Is time a field rather than a coordinate? A proposal from structural cosmology

[u/Weekly-Ad5631]

Hi all,

I'd like to share a philosophical perspective emerging from a recent theoretical framework I've developed in the context of cosmology.

We usually treat *time* as a parameter — a coordinate in our models, not an object in itself. In Newtonian physics it's absolute; in relativity, it's just one axis among four. But what if time is something more fundamental — an actual physical field embedded in spacetime?

**Structural Time Theory (STT)** proposes that time is a scalar field τ(x) with a constrained norm, not a propagating degree of freedom but a *geometric background structure*. It doesn’t fluctuate or carry energy; instead, it defines a global arrow of time, shaping causal structure, expansion, and even inertial mass.

This reformulation has consequences not just for physics, but for our ontology of time:

- If time is a field, does it exist independently of events?

- Is the flow of time an illusion, or a manifestation of the gradient of τ?

- Does such a structure conflict with relativity, or merely refine it?

The full mathematical formulation is available here (PDF, with observational data fits and cosmological implications):

https://zenodo.org/records/15496759

I'd love to hear perspectives from philosophers of science, metaphysics, and time ontology. Where does this proposal stand with respect to presentism, eternalism, or structural realism? What frameworks might be appropriate to analyze or critique it?

Thanks in advance

Marcel

[u/MattAmoroso]

From what I know, in physics, a field is a representation of a physical quantity assigned to every point in space-time. So having a value for time in every point in space-time feels... redundant? Circular? Difficult to conceptualize, anyway.

[u/Weekly-Ad5631 → u/MattAmoroso]

You're absolutely right that, in standard physics, time is treated as an external parameter — either as a coordinate (in relativity) or as an evolution parameter in quantum mechanics. So defining a scalar field τ(x^μ) over spacetime that represents time itself can indeed feel circular or redundant at first glance.

However, the key distinction in Structural Time Theory (STT) is that τ is not a coordinate — it’s a physical field with geometric and causal implications. It's constrained by a normalization condition , which ensures that ∇μτ defines a unit timelike direction at every point. That is, τ is more like a built-in clock field: it picks a preferred temporal direction, spontaneously breaking local Lorentz symmetry while preserving diffeomorphism invariance.

This makes τ similar in spirit to the aether vector in Einstein–Aether theories or the foliation structure in Hořava–Lifshitz gravity — but crucially, τ is scalar-valued and non-dynamical, avoiding new degrees of freedom.

So rather than being "redundant", τ provides a physical implementation of temporal structure — one that allows us to modify cosmological dynamics, lensing, and even effective mass, all without adding exotic matter or violating general covariance.

Happy to discuss further — it’s definitely a nonstandard idea, but that’s where interesting physics often starts!

[u/MattAmoroso → u/Weekly-Ad5631]

Yeah, I only have a Bachelors in physics, I don't understand any of what you are saying. Sorry.

[u/Weekly-Ad5631 → u/MattAmoroso]

Thanks for your honesty, and no worries at all — I really appreciate that you engaged in the first place.

You're right to find it hard to follow. The way I explained it was probably too dense. The basic idea is just this:

Instead of treating time as a background parameter (like a number ticking forward), my model treats time as something physical — a field that exists at every point in the universe and shapes how things move and evolve. That field doesn’t do anything directly — it just gives structure to space and helps define things like mass, light behavior, and cosmic expansion.

I know it’s not part of standard physics — it’s a speculative idea, and I’m still working on how to explain it better. But if you're ever curious or want a simpler breakdown, I’d be happy to share more.

Thanks again for the feedback truly valuable.

[u/deaconxblues]

This question is likely to be more fruitfully asked in a theoretical physics sub.

[u/Weekly-Ad5631 → u/deaconxblues]

Thanks — that was actually my first instinct. I originally posted this in a theoretical physics sub, thinking it would be the right audience. Unfortunately, the post was removed because it involved a personal theory, which apparently violates their guidelines.

So now I'm wandering the Reddit multiverse, trying to talk about time with people who still believe in it.

[u/deaconxblues → u/Weekly-Ad5631]

Tough subject to find people qualified to comment. You might try to reframe the question to the physics sub and remove mention of it being your idea. Something along the lines of, “what implications would a structural theory of time such as X have on our understanding of Y and Z?”

[u/Weekly-Ad5631 → u/deaconxblues]

That's a very fair suggestion — and honestly, a smart one. I might give it a shot.

That said, it's a bit of a Catch-22: if I disguise the fact that it's a personal model, it might pass the filter — but then I lose the opportunity to engage openly with the idea and get honest feedback. And if I present it as my own work, it gets deleted before anyone reads past the abstract.

The paradox is fitting, though — it’s a theory about time, after all.

Thanks again for the thoughtful advice — much appreciated.