# Is There A Universal 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?
Chronologically stacked 2D temporal planes.

Temporal dimensions, plural, you mean. You said it is a 2 dimensional temporal plane, remember?
No I didn't. If anything I said "temporal planes" and the chronology of universal NOW is measured in 2D slices (planes) of time. In the illustration "x" and "y" compromise 1 "horizonal " spatial plane of NOW, "t" is the vertical temporal stacking of the horizontal spatial NOWS.
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!
You introduced the "thought experiment" of placing "observers" (alarm clocks) in relative positions on the horizontal spatial plane, no?
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?
No no, you can't get away with that.
The present consists of a single horizontal slice of spatial (physical) existence on the vertically stacked slices of NOWs
What is "3D relativity"?
Your introduction of the physical "past" to the equation of the "present NOW".
And how does this 2 time, 1 space universe relate to our own 1 time, 3 space universe?
Because the "present" is not a 3D object. There is no temporal "past present" except when you introduce a spatial observer. Then you get a spatial past present experienced only by the observer. Remove the observer and there is only NOW.
Is this just an overly-complicated way of saying that sound takes time to travel from place to place?
That is your argument, not mine.
But the doppler effect is a good way to illustrate it.

======================(train travelling -->)===================
Observer A<_ _ _ _ _ _ _ [------- Sound source -------] .............> Observer B

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.
What's a "subjective relative reality"? What is it relative to? How is it real?
It is only real to the observer and not necessarily to the whole. It is relative to the POV.
What does "differential sychronization" of clocks mean?
That is all you have been talking about.
What does it mean to "mediate" a subjectively relative reality?
Compensate for the relativity introduced with the POV of an individual observer (each clock is adjusted to compensate for time lag SOL over long distances of observation). That is a subjective approach. Objectively there is no time lag over the entirety of the present spatial plane.
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?
I think I addressed all those questions.
I am glad you admitted to the introduction of physical observers in the analysis of a temporal dimension, which introduces a differential equation.

The thing is that your description admits there is no such thing as Time at all, but is merely a subjective experience of observational phenomena.

Actually I agree with that. I believe time is an emergent property of duration of a chronological event in a timeless permittive nothingness. So you can assign a time frame (timeline) to everything that has an observable duration.

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

Last edited:
Question: does time exist without an observer?
Consider two objects moving relative to each other. Does time exist for either object and can it be said that each object is observing the other, or is observation dependent on an interaction between the two objects?

That is, do the two objects observe each other if they interact somehow?

Consider two objects moving relative to each other. Does time exist for either object and can it be said that each object is observing the other, or is observation dependent on an interaction between the two objects?
But that is the wrong question.
The question is if both objects share a common objective NOW at any time, regardless of their subjective relative observational experience.
That is, do the two objects observe each other if they interact somehow?
AFAIK, interaction is the definition of observation. Wave function collapse, etc.
But their interaction (observation) is irrelevant to their common objective temporal existence. Although any interaction establishes a common NOW at that precise moment, no?

If I see an object in the same frame of reference as mine I see it as it was in a past NOW. But in the same frame of reference, the observed object sees me as I was at that exact same NOW in my past.

Hence in our mutually observed common PAST, we shared a mutually shared common NOW. Does that clarify my argument?

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.

And IMO, all that "observation" is irrelevant to that commonly shared temporal NOW before any observation takes place.

This is why I believe that the introduction of an observer unnecessarily introduces SR into the equation.

Last edited:
This is why I believe that the introduction of an observer unnecessarily introduces SR into the equation.
Ok. How about when SR doesn't get unnecessarily introduced? When for instance it's required by say, modern solid state physics, or whatever?

How is SR a necessary thing in physics or how is physics, theoretically, a necessary thing?

Ok. How about when SR doesn't get unnecessarily introduced? When for instance it's required by say, modern solid state physics, or whatever?

How is SR a necessary thing in physics or how is physics, theoretically, a necessary thing?
If you want to change the premise, of course. I am NOT arguing against SR.

As a boy of 15 I read Einstein's explanation of the Doppler effect caused by SR and as soon as I read the example of the sound a motor cycle makes as it passes, I understood the concept of wave contraction and expansion and actually experienced a "eureka" moment of extreme clarity.
SR is a natural physical expression of a generic universal mathematical equation in reality.

Last edited:
It sounds to me like everyone who has posted in this thread, except for Neddy and me (and perhaps someone else whose post I've forgotten), has never studied Einstein's special relativity theory. Or if they think they studied it, they definitely didn't learn it. Probably the most fundamental thing Einstein discovered is that, given that the speed of light is the same number (186,000 miles per second) according to every unaccelerated observer, those unaccelerated observers who happen to be moving relative to each other, but who are momentarily mutually stationary at some instant, will NOT agree about the current age of any particular distant person at that instant. I.e., those unaccelerated observers do NOT share the same "NOW-at-a-distance".

If you want to understand special relativity, the best place to start is with the book "Relativity - the Special and General Theory" by Einstein, translated into English by Robert W. Lawson. The copy I read was published by Crown, but I don't see that anymore on Amazon. However, Amazon does have the same content here:

https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-S...eory+by+crown+publishers,stripbooks,99&sr=1-1

for \$4.99.

It sounds to me like everyone who has posted in this thread, except for Neddy and me (and perhaps someone else whose post I've forgotten), has never studied Einstein's special relativity theory
It makes no difference whether anyone has studied SR. It is not applicable in context of the OP question.

You are explaining what would be necessary for an observer to observe simultaneous events from his relative POV.
But that is not the question.

Simultaneity is not necessarily subject to relativity. If you say that events cannot happen at the same time,you are talking about "disjoint events" that cannot happen simultaneously or at the same NOW.

Mutually Exclusive Events
Mutually exclusive events are those events that do not occur at the same time. For example, when a coin is tossed then the result will be either head or tail, but we cannot get both the results. Such events are also called disjoint events since they do not happen simultaneously. If A and B are mutually exclusive events then its probability is given by P(A Or B) or P (A U B). Let us learn the formula of P (A U B) along with rules and examples here in this article.
What are Mutually Exclusive Events?
In probability theory, two events are said to be mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time or simultaneously. In other words, mutually exclusive events are called disjoint events. If two events are considered disjoint events, then the probability of both events occurring at the same time will be zero.
If A and B are the two events, then the probability of disjoint of event A and B is written by:
Probability of Disjoint (or) Mutually Exclusive Event = P ( A and B) = 0

This mathematical law clearly implies that simultaneous events CAN happen and therefore have the same NOW.

This answers the OP question. There is no need to invoke observers. Events can happen simultaneously and have the same NOW independent of observation. I shall refrain from ad hominem.

Last edited:
Write4U:
Chronologically stacked 2D temporal planes.
I think I see the problem: you're not understanding what that picture represents. It is showing a particular 2D slice through our three dimensional space at several different times. The space is drawn as 2D slices because we can't draw a four-dimensional diagram but we're used to interpreting 2D diagrams, like this one, as representations of 3 dimensions - in this case two spatial dimensions and one time dimension. The third spatial dimension has been left out of the diagram, because it's impossible to include all four dimensions on a diagram.

Those are not "2D temporal planes". They are 2D spatial planes: 2D slices of a 3D space.

It's possible that you understand this and you are just muddling the language up. I can't be sure.
No I didn't. If anything I said "temporal planes" and the chronology of universal NOW is measured in 2D slices (planes) of time.
Those aren't 2D slices of time. They are 2D slices of space. Time is one-dimensional. It is the vertical axis on your picture.

If those slices show space at several particular moments of time, they are not "universal", but observer dependent. A different observer in relative motion would have his or her simultaneous slices of space at some angle to the ones shown in the diagram. There is no "universal NOW".
You introduced the "thought experiment" of placing "observers" (alarm clocks) in relative positions on the horizontal spatial plane, no?
Did I?

I agree that we could place clocks at various spatial locations. In 3D space, we could, for example, place them on a 3D grid.
The present consists of a single horizontal slice of spatial (physical) existence on the vertically stacked slices of NOWs
Only for one particular observer, though. An observe in relative motion to that observer would have a different set of events comprising his or her "NOW", which again means that your "NOW" is not in any sense "universal".
Because the "present" is not a 3D object.
If "the present" is defined as the collection of all events everywhere in space that happen at a particular moment of time, then we get a set of events in a 3D space.
There is no temporal "past present" except when you introduce a spatial observer.
I don't know what a "past present" is.
That is your argument, not mine.
Sorry? What? It's my argument about what, exactly? Got a link to where I put the argument you're referring to? Post number, perhaps?
But the doppler effect is a good way to illustrate it.

======================(train travelling -->)===================
Observer A<_ _ _ _ _ _ _ [------- Sound source -------] .............> Observer B

Both observers get a subjectively false experience of the true pitch of the sound. And so it is with time.
What's the "true pitch" of a sound? Would that be the pitch you would hear if you happen to be moving with the source of the sound, perhaps? What makes that "truer" than the pitch heard by somebody watching the source fly past him?

Aren't you just preferencing a particular frame of reference, for no good reason?
IOW time has an objective NOW. Observers experience a subjective relative NOW depending on their POV.
Experimentally, how would we go about determining the frame of reference in which the "objective NOW" you mention exists? Is that a special, privileged frame of reference? Why? How can you tell?
That is all you have been talking about.
I do not believe I have used the term "differential synchronisation of clocks" in any post, other than where I have been quoting something you wrote. I have no idea what the term "differential synchronisation of clocks" might mean.
Compensate for the relativity introduced with the POV of an individual observer (each clock is adjusted to compensate for time lag SOL over long distances of observation).
It sounds like you believe there is a preferred or "true" reference frame of some sort. Which frame is it? How can we identify it? What makes it the one special frame? How can you tell if you're in that frame or not, as an observer?
Objectively there is no time lag over the entirety of the present spatial plane.
The "present spatial plane" is presumably defined as some set of simultaneous events. If that's your definition, of course there's no "time lag". There can be no time lag between simultaneous events. If there was, they wouldn't be simultaneous, by definition.

You're talking in circles.
I am glad you admitted to the introduction of physical observers in the analysis of a temporal dimension, which introduces a differential equation.
Do you know what a "differential equation" is?
Which differential equation are you referring to? Can you post the maths, please?
The thing is that your description admits there is no such thing as Time at all, but is merely a subjective experience of observational phenomena.
Where are you getting this from? Can you find anything I've written that supports the notion that "there is no such thing as time at all"? I challenge you to quote a single post of mine where I made any such statement.

I think you must have badly misunderstood something I wrote, somewhere.

I do not deny that time exists. Perhaps you're confusing me with michael 345, or someone. I think the idea that there's no such thing as time is ridiculuous.
Actually I agree with that.
Why am I not surprised that you would think that time doesn't exist?
I believe time is an emergent property of duration of a chronological event in a timeless permittive nothingness.
How can it not exist and yet also be an emergent property? You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. They are logically mutually exclusive.

What is a "timeless permittive nothingness"? Where could I find one of those?
So you can assign a time frame (timeline) to everything that has an observable duration.
Observing a duration is necessarily concerned with "assigning a timeline". You're spinning in circles again.
Question: does time exist without an observer? Can the Universe be its own observer and experience its own NOW?
That's two questions.
1. I have no idea. I only know about a universe that has observers. I have no experience of observerless universes.
2. I think you need to define what you mean by "observer" before you can answer the question of whether the universe qualifies as one. Same for "experience". Is the universe the sort of thing that can experience things? You need to define your terms clearly. That's a major problem I continually encounter in trying to discuss just about anything with you. You use technical-sounding terms in what seems to be an entirely idiosyncratic way. But when I ask you directly what you mean, you can never seem to explain yourself.

Those are not "2D temporal planes". They are 2D spatial planes: 2D slices of a 3D space.
And all coordinates on that spatial plane are the same NOW.

What is a "timeless permittive nothingness"? Where could I find one of those?
Image "Nothing", permittive of everything.

And all coordinates on that spatial plane are the same NOW.
All events on that plane have the same time coordinate. Is that all you're saying?
Image "Nothing", permittive of everything.
You're revolving in circles again. I ask you to define "timeless permittive nothingness" and you just tell me to imagine a nothingness that is timelessly permittive.

Do you have anything specific in mind, or is it all just random word salad?

Only for one particular observer, though. An observe in relative motion to that observer would have a different set of events comprising his or her "NOW", which again means that your "NOW" is not in any sense "universal".
But that is not my NOW, it is your NOW.
My NOW is not a result of observation from a POV inside the Universe.
Observing a duration is necessarily concerned with "assigning a timeline". You're spinning in circles again.
And a timeline is a chronology of NOWS of a single object, regardless if there is an observer.
How can it not exist and yet also be an emergent property? You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. They are logically mutually exclusive.
Oh yes you can and no they are not mutually exclusive.
You are interpreting the expression "how can it not exist" incorrectly as "it cannot exist"
Something does not have to exist before it emerges, like for instance Life
or the Universe itself. See Lawrence Krauss' book; "A Universe from Nothing."
or
What's the "true pitch" of a sound? Would that be the pitch you would hear if you happen to be moving with the source of the sound, perhaps? What makes that "truer" than the pitch heard by somebody watching the source fly past him?
The altered pitch is an emergent phenomenon of relativity and did not exist until it was observed from a specific POV.
W4U wrote; Question: does time exist without an observer? Can the Universe be its own observer and experience its own NOW?
That's two questions.
1. I have no idea. I only know about a universe that has observers. I have no experience of observerless universes.
2. I think you need to define what you mean by "observer" before you can answer the question of whether the universe qualifies as one.
Let's look at the definition;
The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[4][5][6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
It is you who assigns consciousness and observable clocks to the experience of NOW.
Same for "experience". Is the universe the sort of thing that can experience things? You need to define your terms clearly. That's a major problem I continually encounter in trying to discuss just about anything with you. You use technical-sounding terms in what seems to be an entirely idiosyncratic way. But when I ask you directly what you mean, you can never seem to explain yourself.
All you need is ask. I have never refused to answer a question about a term I used, without reference to a formal definition.

Such as :
Experience, verb.
"encounter or undergo (an event or occurrence)." (Oxford dictionary)
Is that clear enough? I used both terms "observer" and "experience" in a scientific context and not in context of human consciousness. It seems to me that is what you are doing, by placing conscious observers at different POV that yield different experiences.
I do not believe I have used the term "differential synchronisation of clocks" in any post, other than where I have been quoting something you wrote. I have no idea what the term "differential synchronisation of clocks" might mean.
Differential Equations
The study of differential equations is a wide field in pure and applied mathematics, physics, and engineering. All of these disciplines are concerned with the properties of differential equations of various types.
Pure mathematics focuses on the existence and uniqueness of solutions, while applied mathematics emphasizes the rigorous justification of the methods for approximating solutions.
Differential equations play an important role in modeling virtually every physical, technical, or biological process, from celestial motion, to bridge design, to interactions between neurons.
Differential equations such as those used to solve real-life problems may not necessarily be directly solvable, i.e. do not have closed form solutions. Instead, solutions can be approximated using numerical methods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_equation#

and
Differential Equation
Differential equations are very common in science and engineering, as well as in many other fields of quantitative study, because what can be directly observed and measured for systems undergoing changes are their rates of change. The solution of a differential equation is, in general, an equation expressing the functional dependence of one variable upon one or more others; it ordinarily contains constant terms that are not present in the original differential equation. Another way of saying this is that the solution of a differential equation produces a function that can be used to predict the behaviour of the original system, at least within certain constraints.
https://www.britannica.com/science/differential-equation

Last edited:
But that is not my NOW, it is your NOW.
My NOW is not a result of observation from a POV inside the Universe.

And a timeline is a chronology of NOWS of a single object, regardless if there is an observer.

Oh yes you can and no they are not mutually exclusive.
You are interpreting the expression "how can it not exist" incorrectly as "it cannot exist"
Something does not have to exist before it emerges, like for instance Life
or the Universe itself. See Lawrence Krauss' book; "A Universe from Nothing."
or The altered pitch is an emergent phenomenon of relativity and did not exist until it was observed from a specific POV.

Let's look at the definition; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
It is you who assigns consciousness and observable clocks to the experience of NOW.
All you need is ask. I have never refused to answer a question about a term I used, without reference to a formal definition.

Such as :
Is that clear enough? I used both terms "observer" and "experience" in a scientific context and not in context of human consciousness. It seems to me that is what you are doing, by placing conscious observers at different POV that yield different experiences.

Differential Equations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_equation#

and
Differential Equation

https://www.britannica.com/science/differential-equation
Not only that, here is a picture of a differential:

And here is a definition of differential pricing: https://businessjargons.com/differential-pricing.html

So, we can all pull examples of "differential" this, that and the other off the internet (or out of our arses). If you think the use of the term in the expression "differential synchronisation of clocks" relates to differential equations, you should be able to direct us to the differential equation you have in mind. (You can't of course, because it is mad bullshit.)

Is there a Universal NOW?

NOW is in blue (not shouting) capitals due to it being fundimential

Yes. Throughout the Universe everything happens in a singular NOW

Arising in language there came labelling of ideas

Many of the ideas had no backing of stuff ie did not exist ***

(Being disrupted here. Back soon I hope

Ummmmm back in time to edit. Since the next bit was written few days ago when off line it might not flow smoothly from above text)

*** Another way of saying Only in the Mind of the Thinker

What would a "non-fundamental" existence of time look like?

The example I would give would be the human version - synchronisation with a arbitrarily picked regularity

Last edited:
Michael345;

Who discovered the fundimential second of time and what properties does it have?

Around the 14th century various countries used a system of 24 hr, with different starting times. That evolved into two 12 hr divisions by the 16th century. By the 17th century, pendulum clocks were accurate enough to maintain smaller divisions of time.

The Babylonian astronomical division of a degree was further divided (base 60) into the first small division or minute (prima minuta) and the second small division or second (secunda minuta).

The timekeeping units were defined, as are all standard um. They have no properties other than being integers. They are used for measurement purposes, in its simplest form, counting.
Using light frequencies (a fundamental process) for 'time' measurements doesn't make
the um fundamental! The definitions were most likely the result of a committee.

Neddy;

So ... is there a universal now?

Once light propagation was known to be finite, a universal 'now' is not possible.

Minkowski's concept of 'spacetime' implies you can't track a large composite object using an imaginary center of mass. You have to track it element by element. That is how we perceive objects, different elements as they exist at different times. The greater the spatial difference between the nearest and farthest elements of a composite object, the greater the difference in time.

Write4U;
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.

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. 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.

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.

Simultaneity is based on communication using light, not sound.
Who makes the clocks?
Who synchronizes the clocks?

A clock doesn't need a dimension since it moves (with or without an observer) in the direction of motion.

Michael345;

Around the 14th century various countries used a system of 24 hr, with different starting times. That evolved into two 12 hr divisions by the 16th century. By the 17th century, pendulum clocks were accurate enough to maintain smaller divisions of time.

The Babylonian astronomical division of a degree was further divided (base 60) into the first small division or minute (prima minuta) and the second small division or second (secunda minuta).

The timekeeping units were defined, as are all standard um. They have no properties other than being integers. They are used for measurement purposes, in its simplest form, counting.
Using light frequencies (a fundamental process) for 'time' measurements doesn't make
the um fundamental! The definitions were most likely the result of a committee.

So the second was not discovered but defined by a committee or individual it matters not

I'm guessing all of the time divisions came into being (Defined - not Discovered)

Once light propagation was known to be finite, a universal 'now' is not possible.

Don't see why not. The propagation finite speed of light affects the transfer of information across the universal now there being one

It makes no difference whether anyone has studied SR. It is not applicable in context of the OP question.

The OP's question was incoherent. What matters is that if a statement violates special relativity, then that statement violates physics, and thus the statement is nothing but mumbo-jumbo.

Once light propagation was known to be finite, a universal 'now' is not possible.

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".