Sharing the same "now"

[swansont]

It may allways be "now". But "now"progressed from former "nows". Why is it not physics? It presents a view of the universe and its ageing.

 

You haven't rigorously defined by what you mean by "now" and "progression of nows." Until you do, there's no point in trying to have a discussion.

 

In physics we already have defined what is meant by time and time interval. "Now" isn't defined, (partly) because "now" isn't quantifiable.

 

———

 

If I am interpreting your OP properly (and from the thread I linked to), you appear to be saying this: we have two observers (the twins) whose history has offset their clocks but are now co-located. One twin (A) sees an event, and notes that his clock says it's noon. The other twin (B), whose clock had previously run slow due to his travels, thinks it's 6:00. You appear to be claiming that the second twin won't observed the event for another six hours — that somehow B is living in A's past, and they have to experience events according to A's clock. But this in not how the universe behaves.

 

Because the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, time is not absolute. The twins both observe the effect simultaneously. They disagree on what time it is. There is no such thing as absolute time. The rate at which time passes depends on the frame of reference of the observer.

[Kenneth Bibby]

time is the rate at which things change and varies with speed and mass. a lot of nows could be viewed as age. How long the changes have been happening for. But I'm no expert so dont beleve me.

[asprung]

I appreciate all of your input on this and take no offence of anything said. The theory was developed from naive imagination and yet nothing said nor the authorities cited would seem to completely shoot it down. I am comfortable with the concept of the universe and the twins ageing together with the progression of “now” but I am not smart enough to put this together with their different running clocks. I would define “now” as that between the past and the future where mass and energy exists. While this may be an abstract concept I am confortable with it until something better comes along.

[Martin]

I appreciate all of your input on this and take no offence of anything said. The theory was developed from naive imagination and yet nothing said nor the authorities cited would seem to completely shoot it down. I am comfortable with the concept of the universe and the twins ageing together with the progression of “now” but I am not smart enough to put this together with their different running clocks. I would define “now” as that between the past and the future where mass and energy exists. While this may be an abstract concept I am confortable with it until something better comes along.

 

OK, it sounds like everything is resolved for you. Would it be appropriate for one of the moderators to lock the thread at this point, in your view?

It seems as if you are satisfied and are not asking for anything more. I ask merely out of curiosity, since I'm not one of the staff that takes care of that.

[Baub]

Twin A's 2008 is twin B's 2009. So an event could happen in two different years yet happen at the same time or "now" as you say. You could demonstrate this after the trip was over. Each twin may disagree on the year of a recent event, but agree it happened 1 hour ago. However, from two different frames they will not agree. I can relate to your thought process but I am usually wrong.

I agree with NowThatWeKnow, in that upon return the twins could agree that a specific event had happened one year ago. However, the passing of that year would be different for each individual. The "time stamp" on the "now" would be relative to where the twin was. Perhaps a good argument for time not existing at all. Since, in this scenario, time is relative and not a contant...is "time" then mearly an individual's perception of an event relative to where they are?

Edited February 27, 2009 by Baub

[asprung]

Unless someone could put together the progression of "now" and the diffrent running clocks.

[Baub]

I will be pondering this for a while now. Thanks for bring this to the forum. Great stuff!!!!

[NowThatWeKnow]

Unless someone could put together the progression of "now" and the diffrent running clocks.

 

Did you read the second link Martin posted? Much of it was above me but it seems to resemble your thinking of "now". It starts off with "THE NEED TO FORGET TIME and TIME AS THE INDEPENDENT PARAMETER FOR THE EVOLUTION" and then goes on to say "what we call “time” is the thermal time of the statistical state in which the world happens to be,...".

 

Most people here go with the current theory that fits with SR and GR but we must remember it is just a THEORY. The way things really work may surprise us all.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Because the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, time is not absolute. The twins both observe the effect simultaneously. They disagree on what time it is. There is no such thing as absolute time. The rate at which time passes depends on the frame of reference of the observer.

 

 

Agree, agree, agree. I am thinking along these lines when I post but always seem to leave a "fly in the ointment". I know it is hard for some of you all to think outside of your mathematical box.

[swansont]

Agree, agree, agree. I am thinking along these lines when I post but always seem to leave a "fly in the ointment". I know it is hard for some of you all to think outside of your mathematical box.

 

This is science. One must be constrained by the reality we observe and measure.

[NowThatWeKnow]

This is science. One must be constrained by the reality we observe and measure.

 

But as Martin pointed out. "The issue of time in physics has not been settled and the prevailing concepts of time are constantly being challenged." More then one view can fit "science" so should we keep an open mind?

[asprung]

I hate to go back to this,but how would the twins age, by their clocks or by the progression of "nows" ?

[NowThatWeKnow]

I hate to go back to this,but how would the twins age, by their clocks or by the progression of "nows" ?

 

Each of them would age according to their own clocks and "nows" but NOT according to the other twins clocks or "nows". I have to admit you are persistent.

[swansont]

I hate to go back to this,but how would the twins age, by their clocks or by the progression of "nows" ?

 

Their clocks don't run at the same rate, since they are in different reference frames. Time goes slower for the twin that makes the trip.

[asprung]

I know you dissagree. But I would think that the twins would age by a universal clock. I have trouble with a universe where every bit of matter moving reletive another, as they all are, is ageing at its own rate.

[NowThatWeKnow]

I know you dissagree. But I would think that the twins would age by a universal clock. I have trouble with a universe where every bit of matter moving reletive another, as they all are, is ageing at its own rate.

 

The GPS satellite clocks have to be adjusted for speed and gravity and that is a matter of fact that is not open for debate.

[swansont]

I know you dissagree. But I would think that the twins would age by a universal clock. I have trouble with a universe where every bit of matter moving reletive another, as they all are, is ageing at its own rate.

 

Can't really help you with that. NowThatWeKnow has given one example of experimental evidence that continually confirms that relativity is true, and there are many others.

[Mr Skeptic]

Suppose we have the following setup. In a line, you have two nukes and observer A in between them, and the nukes are each 1 lightyear away from A, and A is at rest with respect to both nukes. The nukes go off and the light from both reach A simultaneously. Therefore A concludes that the two nukes detonated simultaneously, a year ago, since it would have taken the light from each a year to reach him.

 

Next, we have observer B also between the nukes and traveling at .5c. Observer A notes that the light from nuke 1 reaches him well before the light from nuke 2. According to observer B, the nukes did not go off simultaneously. I have to go now or I'd give you some numbers.

[asprung]

Given what you say, the earth twin could have a long history that the space had not yet arrived at. Is the space twin’s future predetermined by this history or can he perform acts to change it?

As I speculate, an event would occur at a specific age of the universe, and to view it as it occurred the twins would have to be at that age. I do not question the evidence of slower running clocks but am unable to reconcile time as measured by clocks with the progression of “now”.

[iNow]

That's because you continue to insist on an absolute reference frame for time... a "universal clock" which is constant for every object in the universe. That's not the case. You're in good company, as Isaac Newton thought this too (just like you), however, it's been shown demonstrably false via experiment countless times and without exception for over 100 years. As hard as it is to do, you simply must accept that there is no unversal clock, no preferred reference frame, and no single experience of time. Thank you, Mr. Eistein.

[NowThatWeKnow]

I do not question the evidence of slower running clocks but am unable to reconcile time as measured by clocks with the progression of “now”.

 

If you had several clocks running at different speeds you could compare the "nows" but they would all be different nevertheless. Just like if you had several cars moving at different speeds on the road. They would all be someplace at a particular time but not at the same place. Just trying to think of different ways to look at "now".

 

[math]Now = t_{ship} = T_{Earth}[/math]

[asprung]

I am not proposing a universal clock. Iam proposing that the "now" starting with the big bang, so to speak,rolls along toward the future,carrying all of the mass and energy.

[NowThatWeKnow]

Even if the universe started at one point in time, the age of the universe would vary depending on what clock you were using.

[swansont]

I am not proposing a universal clock. Iam proposing that the "now" starting with the big bang, so to speak,rolls along toward the future,carrying all of the mass and energy.

 

You posted this in relativity. If you are proposing some alternate interpretation, I'll move this to speculations.

[Martin]

speculations.

 

Amen to that. Whatever the merits, it seems like an isolated individual vision. I didn't see Asprung tying in with any mainstream physics.

[asprung]

I am still trying to undrestand how the twins could age at different rates in diffrent time frames, and yet share the same "now" to view events and come together. There must be some relationship between the progression of "now" and reletivity.