Universal 'Now' at Time-Zero

[Strange]

so "now" needs a reference point, in space

universal now would be as if time and space started at the same point.

 

 

There is no universal now.

 

 

 

when you poke something with a stick, does it take the same time for sound to travel the distance of the stick as it does for the poke to travel the distance?

 

Yes. The movement of the stick travels at the speed of sound in the stick.

[tar]

meaning, it takes time for a signal to get from one corner of a salt grain to the opposite corner, but if a grain of salt is moved, both corners are moving at the same time

Strange,

 

why can we not define a universal now, and then there would be such a thing?

[Strange]

meaning, it takes time for a signal to get from one corner of a salt grain to the opposite corner, but if a grain of salt is moved, both corners are moving at the same time

 

 

Once it is no longer accelerating (i.e. no force is being applied) then the opposite corners will be move at the same speed (if that is what you mean by "same time").

[tar]

That is, for instance, figure the number of a certain transition of hydrogen electron that happened between the big bang and right now, and then figure that anywhere in the universe that has existed for that number of transitions, is existing in the universal now.

so with the solenoid, the tip at the one end is not moved at all while the impulse is getting to it, then the whole tip is accelerated at the same moment that the whole other tip is accelerated through the distance equal to the throw of the solenoid

so the internal forces that hold atoms together in crystal for instance do not exchange their impulses or particles or whatever, at the speed of sound. The crystal holds together more at the speed of light, or electricity, or magnetism or at the speed at which atoms hold their electrons to their

protons

Edited April 4, 2017 by tar

[Strange]

That is, for instance, figure the number of a certain transition of hydrogen electron that happened between the big bang and right now, and then figure that anywhere in the universe that has existed for that number of transitions, is existing in the universal now.

 

 

You could define a universal time like that. But it is still an arbitrary choice, and still observer dependent. So for example, two twins could decide to meet at a certain time (empty-zillion ticks later). Twin1 arrives at the meeting point and a day later Twin2 arrives. Twin1 says "where were you? It was empty-zillion o'clock yesterday!' And Twin2 says, "no, it is now: look at my watch".

 

(Apart from the practical problems of counting transitions, the fact the big bang is a process not an event, there was no hydrogen for about 380,000 years, etc)

 

so the internal forces that hold atoms together in crystal for instance do not exchange their impulses or particles or whatever, at the speed of sound.

 

 

Yes they do. That is pretty much what defines the speed of sound in a material: the rigidity and density of the material.

[tar]

Strange,

ii

but somewhere we decided the universe was around 380 thousand years, before there was an electron cycling a proton/neutron or an Earth cycling its star. If we have a way to count that time already, it is no problem to divide 380 thousand years by the transition count we decide upon and say that is how many transitions there would have been during those 380,000 years, had there been electrons.

 

While I admit that my thought does not explain why the ticks proceed at a different rate, depending upon acceleration, relative motion, between two clocks, there is a conceptual way to understand distance as requiring a subtraction of the perceived count to arrive at the coincident time. While returning to the same position as start would require added count, or faster seeming clock so that the actual tick count, upon return would be equal.I

 

in the famous experiment, with the atomic clocks flying around the Earth in opposite directions and a difference in the clocks is noted that is explained by the relative altitude and effect of gravity on time, and the distances traveled differently as going with the rotation of the Earth, and away being attributed to relative speed, it is not clear to me that the actual transitions might not have been equal in all cases. I have this concern that the position of the clocks, was nott carefully noted and reported in the literature. That is which way were the clocks facing that were sitting on the Earth and which way were they facing, on the plane. The atomic clocks were counting transitions, and the sensing of the transitions was in a certain direction. Some internal setups of the clocks, required electron holes to go through wires that may or my not have been aligned parallel or perpendicularly to the direction of travel, or the photon that was being recorded may have been traveling to meet the counter or traveling to catch up with the tick counter. Plus, the Earth was not in the same position as it was at the start of the experiment, being as it is moving around the Sun, and the Sun is hurtling through space around the center of the galaxy, and the galaxy is moving toward the great attractor, and we do not know exactly what the great attractor might be moving in reference to. Sum total considerations leave some room for other explanations for the differences in the counts, than the depth of a gravity well affecting the clock in one direction and the speed affecting it in another. Besides, relative is just that. The thing standing still is going, relatively just as fast past the moving thing, as the moving thing is going past the stationary. It makes more sense to imagine the ticks never change, just our count, due to lag because of distance, and due to red shift because the one clock is moving away from the other, or blue shift because the clock is approaching.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

In the famous experiment, with the atomic clocks flying around the Earth in opposite directions and a difference in the clocks is noted that is explained by the relative altitude and effect of gravity on time, and the distances traveled differently as going with the rotation of the Earth, and away being attributed to relative speed, it is not clear to me that the actual transitions might not have been equal in all cases.

 

 

They must be different because they measured different elapsed times ("number of transitions") at the end of the experiment.

 

 

 

I have this concern that the position of the clocks, was nott carefully noted and reported in the literature. That is which way were the clocks facing that were sitting on the Earth and which way were they facing, on the plane.

 

I am not aware that the orientation of a moving atomic clock has any effect on it. Do you have some evidence this is the case?

 

I suppose one could invent a different arbitrary (and unsupported) excuse for relativity passing each and every experimental test. But it might be easier to just accept that the theory works.

[StringJunky]

I suppose one could invent a different arbitrary (and unsupported) excuse for relativity passing each and every experimental test. But it might be easier to just accept that the theory works.

It can predict the time difference between two points 8 inches apart in altitude; can't argue with that.

[tar]

Strange,

 

No, you are right, I have no supporting evidence. Just the knowledge that an atomic clock is not all happening at one place. That is, where the transition is occurring and where it is being counted are not, by definition, the same spot in the universe. The equipment itself has a size. Likewise, as StringJunky can figure the difference in clock tick happening at an 8 inch altitude difference, ones eyes, seeing a thing happening, is an event that requires both the sensing of the photon, and an interpretation of what that means, as signals go through the optic nerve and to the prefrontal cortex and such. There is an altitude difference between ones eyes and one's brain. Several inches. Plus a lag between the various components of the sensing and counting circuitry. One needs to ask whether the clock ticking in front of your eyes, is in sync with the image of the clock being experienced in ones consciousness.

 

Relativity assures us, that the point of view, the exact defined point one is considering the observer, is not exactly in sync with any other clock in one sense, and absolutely is required to be in sync with all other clocks, in another. The universal now, is by definition not in sync with the perceived one point of consciousness clock. Any observer will see the rest of the universe proceeding in real time, but lagging behind the actual universal count, consistently and proportionally according to the distance from the one point of consciousness observer, depending on the distance.

 

When we see a star that is three light years from here, we see it actually, we see it now, it is really there, and ticking along at an expected rate...except the ticks we see, are retarded or earlier ticks, when considering that that clock is ticking in sync with the clock in our heads.

 

That is, when we look at a quasar that is 7 billion lyrs from here, we cannot see it ticking 13.8 billon year old ticks. We can only see it ticking 6.8 billion year old ticks. While actually, that part of space, is right now ticking it's 13.8 billionth yearly tick.

 

Relativity is still obvious. Just have to not try and consider the image arriving, and the event, happening at the same time.

 

 

 

Regards, TAR

lets say for instance two clocks come back together, and you look at one and record the time, and then look at the other. The one you look at second will show more elapsed time. Or lets say you freeze the digital count with an electrical signal. The length of wire between your button and the first display, and your button and the second display, will freeze the count at slightly different times, depending on how fast electricity is and the difference in length of the wires involved

if we are all synced to an atomic clock in Colorado, then the farther you are from Colorado, the behinder the real time, you are

 

(from an old Pennsylvania Dutch saying "the hurrier I go, the behinder I get")

Edited April 5, 2017 by tar

[Strange]

lets say for instance two clocks come back together, and you look at one and record the time, and then look at the other. The one you look at second will show more elapsed time. Or lets say you freeze the digital count with an electrical signal. The length of wire between your button and the first display, and your button and the second display, will freeze the count at slightly different times, depending on how fast electricity is and the difference in length of the wires involved

if we are all synced to an atomic clock in Colorado, then the farther you are from Colorado, the behinder the real time, you are

 

 

Good experimental design can cope with issues like that. And, if not, quantify the level of error introduced.

[tar]

Strange,

i

I read the outline of the experiment a couple of times in different takes. I never saw a concern with the attitude of clocks, nor a clear description the time lags and distances within the devices.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

I read the outline of the experiment a couple of times in different takes. I never saw a concern with the attitude of clocks, nor a clear description the time lags and distances within the devices.

 

 

I doubt those details would be in an outline.

[tar]

Results[edit]

The results were published in Science in 1972:[1][2]

 

nanoseconds gained, predicted

nanoseconds

gained,

measured

difference

gravitational

(general relativity)

kinematic

(special relativity)

total

eastward

+144 ±14

−184 ±18

−40 ±23

−59 ±10

0.76 σ

westward

+179 ±18

+96 ±10

+275 ±21

+273 ±7

0.09 σ

The published outcome of the experiment was consistent with special and general relativity. The observed time gains and losses were different from zero to a high degree of confidence, and were in agreement with relativistic predictions to within the ~10% precision of the experiment.

 

The above is from a chart on the experiment from wiki. This outline of results is enough for everyone to say the predictions of general and special relativity are verified, when applied correctly. Seems one should know the details of the experimental design, before they can know which numbers to attribute to gravitational well differences and which to kinematic differences. Would not the orientation in the plane make a difference in the kinematic measurements. Did they have a control along, oriented differently to see if that made a difference to the reading on the clock?

besides what kind of precision is 10%? That is 100,000,000 nanoseconds every second!

http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/45.pdf from 1972 shows the need for an ensemble of clocks to allow for the random fluctuations in count between one clock and an other

[goldglow]

My question really is: does it make sense that if everything is physically connected and homogenous, time doesn't exist because everything happens simultaneously everywhere in that state?

YES! The whole of Life is in each moment- the eternal present. Time doesn't exist apart from the clock and the calendar which are just useful tools so we don't miss our doctor's appointment. Distance/Space as Time? The same darkness touching me in my garden last night was the same darkness that touches all the planets and stars in the Universe at the same moment. Age is only relevant if we think we are separate from this whole movement - which we do - but we aren't.

[StringJunky]

YES! The whole of Life is in each moment- the eternal present. Time doesn't exist apart from the clock and the calendar which are just useful tools so we don't miss our doctor's appointment. Distance/Space as Time? The same darkness touching me in my garden last night was the same darkness that touches all the planets and stars in the Universe at the same moment. Age is only relevant if we think we are separate from this whole movement - which we do - but we aren't.

My OP was specifically related to the pre-inflationary universe, as a unique case, when everything was connected physically as one unit and homogenous in substance, like at the quark-gluon plasma stage; there was no free space. Once inflation started and photons could travel, then you would have notions of 'past' because it would take time for a signal to travel across empty space and different parts of the expanding universe would be behaving differently as it expanded. This is a clarification of my thought at the time I wrote it and not of the actual science. It's a speculation but it's something that I was happy to have corrected in order to learn something.

Edited April 19, 2017 by StringJunky

[tar]

StringJunky,

 

I am not familiar with the theory of how things were in the plasma state, before expansion. Lets say "something" happens at the location of a particular quark. How long until that thing happens everywhere. Is there a speed of impulse or a speed of transition spreading, or some physics of motion, cause and effect, in quarkplasma?

 

Regards, TAR

[StringJunky]

StringJunky,

 

I am not familiar with the theory of how things were in the plasma state, before expansion. Lets say "something" happens at the location of a particular quark. How long until that thing happens everywhere. Is there a speed of impulse or a speed of transition spreading, or some physics of motion, cause and effect, in quarkplasma?

 

Regards, TAR

iIve no idea. Does the notion of location even mean anything in that state? Was anything discrete in that state?

Edited April 19, 2017 by StringJunky

[koti]

As far as I understand the inflation model states that at T0 spacetime itself was shrunk to some ridiculously small "size" I put size in quotes as Im not sure we can use that term towards a state of the universe in which possibly, there was no size or size had a different meaning. From my (narrow) understanding of whats going on in the field of the chase for finding a theory of quantum gravity which would possibly give us these answers, there aren't concrete conclusions as to if we are capable of grasping t0 with our current math & physics tools. I think I've heard or read that Ed Witten himself expressed such a doubt, certainly Hawking expressed such fears in his books.

[StringJunky]

As far as I understand the inflation model states that at T0 spacetime itself was shrunk to some ridiculously small "size" I put size in quotes as Im not sure we can use that term towards a state of the universe in which possibly, there was no size or size had a different meaning. From my (narrow) understanding of whats going on in the field of the chase for finding a theory of quantum gravity which would possibly give us these answers, there aren't concrete conclusions as to if we are capable of grasping t0 with our current math & physics tools. I think I've heard or read that Ed Witten himself expressed such a doubt, certainly Hawking expressed such fears in his books.

Yes, I think the consensus is that GR's not working when you get too close to T=0

[Pugdaddy]

Has anyone seen this you tube video by Nima Arkani Hamed? He talks about what is being discussed. It is quite interesting and may have some answers for you.

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Pugdaddy