# Is There A Universal Now?

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

In order to map the universal now you would need an equation that measures time faster than the speed of light.
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:
On a 2 dimensional temporal plane all points have the same NOW.
When we place an alarm clock on every point on that plane and set the alarm at the same time on all clocks, there will come a "time" when all the alarm clocks will ring at the same time @ NOW over the entire plane's temporal dimension.

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:
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?
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 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.
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:
Not at all!

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.

You keep introducing observers...

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

...and spatial dimensions.

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.

Note that I am not talking about any delay or finite speed of time

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.

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.

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

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

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

Even though you were the one who said, "the sound from each clock has to travel a longer distance". Whatever.
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!
Incorrect. Your lack of understanding of SR is duly noted.
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.
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.
Jeez man. I qualified that statement as belonging to you and your insistence on introducing an observer.
I don't know what you mean by finite speed of time, I never said that. I said finite speed of light.
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

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:
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.

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

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*

So you claim that mathematics itself forbids anything else other than a universal now.
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:
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*
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.

Quite. Write4U seems to think there is a frame of reference called "the universe".
No, I think that our Universe spacetime) is a physical object (geometry)
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.
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
Here is a map of our local universe as we've see it from earth. The large bands and clusters of galaxies are what we would see if we could zoom out.
And here we are looking at a relativistic representation from Earth's POV.

The Death

As our universe ages, galaxies close to one another will form giant clusters and will eventually form giant elliptical galaxies similar to what we see in the above image. As we have discovered, despite gravity pulling together galaxies into these clusters, the universe as a whole is expanding at an accelerated rate due to Dark Energy, a force pushing the Universe apart.... so what will happen?

And here is a representationof projected possible future timelines of the Universe as a singular wholeness.
Depending on the actual expansion rate and if it will change in the future (due to dark energy increasing, staying the same, or decreasing as time goes on), the universe may end in a few different scenarios. The most likely is that the universe will continue to expand at the same rate until all the stars and galaxies go dark.
If the universe accelerates at a greater rate in the future due to the increase of dark energy, the rate will be so great that even the space between stars within galaxies will expand and the universe will rip itself apart.
In the other version, if dark energy decreases in the future, the force of gravity will overcome and pull the universe back to its starting point and collapse in on itself. What's Beyond?
What lies beyond the universe? We are not sure but can theorize what lies beyond the universe that we know. Outside the bounds of our universe may lie a "super" universe.
Space outside space that extends infinitely into what our little bubble of a universe may expand into forever.
That sounds like a contradiction to me.
Lying hundreds of billions of light years from us could be other island universes much like our own. But why can't we see them? It's a possibility that they are so far away that by the time their light reaches us, it may have lost so much energy that we cannot detect it, or our universe may end by the time it reaches us.
SR!
Another theory is that we are creating space as our universe expands.
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.
Yet another hypothesis is that we are stuck inside a black hole of a larger universe outside of it.
Yea, well that notion carries a lot of baggage.
In short, there are many theories about what may be out there. But since our view is so small and the universe is so vast, we may only be able to imagine what is there. We may be only able to see the effects on a large scale and theorize what is causing it.
https://observatory.astro.utah.edu/universe.html

And that goes for everybody.

Last edited:
So the universe is not a thing? That is news to me. What happened to the expanding "singularity" with a singular existence ?
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.

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

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.
IMO, that simple model is defensible at all levels.
It means the math is near impossible.

It means the math is near impossible.
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

On a 2 dimensional temporal plane all points have the same NOW.
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?
When we place an alarm clock on every point on that plane and set the alarm at the same time on all clocks, there will come a "time" when all the alarm clocks will ring at the same time @ NOW over the entire plane's temporal dimension.
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?
But as soon as you introduce an observer you introduce a spatial dimension and the problem of 3D relativity from the point of the observer.
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?
IOW when all the alarm clocks sound the alarm at the same NOW over the entire 2D temporal dimension, to the spatial observer it becomes a relatively infinite continuation of sound as the sound from each clock has to travel a longer distance and reaches the observer later than all the closer clocks.
Is this just an overly-complicated way of saying that sound takes time to travel from place to place?
Therefore, the introduction of an observer creates a subjectively relative reality, that can only be mediated by differential synchronization of clocks to account for the different spatial distances to the POV.
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?
Keep the observer out of the equation and you get objective temporal synchronicity, a universal NOW.
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?

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