# Is There A Universal Now?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Cyperium, Jun 14, 2022.

1. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
In order to map the universal now you would need an equation that measures time faster than the speed of light.

3. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,749
Yes, mapping requires an observer. The observer introduces spatial relativity.
Remove the observer and there is only temporal synchronicity.

A single spatial coordinate can accommodate an infinite chronology of NOWs.
A single temporal NOW can accommodate an infinite number of spatial coordinates.
They just cannot do it simultaneously.

Last edited: Sep 17, 2022

5. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,540
In order to do that, the clocks have to be synchronised in advance. If you are at one clock, and I am at the other, and we know the distance between us is 1 lightsecond, then we can both agree that our clocks are synchronised if I see your clock displaying a time that is 1 second before mine, and you see my clock as displaying a time that is 1 second before yours. Agreed?

Note that the 1 second delay is due to the finite speed of light, and it has already been accounted for in this synchronisation scheme. So the fact that you and I are observers does not have to ruin the underlying fact that the clocks are synchronised.

Last edited: Sep 18, 2022
Mike_Fontenot likes this.

7. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,749
Not at all!
You keep introducing observers and spatial dimensions. Take away the observers and you take away the need for any synchronization. The temporal dimension has no need for relative spatial synchronicity.
Note that I am not talking about any delay or finite speed of time
Take away the observers and you take away relativity and the need for any synchronization scheme.
Without observers on the spatial plane, the relativity problem simply doesn't exist.

Spacetime in toto is a singularity and has a single worldline that is traceable back to the BB .
But as soon as you place someone inside "spacetime" you create a distinct POV and everything becomes relative to that POV. Remove the POV from inside the "wholeness" and you remove the emergence of relativity and the need for any clocks altogether.

Please, for once try to look at this problem objectively, without introducing an observer that introduces an unnecessary "dependency on a specific POV" to the equation.

Last edited: Sep 18, 2022
8. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,540
It's good to know where you stand. So now I see that this conversation is probably even more of a lost cause than I thought.

I showed how observers do not ruin the synchronisation scheme, so they are not an issue. But here you are complaining about them anyway.

So your alarm clocks all going off at the same time do not have any space between them which we can speak of. Noted. Even though you were the one who said, "the sound from each clock has to travel a longer distance". Whatever.

You talked about the time it takes for the sound of the alarms to travel to the observers, which is a delay due to the finite speed of sound. It is also a non-issue, because that is not the reason that there is no universal now in SR.

I don't know what you mean by finite speed of time, I never said that. I said finite speed of light.

Incorrect. Your lack of understanding of SR is duly noted.

9. ### Mike_FontenotRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
622
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Neddy Bate likes this.
10. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,749
I am not complaining at all. I am saying they are irrelevant and you should remove them from the equation.

The lost cause is your insistence on introducing observers that require differential synchronization.
Just for kicks, try to remove them and then run your analysis based on that fact. Just try it and tell me what you get.

I am sure you have an equation, no? OK, run it without an observer.

11. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,749
To a spatially located observer. Remove the observer and all the alarms go off at exactly the same time, regardless if there is an observer!
No, I am not talking about SR, you are. I have no observer, you do. I need no observer, you do.
I am speaking of a simple fact that a single universal clock will record the same NOW as the temporal coordinate of the universe itself. There need not be any relativity unless you introduce an observer.
Jeez man. I qualified that statement as belonging to you and your insistence on introducing an observer.
This is what you said verbatim; "Note that the 1 second delay is due to the finite speed of light". IOW Time is relative to SOL and therefore finite.

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

12. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,540
Write4U,

How do you know your proposed array of alarm clocks all go off at the same time? Tell me the actual test procedure that you would do in order to determine it.

Last edited: Sep 18, 2022
13. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,749
I don't need to observe it. The mathematical logic forbids anything else.

How about one gigantic clock as big as the universe. When it goes off the entire universe implodes all at once.
Like a BD (Big Disappearance) and poof the universe completely disappears.
And there is no more NOW and no observer to watch the universe disappear slowly as the speed of light forbids instantaneity.

Last edited: Sep 18, 2022
14. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,540
So you claim that mathematics itself forbids anything else other than a universal now. Einstein would not be very proud of you right about now. Are you an anti-relativist by any chance?

Well, since you are so good at mathematics, you might want to look at the Lorentz transformation equations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

I would direct your attention to the time equation in which t is time in one inertial system, and t' is an unequal time in a different inertial system. *Sigh*

15. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,749
For this universe as a whole it does. [quote Einstein would not be very proud of you right about now. Are you an anti-relativist by any chance?[/QUOTE] No of course not. IMO you are unnecessarily introducing SR to the OP question.

To me, the question asks if the universe as a whole has a NOW and experiences a chronology of NOWs as a singular wholeness. It is a simple question that you are making complicated.

SR applies only to events of individual objects (observers) inside the universe. But what is outside the universe that presents a relativistic problem to the universe itself ? Nothing. Outside the universe there is no NOW of any kind. There is only a timeless dimensionless permittive condition, a total nothingness. It is only our universal spacetime in toto that has a NOW in the infinite timeless Nothingness.

Let's pretend that a human is a small universe . Everything inside the body has relational values and relativistic properties. Inside the body there are trillions of relational and relative activities going on each instant of NOW.
But does that mean the body as a whole does not have a NOW? Do you have a NOW as a body or are you just a bunch of relativistically organized cells? Are you in the present?

Relativism requires more than 1 object . In the absence of a second relational moving object there is only a single NOW associated with the object. I am just proposing a simple answer to a simple question.
Is there a Universal Now? The answer to that specific uncomplicated question is "yes".

I am not arguing against SR. I am saying in this instance SR is not applicable. There is only one Universe.
Now if you want to speak of a multiverse then our universe may have a relativistic association with any and all other universes.

Last edited: Sep 18, 2022
16. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,226
Quite. Write4U seems to think there is a frame of reference called "the universe". I'm afraid he's (i) too thick to understand what you are telling him and (ii) too blinded by his obsession with his quasi-religious notion of the "mathematical universe" to want to understand. Dutch stubbornness.

17. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,749
No, I think that our Universe spacetime) is a physical object (geometry)
So the universe is not a thing? That is news to me. What happened to the expanding "singularity" with a singular existence ?

Are we rewriting Universal history?

The projected wholeness of "spacetime" geometry. A mathematical object

The Universe Now
And here we are looking at a relativistic representation from Earth's POV.

The Death

And here is a representationof projected possible future timelines of the Universe as a singular wholeness.

That sounds like a contradiction to me.
SR!
And I subscribe to the following scenario as it allows for a beginning from a state of nothingness and avoids the conundrum of an a priory irreducible complexity. [/quote] Outside this expansion lies a higher dimensional space-time universe which we are unfolding into. Since it is a higher dimension, we cannot see, detect it, or comprehend it.[/quote] I reject this scenario as it introduces yet another infinite irreducible complexity instead of infinite irreducible simplicity.
Yea, well that notion carries a lot of baggage.
https://observatory.astro.utah.edu/universe.html

And that goes for everybody.

Last edited: Sep 18, 2022
18. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
To overcome the expansion of the universe and view it from the outside as an observer is far beyond our mathematical motivations. Less is known about the edge of the universe than black holes.

19. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,749
OK, but that just means everybody is guessing and we have a level playing field for all possible configurations.

And I am not presenting an actual view other than what would theoretically allow a view of the universe as a whole (see above).

I stick with my attempt at a purely objective model of an expanding universal spacetime as a singular object that has its own chronological timeline (Nows) emerging with its continued existence without any real attempt to introduce a specific POV.

IMO, that simple theoretical geometric model is defensible at all levels.
It exists NOW, therefore its continued existence has an emergent chronology of NOWs.

Last edited: Sep 18, 2022
20. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
It means the math is near impossible.

21. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,749
For us it is.
For the universe, it is just a matter of self-organizing mathematical (logical) patterns. Chaos theory.
It has no awareness of size or complexity.

(value) input --> (mathematical) function --> (value) output

22. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
38,908
What is a "temporal plane"?
How many dimensions can a temporal plane have?
Do temporal planes of dimensions other than 2 have the same NOW?
Temporal dimensions, plural, you mean. You said it is a 2 dimensional temporal plane, remember?

How can an alarm clock - a physical object - be placed on a temporal plane? Wouldn't there need to be some spatial dimensions for the alarm clock to exist in, and not just temporal ones?
The plot thickens!

Why does the introduction of an observer introduce a spatial dimension? Just one spatial dimension, or more than one? It sounds like just one, because you mention "3D relativity". So, two temporal dimensions and 1 spatial dimension?

What is "3D relativity"?

And how does this 2 time, 1 space universe relate to our own 1 time, 3 space universe?
Is this just an overly-complicated way of saying that sound takes time to travel from place to place?
What's a "subjective relative reality"? What is it relative to? How is it real?
What does "differential sychronization" of clocks mean?
What does it mean to "mediate" a subjectively relative reality?
On your 2 dimensional temporal plane, you mean?
What is "temporal synchronicity"?
What does "objective" mean, in this context?
How does an observerless 2 dimensional temporal plane relate to our 1 time, 3 space universe in which there are observers?

Messages:
38,908