Could we observe the present ?

[Time Traveler]

We could observe the present only if by reducing to the absurd , the speed with which the carrier of the image would have infinite speed up to the receiver and then to processor of the image and the processing of the image would be done at instantaneous speed.
My English is bad, maybe I will be a little confused but I will try to explain: We observe in the present but everything we observe comes from a mixture of past tenses, due to the fact that the distances from objects to the light receiver plus the distance from the receiver to the information processor are different , never equal (even if the distances may differ only with a Plank length) so times when information from every object  reaches the processor are different . Even more so when we observe a galaxy....I make an analogy between a Galaxy and a Street from New York : Imagine that on a street is one observer and observes (several elements from a mixture of different past times):  cars from 1945-2020 at 8-10m, a group of hunter gatherers at 140 m and the portion of the street  i s no longer paved but only a portion from a road through the forest, a dinosaur that hunts 300m away and the street is no longer there but only a slight depression with vegetation, an little asteroid that hits the street at 400m. ...He observes everything in the present but the visual information is from different past times. Could he understand something useful ? Likewise with modern radio telescopes that make us a map of some galaxies . In our galaxy now=present maybe Proxima Centauri is in process of absorption by a black hole...we will notice this only in 4 years , other 10 000 stars also were from  in process of  profound transformations thousands or millions years ago , maybe now many are neutron stars or black holes  ...we will observe after many years .All stars have/had a displacement in our galaxy ...we can't know their position at some time to build a map of the galaxy. Now Unfortunately we have information from different past times .   Now we observe like in that portion of street , what our telescope James Webb or Hubble telescope presents , a mix of images  from different past times.  I am in doubt that information from telescopes are very useful for science ...like that observer from New York who observe the street can't have a correct conclusion what is happening on that street.
Unfortunately we know infinitely less than we think

Edited February 1 by Time Traveler
For better understanding ...sorry for my bad English

[Genady]

We receive at present the signals from different times in the past and we separate them if we know relative distances to the sources. For example, we can see simultaneously the Sun and the Moon, but we know that we see the Moon as it was one second ago and we see the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago. The same with galaxies and all.

[Time Traveler]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

We receive at present the signals from different times in the past and we separate them if we know relative distances to the sources. For example, we can see simultaneously the Sun and the Moon, but we know that we see the Moon as it was one second ago and we see the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago. The same with galaxies and all.

Like the observer from New York from my post : he receives signals from different times in the past 

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

Like the observer from New York from my post : he receives signals from different times in the past

Right.  Is that some sort of problem?

[Ken Fabian]

Human consciousness seems to be a predictive machine, anticipating the present out of near-past perceptions. Observations are never truly in the present yet it all seems to work. And maybe revisiting observations after actually makes for greater clarity.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

Like the observer from New York from my post : he receives signals from different times in the past 

But not in the exaggerated way you presented it.

Astronomers and cosmologists are well aware of the finite value of c, and how it impacts theory and observation.

[Time Traveler]

6 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Right.  Is that some sort of problem?

In my opinion it is a big problem because the observations who the observer makes is like he observes a cloud who has now form of a mountain  and his conclusion is , there is a mountain  in the cloud

Edited February 2 by Time Traveler
error correction

[geordief]

12 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

In my opinion it is a big problem because the observations who the observer makes is like he observes a cloud who has now form of a mountain  and his conclusion is , there is a mountain  in the cloud

We all make mistakes and hopefully learn from those mistakes.

We cannot know everything and have to apply our resources to those things that we can most accurately know and which are likely to be most beneficial or of most consequence.

If something  is unclear to us we can investigate further and it may become clearer.

[ovidiu t]

a bit off topic: at individual level, the way the consciousness is "awake" and building the reality is already altering the process of understanding the present or it has  something to do with it. I am referring at "time slices" of consciousness every 400 millisecondes.

 

The present is the prisoner of the law of synchronicity/simultaneity (two events occurring at the same time are perceived differently depending on the observer's frame of reference). To grasp the present, Time would need to be absolute in value. 

 

Edited February 2 by ovidiu t
complement

[geordief]

15 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

a bit off topic: at individual level, the way the consciousness is "awake" and building the reality is already altering the process of understanding the present or it has  something to do with it. I am referring at "time slices" of consciousness every 400 millisecondes.

 

The present is the prisoner of the law of synchronicity/simultaneity. To grasp the present, Time would need to be absolute in value. 

 

As  the "time slices" of the brain become theoretically smaller (approach zero) the amount of energy required to process data approaches infinity (=impossibility)Our brains can observe  the world  for the very reason that  we cannot do that(grasp the "present")

Edited February 2 by geordief

[ovidiu t]

14 minutes ago, geordief said:

As  the "time slices" of the brain become theoretically smaller (approach zero) the amount of energy required to process data approaches infinity (=impossibility)Our brains can observe  the world  for the very reason that  we cannot do that(grasp the "present")

Must be some species preservation mechanisms. Joggling between "past" experiences and "predicting on the go" the present?  

[geordief]

32 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

Must be some species preservation mechanisms. Joggling between "past" experiences and "predicting on the go" the present?  

Not sure what you mean.Our brains have no choice but to extrapolate from past data to create a "virtual present" and a likely future.

Our brain processes are not instant and that is how we and every entity ,a;live or non-sentient  live.

 

It is "freedom within boundaries" .

 

As the expression goes ,time is what stops everything happening at the same time.(or words to that effect)

 

edit "“Time is what prevents everything from happening at once.” John Archibald Wheeler

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/30075.John_Archibald_Wheeler

Edited February 2 by geordief

[ovidiu t]

Some of our processes are instantaneous. I am particular thinking at driving experience, for example. And I agree with the idea of building a "virtual present"

The experience of time at individual level is highly subjective.  

Coming back to the question : "Could we observe the present ?". The speculative answer would be yes. if we have a fixed point in the univers, an absolute clock somewhere …(but it sounds so...Renaissance  )

 

 

[geordief]

4 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

Some of our processes are instantaneous. I am particular thinking at driving experience, for example.

You have to be specific. Until you do I say that this is incorrect.

[iNow]

44 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

Some of our processes are instantaneous

No, they are not. 

45 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

a fixed point in the univers, an absolute clock

When you venture into the realm of fiction then literally anything can be used to explain. Maybe it's true only when purple unicorns fart in front of leprechauns, for example. 

[Bufofrog]

10 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

In my opinion it is a big problem because the observations who the observer makes is like he observes a cloud who has now form of a mountain  and his conclusion is , there is a mountain  in the cloud

If you have visual/mental problems such as this, then I think you may have health problems, it is definitely nothing to do with the speed of light.

Edited February 2 by Bufofrog

[Time Traveler]

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

If you have visual/mental problems such as this, then I think you may have health problems, it is definitely nothing to do with the speed of light.

I am sorry if I make mistakes ...In my first post : 'My English is bad, maybe I will be a little confused ...."You don't need to be sarcastic...

I will try to be more clearly : I thought at the our galaxy and I have compared the cloud with the galaxy and the human observer with a telescope . Note: the human observer is not a scientist . An human observer who sees on the sky a cloud's shape like a mountain , at a moment  , for example ,  he can make predictions linked with the mountain . He will  observe after a while the shape of the cloud has changed .His predictions will fail .  In our galaxy's case we see the image of the galaxy (through telescopes) and the image is formed from imagine of billions of stars from different past times .The galaxy has a shape but after a while of hundreds or thousands or millions of years , the shape of the galaxy like the cloud observed from the human observer will be total different from his predictions . We can't make a correct image from a mixture of different past times 

Edited February 2 by Time Traveler
error correction

[Genady]

25 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

We can't make a correct image from a mixture of different past times 

We can take in account the motion of stars in a galaxy and estimate their positions at one instant of time. As the past times you mention are only different by several hundred years, we find that on a galaxy scale this does not have any visible effect on the image we get.

[Time Traveler]

55 minutes ago, Genady said:

We can take in account the motion of stars in a galaxy and estimate their positions at one instant of time. As the past times you mention are only different by several hundred years, we find that on a galaxy scale this does not have any visible effect on the image we get.

Images of stars from Milky Way are from a mix of past times from 4.2 years Proxima Centauri until 10 000 ,30 000 and 100 000 years from stars at  the borders from Milky Way

Edited February 2 by Time Traveler
error correction

[swansont]

Just now, Time Traveler said:

Images of stars from Milky Way are from a mix of past times from 4.2 years Proxima Centauri until 10 000 ,30 000 and 100 000 years from stars from at the borders from Milky Way

Yes. We know this. Is there a problem? (other than the difficulty in seeing through our galaxy)

[Time Traveler]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. We know this. Is there a problem? (other than the difficulty in seeing through our galaxy)

 

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. We know this. Is there a problem? (other than the difficulty in seeing through our galaxy)

In my opinion is a problem like in my example with a human observer from a New York street where  he "observes" now a mixture of past times .He can can make predictions but they are wrong  "...I make an analogy between a Galaxy and a Street from New York : Imagine that on a street is one observer and observes..."

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

Images of stars from Milky Way are from a mix of past times from 4.2 years Proxima Centauri until 10 000 ,30 000 and 100 000 years from stars at  the borders from Milky Way

When we look at the image of, for example, a spiral galaxy, we do not look at it in the disk plane, but close to perpendicular to the plane. The thickness of Milky Way's disk is about 1000 ly. We don't see through the disk, so we see about 500 ly thick image. The maximal difference in "past times" is thus about 500 years.

[Bufofrog]

39 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

In my opinion is a problem like in my example with a human observer from a New York street where  he "observes" now a mixture of past times .He can can make predictions but they are wrong

No his predictions are correct to the accuracy he needs.  

[ovidiu t]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

No, they are not. 

When you venture into the realm of fiction then literally anything can be used to explain. Maybe it's true only when purple unicorns fart in front of leprechauns, for example. 

I love both farting unicorns and leprechauns. I was referring to a period of classic physics period where this idea of absolute value concerning time reigned (thus my subtle reference to Renaissance)  ..too subtle ?!

As I was saying the experience of time at individual level is highly subjective and to a large extent, yes, we are subjects of processes that operate on timescales so short they feel instantaneous. These processes are essential for navigating the world, allowing us to react to immediate dangers, make quick decisions, and process sensory information at speeds that support fluid interaction with our environment.

Having that in mind there is a difference between the perception of instantaneity and the actual temporal dynamics involved. From a neuropsychological standpoint, what is perceived as instantaneous is the result of highly efficient, but not temporally zero, processing times. It was clumsy from my side to write that thought without further explanations, as remarked by another participant. 

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

a neuropsychological standpoint

How does it relate to Astronomy and Cosmology?