Time v its measurement

[NowThatWeKnow]

if it turns out that quantum entanglement allows us to communicate instantly over any distance (but thats another whole thread) then we would be able to establish a universal 'now'. other than that there is of course no measurement that we can make to estiblish a universal 'now'.

 

Why would we have to establish a universal now in order for one to exist? Two locations can share the same time without human intervention. That would be like saying the speed of light is what it is only because we know what it is.

 

My problem with asprung is that he is saying only certain laws of physics carry over to different frames. Also the length of "now" has not been defined and would have a margin of error regardless of its duration.

[granpa]

Why would we have to establish a universal now in order for one to exist? Two locations can share the same time without human intervention. That would be like saying the speed of light is what it is only because we know what it is.

 

My problem with asprung is that he is saying only certain laws of physics carry over to different frames. Also the length of "now" has not been defined and would have a margin of error regardless of its duration.

where do you see anything in my post about a universal 'now' not existing unless we 'establish' it? that post was only about how and whether it could in theory be established. (if it did exist)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Time, as I contemplate it, is the matainence of the present. If it is to be defined in terms of a dimension I would define it as one, other than length width and height that spaces events. I would propose that it marches on at steady pace and only the clocks that measure it vary with velocity and acceleration. Thus the clocks do not measure time running at a slower rate but slower clocks measure time running at a constant rate. This would seem evidenced by the fact that observers in different time frames could simultaneously view an event as it occurred and that observers from different time frames could return together in the present. Thus so to speak it is the clocks that have the nose of wax. This has been postulated as being caused by a slowing effect of velocity on atomic or molecular motion. This also avoids the problem of a slower time frame falling into the past of a faster one.

do you know how to draw spacetime diagrams with more than one coordinate system (corresponding to different frames) superimposed?

Edited April 13, 2009 by granpa
Consecutive posts merged.

[NowThatWeKnow]

where do you see anything in my post about a universal 'now' not existing unless we 'establish' it? that post was only about how and whether it could in theory be established.

 

What you said along with what you didn't say did not make what you believe clear. I was just asking a question.

 

Your post edit did shed a little light on your statement. So, do you believe there is a universal "now"? I guess you could stack the different length "now" time segments like a pyramid with them centered on each other and consider that simultaneous.

[asprung]

All that I am trying to say is that all time frames will share the same "now" irrespective of what their clocks say. I think that there is but one speed and duration for "now".

[granpa]

you understand that:

if 2 events occur at the same place and at the same time then they will do so for all observers regardless of the observers velocity.

if event A causes event B then it will do so for all observers.

the proper distance/time between any 2 events is the same for all observers

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

the significance of all this being that our coordinate system is just a set of labels that we put on each event. changing our coordinate system doesnt change the underlying reality. only our perspective changes.

Edited April 13, 2009 by granpa
Consecutive posts merged.

[NowThatWeKnow]

... I think that there is but one speed and duration for "now".

 

So what is the duration of "now"?

[Logica]

IOW, it's always now, which is a tautology. Not a definition.

 

Now = The time neutral point from which past and future can be conceptually derived and measured.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

All that I am trying to say is that all time frames will share the same "now" irrespective of what their clocks say. I think that there is but one speed and duration for "now".

 

Gosh asprung if you really want to prove your thesis you have to show that "now' is independent of time/distance/velocity otherwise it becomes a confusing paradigm within the existing paradigm.

[Norman Albers]

Time is oscillation.

[swansont]

Time is oscillation.

 

Time is the phase of an oscillation, but I think that this is OT for this discussion.

[asprung]

I first postulate that the universe only exists “now”. I do not see “now” as a snapshot but dynamically moving forward toward the future leaving past history. I have no idea as to its speed or dimensions. I do believe that the various measurements and observations we make are of moving target and that this should be factored in. Time has in the past been express in terms of units of measurements –seconds etc. which is dependent on the clock that measures it. I think that we should find some way of segregating its basic passage from its measurement

[Norman Albers]

We and our detectors are atomic systems, interacting with light and mass. We find these experiences to be relative in different Lorentz frames, which is to say locally particles are as we know, but observing a distant locale, or one of high gravitational field, demands acknowledging metric transforms.

[swansont]

Time has in the past been express in terms of units of measurements –seconds etc. which is dependent on the clock that measures it.

 

You have not established that this is true. Clocks are made in different ways and depend on different interactions, and yet they all behave the same predictable way when put into different frames of reference.

[NowThatWeKnow]

OK asprung, does this sound about right? There is no reason why time can not be constant giving us an absolute time and a universal "now" as you propose. It is not the duration of a time segment that changes as you accelerate, but it is how fast you are moving through spacetime that impacts how you measure it.

 

To support this, a good example would be a 1 G rocket ride accross the Milky Way. The duration of time is not changing but you are traveling through/accross time. This will allow you to travel 100,000 light years in just 12 years of your life while 100,000 years pass in universal time. How else would this be possible with out breaking the speed of light?

 

A similar deception of time occurs when spacetime is curved because of gravity. It is not the duration of a minute that changes put only how you perceive and measure it. So universal or absolute time is measured in flat space while not moving relative to the CMB and everyone can share the same "now".

[asprung]

As I see it everyone has to share the same "now" because that all that exists.

[D H]

Repeating the same falsehood over and over does not make it true.

[asprung]

The past is but history, the future is yet to come,so all that is left is "now".

[swansont]

Repeating the same falsehood over and over does not make it true.

 

I see it as a true statement that has no utility. 1=1

[asprung]

I am sorry that the concept is useless in understanding the universe.

[iNow]

Well, to be fair, it's certainly not your fault that it's more metaphysical than physical, and not really helpful.

 

Either way, you might gain some traction by finding more terminology, and spending more time learning about some of the science underneath these studies.

 

For example, you might want to explore the No Boundary Proposal. Here's a good place to start:

 

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/singular_m07/hartle/

[Norman Albers]

Life's a bitch and then we die.

[NowThatWeKnow]

Life's a bitch and then we die.

 

That can be proven through observation and mathamatically using statistics. That constitutes good science, right?

[Norman Albers]

My brother wrote this to me yesterday: "While we are thinking orthogonally, how about something like a second time dimension? Does that fit off of your complex plane?

 

I saw Brian Greene give a talk the other day and he mentioned (often humorously) the case for string theory and how it could resolve incompatibilities to help GR work on quantum spatial scales. In response to a question, he did acknowledge that string theory has so far been applied more to concepts of space rather than of time. If you think about it if you want to supersede GR you may need to have an improved understanding of time. So he reminded me that in considering multiple dimensions, one could possibly have multiple time dimensions. In general though he suggested that future progress in string theory may well be in the direction of time."

[asprung]

I thank you for all the imput and citations. Somehow I still like my useless theory.

[Norman Albers]

Yes we all experience 'now' but we are not the same being as when we experienced a past time. The wag may say, thank goodness.