Is There A Universal Now?

[Neddy Bate]

I am not talking about ... Two clocks ...

I am talking about ONE clock that keeps track of the age of the universe in toto, not how that may appear to a second or a thousand other clocks placed in positions relative to the one primary clock that records the chronology of the Universe's existential NOWs.

One clock is fine for keeping track of time. However, it is not very scientific to call what it measures a "Universal Now," because without another clock to compare it to, you have no way of knowing whether the time is universal or not.

"Universal Now" implies that everyone everywhere can agree that whatever time is on your one clock could also be the time on all the other synchronised clocks located everyplace else in the universe. You must have at least two synchornised clocks to check whether the time is truly universal by checking whether everyone everywhere can agree that at least those two clocks can be synchronised. It turns out that not everyone agrees that they are synchronised, so the time is not a "Universal Now."

Oh my, you say this and then proceed to present a model (pattern) of a quilt.

If you don't understand what I posted, you should ask a question about it. It is not a quilt or a pattern, it is a clock synchronisation process which shows you how two clocks can be synchronised in one reference frame, but not synchronised in a different reference frame. The key concept is that the speed of light is a constant which is not affected by the motion of the source.

 

[Write4U]

One clock is fine for keeping track of time. However, it is not very scientific to call what it measures a "Universal Now," because without another clock to compare it to, you have no way of knowing whether the time is universal or not.

And our knowing makes a difference?

There is not even a single clock that keeps Universal time. There is only an existential chronology of NOWs, whether we like it or not.
The Universe itself doesn't give hoot about what we think or know.

 

[Write4U]

It is not a quilt or a pattern, it is a clock synchronisation process which shows you how two clocks can be synchronised in one reference frame, but not synchronised in a different reference frame.

By using a quilt of relative twin time patches, no?

 

[Write4U]

The point is, in special relativity, the twins moving relative to each other WILL NOT AGREE about their current ages ... i.e., they disagree about "NOW-at-a-distance". If your results disagree with that, then you are NOT doing special relativity.

Finally, you are getting it. I am not doing SR. Relativity happens between constituent parts (twins) inside the universe. The Universe as a singularity has no twin moving relative to itself. There is only NOW.

The point is that the singular wholeness has a single time frame and experiences a chronology of NOWs over its entire geometry.

You talk as if time is an extant dimension that the Universe is moving through. It isn't. Time is an emergent property of duration of existence. Time does not exist in the future. In the future there is only a timeless dimensionless permittive condition.

To the singularity every time frame that is older than NOW lies in the past and there can never be a timeframe younger than NOW. That would lie in the future and there is no time for a future event until the universal future becomes the universal NOW.
Nothing relative about that.

 

[Michael 345]

One clock is fine for keeping track of time.

What exactly would one clocks be keeping track of?

Try - accurate clocks keep in close synchronisation with the agreed measurement of our notation of time units

 

[Write4U]

What exactly would one clocks be keeping track of?

NOW?

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

I am not doing SR.

That explains everything.

Now, we can talk about what's really important: how to set up an array of clocks and helper friends (HF's) for an ACCELERATING observer, analogous to the array of clocks that Einstein showed us how to set up for an inertial observer. The reason that is important is that the array of clocks tells us something about "NOW-at-a-distance" that must be accepted as real and fully meaningful to the observer. The array of clocks never gives us the answer quickly or easily (but other methods do) ... the value of the array of clocks method is purely to establish the meaningfulness of the answer.

Details are given in

https://vixra.org/abs/2206.0133

and its references.

 

[phyti]

Michael 345;

True but those events ARE MO LONGER IN EXISTENCE

Not for you, and why time is relative to the observer.
There is one occurrence of an event but many perceptions.
The events exist in the form of images, so the solar flare you saw 10 min. ago hasn't been seen yet by the alien on Saturn, or a camera on a space probe in the same vicinity.

The most distant stars may APPEAR as the youngest but that is the effect of the INFORMATION about them being delayed in its delivery to you due to the distance said information has to travel
...
Taking said delay into account brings said distant stars equal to your NOW moment and the only moment in existence

You need the additional distance info to know the emission time of the image based on your detection time.
The finite light speed is the basis for SR with it's relative measurements.

The observer's now consists of a sphere of images arriving simultaneously.
Assume the first stars were formed within a short interval of 'astronomical time', we can consider simultaneously. Consider a circular slice centered on the observer, containing stars A thru D. For simplicity they are shown in the same direction. Images are emitted at the small circles when the light has reached the distance of the next inner star. D at t=0, C at t=1, etc. The images arrive simultaneously at t=4. The stars are approx. the same age, but the observer sees them as they were at different stages of star evolution.
The rest of the story includes those beautiful images of Hubble and Webb telescopes, showing the large clouds of gas where stars are born. The universe has been forming a variety of objects since its beginning. All objects can’t be the same age.

 

[Write4U]

That explains everything.

Now, we can talk about what's really important: how to set up an array of clocks and helper friends (HF's) for an ACCELERATING observer, analogous to the array of clocks that Einstein showed us how to set up for an inertial observer. The reason that is important is that the array of clocks tells us something about "NOW-at-a-distance" that must be accepted as real and fully meaningful to the observer. The array of clocks never gives us the answer quickly or easily (but other methods do) ... the value of the array of clocks method is purely to establish the meaningfulness of the answer.

Details are given in

https://vixra.org/abs/2206.0133

and its references.

Wow, all that to explain the event of a universal NOW? Well, that is beyond my understanding of an abstract measurement of an immeasurable property. You are going to determine the advent of NOW by comparing two immeasurable NOWS from inside the Universe? How does that work? How many NOWS are there?

And if you tell me there are an infinite number of NOWS, you are admitting you have no clue when the Universe's NOW IS !

 

[phyti]

Mike;

But the PIO doesn't have to wait for that (correct) information: he can determine the answer IMMEDIATELY by just using the time dilation equation (TDE) for an inertial observer. The value of the array of clocks method is that it INSURES that that answer is completely real and MEANINGFUL to the PIO, because that answer can't be wrong unless the PIO's and the HF's clocks (and their ages) aren't actually synchronized. But those clocks were synchronized using only the assumption that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second in that PIO's inertial frame. So if those clocks aren't synchronized, then the speed of light isn't 186,000 miles per second. And if that were the case, special relativity itself would be wrong.

The propagation speed of light in space is c. The measured speed of light in any inertial ref. frame is c. Clock synchronization requires the observer to apply the method.
The 'home' observer can calculate the space and time coordinates for the distant frame using the transformations , but that is based on an assumption of no change in the relative velocity, which can only be verified with an observation.

 

[phyti]

Neddy;

Special Relativity (SR) does not rely on any observers.
...
It is a common misconception that SR describes some types of optical effects which observers see when they are moving at a very fast speed relative to something else. That is not what SR is all about. For example, the well known "length contraction" of SR has nothing to do with an observer seeing an object's length as shorter. The object truly is shorter in length when the locations of both ends of the object are measured simultaneously (there is that word again) in different reference frames, such as system K and system K'. It is the result of relativity of simultaneity being a real thing.

If there are no observers, who makes the measurements and interprets them?
...
Einstein originally thought simultaneity explained length contraction but it can't explain reciprocity of observations without a physical lc.
Minkowski developed spacetime diagrams for his 1907 4D SR.
Green B frame rod passes black A frame rod, blue line is light path.
Left, without lc:
A measures B rod = A rod.
B measures A rod =e/f, or d/(gamma)^2. Not reciprocal.
Right, with lc:
A measures B rod = d/gamma.
B measures A rod =e/f, or d/gamma. Reciprocal.

 

[Write4U]

The rest of the story includes those beautiful images of Hubble and Webb telescopes, showing the large clouds of gas where stars are born. The universe has been forming a variety of objects since its beginning. All objects can’t be the same age.

But that is not the question!
The question is not if every object in the Universe has its own NOW . The question is if the Universe has its own NOW.

Inside the Universe every atom has its own NOW , but that has nothing to do with the NOW of the Wholeness in which all relative NOWS appear and disappear.

The Universe is a single expanding object (world volume) that has a singular existence. Nothing inside the Universe affects the existence of the expanding singularity.

I understand the concept of looking back in time. But all that is inside the universal singularity. There is nothing that precedes the Universal NOW. It's impossible to look past the Universal NOW into the future.

Outside the universe there is only a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition of NOTHINGNESS.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Neddy;

If there are no observers, who makes the measurements and interprets them?

Let me ask you... Do you feel that distance is something which requires an observer to exist? Like, if no person observed and measured the diameter of the earth, then the earth would not have a diameter? Of course that would be nonsense.

It is the same with Special Relativity. For example, the the twin scenario does not require actual twins, or actual people. It would work the same way with only clocks instead of twins. We know that it works as predicted with muons, for example.

 

[Neddy Bate]

I am not doing SR.

That is a problem, because it is SR that tells us that there is no universal now.

 

[Neddy Bate]

What exactly would one clocks be keeping track of?

Try - accurate clocks keep in close synchronisation with the agreed measurement of our notation of time units

Yes, I agree that a clock measures our preferred time units. Some clocks use a format of 12 hours AM per day, and 12 hours PM per day. Other clocks use a 24 hour per day format. We could invent a clock that just measures seconds, starting at whatever number we choose, and then we could watch the number displayed get larger and larger without bound. Does any of this matter as to whether there is a universal now?

I understand your position is that time is not a thing that has any properties. It does not have a color or a mass. You cannot put it in a bottle and store it for later. It is not "stuff". I agree. Does any of this matter as to whether there is a universal now?

 

[Neddy Bate]

Einstein originally thought simultaneity explained length contraction but it can't explain reciprocity of observations without a physical lc.
Minkowski developed spacetime diagrams for his 1907 4D SR.

I don't understand this statement. There is no difference between using a Minkowski diagram as developed in 1907, or using the Lorentz transformation equations that Einstein used in 1905.

Measuring the length of an object which is stationary is easy, as you can just put a measuring stick next to it and see how long it is from one endpoint to the other. Measuring the length of an object which is moving is more difficult. You have to locate the two endpoints simultaneously. Since it is moving, you would get an incorrect length if you located the rear endpoint today, and then located the right endpoint two days later. So obviously it is critical to have a definition of simultaneity which allows you to located both endpoints at the same time, and that is Einstein synchronisation of clocks.

 

[Write4U]

That is a problem, because it is SR that tells us that there is no universal now.

That is why I don't use SR, it is a useless exercise. It cannot yield a definitive answer to the OP question.

This is a perfect example of a fractured science. Of course, the universe has a NOW. It had a beginning and will have an end and in between there is a measurable chronology of duration of existence. The arbitrary value of the incremental measurements is irrelevant.
For our convenience we have assigned 13.7 billion years worth (and counting) of NOWS to its existence.

du·ra·tion
noun

1. the time during which something continues.
   "a flight of over eight hours' duration"

Oxford Dictionary

What happens inside the Universe is totally irrelevant. Just as what happens inside an airplane is irrelevant to the duration of flight.

There is nothing inside or outside the Universe that can prevent it from existing as an independent object in toto.
Even if the Universe will gradually lose its energy (entropy) the wholeness itself will continue its singular existence.

If it contracts and returns to a small singularity (bouncing universe) it may just start the BB all over again for eternity.

As long as "something exists" there will be a NOW (incremental time value) associated with the duration of its existence.

Time emerges with duration or change of existence. It doesn't exist independent of "duration" of something.

 

[Michael 345]

so the solar flare you saw 10 min. ago hasn't been seen yet by the alien on Saturn, or a camera on a space probe in the same vicinity.

The detail of it (whatever the event) not being seen does not mean said event is still in existence

Yes, I agree that a clock measures our preferred time units. Some clocks use a format of 12 hours AM per day, and 12 hours PM per day. Other clocks use a 24 hour per day format. We could invent a clock that just measures seconds, starting at whatever number we choose, and then we could watch the number displayed get larger and larger without bound. Does any of this matter as to whether there is a universal now?

Not a great deal if anything. However I was correcting what I consider a incorrect statement - clocks measure time time. Since the statement was made in the thread Is There a Universal Now silly me thought it should be replied to and, as already mentioned, corrected in the same thread. Happy for you to contact moderators to have my post moved to where you consider it should reside

I understand your position is that time is not a thing that has any properties. It does not have a color or a mass. You cannot put it in a bottle and store it for later. It is not "stuff". I agree. Does any of this matter as to whether there is a universal now?

Not totally incorrect understanding

I'd say my position, more a considered opinion which no poster has shown not correct, to this moment, but whatever

Again if you feel my post belongs at / under another thread feel free to have it moved

 

[phyti]

But that is not the question!
The question is not if every object in the Universe has its own NOW . The question is if the Universe has its own NOW.

Inside the Universe every atom has its own NOW , but that has nothing to do with the NOW of the Wholeness in which all relative NOWS appear and disappear.

The Universe is a single expanding object (world volume) that has a singular existence. Nothing inside the Universe affects the existence of the expanding singularity.

I understand the concept of looking back in time. But all that is inside the universal singularity. There is nothing that precedes the Universal NOW. It's impossible to look past the Universal NOW into the future.

Outside the universe there is only a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition of NOTHINGNESS.

Where is the universal clock?

 

[phyti]

I don't understand this statement. There is no difference between using a Minkowski diagram as developed in 1907, or using the Lorentz transformation equations that Einstein used in 1905.

Measuring the length of an object which is stationary is easy, as you can just put a measuring stick next to it and see how long it is from one endpoint to the other. Measuring the length of an object which is moving is more difficult. You have to locate the two endpoints simultaneously. Since it is moving, you would get an incorrect length if you located the rear endpoint today, and then located the right endpoint two days later. So obviously it is critical to have a definition of simultaneity which allows you to located both endpoints at the same time, and that is Einstein synchronisation of clocks.

Bx is the axis of simultaneity, so B is measuring the ends 0 and e at the same time!