Is There A Universal Now?

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

  1. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    396
    That's correct. The "array of clocks" method will always tell the PIO what the distant person's (DP's) age tau1 was at some previous time T1 in the PIO's life, not at his current age. When the PIO gets the HF's message, the PIO is age T2 > T1. But that nevertheless DOES accomplish the job of telling the PIO how old the DP was when the PIO was T1 ... he doesn't know the correct answer for a while, but he DOES eventually know what it was.

    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    396
    If it does, then special relativity is incorrect. I'm confident that special relativity is correct.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    12,856
    Please don't go all pedantic on me

    NOW is in existence - hope you are in agreement there

    PAST is not in EXISTENCE (EXISTENCE being the operative word)

    True but those events ARE MO LONGER IN EXISTENCE

    I would contend the totality of the Universe was born at BIG BANG. The FORM of Universe began to change at the same instance

    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

    The Universe from such a perspective has no age

    Doing, what I sometimes ask others not to indulge in, the age of the Universe could be considered as a collectively shared past

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    Write4U, I will be using the image you posted, assuming that since you posted it, it makes sense to you.

    Let's call the system in which the drawn axes are stationary system K. The "now" of system K can be represented by an orthogonal plane (shown in orange) that intersects the time axis at one place, the time of "now" throughout that system, as follows:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now let's consider a system in which the drawn axes are moving at some constant velocity, and call that system system K' (K prime). The "now" of system K' can be represented by an inclined plane (shown in red this time) that intersects the time axis at the same place, as follows:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The events which system K considers to be simultaneous (now) are wherever the orange plane intersects the worldlines, worldsheets, or world volumes. Likewise, the events which system K' (K prime) considers to be simultaneous (now) are wherever the red plane intersects the worldlines, worldsheets, or world volumes.

    Notice that the same 3-dimensional diagram can be "sliced" different ways by inclining the plane of "now" at different angles. There are an infinite number of hypothetical systems in which the axes are moving at an infinite number of different constant velocities, and each has its own "now" particularly for distant events. That is called "relativity of simultaneity" is special relativity, and it changes the Newtonian concept of what "now" means considerably.
     
    Mike_Fontenot likes this.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Special Relativity only applies to an observer. Without an observer the Universe itself has a chronological continuity of NOWs, each Now consisting of a 2d plane (brane).
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Can it? Who says?
    I notice you qualified an infinite number of "hypothetical" systems. But there is only one NOW for each system, no?

    I don't have to introduce an orange "what if". I see the blue 2D brane that is chronologically stacking for each instant of its existence (NOW). The top of the world volume is just another 2D brane of NOWs.

    Each blue 2D brane is a set of NOWS for ALL particles, strings, and pattern contained in that 2D plane.. You cannot say that part of the brane's existence increases at a faster rate than its constituent parts.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2022
  10. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    Special Relativity (SR) does not rely on any observers. The two systems I described, K and K', do not have to have any observers in them. They only have to have space and time, which are represented by the axes in your diagram.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2022
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Yes but a brane K does not have K' as a constitutional part. K' Is a brane in and of itself.
    I am not talking about 3D systems. I am talking about 2D branes.

    Besides, systems are observers in their own right. No anthropomorphization is necessary.

    Each 2D brane must consist of the same NOWs relative to each particle in that brane, else it would not be a 2D object, no?

    Moreover what is 13.7 billion years about if not all of the Universe is 13.7 billion years old since its beginning.

    How old is the universe and how do we know?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You Can't Be Older Than Your Mother
    UPDATE!
    https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question28.html

    Personally, I like this model;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    https://earthsky.org/space/is-our-universe-ringing-like-a-crystal-glass/

    Note: 7 oscillations have been depicted in the model.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2022
  12. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    497
    We measure the as constant as possible repetitive MOTION of something to get a duration as a base duration for a time system, maybe its virtual time system.

    MOTION is the closest physical thing I can think of...


    Kinetic energy / Motion causes physical change
     
  13. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    Write4U,

    What I am talking about, (and what Mike Fontenot is talking about as well), is not related to the expansion of the universe. If what you are talking about is, then we are not all talking about the same things.

    Did you look at your own space time diagram? The brane has 2 spacial dimensions, but there is also a time dimension. So the brane is represented through time as a world volume.

    If you are stationary with respect to the brane, then according to you all parts of the brane are simultaneous as per the ORANGE plane that I added to the diagram. Let's say that there are 2 events, one at the left end of the brane, and another at the right end of the brane, and let those events be simultaneous according to you. So they can be located where the orange plane intersects the world volume, and they are simultaneous according to you.

    If I am moving with respect to you along the left-right axis of the brane, then all parts of the brane are simultaneous as per the RED plane that I added to the diagram. For those same 2 events, one at the left end of the brane, and the other at the right end of the brane, those events are not simultaneous according to me, because they cannot both be located where the red plane intersects the world volume, not even if I move the red plane to a different time, because the red plane is still inclined on an angle to the orange plane.

    That is one way to understand length contraction in SR. The trailing end of the moving object is relatively ahead in time, and the leading edge of the moving object is relatively behind in time, so the object takes up less length when it is relatively moving, compared to when it is relatively stationary and both ends are at the same time.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2022
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    I am not talking about anything but duration of existence of the Universe from the BB to NOW,
    I keep it simple . Does the Universe have a singular timeline associated with its very existence from BB to NOW? If not, what part of the Universe that does not lie in the past is not experiencing NOW?

    I am not talking about parts of the Universe. I am talking about a very simple chronology of the wholeness from the beginning of time to the present NOW (13.7 B)

    Humans are uniquely unqualified to judge NOW altogether.
    Any observation we make is already in the past!
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2022
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,856
    As in

    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/definition/second-s-or-sec?amp=1

    Don't think you can count motion as being physical. If you wish to count motion as being physical I will ask you the same question I asked about TIME

    Please name some properties of motion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    No it isn't. The brane is 2 dimensional and is only a single instant in time. When you stack 13.7 billion years of 2 D branes you create a 3D world-volume , but each brane is a single instant in time throughout the entire 2 D surface plane.
    If you stack single particles you get a 1 dimensional worldline. If you stack 1 dimensional strings you get a 2D worldsheet.


    With your description, I get visions of a patchwork quilt Universe...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2022
  17. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,379
    Does the universe not count as a system?

    Not that I agree with you. SR does not rely on an observer.

    I hope your self contradiction is apparent...
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    There is no contradiction.

    The Universe is a system, but the wholeness of the Universe is a singular system and only relative to itself.
    It is its own observer and that is always @ NOW.

    btw. I am not the one who introduced relativism. Quite the opposite. I am speaking of a straight linear chronology of existence. A singular wholeness cannot be of a different age than it's own chronology of NOWs.

    That would require an observer from a different POV. And that model is not necessary to answer the OP question.
    All other models are interesting, to be sure, but IMO, not relevant to the OP.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2022
  19. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    Let me try to explain this to you one more time. Let's say you put a clock on the left end of the brane and another clock on the right end of the brane. You synchronise those clocks using Einstein's synchronisation method, so that they display the same time as one another in the reference frame where the brane is stationary. In that frame, the simultaneity plane is the ORANGE plane that I drew on your diagram. Now, in the reference frame where the brane is moving at constant speed, the simultaneity plane is the RED plane that I drew, and those two clocks are not displaying the same time as one another simultaneously. That is because simultaneity is relative to each frame of reference. Get it yet?

    It is the same brane, but there are an infinite number of possible reference frames to chose from. Depending on the reference frame you choose, the two clocks can be perfectly synchronised, or drastically out of synch, or anything in between. So there is no universal now that everyone can agree upon.

    It has nothing to do with quilts.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2022
  20. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    Here is a diagram showing the clock synch method in the reference frame of the brane:
    Code:
    Clock 1------central light source------Clock 2
    Clock 1-----<central light source>-----Clock 2
    Clock 1----<-central light source->----Clock 2
    Clock 1---<--central light source-->---Clock 2
    Clock 1--<---central light source--->--Clock 2
    Clock 1-<----central light source---->-Clock 2
    Clock 1<-----central light source----->Clock 2
    0:00000------central light source------0:00000
    0:00001------central light source------0:00001
    0:00002------central light source------0:00002
    0:00003------central light source------0:00003
    The clocks are syncronised in this reference frame.
    
    And here is a diagram showing the SAME clock synch method for the SAME clocks, the only difference is that this happens to be a reference frame where the brane is moving at constant speed:
    Code:
    Clock 1------central light source------Clock 2
     Clock 1----<-central light source>-----Clock 2
      Clock 1--<---central light source->----Clock 2
       Clock 1<-----central light source-->---Clock 2
        0:00000------central light source--->--Clock 2
         0:00001------central light source---->-Clock 2
          0:00002------central light source----->Clock 2
           0:00003------central light source------0:00000
            0:00004------central light source------0:00001
             0:00005------central light source------0:00002
              0:00006------central light source------0:00003
               The clocks are NOT syncronised in this reference frame.
    
    These are not drawn to any specific scale, they are just to get you thinking about what is really going on. Remember, the speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the light source. This is part of Einstein's great insight that lead to SR. And part of SR is the idea that simultaneity is relative to the reference frame you choose.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2022
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Yes, I get it. You cannot divorce yourself from relativity between two observers.

    I am not talking about Two observers or Two clocks or Two horse-and-buggies.

    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 for the entire universe, the prime Universal clock, the one that reads 13.7 billion years, get it?

    All other individual measurements are secondary to the primary existential chronological measurement.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2022
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Oh my, you say this and then proceed to present a model (pattern) of a quilt.

    The Essential Relationship between Mass and Energy
    https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.518.7097&rep=rep1&type=pdf
     
  23. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    396
    First, there is rarely any reason for using a scenario with more than one spatial dimension. Stick to one spatial dimension.

    When you do that, you get the well-known Minkowski diagram. In the simplest case of all, the horizontal axis would correspond to the worldline of the (unaccelerated) "home" twin ... i.e., it would be her time axis, along which she progresses as she gets older. Label that axis "T". The vertical axis would give (according to her) the distance from her to various objects that might be of interest. Label that axis "X". Most people reverse those axes, with "T" vertical and "X" horizontal, but I prefer showing the independent variable horizontally, just like we ordinarily do in Newtonian physics ... why make special relativity look different where it doesn't have to be.

    Then, take the simplest case where there is an unaccelerated "traveling" twin (he), who passes the home twin (she) at the (X=0, T=0) point with a velocity of "v" relative to her, and maintains that velocity forever. In that case, the worldline of the traveler on the diagram would be a straight line rising forever to the right, with slope equal to the tangent of the velocity "v". For example, for v = 0.57735c, the angle is 30 degrees (which makes it easy to draw).

    Now, one of the most fundamental results in all of special relativity is that if two inertial observers are moving a relative speed of v, they EACH will conclude that the other is ageing SLOWER than they are, by the factor gamma, where

    gamma = 1 / (sqrt[1 - v^2]).

    For v = 0.57735c, gamma = 1.2247.

    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.
     
    Neddy Bate likes this.

Share This Page