Is There A Universal Now?

[Write4U]

And one Time creating a surface area more than I can calculate in my inebriated state.

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.

 

[Beaconator]

That's how the Universe started and nothing has changed since.

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.

 

[Write4U]

So you believe there was always the earth and a plan for it?

What have I said that makes you think so?

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

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.

Time is just a measurement but we can use it to measure things differently.

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?

 

[LaurieAG]

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.

 

[phyti]

Write4u;

NOW is not a measurement. It is a present condition of being. The Universe is NOW!You cannot say "some parts of the Universe do not exist NOW". That's a contradiction.
The Universe's continuous existence results in a chronology of NOWS since it's beginning, independent of any clock.According to our arbitrary measuring system, the Universe has accumulated 13.7 billion years of NOWS.

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'.

 

[phyti]

Write4u;

Consciousness is irrelevant to existence.

If you are not conscious, how do you know something exists?

 

[phyti]

Neddy;

You mean that B locates both ends at same time according to B, i.e., in the reference frame of B. What I mean is that A would say, in the reference frame of A, that what B actually did was locate one end first, and then the other end afterwards.

Yes. Simultaneity is relative to each ref. frame.
SR reciprocity requires each observer sees the same effects for the other frame.

 

[phyti]

Neddy;

If we can all agree that no conscious life form is required, then what shall we use to measure all of these "nows," rather than observers? I was thinking clocks would do nicely

What would be the source of these clocks?

 

[Michael 345]

Then you are the clock

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. It is a continuous biological mental process of analyzing events. It only stops if you sleep or assume a comatose state.

• 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

 

[Write4U]

If you are not conscious, how do you know something exists?

Does it matter? Did the Universe exist before humans evolved on earth?

 

[Write4U]

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'.

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.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Neddy;

What would be the source of these clocks?

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.

Neddy;

Yes. Simultaneity is relative to each ref. frame.

Exactly.

 

[Neddy Bate]

And would that affect the actual existence NOW or disappearance THEN of the tower in any way?

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.

 

[Write4U]

phyti said: ↑
Yes. Simultaneity is relative to each ref. frame.

Exactly.

If that is true absent an observer, can you explain the simultaneity of "entanglement" at a distance?
https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html

 

[Neddy Bate]

If that is true absent an observer, can you explain the simultaneity of "entanglement" at a distance?
https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html

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.

 

[Michael 345]

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.

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

 

[Write4U]

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.

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"?

 

[phyti]

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.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

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

The physical universe is defined as all of space and time[a] (collectively referred to as spacetime) and their contents.[10] Such contents comprise all of energy in its various forms, including electromagnetic radiation and
matter, and therefore planets, moons, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.[22][23][24] The universe also includes the physical laws that influence energy and matter, such as conservation laws, classical mechanics, and relativity.[25]

The universe is often defined as "the totality of existence", or everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.[25] In fact, some philosophers and scientists support the inclusion of ideas and abstract concepts—such as mathematics and logic—in the definition of the universe.[27][28][29] The word universe may also refer to concepts such as the cosmos, the world, and nature.[30][31]

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"

 

[phyti]

;

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.