Is There A Universal Now?

[phyti]

Write4U;

The tower exists or not regardless of an observer.

Recently there was an incident where a person killed another person with a gun with an empty chamber!
Did the bullet exist or not?

 

[Write4U]

;

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.

Again, you are citing an event inside the universe.

What about the entire universe as an individual object? Did the universe have a beginning?
If there is a beginning then there is a NOW, no? Does it matter how large the individual object becomes. Inflation or expansion proves the continual chronology of existence and the concurring emergence of NOW's along with duration.

Please note that this is the only claim I make. The Universe is a singular object and therefore has its own existence. i.e. its own individual chronology of NOWs. Everything else is relative.

Do you agree with my narrow analysis?

 

[Write4U]

Write4U;
Recently there was an incident where a person killed another person with a gun with an empty chamber!
Did the bullet exist or not?

Did the incident itself have a NOW?

Inside the gun, inside the universe, ALL inside the universe!
I am not talking about worldlines within worldsheets within the greater Universal worldvolume.
I am talking about the Universe in toto!

Does the universe itself exist and have its own Universal time (NOW) or not?

C'mon, it's a simple question. Is it too simple for a direct answer?

 

[Michael 345]

Their 'now' is the continuous few millisecond processing of events

Not even that

Talking that implies time, incompatible with time not existing. You have given a arbitrary measurement to a arbitrary human counting system and given said arbitrary measurement a name of time

Only NOW exist and cannot be divided up

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.

Agree in general

 

[Neddy Bate]

In that case what happens to relative NOWS?

They are still relative, because the fastest speed that information can be sent is still the speed of light.

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames regardless of their relative speeds. So using the speed of light to exchange information to synchronise clocks will result in those clocks being synchronised in the reference frame in which they are stationary, but in a relatively moving frame they will not be synchronised.

That is what my weird text diagram in post # 117 was supposed to show, but when you looked at it, you only saw that it appeared to have a pattern. There is more to it than the pattern, it shows the left clock being set to 0:000 before the right clock gets set to 0:000, but only in one frame, not the other..

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"?

Yes, quantum entanglement is more complicated than my analogy about the envelopes, but my analogy is still good enough to show how the envelopes can not be used to send information faster than the speed of light.

The way the quantum researchers know the particles are entangled is by very careful analysis of the probabilities of different spin states. As you said, it is complicated. Unlike my envelope analogy where we can easily think of the contents of the envelopes as predetermined, they have determined that the spin states of the entangled particles are not in a predetermined state. One or the other must be measured in order for them to be in a particular state. That is why Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance".

But none of that matters, because as my envelope analogy shows, no information is being sent from one to the other faster than the speed of light. There still has to be a light-speed signal sent from one to the other to inform them that the state of the other one has been determined.

 

[Write4U]

But none of that matters, because as my envelope analogy shows, no information is being sent from one to the other faster than the speed of light. There still has to be a light-speed signal sent from one to the other to inform them that the state of the other one has been determined.

Again, all that happens inside the Universe where everything is relative.
But none of that matters in regard to the age of the Universe itself.

The Age of The Universe Depends on Your Perspective, Expert Suggests
28 August 2015 by David Nield

"So the Universe should appear the same for almost all observers anywhere, with the same amount of time having passed and the Universe having the same large-scale properties pretty much everywhere," explains Siegel.

"But for a few select observers  -  the ones who've spent some significant time moving close to the speed of light relative to the CMB's [cosmic background radiation] rest frame  -  the Universe will be quite bizarre. As soon as they slow down relative to the CMB and come to rest, they'll find themselves as young ones in a strangely old Universe."

https://www.sciencealert.com/study-finds-the-age-of-the-universe-depends-on-your-perspective#

But of course that again is from the inside. To a stationary observer outside the Universe the Universe has a single chronology of NOWS adding up to what we have estimated to be 13.8 billion years.

From our perspective the age of the Universe can only be estimated because of our relative POV. But to an observer outside the Universe the entire Universe will always present as a single NOW in toto. I cannot conceive of a different scenario.

Objectively speaking, what is "NOT NOW" of a stationary object observed from a stationary POV?

 

[Neddy Bate]

But to an observer outside the Universe the entire Universe will always present as a single NOW in toto. I cannot conceive of a different scenario.

You don't have to be an observer outside the universe for that to be true. All observers find the entire Universe presenting as a single NOW in toto, always. That's true in SR as well. Simultaneity is extremely well defined for all observers in SR. There is no 'different scenario' that you have to try to conceive of.

But the subtle difference is that not every observer has to agree with every other observer about their NOW.

Objectively speaking, what is "NOT NOW" of a stationary object observed from a stationary POV?

Whatever time is displayed on your own clock can be considered to be "now," because your clock is close enough to your eyes that you can neglect the miniscule amount of time that it takes for the light from the display to reach your eyes.

The times before that display reading are the "past," which is not 'now.' The times ahead of that display reading are the "future", which is also not 'now.' No one can know the future, but it will certainly arrive when the hypothetical clock adds another tick to its current display.

If you want to know about the 'now' of different locations which are significantly farther away from your eyes, you need a distant clock to be synchronised with your own. Then the 'now" at the distant location is when it displays the same time as your own clock.

 

[Write4U]

You don't have to be an observer outside the universe for that to be true.

Thank you.

 

[Michael 345]

But the subtle difference is that not every observer has to agree with every other observer about their NOW.

Observers NOW's are an illusion caused but the distance between them and the finite speed of light incapable of providing the information showing there is a singular NOW

Whatever time is displayed on your own clock can be considered to be "now," because your clock is close enough to your eyes that you can neglect the miniscule amount of time that it takes for the light from the display to reach your eyes.

Agree simply because not worth disagreeing

The times ahead of that display reading are the "future", which is also not 'now.

Also is non existent which makes it impossible to exist

but it will certainly arrive when the hypothetical clock adds another tick to its current display.

How can another tick be added to a non existent tally of ticks?

Non existent time has no tally

The impression time ticks also gives an impression of time being a stop / start something

If you want to know about the 'now' of different locations which are significantly farther away from your eyes, you need a distant clock to be synchronised with your own. Then the 'now" at the distant location is when it displays the same time as your own clock.

The thought experiment (placing theoretical clocks (at 0)) throughout the stuff of the Big Bang would still be at 0

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

Again, you are citing an event inside the universe. What about the entire universe as an individual object? Did the universe have a beginning?If there is a beginning then there is a NOW, no? Does it matter how large the individual object becomes. Inflation or expansion proves the continual chronology of existence and the concurring emergence of NOW's along with duration.Please note that this is the only claim I make. The Universe is a singular object and therefore has its own existence. i.e. its own individual chronology of NOWs. Everything else is relative.Do you agree with my narrow analysis?

NOW implies time (present). Chronology (Greek kronos) is ordering events by time.
Time is an intangible human convention used to record and order events for a multitude of purposes. There is NO known evidence of a timekeeping process within the physical universe. Events happen because of the natural physical processes/laws that are present, EM, gravity, nuclear, etc.

We are born into a world we can't comprehend, thus the natural world precedes us. Research in the sciences supports the universe is older than any life form. The 'big bang' is one theory to explain its beginning. Then you have to explain the 'big bang'.

The universe is a composite object for the purpose of scientific study, to explain how it works.
All events are within the universe, including you and your NOW. All that means is you are aware of the world around you.
It seems you are trying to impose a human convention onto an inanimate object , the universe.

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

Does the universe itself exist and have its own Universal time (NOW) or not?

It exists but without any known form of 'time'.

In the incident with the bullet, all involved claimed there was NO bullet in the gun. It is a good example of "ignorance can be deadly" and why "truth will never be decided by an opinion poll".

 

[phyti]

Neddy;

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.

Doesn't a clock require a clock maker?

 

[phyti]

Michael345;

Talking that implies time, incompatible with time not existing. You have given a arbitrary measurement to a arbitrary human counting system and given said arbitrary measurement a name of time

Hammers, rakes, shovels, etc. don't grow on trees, but they are useful tools to humans.
A clock is just another useful manmade tool.

 

[Write4U]

NOW implies time (present). Chronology (Greek kronos) is ordering events by time.
Time is an intangible human convention used to record and order events for a multitude of purposes. There is NO known evidence of a timekeeping process within the physical universe.

That is because time is an emergent property of a measurable duration. The universe itself has a measurable duration.

Events happen because of the natural physical processes/laws that are present, EM, gravity, nuclear, etc.

The durable existence of the universe is a physical event and has an emergent measurable duration in arbitrary symbolic units of time. Outside the universe there is only a timeless, dimensionless permittive condition of nothingness.

Time is a human invented symbolic measurement of duration of existence or change. All of human mathematics are symbolic representation of natural logical universal functions of natural relational values.

In human symbolic terms : "value Input --> Function process --> value Output + (time of duration)"

It exists but without any known form of 'time'.

Where did the 13.8 billion years of duration come from?

 

[Michael 345]

A clock is just another useful manmade tool.

Agree

 

[Neddy Bate]

Neddy;


Doesn't a clock require a clock maker?

Hypothetical clocks don't seem to require a clock maker.

If this is your way of trying to say that SR requires observers, then I would refer you to the question I asked about the earth's diameter, and whether distance can exist without an observer. Before any observer measured the diameter of the earth, did the earth have no diameter at all? Is that what you think?

 

[Neddy Bate]

Observers NOW's are an illusion caused but the distance between them and the finite speed of light incapable of providing the information showing there is a singular NOW

For synchronised clockls, the distance between them and the finite speed of light are factored out during the synch process.

For example, if you and I are a distance of one lightyear apart, and we both have synchronised clocks, then I will see (with my eyes) your clock as displaying a time that is 1 year behind mine, and you will see (with your eyes) my clock displaying a time that is 1 year behind yours.

But neither of us says that means the other's clock must be out of synch. On the contrary, we both can agree that our clocks must actually be displaying the same time "now." That is because we both know the reason for the 1 year difference we see with our eyes is due to the one lightyear distance beteween us.

Also is non existent which makes it impossible to exist

How can another tick be added to a non existent tally of ticks?

Non existent time has no tally

The impression time ticks also gives an impression of time being a stop / start something

The thought experiment (placing theoretical clocks (at 0)) throughout the stuff of the Big Bang would still be at 0

All of this is rather bizarre to me. You seem to deny that a clock can ever change the time it displays. Haven't you ever seen a clock with a smooth-moving seconds-hand, rather than one that moves in one second increments? They both accumulate ticks at the same rate, correct?

 

[Michael 345]

For synchronised clockls, the distance between them and the finite speed of light are factored out during the synch process.

For example, if you and I are a distance of one lightyear apart, and we both have synchronised clocks, then I will see (with my eyes) your clock as displaying a time that is 1 year behind mine, and you will see (with your eyes) my clock displaying a time that is 1 year behind yours.

But neither of us says that means the other's clock must be out of synch. On the contrary, we both can agree that our clocks must actually be displaying the same time "now." That is because we both know the reason for the 1 year difference we see with our eyes is due to the one lightyear distance beteween us.



All of this is rather bizarre to me. You seem to deny that a clock can ever change the time it displays. Haven't you ever seen a clock with a smooth-moving seconds-hand, rather than one that moves in one second increments? They both accumulate ticks at the same rate, correct?

Forget about clocks, syncing etc etc

NOW exist, NOTHING ELSE

NO PAST
NO FUTURE
NO ACCUMULATED TICKS FROM smooth-moving seconds-hand, or one that moves in one second increments

 

[Write4U]

All of this is rather bizarre to me. You seem to deny that a clock can ever change the time it displays. Haven't you ever seen a clock with a smooth-moving seconds-hand, rather than one that moves in one second increments? They both accumulate ticks at the same rate, correct?

That seems contradictory expression. It is either smooth or incremental, no?

How can we be sure there are clocks with smooth-moving hands? It may seem to us that way at first glance, but
at quantum scale can stuff move smoothly or only @ quantum increments?

Seems to me that a quantum event is separated into 3 parts.
1) past quantum expression --> quantum suspension --> future quantum expression.

IOW, NOW is the "quantum suspension" between past quantum expression and future quantum expression.

Theoretically, NOW is the absence of physical expression altogether. Like stopping a movie strip between frames.
Neither the past, nor the future are expressed. There is only a blank space in between (blank space = nothingness).

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

1. But of course that again is from the inside. To a stationary observer outside the Universe the Universe has a single chronology of NOWS adding up to what we have estimated to be 13.8 billion years.
...
2. That is because time is an emergent property of a measurable duration. The universe itself has a measurable duration
...
3. Outside the universe there is only a timeless, dimensionless permittive condition of nothingness

1. How do you get the super powers that allow you to observe the universe from the outside? The universe by definition includes ALL things.

2. The measurable duration is done using some form of clock, which produces constant uniform cycles.

3. You contradict your statement 1.