Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Brian Fraser: on 5/27/12 at 3:31am UTC, wrote See also: "In Search of the Geometry of Space, Time and Motion" at ...

Brian Fraser: on 6/27/11 at 19:36pm UTC, wrote @Computer geek Here is another view of time from my article "Intuitive...

Brian Fraser: on 6/27/11 at 18:55pm UTC, wrote @Lex Thanks for the encouragement. Here is another new idea. It is about...

profitable Forex Scalping Strategy free tools: on 12/10/10 at 2:29am UTC, wrote This was pretty provided that there are a lot of out there just waiting for...

Sochi olimpiada: on 12/6/10 at 8:08am UTC, wrote À! C'était à peu près autant que il ya beaucoup de qui...

computer geek: on 10/20/10 at 15:39pm UTC, wrote Interesting thoughts here, it is how math really should be seen to...

Lex: on 9/28/10 at 22:23pm UTC, wrote @Brian Your article contents very fascinating and valuable ideas. I´m...

David W: on 7/18/09 at 17:47pm UTC, wrote This gibberish of this article tells us far more about the author's...


Steve Dufourny: "Hello I liked the link with this space. I consider that space does not..." in Complexity levels and...

Steven Andresen: "Darwinian Universal I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received,..." in Alternative Models of...

Steven Andresen: "Darwinian Universal I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received,..." in Complexity levels and...

Steven Andresen: "Darwinian Universal I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received,..." in Alternative Models of...

Steven Andresen: "Darwinian Universal I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received,..." in Is the Past Infinite?

Steven Andresen: "Here is another way I might have put it I'm very pleased with the reviews..." in Theories of Everything,...

Steve Agnew: "Once you have one infinity, you have an infinity of infinities and infinity..." in Watching the Observers

Jeffrey Schmitz: "Lorraine, There is a big gap between the quantum and thermodynamic level..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

June 29, 2017

CATEGORY: The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008) [back]
TOPIC: An Overview of the Nature of Time by Brian Fraser [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Brian Fraser wrote on Nov. 10, 2008 @ 14:45 GMT
Essay Abstract

The author gives his own explicit definition of time, and then goes on to demonstrate the strange but factual consequences of this definition. Finally, he suggests that a thorough understanding of this topic is vital to significant advances in technology.

Author Bio

Brian Fraser holds an Associate degree in General Science. He has worked as a Systems Engineer doing automation and machine control for about 20 years, mostly in the semiconductor industry. He is currently a registered and certified sterile processing technician and works at a local hospital.

Download Essay PDF File

Myke wrote on Nov. 10, 2008 @ 23:19 GMT
Interesting ideas, worth a read...

Paul Valletta wrote on Nov. 11, 2008 @ 11:06 GMT
One can investigate time from a number of interesting questions, as yout paper shows. I tend to start by asking myself this question:Where is Richard Feynmans "past", now? ;)

great paper.

John Merryman wrote on Nov. 11, 2008 @ 19:57 GMT

"We all

seem to be on the same clock, and so whatever embodiment we are looking for must be grand

in scope, probably Universal. It must be a physical non-thing, kind of like a zero for Roman

numerals ("Why would you need a number to represent nothing?"). The locational aspect of

time seems to help here. Time must not merely progress, it must expand (increasing the time

separation between locations). The expansion must be centerless spatially so that there is no

locatable master source or inverse square effect. But since time is non-local in a spatial

reference system, this requirement is met naturally."

Absolute zero.

The problem with geometry is that zero is assumed to be the center point of the three dimensional coordinate system, but 1+(-1) doesn't mean the center point on some line, it means nothing, as in the blank sheet of paper. In this blank space, there could be any number of essential reference points.

Temperature is the average level of motion, against a general scale. If this motion is stable, it can be represented as a point. Time, on the other hand, is a unit of motion. So the only dimensionless point of motion is the complete absence of it. Absolute zero.

Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Nov. 16, 2008 @ 18:42 GMT
Hello Brian!

Enjoyed your paper!

I especially enjoyed your section on the EPR Paradox starting on page 3, where you write:

"Spatial motion moves an object from one place to another place. So we should ask this question about time. Can an object also have a temporal place, and can it move from one

temporal place to another? Remember, these temporal places cannot be seen...

view entire post

Brian Fraser wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 03:59 GMT
Dr. E. :

Thank you for your comments about the ideas in my essay! I am glad you enjoyed it.

I read yours too, and my first reaction was, Wow!, there are a lot of similar ideas here. You state that time as an emergent phenomena can explain "diverse phenomena from relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics" and that "time dilation, the equivalence of mass and energy,...

view entire post

Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 23:16 GMT
Hello Brian,

Love your words!

You write--"When I sit here at my desk, my change in spatial displacement relative to the walls of the room is zero. Therefore my speed is zero, because the numerator in the speed calculation is zero. But time is still progressing. So my speed cannot really be zero, because the time in the denominator is still changing. This was addressed historically by...

view entire post

Brian Fraser wrote on Nov. 25, 2008 @ 06:22 GMT
Whew! Here is what I am getting out of all this:

Brian Green: " . . .not only can spatial dimensions share an object’s motion, but the time dimension can share this motion as well."

Dr. E.: "the time measured on your watch—the ticking seconds—is not the fourth dimension, but it is a phenomenon that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial...

view entire post

Brian Fraser wrote on Nov. 28, 2008 @ 03:51 GMT
I'd like to thank everyone who read my essay, even if they did not comment on it. Reading essays is a lot of work, especially when they are this technical. Your efforts are appreciated!

I wrote this essay for two reasons. First, has a noble cause in promoting foundational physics outside the mainstream physics community. It seems to be adequately organized, and adequately funded....

view entire post

Chuck Sweet wrote on Jul. 15, 2009 @ 05:56 GMT
Pardon me for being a mathematical layman, but from what I can tell you gentlemen have given a possible definition of what 'Dark Matter/Energy' is: concentrations of mass in a different fram of temporal expansion. It's gravity, being instantaneous would exhibit the effects that we appear to see on mass in our own frame of temporal expansion yet we would not be able to see the photons that come from it because it is expanding at a different energy potential: one that does not interact with our own mass since it is in a totally different time location.

Your explanations would also appear to have a proof with what we know of Black Holes, in that the effects of the gravity from these objects exert a temporal force on the photons that is faster than the spatial motions of said photons, in essence, greater mass is equal to faster time effects in a spatial view. This also provides a mechanism for Hawkings Evaporation of said Black Holes in that they may well be evaporating in a temporal expansion via gravity. It may well be that while it takes more energy to increase one's speed in a spatial frame of reference, it may take LESS and Less energy to travel what appears to us to be faster in a temporal frame of reference. This may actually be the way that gravity operates: objects will settle towards the direction that takes the least energy, thus moving Towards the greater mass.

I may be totally wrong with my surmises kicked up by your discussion in the 15 minutes it took me to read them, but it certainly provides possibilities for modeling and food for thought does it not?? I thank you for your enlightening me (and expanding my temporal view of the Universe)

I can be reached at for e-mail

Chuck Sweet wrote on Jul. 16, 2009 @ 14:23 GMT
I had it pointed out to me that I had my symbols wrong, that time Slows Down in greater gravity fields due to the acceleration and Einstein's Theorem of General Relativity. Time in a greater gravity field would appear to be slower compared to our frame of reference however, objects would still settle to their lowest energy potential within the gravitational/temporal frame so rather than appearing faster, as I wrote above, they would appear to us to be Slower. Besides this, the other surmises would likely still hold true

Brian Fraser wrote on Jul. 18, 2009 @ 08:58 GMT
Regarding Chuck Sweet's comments:

Thank you for refering to your comments here via the Cosmic Log forum (
spx )

In my previous blog I stated: "This also implies that there may be a whole class of objects out there that we cannot see, but which are giving hints of their existence, to a mostly unwilling audience." I do NOT...

view entire post

David W wrote on Jul. 18, 2009 @ 17:47 GMT
This gibberish of this article tells us far more about the author's ignorance of science, and physics in particular, than about the nature of time itself. His concepts of motion are far more immature, devoid of realism, than anything the ancient Greeks thought of.

If the author really wants to understand time he'll need to learn and do the mathematics of physics. Physics is not done in prose. It is obvious that the author is proudly ignorant of Albert Einstein's theories of relativity.

The entire article is a fairy tale. At best the author is simply intellectually lazy. At worst he dupes the reader to believe in his own self-delusion, self-con.

Lex replied on Sep. 28, 2010 @ 22:23 GMT

Your article contents very fascinating and valuable ideas. I´m still thinking about them. And please ignore people like David W, they can only repeat what they once were taught! Of course, if your article is supposed to become a theory, then you would certainly need a lot of mathematics!

Einstein itself was first just thinking, and his theories of relativity initially based only on ideas. So I appreciate really anyone, who is thinking and trying to understand the real nature of the universe, like Einstein and others did before! A theory, even if it works very well, is not supposed to be a religion, a theory is supposed to be replaced by a better theory, which then hopefully could be verified by experiments. This is called scientific advance. But for a better theory we need new ideas, and a real scientist should always be open for any new ideas, even if -or sometimes because- they may be unusual.

By the way, bigmouth physicist David W: Can You tell us anything about the true nature of time or gravity?

The real friends of truth are those who are seeking it, and not those, who claim to already own it!

computer geek replied on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 15:39 GMT
Interesting thoughts here, it is how math really should be seen to understand what is behind it.

I will give one different hint. In computer science exist many different models of time. First is Universal Continuous Time. It is the one people usually think as time, it is the same everywhere and measured by real numbers. Can be interpreted as time coordinate. But it does not exists, sorry about that. Second is Discrete Time, advancing by discrete ticks and measured by integer numbers that count ticks. It is better, classical single processor computer is well described by it. The main property is that tics can be counted, but there is no information about how long they are, meaning two different sources of ticks cannot be compared. This give the next time model, the Branching Time. This model systems that consist of multiple interconnected computers. Each computer have its own ticks, but periodically two ones synchronize by exchanging information. This create network of ticks with occasional synchronization points that make also some common metrics possible. If to look from far then it converge to the first model, to the Universal Continuous Time. Thus revealing mechanism of how Universal Continuous Time may be created.

So, may hint is that in elementary level the time, and may be also the space in general may be created as network of occasional synchronization of normally not synchronized events. The light and other massless carriers fit well for synchronizing agents.

Sochi olimpiada wrote on Dec. 6, 2010 @ 08:08 GMT
À! C'était à peu près autant que il ya beaucoup de qui n'attend pour la droite.

profitable Forex Scalping Strategy free tools wrote on Dec. 10, 2010 @ 02:29 GMT
This was pretty provided that there are a lot of out there just waiting for the right.

Brian Fraser wrote on Jun. 27, 2011 @ 18:55 GMT

Thanks for the encouragement.

Here is another new idea. It is about antigravity. The essay stated that the space/time dimensions of mass are t^3/s^3. Dimensions of other quantities can be worked out too. An electric field has the dimensions of t/s^3 . The second time derivative of an E field is therefore t^3/s^3, which is the same as the dimensions of mass. This means that a very rapidly changing electric field may have a "motional effect" just like mass. For the effect to be detectable, the change would have to be asymmetric, say with a fast rise time, followed by a slower decay time. A spark pulse would be an example. Are there any examples of such an effect? There seem to be at least two.

One is the Podkletnov Gravity Impulse Generator:

"Podkletnov maintains that a laboratory installation in Russia has already demonstrated the 4in (10cm) wide beam's ability to repel objects a kilometre away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200km.  Such a device, observers say, could be adapted for use as an anti-satellite weapon or a ballistic missile shield."  ( Jane's Defence Weekly 29 July 2002, Anti-gravity propulsion comes 'out of the closet', By Nick Cook, JDW Aerospace Consultant, London)  See

For a technical description see "Investigation of high voltage discharges in low pressure gases through large ceramic superconducting electrodes" ( Evgeny Podkletnov, Giovanni Modanese, 26 Apr 2003 (final version), )

Physicist Paul A. LaViolette states that "at a higher discharge voltage, of around 10 million volts, the gravity wave pulse became so strong that it was able to substantially dent a 1-inch thick steel plate and punch a 4-inch diameter hole through a concrete block!"

For a discussion and list of references, please see my article at:

An introduction to the math is at:

The other effect is the Biefeld-Brown effect. It uses a different technology, but still involves pulsed high voltage electric fields or electric fields with an asymmetric geometry. See:

I hope people with "the right stuff" will investigate these ideas.

Brian Fraser wrote on Jun. 27, 2011 @ 19:36 GMT
@Computer geek

Here is another view of time from my article "Intuitive Concepts in Quantum Mechanics" at:

inally, this is probably a good place to remind readers that our concepts of space and time come from motion. Motion is what we actually observe and measure. Our concepts of space and time are derived from the type of motion we observe. Motion is the primary concept (the basic "substrate"), whereas space and time are secondary concepts (or abstractions). Think of a box. The box has an "inside" and an "outside", but these are secondary concepts. They are not needed to construct a box; but if the box already exists, the concept of an "inside" and "outside" can then be defined in terms of the box. Without the box, the concepts cannot be defined. . . .

In Quantum Mechanics the spatial component of motion is fixed at one unit, and so quantum mechanical motion can [only] be translational temporal motion or rotational temporal motion. The latter leads to the concept of, literally, "rotational time". If you were accessing a world of rotational time, what would that world look like? Besides expecting it to be non-local, you would also expect it to be repetitive or periodic. So it is not surprising that the math of quantum mechanics involves many periodic functions like sine and cosine, complex exponentials, and various "wave" representations. These too are indeed the "effects of spin". "

The universal standard for motion is the speed of light. I believe it progresses as a quantized ratio: 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, etc. The "size" of the perceived time unit is thus linked to the space unit. Time can appear to be continuous even though it is apparently quantized. Space and time are symmetric about the speed of light, implying that they are somehow equivalent to each other (that whatever arguments apply to one, have to apply to the other; or that 1/3 is somehow equivalent to 3/1). Note that the ratio remains unchanging, even though the numerator and denominator are changing. This implies that the real "zero" for motion (no movement, no activity) is actually 1/1 -the speed of light! This has A LOT of implications in physics and implies that our view of the universe is indeed very skewed.

Brian Fraser wrote on May. 27, 2012 @ 03:31 GMT
See also:

"In Search of the Geometry of Space, Time and Motion"


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.