Is There A Universal Now?

[phyti]

Michael345;

How can another tick be added to a non existent tally of ticks?
Non existent time has no tally
The impression time ticks also gives an impression of time being a stop / start something

The clock accumulates its cycles. If its a simple clock and the duration lasts more than a 24 hr day, you consult a calendar. In the light clock, the cycles are continuous and a detector counts the cycles, 9 billion+ equals 1 sec., the same as cesium based fountain clocks. Time accumulates, and we can know how long ago an event happened.

 

[phyti]

NOW believers;
The 'now' moment occurs when a sphere of images converge at the observer Al or a recording device. For simplicity we consider 180 deg of a circular slice of the sphere.
Because Al receives the images simultaneously, he thinks the composite image of A, B, etc. represents the current state of the universe.
That would require light propagation to be instantaneous, which is false as verified experimentally. Light propagation is finite as shown by the blue light cone.
If A is 50 ly distant, then it requires 50 yr transit time.
If B is 100 ly distant, then it requires 100 yr transit time.
Al is in reality seeing the objects as they were on the light cone, not as they are in his mind.

 

[Neddy Bate]

NOW believers;
The 'now' moment occurs when a sphere of images converge at the observer Al or a recording device. For simplicity we consider 180 deg of a circular slice of the sphere.
Because Al receives the images simultaneously, he thinks the composite image of A, B, etc. represents the current state of the universe.

That is what the observer sees by eye, but that is not what an intelligent observer would say is happening "now" because...

If A is 50 ly distant, then it requires 50 yr transit time.
If B is 100 ly distant, then it requires 100 yr transit time.

...the intelligent observer would say that "now" at A is 50 years ahead of what is seen by eye, and that "now" at B is 100 years ahead of what is seen by eye. The delay of distant observations caused by the finite speed of light is already factored out during Einstein's clock synchronisation process. The "now" of SR is very well defined, and does not suffer from unintelligent observers thinking that "now" is whatever they are currently seeing by eye. Come on, get real.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U;
1. How do you get the super powers that allow you to observe the universe from the outside? The universe by definition includes ALL things.

You don't need superpowers. It's all theory.

2. The measurable duration is done using some form of clock, which produces constant uniform cycles.

In theory we need no such device to "understand" the physics.

3. You contradict your statement 1.

No I don't there is no contradiction.
I just try to avoid the subjective parts when describing "theoretical observation".

It always gets mixed up between "objective" Universal conditions and "subjective" Human experiences and symbolic codifications.
Objectively 1 + 1 = 2, regardless of how humans symbolize the actual "relational values"..

 

[Write4U]

Al is in reality seeing the objects as they were on the light cone, not as they are in his mind

AI cannot be programmed to account for redshift? Is that not what AIs do in our observatories?

 

[Michael 345]

1. How do you get the super powers that allow you to observe the universe from the outside? The universe by definition includes ALL things.

Called THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

2. The measurable duration is done using some form of clock, which produces constant uniform cycles.

Humans create what they call time (There is no FUNDIMENTIAL TIME) by picking a natural process which has a regulatory process ie the second is defined as

The second (s or sec) is the International System of Units (SI) unit of time measurement. One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (or 9.192631770 x 109 in decimal form) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium-133 atom.

Google

Purely arbitrary and I don't know what version this definition of the second is but there have been a few

Like all created measurement systems it is useful to have an agreed upon version

3. You contradict your statement 1.

Not sure in which way

 

[Beaconator]

Pressure equals gravitational constant times acceleration over the area.

but how that relates to time… I have no idea.

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

#186
But of course that again is from the inside. To a stationary observer outside the Universe the Universe has a single chronology of NOWS adding up to what we have estimated to be 13.8 billion years.

#194
Outside the universe there is only a timeless, dimensionless permittive condition of nothingness

An observer contradicts nothingness.
NOW, chronology, and 14 billion years implies a period of 'time'. Humans and their concept of 'time' occurred the last few millenia of that period. There were no humans present to keep records of events. There were no NOWs.

 

[phyti]

Neddy;

...the intelligent observer would say that "now" at A is 50 years ahead of what is seen by eye, and that "now" at B is 100 years ahead of what is seen by eye. The delay of distant observations caused by the finite speed of light is already factored out during Einstein's clock synchronisation process. The "now" of SR is very well defined, and does not suffer from unintelligent observers thinking that "now" is whatever they are currently seeing by eye. Come on, get real.

The intelligent observer knows he is observing historical events, that happened 50 and 100 yrs ago, but only IF he knows the distances.
He has no idea of what is happening there 'now', simultaneously with his processing the images.
Einstein's clock synch method is for a ref. frame moving at constant velocity. It provides a constant 'now' for all observers in the frame where it is applied. It is based on the round trip transit time for light. The observer is coincident with the emission and detection of the light signal. He cannot be present at the reflection/reversal event.
Constant velocity allows the observer to assume a pseudo rest frame. In such a frame
the reflection occurs at (emission time + detection time)/2.

In the example of [A, B, ...] Albert only detects an inbound image, i.e. he doesn't have enough data to determine WHEN the image was formed. He has a local time of perception/awareness. The coordinate transformations were meant for that purpose if the relative velocity is known.

SR defines the time of occurrence of an event as that indicated by a clock in the proximity of the event. It would be impossible with present knowledge, to synchronize a local clock with random distant clocks.
The clock synch method is limited in its application. The Mars probes were autonomous for their landing procedures, since they couldn't wait ~15 min. for instructions.
The LOCAL GPS system needs constant corrections for useful service.

In the big picture, the objects within the dynamic universe do not remain at constant distances nor constant velocities. Imagine the logistical problems synchronizing a clock 100 ly distant!

 

[Michael 345]

no humans present to keep records of events. There were no NOWs.

Humans not required

NOW (Singular) appears at the moment something appears

NOW remains singular until whatever appeared disappears

 

[Write4U]

Neddy;
In the big picture, the objects within the dynamic universe do not remain at constant distances nor constant velocities. Imagine the logistical problems synchronizing a clock 100 ly distant!

I agree with the posit.
But is the phrase "within the dynamic universe" not a limiting factor?

It is impossible to visualize the entire universe from "within". That construct can only be seen in its entirety from "without", no?

 

[Write4U]

But can anyone explain to me how a multi-nucleic single-celled slime mold can learn to anticipate timed intervals (future NOWS) without a clock?

Is this an early expression of chronobiology in a single-celled neuronless organism?
How about neuronless plants?

 

[Neddy Bate]

The intelligent observer knows he is observing historical events, that happened 50 and 100 yrs ago, but only IF he knows the distances.

Yes, and fortunately he does know the distance. The intelligent observer can measure the distance by sending a light signal to the distant place, measuring the amount of time it takes for that signal to return to their eyes (reflecting off a mirror or bright surface, for example) then simply divide by 2. Just as you yourself stated is the Einstein synch convention. The intelligent observer would use a CLOCK to measure that. And during that process, both clocks would be synchronised, even the distant one.

Think about that word. Synchronized. That means, once that process is done, the intelligent observer knows that any two events happening at those locations can be compared according to the times on the synchronised clocks.

That is "now at a distance."

But it is not a "universal now," because other reference frames say those clocks are not synchronised.

 

[O. W. Grant]

Think about that word. Synchronized.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=synchronize

https://www.etymonline.com/word/synchronous?ref=etymonline_crossreference

https://www.etymonline.com/word/syn-?ref=etymonline_crossreference

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=con-

https://www.affixes.org/alpha/c/com-.html

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/syn-

https://www.affixes.org/alpha/s/syn-.html

 

[Michael 345]

But it is not a "universal now," because other reference frames say those clocks are not synchronised.

Moot

Since there is only NOW - SINGULAR - in existence and the singular NOW applies to the Universe as a singular unit all the stuff you are trying to achieve with clocks and bouncing lasers off mirrors is MOOT

 

[Michael 345]

But it is not a "universal now," because other reference frames say those clocks are not synchronised.

Moot

Since there is only NOW - SINGULAR - in existence and the singular NOW applies to the Universe as a singular unit all the stuff you are trying to achieve with clocks and bouncing lasers off mirrors is MOOT

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I am not talking about anything but duration of existence of the Universe from the BB to NOW, I keep it simple . Does the Universe have a singular timeline associated with its very existence from BB to NOW? If not, what part of the Universe that does not lie in the past is not experiencing NOW?

The universe does not have a singular timeline. Every particle in the universe has its own worldline through spacetime, so each particle has its own experience of time.

A better way to look at things is to consider that events in spacetime are constants. What happens, happens. All observers, in whatever frame of reference, must agree, ultimately, on what happens. That does not, however, mean they will all agree on when things happen(ed).

When it comes to the idea of "now" - a set of simultaneous events - that is very much observer-dependent. Similarly, past and future are observer-dependent.

Humans are uniquely unqualified to judge NOW altogether.

Uniquely? Who or what do you imagine is in a superior position?

Any observation we make is already in the past!

No. Observations we make happen when we make them. Of course, events that happened in the past can influence the observations we make now.

The Universe is a system, but the wholeness of the Universe is a singular system and only relative to itself.

I have no idea what that sentence means. Sounds like a deepity.

It is its own observer and that is always @ NOW.

The universe is not an observer.

A singular wholeness cannot be of a different age than it's own chronology of NOWs.

"Age" is a measured time difference between identifiable events in spacetime. The "age" of anything will depend on the observer's frame of reference.

I am talking about ONE clock that keeps track of the age of the universe in toto, not how that may appear to a second or a thousand other clocks placed in positions relative to the one primary clock that records the chronology of the Universe's existential NOWs.

Where is your magical ONE clock located? What events is it measuring? How does it work?

One clock for the entire universe, the prime Universal clock, the one that reads 13.7 billion years, get it?

No, I don't get it.

The 13.7 billion year figure is based on our measurements of the Hubble constant, which is a characteristic that describes the observed expansion of the universe. We make our observations from here, on Earth. We have no access to a magical universal ONE TRUE CLOCK.

All other individual measurements are secondary to the primary existential chronological measurement.

Please outline a method by which I can find the "primary existential" chronological time at this instant. Dot points will be fine.

 

[James R]

Humans create what they call time (There is no FUNDIMENTIAL TIME) by picking a natural process which has a regulatory process ie the second is defined as

The second (s or sec) is the International System of Units (SI) unit of time measurement. One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (or 9.192631770 x 109 in decimal form) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium-133 atom.

I think you're confusing the process of measuring a quantity with creating a quantity.

You appear to have the same confusion about distance. Possibly that confusion extends to other physical quantities as well.

If humans created time, what happened before there were humans on Earth? Or did Earth spring into existence at the instant the first human evolved?

Purely arbitrary and I don't know what version this definition of the second is but there have been a few

Like all created measurement systems it is useful to have an agreed upon version

The definition you quoted does not define time. It defines a unit of measurement: the second. I think you're probably confusing the two things.

 

[James R]

But can anyone explain to me how a multi-nucleic single-celled slime mold can learn to anticipate timed intervals (future NOWS) without a clock?

Is that something that needs an explanation?

Do slime molds have no internal clocks?

How do you know they can anticipate timed intervals?

 

[James R]

Since there is only NOW - SINGULAR - in existence and the singular NOW applies to the Universe as a singular unit all the stuff you are trying to achieve with clocks and bouncing lasers off mirrors is MOOT

You're already aware from reading this thread that observers in relative motion disagree about which events are happening simultaneously. That's relativity.

It follows that if "now" is defined as a particular set of simultaneous events, then different observers will also disagree about what "now" is.

In that context, it doesn't make any sense to talk about a "SINGULAR" (with large scary capitals) "NOW".

BTW, SHOUTING doesn't give your point any more credibility.

 

[Michael 345]

I think you're confusing the process of measuring a quantity with creating a quantity.

Please read again carefully

Humans create what they call time

Sure the second is defined as time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 etc etc .... (a measurement (arbitrary))

The number of measurements are there, already in existence and happening

Humans label this particular measurement a second

Along with all the other arbitrary measurements (quantities (groupings)) is what humans call time

Hence time in that arbitrary context is a non-existent concept wholly within the thought processes, having no existent properties

A handy agreed upon reference frame but nothing more