Is There A Universal Now?

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

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    I do not agree that time is a causal force. IMO, time is an emergent property of an existential physical duration or chronology.

    See "worldline", "wordsheet", "worldvolume". These temporal chronologies are not responsible for physical change. These temporal chronologies are an emergent result of physical change or duration.

    The dimension of time only exist NOW and in the PAST. There is no future time. The future only offers a permittive condition for a chronology to emerge as a result of a physical causality.

    That's how the Universe started and nothing has changed since.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,436
    So you believe there was always the earth and a plan for it?

    100% of the universe undergoes slight change and change is our only standard for measurement fundamentally. radio active decay for example.

    Time is just a measurement but we can use it to measure things differently.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    What have I said that makes you think so?
    Ah, that refers to "nothing has changed", no? I believe I mentioned a dynamic Universe and nothing has changed in that respect, ok? And I believe that existence (such as half-life) itself also offers a standard for measurement.
    I agree, but where does that pertain to the OP title? Are we not talking about the chronology of Universal NOWS to measure the duration of Universal existence since the BB, regardless of complete absence of observation for the greater part of that duration?
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2022
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    It's interesting, in a way, to view the concept of a universal 'now' in a similar context to how we developed the best methods to successfully navigate the oceans of this planet. While originally many people, through lack of direct knowledge, thought that ships would fall off the sides of a flat earth and the oceans teemed with myriad monsters and beasts the best way was found to be by making flat maps adjusted by our direct understanding of the actual shape of the surface along with the positions of the various stars and planets all being tied together by accurate timepieces and compasses etc that amounted to a planet wide 'now' (i.e. dead reckoning and celestial navigation). We also worked out that certain area's in the oceans that lie very close to jagged and/or submerged rocks were not conductive to our ships having a continuing 'now' so we devised a series of ways to identify these places and warn travelers of their existence before their 'now' was curtailed. Also as our travel/technology became more sophisticated our navigation systems also became more sophisticated and our concept of 'now' became more precise.

    I don't think a universal 'now' is the real problem, either now or in the past.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  8. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    Write4u;

    Then you are the clock, per 1st line in red.
    'Now' is your current state of awareness. It is a continuous biological mental process of analyzing events. It only stops if you sleep or assume a comatose state.
    If I am not in Paris, France, I cannot be sure the Eiffel Tower is still there. The only evidence I have of its existence is seeing it on a newscast a few days ago. Since then it could have been destroyed, by terrorists, airplane collision, earthquake, etc. If there are no news reports, I assume it is still there, but I have no facts/evidence to prove it. To do that would require a phone call to someone in Paris to verify it's still there 'now'.
     
  9. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    Write4u;

    If you are not conscious, how do you know something exists?
     
  10. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    Neddy;

    Yes. Simultaneity is relative to each ref. frame.
    SR reciprocity requires each observer sees the same effects for the other frame.
     
  11. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    Neddy;

    What would be the source of these clocks?
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,858
    Claiming another (you) are a clock implies time is real and the other is somehow measuring It

    My contention (time does not exist) would exclude the other doing such

    • Now' is your current state of awareness -NOW is just NOW nothing to do with awareness
    • It is a continuous biological mental process of analyzing events - nope - nothing to do with any mental process
    • It only stops if you sleep or assume a comatose state. - nope again - NOW started at the Big Bang and has been present ever since never stopping
    NOW is not any sort of process (if NOW were a process that would imply a arbitrary start and arbitrary stop moment). DOES NOT HAPPEN

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Does it matter? Did the Universe exist before humans evolved on earth?
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    And would that affect the actual extant NOW or extinction THEN of the tower in any way?

    Interestingly, our experience of NOW is really always in our PAST. It takes time to process sentient experiences and fashion an image of our reality.

    According to Carlin we really have no clue what time it is.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2022
  15. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    They are hypothetical clocks. In the absence of any actual observers, we can still talk about when an event occurs, based on the time reading which is displayed on a hypothetical clock which is co-located with that event.

    Then the question of whether or not there is a universal now comes down to whether or not that clock had been successfully synchronised with other clocks located in other places. Knowing that information can not travel instantaneously, but rather is limited to the speed of light for any particular reference frame, we conclude there is no universal now by virtue of the fact that those clocks can be synchronised in one reference frame, while also being out of synch in a different reference frame.

    Exactly.
     
  16. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    Right, either the Eiffel tower is there "now" in phyti's reference frame, or it has been or is being destroyed "now" in phyti's reference frame. Whether he knows about it or not does not change that fact.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2022
  18. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    If quantum entanglement (QE) provided us with a way to send information faster than the speed of light, then SR would have to be overturned and replaced by a better theory. This is because, according to SR, the fastest that any information can be sent over a distance is the speed of light.

    However, QE does not actually send any information faster than the speed of light. As an analogy, let's say that two identical envelopes are mailed to two people who are separated by some great distance. Inside one envelope is a winning ticket, and inside the other is a losing ticket. Neither person knows which ticket they have received until at least one of them opens their envelope. As soon as one is opened, it also becomes instantly known what the other envelope contains, because if one is the winning ticket, then the other must be the losing ticket, and vice versa. But there is no way the person with the unopened envelope can know what the other person knows, unless that information is sent from one place to the other, and the fastest way to do that is still the speed of light.
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,858
    Don't think so

    Here is how I would use clocks in a thought experiment to explain the non existence of TIME

    All the clocks I would require would come into existence at the moment of the Big Bang and all have an exact start moment

    These clocks would not measure what is considered time ie the arbitrary dividing up existence into discrete units, marking said units (or using some other method to indicate time) with some sort of indicator

    All my clocks (yes yes yes I am using the word clocks (and claiming them) bare with me) would have a indicator (just in case TIME turns up)

    So currently the situation is as follows
    • Big Bang has occured
    • the components of the Big Bang are expanding
    • creating a Universe
    • composed of matter
    THAT IS IT

    My thought clocks are expanding with the matter but have not detected any TIME so my thought-observers have not heard any beeps or noted any visual indication

    The Universe is in a NOW situation

    Sorry my understanding of physics is not strong enough to work out the the ending of the Big Bang

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    In that case what happens to relative NOWS?

    Is it not a little more complicated than that?
    How do we even know that particles are entangled?
    What is it that Einstein called "spooky action at a distance"?
     
  21. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    There is the state of the tower, it exists or it doesn’t.
    There is the knowledge of its existence.
    While the observer is out of sight of the tower, his knowledge of its existence is incomplete.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    What does an observer have to do with the existence of the tower? The tower exists or not regardless of an observer.

    We are not talking about observers, we are talking about the objective physical existence of the universe in toto.
    AFAIK we are not even talking about relativity. All that stuff happens inside the universe and inside the universe things appear and disappear constantly along with their duration of change or existence. Inside it's ALL relative.

    Does the Universe in toto have a singular existence? If not what is it relative to? Another Universe?

    DEFIITION
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#

    Does this object have it's own NOW? Is that not what the OP asks?

    Note that the tranlation of "Uni-verse" means "single song" or "singular metrical composition"
     
  23. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    ;

    Each individual is at the center of their personal universe.
    Their 'now' is the continuous few millisecond processing of events via their senses of sight and sound (mentioned on page 1). Their 'now' is equivalent to "I'm alive experiencing my world".
    Past and future are a means of ordering events relative to 'now', and not places. The past consists of events the individual has experienced, the future consists of events the individual has not experienced.
     

Share This Page