Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In an Evolving Block Universe (, the future does not exist. The present moment is the bounding edge of the universe in the time dimension. As the present moment advances it leaves an eternal block universe of the past behind it.

GR tells us that photons do not experience time and that would suggest that photons only exist in the advancing present moment (a 3d surface precisely as we experience the universe). This would suggest that photons are moving at the same rate as the bounding edge of the universe (at least in the time dimension).

Does this not suggest that C gives us the rate of growth of the universe, or more importantly, that the rate of growth of the universe gives us C? This seems like a really profound result.


I wonder if this also means that the value of C is not constant but has followed a sigmoid curve i.e. inflation.

This would also seem to suggest that if you could visit the past (rather than just rewind time) that it would be cold and dark - the ashes of the present.

share|cite|improve this question
I would not give too much about a theory that incorporates <quote>"quantum weirdness"</quote>: reality is not weird. It just is. What is weird is the understanding of reality, if it is incomplete or just plain wrong. – M.Herzkamp Aug 12 '14 at 8:05
The quantum world as we currently understand it is weird in the context of our everyday experience. In fact EBU makes QM much more intuitive as it argues that it not the observer which collapses the wave function but the present moment (x, y, z, Tnow) where the observer happens to be. In other words, the present moment is where the purely mathematical probability of the future is turned into the concrete past. This seems very intuitive. Arguing about the use of language seems a poor way to respond to the question. – JohnnyD Aug 12 '14 at 8:21
Phlogiston ( made fire much more intuitive, yet it failed to explain anything. If a theory cannot predict anything, but can explain anything (which seems to be true according to the first paper you linked), it is a crackpot theory. Why does the wave function collapse? There is some mechanism which collapses it in the "now". What is the mechanism? Nothing explained. – M.Herzkamp Aug 12 '14 at 8:48
By that definition the more mainstream block universe model is no less crackpot. – JohnnyD Aug 12 '14 at 8:57
The "block universe model" is a philosophical point of view, not really a theory. The only physical part in it is that it requires determinism. And determinism is very probably a physical reality. – M.Herzkamp Aug 12 '14 at 9:23

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.