Is There A Universal Now?

[Write4U]

Nothing happens to "NOW". NOW is whatever you're currently experiencing.

You are introducing an observer!

time starts at the moment of the big bang. There is no "before" in those descriptions.

I agree. Before the "beginning", there was timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition.
Note that nothing is permittive of everything.

It does? How so?

Sorry, that should read "doesn't care".

The whole idea of spacetime is that it is a constant. Spacetime is the collection of all events that have ever happened, all events that are happening now, and all events that will ever happen in the future.

Are you proposing that time exists in the future of the universe, outside the current size of the universe?

 

[Michael 345]

But I thought you were denying, more generally, that time exists.

You have that correct

Hence, I was trying to draw your attention to a different way to measure time that doesn't involve seconds.

Consider attention drawn

I can't say exactly, but if I had to guess I'd say that it was probably around the time that clocks were invented that were sufficiently accurate to keep time to the second, over some substantial period.

I guess you missed the part of my sentence which refers to a free range second
My words , you quoted
It is / was great free range seconds were around (existed) when a mechanical clock was invented to measure them
I have added the red to the part you seemed to have missed
You also (I don't blame you) might not understand my reference to a free range second is referencing the second which existed before the invented second we came up with
ie a fundimential second which you claim exist
In answer to my question
So when did the first free range second get measured by a mechanical clock?

You give a answer which mentions only constructed seconds

Also no-one in the thread has listed any property of the free range (fundimential) second

Any poster is free to list any properties of a free range / fundimential second

Our current clocks detect/measure seconds just fine - some much better than others, obviously.

How is the detection performed please?
How is the measurement performed please?
My understanding of a clock is the it is incapable of doing either

Clocks can be calibrated to remain in synchronisation (accuracy will vary) with the definition of a second we constructed, but not set up to detect or measure

What we want a clock for is to tell us when it's time to get up and go to work, when it's time to go pick up the kids from school - that sort of thing.

Sure, all those agreed upon arbitrary moments need to be regulated and this is certainly helped with good calibrated devices synchronised to our any (depending on event) arbitrary defined unit of what we call time

 

[Michael 345]

In the "block time" picture from relativity, events are points in spacetime. They do not "create" anything. We can talk about other events that are simultaneous with any given event, but if we're going to do that we must first specify a particular frame of reference, because there is no "preferred" or "universal" time.

events are points in spacetime

Well I would put it as events are just events

particular frame of reference, because there is no "preferred" or "universal" time

Surely the loaf itself is its own reference

 

[James R]

You are introducing an observer!

"Now" requires an observer.

I agree. Before the "beginning", there was timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition.

You're not agreeing with what I wrote. I wrote that there is no "before the beginning". Your assumption is that there was a "before" and in that "before" there was a "timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition" (whatever that is).

Note that nothing is permittive of everything.

Nothing doesn't do anything, including permitting things.

Are you proposing that time exists in the future of the universe, outside the current size of the universe?

No.

 

[James R]

I guess you missed the part of my sentence which refers to a free range second

I don't know what a "free range second" is.

You also (I don't blame you) might not understand my reference to a free range second is referencing the second which existed before the invented second we came up with
ie a fundimential second which you claim exist

I claim no such thing. I have never mentioned any kind of "second" that existed before the "second" was defined.

In answer to my question
So when did the first free range second get measured by a mechanical clock?

You give a answer which mentions only constructed seconds

Okay. Then my answer is that no "free range second" has ever been measured, to my knowledge. We tend to construct our clocks to measure seconds, as defined.

Also no-one in the thread has listed any property of the free range (fundimential) second

It's your construction. It's up to you to list the properties you think the thing ought to have.

How is the detection performed please?
How is the measurement performed please?
My understanding of a clock is the it is incapable of doing either

1. I have not claimed that clocks "detect" time.
2. In a clock, time is typically measured using some kind of oscillator that maintains a regular frequency of oscillation. By counting the oscillations, effectively, we can measure time intervals.
3. What do you think a clock does? Why it is useful? What's the point of it, if there's no such thing as time?

Clocks can be calibrated to remain in synchronisation (accuracy will vary) with the definition of a second we constructed...

Yes. That's kind of the point. If time didn't exist, no such "calibration" would be possible.

Sure, all those agreed upon arbitrary moments need to be regulated and this is certainly helped with good calibrated devices synchronised to our any (depending on event) arbitrary defined unit of what we call time

You speak of "arbitrary moments". In what sense are lengths of time "arbitrary"? Note: I'm not asking you why "the second" is arbitrary. I agree that "the second" is arbitrary. I want to know why (or whether) you think time intervals, in general, are arbitary. With respect, that sounds bonkers to me. So much so that I doubt you really believe it.

 

[Beaconator]

Please explain your reasoning.

Remember, you are posting in one of our Science subforums, so please refer to the relevant science.

There might not be relevant scientific fact. Yet to reference the distance and differential times from the edge of the universe to the center of the the universe could include an equation that moves faster than relativistic time in order for there to be a a calculable universal now.

 

[James R]

There might not be relevant scientific fact. Yet to reference the distance and differential times from the edge of the universe to the center of the the universe could include an equation that moves faster than relativistic time in order for there to be a a calculable universal now.

Could it? Explain why you think so. Please refer to relevant physics.

What is "relativistic time"? What do you mean by it moving? How fast does relativistic time move? How can a time have a speed?

 

[Michael 345]

I claim no such thing. I have never mentioned any kind of "second" that existed before the "second" was defined.

Sorry that should have read "you claim time exist"

1. I have not claimed that clocks "detect" time.

You have claimed

We tend to construct our clocks to measure seconds, as defined.

To measure seconds would require those seconds to be detected first

In a clock, time is typically measured using some kind of oscillator that maintains a regular frequency of oscillation. By counting the oscillations, effectively, we can measure time intervals.

My understanding is that accuracy is in play here. Counting a regular frequency of oscillation and making a comparison with what has been determined (invented) it should be is not time being typically measured

Yes. That's kind of the point. If time didn't exist, no such "calibration" would be possible.

So your reasoning (position) is we invent what we call time and then claim time exist. Is that a fair summation?

It's your construction. It's up to you to list the properties you think the thing ought to have.

Since my position is time is non existent there are no properties for me to list

(Yes I have replaced fundimential second with time)

However you claim your time construction exist, so please what are its properties?

You speak of "arbitrary moments". In what sense are lengths of time "arbitrary"?

Arbitrary moments are NOT lengths of time

Moment ----- Merriam Webster

Definition

• 1a: a minute portion or point of time : INSTANT

and a minute portion or point of time picked out from a length of time is arbitrary

I want to know why (or whether) you think time intervals, in general, are arbitary.

I don't - you only think I do. But it is your construct you have projected onto me

With respect, that sounds bonkers to me.

Your construct sounds bonkers to me (you)?

Interesting

 

[James R]

Michael 345:

Your skipped over the most important and relevant question I asked you:

3. What do you think a clock does? Why it is useful? What's the point of it, if there's no such thing as time?
​

Any ideas?

My understanding is that accuracy is in play here. Counting a regular frequency of oscillation and making a comparison with what has been determined (invented) it should be is not time being typically measured

Clocks aren't compared to some invented standard. They can only be compared to one another. Again, the units don't really matter. What a clock needs to do is to accurately determine time intervals. We can test whether a particular clock is accurate by comparing its outputs to those of many other clocks.

So your reasoning (position) is we invent what we call time and then claim time exist. Is that a fair summation?

No. Nowhere have I said that we invent time. Time was a thing long before any human beings were around.

Since my position is time is non existent there are no properties for me to list

Your position is nonsense. Your own life experience belies your claim. This isn't a matter of physics or science; it's just plain old common sense.

However you claim your time construction exist, so please what are its properties?

Here are a few:
1. Time has a built-in order or sequence. The past happens before the present, which happens before the future. We always experience time in the same order. Another way to say this is that there is an "arrow" of time, which points from past to future.
2. Time is such that effects always follow causes in the direction of the arrow of time. The opposite is never observed.
3. Movement of observers through time appears to be involuntary.
4. Time is required for anything to happen. Nothing takes place in no time.
5. Time is relative, in the specific senses described by the Theory of Relativity.
6. The "arrow of time" from past to future is also the direction in which the total entropy of the universe is observed to increase.

 

[Michael 345]

3. What do you think a clock does? Why it is useful? What's the point of it, if there's no such thing as time?
Any ideas?

What do you think a clock does?
A clock mimics a set agreed upon set of frequencies

Why it is useful?
People working to a standard set of frequencies can in general be more productive

What's the point of it, if there's no such thing as time?
Point is what you are calling time has been invented, and what has been invented is a regulated agreed upon frequency

No. Nowhere have I said that we invent time. Time was a thing long before any human beings were around.

So is your position humans discovered time?

Time has a built-in order or sequence.

What is this built-in order constructed from or built into what (ie what is the casing made of) please?

1 to 6 appear to be saying the same idea just in a different manner, describing time - but describing time is not a property of time

Does time have mass? colour? atomic weight? frequency?

 

[James R]

What do you think a clock does?
A clock mimics a set agreed upon set of frequencies

Why it is useful?
People working to a standard set of frequencies can in general be more productive

What's the point of it, if there's no such thing as time?
Point is what you are calling time has been invented, and what has been invented is a regulated agreed upon frequency

The word "frequency" means the number of occurences of a thing in a given time interval. Frequency presupposes the existence of time.

I do not agree that time has been invented.

So is your position humans discovered time?

Time is a fact of life. There's no need to go looking for it. It has been right in front of your nose since you were born. The same applies to every human who has ever lived, indeed to every thing that has ever lived.

What is this built-in order constructed from or built into what (ie what is the casing made of) please?

Time is built into the universe we live in. You can call the universe the "casing" if you like, I guess.

1 to 6 appear to be saying the same idea just in a different manner, describing time - but describing time is not a property of time

Don't properties usually help to describe things?

Does time have mass? colour? atomic weight? frequency?

Here's an idea for you: maybe time is more like a process than a property. Processes don't have mass or colour or frequency.

For example, eating your breakfast is a process. Does eating your breakfast have mass? Does it have colour?

If not, is "eating your breakfast" a thing that doesn't exist?

 

[Michael 345]

Frequency presupposes the existence of time.

No, the frequency is the frequency refined from the invented time

I do not agree that time has been invented.

OK, granted you did say

Time was a thing long before any human beings were around.

which lends itself to time being discovered. Would that be your view? Is there any Eureka moment recorded of "I have found time"? What had the person been looking for (time?) When it was found? Or something else, because they had made observations, indicating something was out there (per Newton/ falling apple). What was that something?

Time is a fact of life

Another description

Time is built into the universe we live in. You can call the universe the "casing" if you like, I guess.

Another description
You can call the universe the "casing" if you like, I guess.
You guess wrong

Don't properties usually help to describe things?

Depends on which of the properties of the thing you describe. Help, not help

Here's an idea for you: maybe time is more like a process than a property. Processes don't have mass or colour or frequency.

For example, eating your breakfast is a process. Does eating your breakfast have mass? Does it have colour?

If not, is "eating your breakfast" a thing that doesn't exist?

If not, is "eating your breakfast" a thing that doesn't exist?

Well you said in your quote above For example, eating your breakfast is a process, which rules out eating your breakfast being a thing. So I would go with - eating your breakfast (not being a thing) along with

Does eating your breakfast have mass? Does it have colour?

not have mass - not have colour (or any other properties) eating your breakfast - (description of an activity) - does not have an existence

 

[phyti]

Michael345;

#302
If, like me who has a belief time is non existent,

#310
We defined the duration of a second and following our defining the duration of a second we built a mechanism to measure the duration of a second
...
If there is a free range second out there should not our efforts be put into detecting that second, not making up our own?

If you believe there is no entity as 'time', why propose the temporal interval 'second'?
The universe doesn't produce events according to a schedule or time table, but according to the physical states of a system. The behavior of atoms to galaxies is regulated by laws/forces in place. The person dies, not because 'it's time', but because his biological system cannot sustain itself. The time of an event is noted after the event occurs. I.e., time is not a causative factor.
The mechanism/clock produces the 'second', not measures it.

 

[phyti]

Mike;

#300
Light speed is known to be finite in both Newtonian physics and in special relativity. In Newtonian physics, there IS a universal "now at a distance". In special relativity, there is NOT a universal "now at a distance".

Newton considered gravity as 'action at a distance', i.e. light propagation was instantaneous. He didn't explain gravity but proposed its effect to a universal scale.

#383
That almost always means that the chosen scenario should involve only one spatial axis (and one time axis, of course).

Using the sum of squares for each spatial dimension to get a single spatial interval is simpler, but sometimes you need individual components.

Einstein said "Time is what clocks measure."

Have seen that on many forums but never in any of his writings. He defined 'time' as the clock event (reading) synchronous with the event of interest. The clock readings can be used to record when an event occurs or its duration.

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

quotes:

#268 Objectively, the speed of light is irrelevant to the simultaneity of NOW on the surface of a 2D slice of TIME

[A. Einstein, 1905 paper, par.1, simultaneity.
We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events... We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.]

#272 "Are you an anti-relativist by any chance?" No of course not. IMO you are unnecessarily introducing SR to the OP question.

[SR deals with 'time' and the effect of motion induced phenomena on perception and measurement. Einstein asked the same question of a universal time, and concluded there is none.]

#281 Both observers get a subjectively false experience of the true pitch of the sound. And so it is with time.
IOW time has an objective NOW . Observers experience a subjective relative NOW depending on their POV.

[It's a true experience altered by relative motion of source and detector.
Observer (or device) motion cannot alter the pitch, but it can alter the perception of the sound. The same is true for clocks, which are frequencies. Their perceived rate depends on their motion. Perception is what the observer thinks is happening, and doesn't always agree with actual events outside the mind. Feel free to call it an illusion.]

#281 Question: does time exist without an observer? Can the Universe be its own observer and experience its own NOW?

[History shows 'time' as a human method of recording and coordinating events, an abstract procedure, like mathematics or music. The behavior of the universe of objects
is regulated by laws (forces), and depends on the state of the objects.]

#283 When I observe something, I see it as it was in my past. But that does not mean that it did not exist and share a common NOW before my observation of its existence in my present

[You only know it existed 'then' after you saw its image. I.e. you can only be aware of an event after it happens, all information is historical.]

#287 Simultaneity is not necessarily subject to relativity.
This answers the OP question. There is no need to invoke observers. Events can happen simultaneously and have the same NOW independent of observation.

[Simultaneity is part of the foundation of SR. If a device records events, a human is needed to interpret the recording.]

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

1. The universe doesn't keep time, it creates it.

2. We haven't really defined duration have we? An oscillation by a caesium atom. {9,192,631,770 hertz (Hz = cycles/second)}, because it is a regular pattern?

3. Sounds like an arbitrary human measurement to me.

4. Question: If time stands still at SOL, does time even exists for a caesium atom?

5. Is that why we have time measurement of "half-life"

1. Human thought defines convenient intervals of time.

2. The um for time has to be uniform for the purpose of measurement.
The 9 billion+ cycle result using cesium atoms is close enough to the second (defined as
1 hr/3600) for current applications.

3. It is arbitrary, just like the meter, and all standards. They don't have to have an equivalent physical counterpart to work. The low tech sundial served its purpose for that era.

4. Time does not move. At light speed a light clock would cease to function. Biological processes (chemistry) would also cease. The observer with the clock wouldn't have any awareness. There is no evidence that electrons have memories. When it absorbs a photon, it's like the first time.

5. The decay rate of radioactive material is random and based on statistics. It is proportional to the amount of material. For uniform intervals of time, 1/2 of the material decays. This is similar to actuarial calculations. From a population of 100 seniors, 10% will die within a 10 yr period. Which 10 is unknown. In both cases it's an analysis of group behavior.

 

[Michael 345]

If you believe there is no entity as 'time', why propose the temporal interval 'second'?

I don't

The temporal interval second, as I understand, was created, and agreed upon, to allow some activities to occur at an agreed moment with some precision

Gentleman set your watches. It is now exactly 10:49:11 seconds and we will meet at our agreed location in exactly 4 hours

The universe doesn't produce events according to a schedule or time table, but according to the physical states of a system.

Agree - the Universe has no need of time, physics determines what occurs

The mechanism/clock produces the 'second', not measures it.

Well it produces what it (the mechanism) hopefully is a copy of what has been agreed upon as being a second

My reference to "finding the free range second" is directed towards those who claim time exist (hence there should be free range seconds out there) waiting to be found. Particularly, if has been claimed in this thread, time has been around long before humans existed

IF IF IF I was on the other side I would say "time has been around since the Big Bang", but I'm not, so I won't

 

[James R]

not have mass - not have colour (or any other properties) eating your breakfast - (description of an activity) - does not have an existence

I see.

So you now deny that "eating your breakfast" is anything real, in the same way that you deny that time is real.

I don't think I have anything else I can say to you on this topic. If you can't see the obvious absurdity of your position, then I think you're a lost cause.

 

[Michael 345]

Here's an idea for you: maybe time is more like a process than a property. Processes don't have mass or colour or frequency.

For example, eating your breakfast is a process. Does eating your breakfast have mass? Does it have colour?

If not, is "eating your breakfast" a thing that doesn't exist?

Will go through again
Here's an idea for you: maybe time is more like a process than a property

As my stance (time does not exist) it would be neither
Also in the above sentence it is implied l said time is / was like a property - that is incorrect as per

Does time have mass? colour? atomic weight? frequency?

I was asking if time HAD properties

So you now deny that "eating your breakfast" is anything real, in the same way that you deny that time is real.

Did I? I think the wording used

not have mass - not have colour (or any other properties) eating your breakfast - (

description of an activity) - does not have an existence

especially the words in red indicate the (description of an activity) does not have an existence

Since you have done so poorly finding "TIME" to have an existence I won't ask if you can / could find a description of an activity with an existence

Note the DESCRIPTION of an activity NOT the activity

I don't think I have anything else I can say to you on this topic

Arrrrh peace and quiet from this quarter

If you can't see the obvious absurdity of your position

Except that was not my position and you are free to think as you wish

then I think you're a lost cause.

 

[James R]

Since you have done so poorly finding "TIME" to have an existence I won't ask if you can / could find a description of an activity with an existence

Note the DESCRIPTION of an activity NOT the activity

As far as I'm concerned, the activity I call "eating my breakfast" exists. In fact, I participate in that activity most days.

Similarly, I have noticed that things don't happen all at once. Hence I am very confident that the process, or activity, I call "time" exists.

It doesn't look like you're able to think clearly about these things. Your argument is so absurd that I think it's a waste of my time to continue to engage with you about it. Have fun. Maybe you can find somebody else who won't mind wasting time with this.

(Oh, but I forget, time can't be wasted, because it doesn't exist. Gee, you got me good, there.)