For nearly a century, the scientific community has largely accepted that the early twentieth century marked a pivotal moment, where scientists unified space and time into a singular entity. This shift, primarily attributed to Albert Einstein, was believed to have opened the floodgates to general relativity, significantly enhancing our understanding of the cosmos.

However, this prevailing narrative is fundamentally flawed. In this article, I aim to illustrate why the notion of space-time is a misleading concept and to propose a more rational framework for understanding relativity.

This piece is part of a broader collection I am developing, which seeks to instill a necessary skepticism towards established scientific ideas that I believe have hindered the advancement of physics over the past century. Previous articles have tackled topics such as the essence of real numbers, the function of calculus in natural theories, and the concept of irreducible randomness.

My intention is that by critically examining the shaky foundations of modern physics, we may be better equipped to contemplate potential replacements. I welcome constructive critique, as it is essential for progress; we must identify our blind spots to advance.

To initiate this discussion, let’s start with some historical context. In 1905, Albert Einstein released a groundbreaking paper introducing special relativity. He posited that all motion is relative, while the speed of light remains constant. This revolutionary insight altered humanity's perception of the universe, suggesting that both physical distances and our experience of time are not fixed, though it made no claims regarding space-time.

That year, often referred to as Einstein's Annus Mirabilis, also saw him publish three other influential papers. At the time, he was employed at a Swiss patent office, struggling financially due to his unsuccessful attempts to secure a teaching position in academia.

Three years later, Hermann Minkowski, one of Einstein’s former teachers, offered a pivotal contribution. Minkowski, known for his geometric approach to mathematics, argued that Einstein's findings could be simplified by merging space and time into a single mathematical framework: space-time.

This idea could be expressed through the equation s² = t² - x² - y² - z², which treats time as an additional dimension, albeit one that operates differently than spatial dimensions. In Minkowski's formulation, the correct way to gauge distance in a relativistic context is through the spacetime interval, s, which quantifies the subjective experience of traversing between two points.

Einstein recognized the elegance of this concept and integrated it into his subsequent work on general relativity. However, the geometric mathematics posed challenges that pushed the limits of his understanding, leading him to collaborate with mathematicians like Hermann Weyl to complete his magnum opus. This collaboration once again transformed physics, albeit by testing the boundaries of Einstein’s scientific comfort zone.

The scientific community embraced general relativity with enthusiasm. The only dissenting voice, it seems, was that of Kurt Godel, a friend of Einstein and a mathematician of remarkable talent. Godel argued that general relativity abandoned the principle of equivalence among all reference frames, necessitating a cosmic reference frame that underlies the structure of deformed space-time. He even suggested that depending on this choice, general relativity could yield paradoxical results, such as time loops that challenge causality and the concept of entropy.

Godel shared his concerns with Einstein, who appeared troubled by them. Conversely, the broader scientific community largely overlooked these implications, relegating temporal loops to intriguing academic exercises. Einstein, taking Godel's critique to heart, devoted part of his later career to exploring alternative models for relativistic phenomena.

Since then, the space-time paradigm has been ingrained as the definitive lens through which relativity is understood. The notion that it could merely be a mathematical abstraction has faded, leading many physicists to discuss "block universes" without questioning the implications.

Why reflect on this historical narrative? To underscore a vital point: scientific progress thrives when talented individuals operate at the fringes of their capabilities, where mistakes are likely. They instinctively reach for familiar tools that simplify complex ideas. Once a breakthrough occurs, others readily adopt these concepts, often without questioning their validity. The desire to build upon the achievements of predecessors discourages critical examination.

However, this complacency can result in constructing theories upon conceptual shortcuts, stifling further advancement. Over the past century, attempts to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics have repeatedly faltered. I propose that the allure of geometric reasoning is at least partially responsible for this stagnation.

But what issues does general relativity present? Mathematically, it is sound; it has proven to be one of the most successful scientific theories in history, second only to quantum mechanics in terms of empirical validation. Yet, as a framework for understanding the universe's workings, it has significant shortcomings.

For instance, since Einstein's era, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation has provided irrefutable evidence for a universal reference frame, validating Godel's predictions. Any spacecraft equipped with a camera can ascertain its velocity relative to other objects. While this does not alter the predictive capacity of general relativity, it suggests that, at least in one observational context, velocity is not purely relative.

Moreover, the geometric interpretation of space-time seems incompatible with the concept of the Planck length—the smallest scale at which our understanding of distance begins to falter. In general relativity, the perceived length of an object depends on the observer's frame of reference, contradicting the idea of an objective minimum length. If both principles are to hold, then across most conceivable reference frames, the Planck length exceeds the observable universe's dimensions. This raises doubts about whether Minkowski's space-time model reflects an absolute property of nature or merely serves as a local observation.

Another concern is defining what constitutes a relativistic reference frame. We are often told that light, traveling at maximum speed, experiences no passage of time. However, a great deal can transpire between the emission and absorption of a photon, leading to a significant lapse in cosmic time. In all other frames, events occur that, from the photon's perspective, would necessitate infinite speed. So, is the photon’s reference frame a genuine reality, or merely another convenient abstraction?

Perhaps most troubling is the idea that space and time exist as a single, unified block, which appears untestable. The intertwined nature of our existence's axes does not serve as a necessity within general relativity; rather, it is a mathematical convenience. In fact, it is not overly complex to devise alternative interpretations that achieve similar results, albeit with different assumptions. For example, consider this alternative equation:

t² = x² + y² + z² + s²

With a bit of high school algebra, we can eliminate the problematic negative sign, the distortion of distance near light speed, and the reliance on complex numbers typical of relativity. This approach compels us to rethink the nature of the t and s dimensions, but is that such a high price to pay?

This is not to assert that simply rearranging variables constitutes a viable solution, but the scarcity of this type of exploratory thinking is concerning. It should be evident that time does not function like a spatial dimension; it does not allow for movement back and forth. Yet, nobody seems to have labeled it a "monodimension" or considered the mathematical implications of a unidirectional dimension—perhaps because it doesn't align with existing frameworks.

Accepting space-time at face value encourages the perception of space and time as a tangible entity. Upon first encountering this concept, I envisioned the Big Bang as layers of time radiating outward from a four-dimensional point. This model suggests that the finite age of the universe can be justified by the notion that traveling far enough back in time would lead to an eventual forward journey on the opposite side of the universe.

Later, physicist friends cautioned against this perspective, noting that the rate of space expansion is not uniform. Consequently, to adhere to the solid universe model, one would need to introduce an additional dimension, akin to a four-dimensional vase submerged in a mysterious hyper-water. Cosmologists prefer to avoid this complication.

Furthermore, since cosmologists observe no curvature in the universe, they tend to favor the idea of an infinitely large universe at the moment of the Big Bang, continuing indefinitely. Thus, we are encouraged to accept the block universe concept while restricting our contemplation to mathematically safe interpretations.

I find this selective reasoning troubling, as it compels concessions for a theory that can only be tested locally and offers no utility in treating it as an unquestionable truth, ultimately stifling innovative thought.

For example, many who grapple with relativity ultimately conclude that the impossibility of surpassing light speed stems from the notion of traveling back in time in another's reference frame. This reasoning seems illogical and undermines the concept of faster-than-light travel.

Setting aside the fact that general relativity allows for causality violations, as Godel pointed out, we must consider the implications of this reasoning. Is it truly time that reverses in a space-time diagram, or is it merely an illusion?

To explore this notion, consider the hypothetical Alcubierre warp-drive ship, which operates by compressing space-time at its front and expanding it at its rear, a concept consistent with relativity.

As the ship travels, it emits pulses of light that encode an ascending sequence of numbers. When the ship approaches a planet and deactivates its drive, an observer on the planet witnesses the ship's sudden appearance, followed by a series of pulses receding in reverse order. Causality appears inverted.

However, this scenario is not surprising, as time does not reverse for anyone; it simply takes longer for pulses from farther away to arrive. While the warp drive concept is speculative, it illustrates how assumptions drawn from mathematical shortcuts can lead to flawed conclusions. Many of us have confidently concluded that we grasped the impossibility of faster-than-light travel, only to realize later that our understanding was superficial.

A more subtle yet equally dangerous example of flawed reasoning arises from Stephen Wolfram's 2002 book, A New Kind of Science, which proposed viewing space as a vast network with particles acting as knots in its fabric. The book elicited widespread critique, some justified, some not. The most incisive feedback came from quantum information specialist Scott Aaronson, who argued that any discretized model of space, like Wolfram's, would inevitably lead to frames of reference that violate causality, thus rendering Wolfram's model untenable.

By now, you should recognize two key points: first, general relativity does not inherently uphold causality; and second, Minkowski space-time must be regarded as a local approximation of reality since the vast majority of reference frames cannot be adequately described within a framework that also accommodates quantum mechanics. Yet, how many people acknowledged this versus those who merely celebrated Aaronson's critique as another reason to dismiss Wolfram's ideas?

Stephen Wolfram is a multifaceted figure, and regardless of opinions about him, he has diligently pursued innovative approaches to fundamental physics, deserving recognition for his efforts. (Aaronson, too, deserves credit for engaging authentically with these ideas; his critique sheds light on the requirements for discrete models of space.)

This tendency to prioritize popular consensus over critical examination does not solely pertain to book reviews; it hinders the development of new theories. Take the causal set program, a promising approach to quantum gravity with which I have some familiarity.

Causal set theorists endeavor to quantify physical reality by modeling its event structure—identifying which events in the universe influence others. Their ambitions are commendable, yet they grapple with enormous challenges rooted in untestable assumptions from established theories. They presume Minkowski space-time as foundational, which severely restricts their ability to model phenomena ranging from gravitational distortions to photon behavior within their framework. Personally, I found this approach particularly constraining.

An alternative strategy, in my view, would be to create a network resembling space that evolves over time, subsequently extracting a locally-consistent event structure from it.

If space-time is not the optimal way to conceptualize reality, what might be better? The straightforward answer involves recognizing that time operates differently from space. However, this insight alone does not sufficiently address questions about time dilation or the deformation of space in the presence of mass. I will reserve a comprehensive proposal for future discussions but will endeavor to convey a sense of a more effective reasoning method for understanding the universe.

For time dilation, one potential approach mirrors a technique utilized by string theorists—a compact dimension. We can encapsulate the space-time interval representing our subjective experience of time within a confined space. In this framework, increased speed results in diminished subjective time. Objects either engage in work traversing the universe or interact with one another. While this method presents challenges, it also offers advantages in understanding mass, which fundamentally relates to particle motion in confined spaces. This perspective is valuable, as general relativity requires two distinct mass concepts (relativistic and rest mass) without reconciling the two—a notable inconsistency.

To better comprehend space deformation, I highly recommend a concise YouTube video that illustrates the effect of gravity: space collapses toward mass. This visualization likens the phenomenon to an edible rug being pulled into a hungry mouth—larger masses engulf more space. This dynamic captures the essence of general relativity, building on the principles established in special relativity. We should abandon the overly simplistic bent sheet metaphor that is often employed; this is what truly occurs.

Why go through these complexities, you might wonder, especially since I previously noted that the mathematics of standard general relativity is effective? After a century of theoretical stagnation in physics, we have an obligation to think creatively and take risks. Moreover, research in quantum mechanics consistently suggests that quantum effects are non-local. If this holds true, then geometrical thinking is fundamentally misguided. While geometry serves as a useful tool, it relies on our intuitions about mathematical continua, which cannot be trusted in fundamental physics. We ought to anticipate that geometry emerges from physical interactions rather than the reverse.

For years, physicists have maintained that to grasp the science, one must comprehend the mathematics. But what if the opposite is true? What if the math, as we have framed it, is so convoluted that it obscures our physical intuition, much like it did for Einstein? I propose that if we only understand the math, we may not truly understand at all. Perhaps the path forward lies in humility, in recognizing the need to set aside the geometric cleverness that has brought us this far, and embracing the ambitious daydreams of a clerk in a Swiss patent office.