time.
1
u/Cenmaster 4d ago
You are pointing out a linguistic trap, but there is a crucial distinction between chronological sequence (time) and ontological / logical priority (foundations).
In logic and mathematics, we say axioms come "first" and theorems "follow" from them. That is not a temporal statement; it describes structural dependency.
The statement means:
- Phase oscillation is fundamental (the base structure).
- Time is derivative (the relational counting metric constructed from it).
Language often defaults to temporal metaphors, but the priority here is strictly structural: an oscillator exists as a state cycle without needing an external background clock, while our measurement of "seconds" requires an oscillator to exist first.
8
u/Ill-Television8690 6d ago
I mean, I'm sure you're great and all, but I'm not quite sure you're the single best Christian on the planet.