Voyage dans le futur et arrêtducrime

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.telerama.fr/monde/le-physicien-thibault-damour-einstein-a-change-le-concept-du-temps,128939.php
Thibault Damour : "Une conséquence des théories d'Einstein, c'est que le passage du temps est une illusion. Le futur existe déjà. Le passé existe encore et n'est pas mort. Philosophiquement, c'est très profond."

http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/le-createur-est-une-souris-de-laboratoire-12-07-2012-1697206_23.php
Thibault Damour : "Or, en physique, au moins depuis Einstein, le passage du temps est une illusion. Nous pouvons, de façon quasi instantanée, voyager dans le temps ; faire par exemple un saut de millions d'années dans le futur."

Mais :

E. Klein (1:06:45) : "Est-ce que l'avenir existe déjà dans le futur ? C'est une question fondamentale ... Les relativistes disent oui - le futur est déjà là mais nous on n'y est pas encore ... Les physiciens quantiques, les présentistes disent non - le futur est un néant ... Les voyages dans le futur sont impossibles pour les présentistes alors qu'ils sont possibles pour les relativistes."

Les autres penseurs en France :

http://www.librairal.org/wiki/George_Orwell:1984_-_Deuxi%C3%A8me_Partie_-_Chapitre_IX
"L'arrêtducrime, c'est la faculté de s'arrêter net, comme par instinct, au seuil d'une pensée dangereuse. Il inclut le pouvoir de ne pas saisir les analogies, de ne pas percevoir les erreurs de logique, de ne pas comprendre les arguments les plus simples, s'ils sont contre l'Angsoc. Il comprend aussi le pouvoir d'éprouver de l'ennui ou du dégoût pour toute suite d'idées capable de mener dans une direction hérétique. Arrêtducrime, en résumé, signifie stupidité protectrice."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein tue le temps newtonien sans aucune raison (du moins Thibault Damour ne mentionne qu'une vision onirique quand Einstein avait 16 ans):

http://www.rfi.fr/emission/20160506-comment-raconter-einstein
RFI : Comment raconter Einstein ? Par Sophie Joubert

Aucune discussion n'est possible en France mais dans le monde anglophone la situation est un peu différente:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

Pentcho Valev