A Universe without Time

[Klaynos]

I propose that events are simultaneous in all referense planes - "now" -only the clocks may run at diffrent rates. If not how could a party in any refrence plane come together with a party from any other refrence plane?

 

But we know they're not simultaneous, we know that if you do the measurement in one frame they can seem simultaneous and yet in another frame they will not. This has been experimentally observed.

[NowThatWeKnow]

But we know they're not simultaneous, we know that if you do the measurement in one frame they can seem simultaneous and yet in another frame they will not. This has been experimentally observed.

 

If you can have synchronized clocks in different frames, why can't two events be simultaneous? Is it the size of the time slice? In actuality our head and feet are in different frames. Does that mean simultaneous events do not exist? My understanding from reading Martin's post is that simultaneous events do occur in different frames. Where am I going wrong?

[asprung]

If the universe only exists "now" everything in it must experence the same "now".

[insane_alien]

If the universe only exists "now" everything in it must experence the same "now".

 

and they do, it is just that the path taken to get to now is different.

 

the x^1 to x^infinity all pass through the origin and 1,1 but the path they took to get there was different.

[swansont]

I propose that events are simultaneous in all referense planes - "now" -only the clocks may run at diffrent rates. If not how could a party in any refrence plane come together with a party from any other refrence plane?

 

I think you are using a nonstandard definition of "simultaneous."

 

According to the definition used by relativity, events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are not necessarily simultaneous in another. This has been confirmed to be the case, so your proposal is rejected — nature does not behave that way.

[north]

Without time everything would be frozen and there could be no motion.

 

actually if this was true would mean that simply adding time into a system and /or object would cause a thaw , so that everything would have movement again

 

try just adding time into a system " alone " and you will find nothing still happens , obviously

[asprung]

We get into definitions. Events occur in the present or "now" in all refrence planes.

[north]

We get into definitions. Events occur in the present or "now" in all refrence planes.

 

yes

[NowThatWeKnow]

I think you are using a nonstandard definition of "simultaneous."

 

According to the definition used by relativity, events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are not necessarily simultaneous in another. This has been confirmed to be the case, so your proposal is rejected — nature does not behave that way.

 

Relativity of simultaneity examples use relativistic speeds to show agreeing on absolute simultaneous events unlikely. Some of the layman here are using the standard definition of "simultaneous" and saying .0000000000001 sec is close enough. Who you are determines the "nonstandard definition" of simultaneous.

[asprung]

Lets not use the problem word. Lets just stick to " events occur in the present or now in all refrence planes".

[Martin]

I propose that events are simultaneous in all referense planes - "now" -only the clocks may run at diffrent rates. If not how could a party in any refrence plane come together with a party from any other refrence plane?

 

This is not a statement about physics, though. It is an interesting alternative definition of "simultaneous". Swansont already pointed this out a while back.

 

 

I think you are using a nonstandard definition of "simultaneous."

...

 

Normally when physicists say simultaneous they mean according to some observer's clock. Two events are simultaneous for that observer. You seem to want people to talk different. You seem to want everybody to accept a particular time, a particular slicing of spacetime into successive moments (like what is done in cosmology although in practice one can't do it with 100 % accuracy.) Then you want people to adjust, to be aware of how their own personal clocks differ from standard, and correct for it.

 

"According to my clock these two events were simultaneous but I was moving so my clock deviated from universe time, so if I correct for that they weren't really simultaneous."

 

That doesn't really change the physics, does it? It would just change the way we talk.

 

But it seems to me you also have another message, Asprung. Besides the semantics reform proposal you have an idea about existence.

This gets into where I'm not sure anybody knows the answer.

 

It looks like you are saying that only the present moment in universe time (Friedman cosmology time, with the CMB temp = 2.728 kelvin) exists.

 

To be honest, isn't that debatable? Science is primarily about prediction, not existence. It is about improving mathematical models to achieve simplicity, elegance, accurate prediction etc.... It doesn't address the question of what exists, it's more pragmatic: does the model work?

 

If the universe only exists "now" everything in it must experence the same "now".

 

Asprung, I think you made a philosophical error here. I respect you, by the way, and I think you have raised interesting issues and you are arguing in a capable fashion. But maybe not 100% right. Personally I think this what you just said is wrong. You cannot jump from existence to experience.

 

All our experience is different according to our world line, where we go, how fast, what acceleration, what strength gravity. Each of us has a different history, which influences our personal clock, and (IMO) influences what we experience.

 

BTW I don't understand this post:

 

Lets not use the problem word. Lets just stick to " events occur in the present or now in all refrence planes".

 

It sounds here like you don't want NowThat to use the word "simultaneous"---which is an observer-dependent idea. But why shouldn't we be allowed to use that word? The concept is clear enough. Although it is evidently different from what I think you have in mind (which I would describe as two events occupying the same universal time-slice in the Friedman model--e.g. both occurring when the Background temp is 2.6111 kelvin, or 2.728 kelvin, or whenever.)

Edited May 4, 2009 by Martin

[asprung]

I see all energy and matter as only being present "now".

[bombus]

If the universe only exists "now" everything in it must experence the same "now".

 

No, that is incorrect - think... Time slows in a gravity field or when one is moving. Time is subjective. I think this was one of the things Einstein proved - something to do with two observers seeing the same event but having different observations due to time differences...

 

Time to get out my book 'Einstein for the layman' again!

[asprung]

Clocks slow. I dont know that the fabric of time changes.

[swansont]

Clocks slow. I dont know that the fabric of time changes.

 

Clocks measure time.

[asprung]

Clocks give units for measurement of time. Here again as far as I know there is no clear definition for the underlying nature of time.

[Mr Skeptic]

I see all energy and matter as only being present "now".

 

Isn't that like arguing that only the specific frame of a movie that you are watching exists?

[asprung]

No. The movie frame will remain in the reel. Energy and mass no longer remain in the past and have not yet arrived in the future.

[north]

Clocks slow. I dont know that the fabric of time changes.

 

time has NO " fabric " in the first place

[johnnny92008]

Time is not tangible. Time is nothing. It was created by humans to measure things. You people are thinking too hard.

[north]

Time is not tangible. Time is nothing. It was created by humans to measure things. You people are thinking too hard.

 

agreed:D

[asprung]

Time as I see it is a basic force of nature that maintains the present "now" progressing along.

[iNow]

Time as I see it is a basic force of nature that maintains the present "now" progressing along.

 

And along "what" would it be progressing, if not time itself?

[asprung]

The past toward the future.

[iNow]

So time is "progressing along" the "past toward the future?"

 

What does that mean? Is not time itself required to define "past" and define "future?" You are using a word to define itself, and the circularity of your logic isn't helping to offer any clarity.

 

 

You said, "Time is a basic force." Okay, how do we measure this force? What is its method of action? What does it act upon, and with what energy?

What does it mean to "maintain" the present? Is time a box which prevents things from escaping?

 

Your words are so ambiguous as to be practically meaningless... And, at the very least, do not provide definitions of any use. They are tautological.