Is There A Universal Now?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Cyperium, Jun 14, 2022.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,856
    You mob are a hard lot

    I'm glad this thread is not vaudeville

    I'd be suffering from being pelted with shoes about now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT of a photon of light is not relent on non fundamental labels given to its characteristics

    The FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT arises from its characteristic of only travelling at such speed. The labelling of said speed, immaterial. Miles per hour, kilometres per second, some other randomly agreed upon distance per randomly agreed upon non fundimential time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,430
    If the universe is not bound by time then no. If the universe is bound by time, then yes. But we will never know at our current rate of scientific evolution.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,734
    If science is about anything, it's about measurement. For that you need a metric - no metric, no science.
    Why do those who question the existence of a metric post on a science forum?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,856
    Because it's said to be a free world and you are not the boss?????

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    Michael345;

    Prior to Newton, the op's idea of a universal 'now' would have been acceptable, based on instantaneous light propagation. After astronomical evidence of a finite light speed (~1670), that idea wasn't possible.
    There was no formal definition of 'time' in history, only an operational definition based on the motion of the earth and sun.

    A. Einstein, 1905 paper, part 1:
    "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events."

    He then defines the time of an event as the local clock event corresponding to the event of interest. The only requirement is a consistent periodic process that produces clock events or beats, that serve to record events in an ordered sequence.
    He continues by defining light speed as constant and independent of direction, in agreement with experience. This enables synchronization of local clocks with distant clocks, using light.

    Measurement is comparing a thing to a standard, which is arbitrarily chosen for convenience, i.e. a convention. Typical standards, meter, mile, second, gram, bushel, lumen, etc., are real and reproducible. The second (defined as x wave lengths of light) is the only unit derived from a natural process, thus considered fundamental.
    Measurement of a spatial interval is the difference between 2 marks.
    Measurement of a time interval is the difference between 2 clock events or ticks, with each tick having a unique identity, like marks on a ruler.

    'Time' is an accounting procedure for most human activities, from a birth certificate to a death certificate, and everything in between.

    In summation, 'time' implies longevity. People gain some sense of security if they think there is an invisible entity behind the scenes arranging and scheduling more events.
    No one wants to run out of 'time'.
    It's psychology not physics.
     
    Mike_Fontenot likes this.
  9. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    396
    And those synchronized clocks establish a "NOW-at-a-distance" moment, throughout all space, for observers stationary in that inertial frame.

    What I've established recently is that it is similarly possible to establish a "NOW" moment, extending throughout all space, for an ACCELERATING observer. His array of clocks can't be synchronized (because they all run at different rates), but he CAN calculate the current readings on each of the clocks (at any instant in his life), and that is all that is needed for him to be able to establish a "NOW-at-a-distance" moment. For details, see my viXra paper:

    https://vixra.org/abs/2206.0133

    and the references therein.

    Michael Leon Fontenot
     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,856
    Not correct

    https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/second-s-or-sec?amp=1

    One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (or 9.192631770 x 109 in decimal form) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium-133 atom.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Certainly derived from a natural process but ALSO arbitrary

    It does have the advantage of being consistent (I'm guessing a good reason for for its choice) but it remains arbitrary

    The question in the screenshot "How long is a second exactly?" can be answered "1 second". Not very illuminating but totally accurate

    However the total accuracy of our scientists second does not match the total accuracy of an alien second who chose another method of defining their second. Neither said second can be called FUNDIMENTIAL

    To be classed FUNDIMENTIAL (think Gravitational Constant)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    You are correct, but, "For observers stationary in that inertial frame" rules out a lot of other observers. So there is no NOW-at-a-distance "now" that everyone can agree upon.
     
  12. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    396
    Of course not.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Was the instantaneous inflation of a singularity an instant of NOW?
    If it was, does it matter how big the singularity has become?

    The Universe is a single object and therefore has a single chronology of NOWs since its beginning.

    Human observers are irrelevant.
     
  14. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    Right, there do not have to be any human observers. It comes down to an imaginary array of clocks which are all synchronised to each other using light signals, and stationary with respect to one another. They could have been built and programmed by robots or aliens, because that part does not matter. The "now" time is defined as whatever time happens to be displayed on that clock array at any given moment in time.

    But a second identical array of clocks which moves at a constant speed with respect to the first array will not be synchronised according to the first array, even though it is synchronised according to itself. So we have two different, but equally valid definitions of "now", because the two arrays do not share the same time displayed on all of their clocks. They are not only out of sync by some constant amount, they are progressively more and more out of synch the farther out the array extends.

    Now add a third identical array of clocks which moves at a constant speed with respect to the first two arrays, and we have three different, but equally valid definitions of "now". Repeat for as many different arrays as you choose, and you have that many different, but equally valid definitions of "now". There are an infinite number possible.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2022
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    So instead of humans you introduce aliens? And what are clocks for without an observer?

    The OP title asks a specific question. There is just one correct answer.

    No observer is required for an emerging "duration" of an uninterrupted chronology, starting at the beginning and currently located @ NOW.

    There is no necessity for any observer to make a measurement, but the creation of a durable "worldvolume" continues as long as the universe exists.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2022
  16. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    I only introduced robots and aliens for the sake of explaining how the imaginary array of clocks might have come into existence. The hypothetical array of clocks has to be synchronised in a methodical way, using light signals, and distance measurements. So some intelligence is assumed in the design of the clock array. But the clock array is completely hypothetical and imaginary, so you can also just imagine that the clocks have just always been there, if you prefer.

    Clocks still measure time, even when no observer is looking at them. There is a "time" axis on the spacetime diagram that you just posted. A clock would measure that, as time goes by. Just as a meter stick would measure the two other axes on your diagram labeled "space".
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Why not keep it simple and propose that the universe builds its own single clock that measures the duration of its own existence?

    But a clock always implies a physical object. IMO time is the record of an emergent abstract variable quantity along with the duration of existence or change.

    Perhaps I am being a little difficult, but the moment I hear the term clock I am reminded of the theological Intelligent Watchmaker" analogy and "irreducible complexity" and Dawkins' book using the counter argument of "The Blind Watchmaker", which proves evolutionary processes and the gradual emergence of complex spacetime patterns.
     
  18. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    396
    I think you and Neddy are talking about two different things. Neddy is talking about "NOW at a distance" ... i.e., about an observer wanting to determine what time it is "right now" at some distant point in space. You are talking about "NOW at an arbitrary but specified POINT in spacetime" with no distance or separation involved.

    Specifically, Neddy is talking about what an observer concludes, at some instant of his life, about the current time at some distant location. You are talking about what some observer concludes about the time wherever he himself is.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2022
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    No, actually the reverse is true.

    I understand Neddy's logical argument and I agree completely with his extended analysis.
    I just try to simplify the answer to the OP question in its most basic form.

    I am talking about the Universal wholeness as being its own observer. As a wholeness the Universe has a single "world timeline" consisting of an unbroken chronology of NOWs since the inflationary epoch. We have codified that timeline as being +13.7 billion years old, in human terms.

    The Universe itself has no clue and couldn't care if it tried.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2022
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,856
    Clocks do not measure time

    Where is this period of TIME obtained from which requires measuring?

    Can you please also exactly WHAT it is you are measuring

    What are a couple of properties of TIME

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
  21. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    I think you have said in the past that clocks measure duration? But duration is actually the difference between two times. For example, the duration between 5:00 o'clock and 7:00 o'clock s 2 hours. But the 5:00 and 7:00 are times, neither is a duration, in and of itself.

    I am not claiming that time is a material thing which can be put into a bottle, (thanks to both James R and Jim Croce for that one). But a clock can measure time, just as surely as there are evenly spaced markings on a meter stick.
     
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,856
    So what you are SAYING is

    There is this non material ????? (Can't call it a thing) which can be measured

    Got it

    Uou said it (TIME) is non material so I guess that lets you off the hook for the question

    Can you please also exactly WHAT it is you are measuring

    And I guess also this question

    What are a couple of properties of TIME

    since non material ???? means non existent along with being non detectable hence ???? has no properties

    Those evenly marked spaces on a metre stick were invented and designed and labelled to provide a covenant method of ensuring stuff constructed in different locations can be fitted together

    There is not one of those measurements, as a FUNDIMENTIAL, in existence

    They need not have been, for example the cm, made equal as long as the whole collection of units were set out in the same sequence)

    There are only arbitrary plucked moments followed by another arbitrary plucked moment which has been assigned (this is the second per Google

    The second (s or sec) is the International System of Units (SI) unit of time measurement. One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (or 9.192631770 x 109 in decimal form) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium-133 atom.
    https://www.techtarget.com › whatis )

    Nothing FUNDIMENTIAL there

    Nobody DISCOVERED the second,we made it up, figment of our imagination, non existent

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
  23. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    Mike;

    You know I don't agree with you on this.
    The constant velocity observer can't even do this.
    It makes no difference, constant velocity or changing velocity. Both observers have to wait to receive the distant clock reading. After a minimum calculation, both only know what the time WAS, since their clock kept ticking. (Time waits for no man!)

    Your idea requires universal time as conceived in the pre-Newton era.
     

Share This Page