
Does time truly pass, or is it merely an illusion?
The concept of space-time originated from Albert Einstein's theory of relativity in the early 20th century, where three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time were merged into a single four-dimensional structure.
From then on, the universe was no longer seen as a "static stage" where events unfolded along a flow of time, but time itself was also a part of that stage, capable of bending, expanding, or contracting under the influence of mass and energy.
This perspective has fundamentally changed scientific thinking: it allows us to understand why light is bent as it passes through a galaxy, or why clocks on satellites run faster than clocks on the ground.
However, behind that success lies a profound philosophical question: Is space-time a truly existing entity, or merely a mathematical model to help us visualize and describe cosmic phenomena?
In other words, are we living in a real "space-time fabric," or are we merely using it as a metaphor to simplify our understanding of reality?
A picture of space and time
In modern physics, spacetime is often envisioned in two ways. Some scientists view it as a "block universe," a four-dimensional map recording all events that have happened, are happening, and will happen, existing eternally and immutably. Conversely, others see it as a dynamic fabric, bending and deforming under the influence of gravity.
This leads to a difficult philosophical problem: when we say "space-time exists," in what way should we really understand it? Is it a truly stable entity, or merely a framework for describing all events in the universe?
Many problems stem from language itself. In the philosophy of physics, particularly the eternalist viewpoint, "time" does not flow. Every moment, encompassing past, present, and future, exists simultaneously within the space-time continuum. The universe neither "becomes" nor "changes," but simply "exists."
But if everything is already available, can it be called "existence" in the conventional sense? When we say "this elephant exists," it is present continuously over time. But a three-dimensional "slice of an elephant," flashing for just a split second, is not "existence" in the conventional sense, but merely "occurring."
Space-time: existence or mere occurrence?
The question is: is space-time truly like an elephant, enduring and long-lasting, or merely a fleeting slice of reality? If we consider the entirety of space-time as an immutable whole, then the "illusion of the passage of time" must be explained in some way.
Some thinkers have even proposed expanding to a five-dimensional model: three spatial dimensions and two temporal dimensions. This would allow spacetime to be described as a truly "existing" entity, rather than merely a map of events. However, this goes beyond standard physics and highlights inconsistencies in language when discussing the "existence" of spacetime.
This ambiguity also appears in popular culture. In The Terminator (1984), the timeline is presented as fixed, all events "pre-written." In Avengers: Endgame (2019), characters can travel back and forth and alter the past, suggesting a cubic universe that is both immutable and transformative. Either way, both assume that the past and future "exist" to be reached, but fail to explain the nature of that "existence."
In fact, mathematics and experiments still prove the theory of relativity to be true. But how we interpret those equations directly affects how we perceive reality. This is true not only in philosophy, but also in the greatest effort of modern science: reconciling the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics.
Ultimately, the question "does space-time exist?" is not just an academic matter. It's a question of how humans understand what kind of universe they live in—a constantly changing universe, or an unchanging one, where every moment is predetermined.
Source: https://tuoitre.vn/khong-thoi-gian-co-thuc-su-ton-tai-20250918193308017.htm







Comment (0)