Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[AnssiH]

Originally Posted by modest

I've just skimmed over: An “analytical-metaphysical” take on Special Relativity! and I think Doctordick makes a strong case that such a system is possible.

Yeah, and I must say that it is very surprising to me that people don't see it as abudantly obvious that such a system is possible. Of course it is possible, we cannot be "here" and "there" simultaneously to find out anything about simultaneity (without assumptions about the one way speed of information). All natural observers are, by our definitions, manifestations of electromagnetic phenomena, so if you wish, you can look at relativity as a description of how the natural observes are related to each others temporally (by their own measurements) due to them and their internal behaviour being constrained by that electromagnetic phenomena.

I mean, if you look at spacetime as a static structure, like a "web of events", then any sort of simultaneity you imagine in there is completely immaterial. What defines relativistic simultaneity is the assumption that light speed is isotropic, which can be taken as something that natural observers MEASURE (as oppose to something that just "IS" ontologically, over and beyond our definitions).

When you read the above, perhaps you tried to picture something like an electromagnetic canvas and think about naturally occurring events (that give rise to the motion of a clock). DON'T DO THAT. I am not condoning a specific ontology here. I am just trying to point out that the essential relationships of relativity can be seen in many different ways, as long as you really understand how the relationships are tied together.

I have also only skimmed the the analytical-metaphysical thread myself (but I mean to walk it through after the Schrödinger's Equation part), but what I just cannot stress enough is that DD's presentation is NOT an argument about a specific ontology. It is an argument about the epistemological reasons of the relativistic time behaviour of the objects that we've defined.

Most people view reality as a set of objects flying around in space and time, but try to instead take a step back, and look at all those objects as some patterns (of some unknown nature) that have temporal "identity" to them only because we defined those patterns as "things with persistent identity" (i.e. "they move" or "are stationary" instead of being "different stuff all the time"). See where I'm getting at?

What DD's treatment boils down to, is "how do we define objects", and how we then unavoidably end up defining things in such a way that there are objects in space, they are moving, and their time behaviour against each others is exactly what you get with the normal relativistic description.

So, I don't think anyone should view the "analytical-metaphysical take on special relativity" as something that's offered as an alternative theory to the theory of relativity. View it instead as an exploration that's aiming for deeper understanding of relativity. Just, one consequence of understanding those logical roots is very explicit awareness of how unnecessary the idea of relativistic spacetime/simultaneity really is (in any ontological sense). It is very much an arbitrary choice to view it as a spacetime construction (and of course further leads to all kinds of curious ontological questions in one's mind about the "now")

People just take the argument that "relativistic simultaneity is unnecessary" as an attack against their worldview, because they've come to see it as the only reasonable conclusion for some reason. Perhaps it's a consequence of the natural tendency of viewing space and time as something that just "are" out there. I mean, to think that space and time and objects ontologically just "are", and don't have anything to do with us first defining all sorts of "identities" to an unknown reality. I find that disturbingly thoughtless.

-Anssi

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

...and that's exactly the problem.

Because, the "now" we see on a star that's 250 light years away is 250 million years in our past, but not necessarily 250 million years ago in the star's past - once again because there are no "universal frames of reference". It might only be 200 million years ago for the star, due to how it's traveling through space relative to us.

Do you agree that we can use SR and GR to pretty accurately determine when both the Earth and the distant star shared a simultaneous existence?
Even if one believes this can not be done, it does not invalidate the fact that they both had simultaneous existence (as long as we assume that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and do not assume simultaneous events with the distant star before this time.

Because there is no universal frame of reference, there can be no "universal now".

Indeed. But this is only true in scientific and empirical relativity.
Of course, I absolutely love Relativity Theory and am not arguing against it scientifically. I find it interesting to explore alternative philosophical aspects though. An absolute now can be argued philosophically, not scientifically.Well, actually, as Modest points out, it can be argued, but it requires Euclidean geometry.

I have illustrated above where three points ABC on an equilateral triangle with sides 10 light years long can illustrate the idea of a universal "now" existing, but also pointed out in my example that it only works when all points share a frame of reference; i.e. the three points on a non-changing triangle. The moments their velocities change relative to each other, pop goes the weasel.

Indeed. There's no way for any observer to agree on a preferential frame in which all events occur simultaneously, be it a triangle, a square, or whatever geometric form one envisions.

But, absolute now is non-empirical philosophy. It's a thought experiment.

[modest]

Anssi, there's a good treatment here and apparently a lot of work was done in the early 90's by a fella named J.M.C. Montanus:

Montanus, Proper-Time Formulation of Relativistic Dynamics,

It will be argued that Minkowski's implementation of distances is inconsistent. An alternative implementation will be proposed. In the new model the proper time of an object is taken as its fourth coordinate. Distances will be measured according to a four dimensional Euclidean metric. In the present approach mass is a constant of motion. A mass can therefore be ascribed to photons and neutrinos. Mechanics and dynamics will be reformulated in close correspondence with classical physics. Of particular interest is the equation of motion for the proper time momentum. In the classical limit it reduces to the classical law of conservation of (kinetic+potential) energy. In the relativistic limit it is similar to the conservation of energy of the theory of relativity. The conservation of proper time momentum allows for an alternative explanation for Compton scattering and pair annihilation. On the basis of the proper time formulation of electrodynamics also an alternative explanation will be offered for the spectra of hydrogenic atoms. The proper time formulation of gravitational dynamics leads to the correct predictions of gravitational time dilation, the deflection of light and the precession of the perihelia of planets. For this no curvature will be needed. That is, spacetime is flat everywhere, even in the presence of sources of gravitation. Some cosmological consequences will be discussed. The present approach gives a new notion to energy, antiparticles and the structure of spacetime. The contents of the present paper will have important implications for the foundations of physics in general.

SpringerLink - Journal Article

I've been looking at these, albeit not in much depth, over the last couple days. If this system proves useful and usable then I believe it would be possible to say there exists an "absolute now" which agrees with observation *according to this system of dynamics*.

But, I think it's important to stress, and hopefully you agree, the definitions of space, time, and simultaneity that Michael is using amount to nothing more than Galilean relativity. As such, it cannot be considered consistent with nature.

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Michael,

are you having fun yet?

I see your penchant for disagreeing universally with everything that is said, indeed, with every new turn of phrase, is just as egregious now as it ever was.

Why don't you pick your battles, and ignore the finer shades of gray that don't really matter?
To whom? Are you the one who decides what matters and what doesn't?

You know, if I were you, I would stop bemoaning all the many times you already said this or that. I would scan those older posts myself and summarize them in as small a post as possible. Throw out all the rhetoric and verbiage, and just boil down what it is that you are trying (so unsuccessfully) to say. That would be a really great exercise, and would save you so much time and grief in the long run.

I very much appreciate that you are not me. But it seems that you believe that everyone should be more like you.

But I get the feeling that you have little interest in saving yourself either time or grief.

My interest is in seeking what is true about, in this case, time in relation to now and overall, debunking the reification of "spacetime" and the status of relativity as absolute truth.... excellent as it is in application to local perspectives.

Why is that Michael? Good luck!

And hold your temper in check Michael. I will be watching.

My temper is just fine, thank you. My passionate disagreements are mistaken for anger, but, Truth is, equanimity prevails in my life, including on these boards. Do not presume to know my emotional state better than I.

I am asking you to please reply to my post #99 above and tell me specifically how you disagree, specifically how I am wrong. OK?

Boerseun states as if it were an indisputable fact that there is no "absolute present."
All relativty theorists here are fond of saying that for observer A there is one "now" and for observer B there is another "now," depending on their relative frames of reference.

So I have just made the argument that "for the universe as a whole, there is one, perpetual, ongoing NOW."

Will you please at least address this point and show me the error of it if there is one? Please consider also that regardless of location, the future has not yet happened and the past has already happened. So how does this not leave the present as what is happening now everywhere?

Michael

[Pyrotex]

Okay, here I am responding to your post #99, as requested.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

...A consideration from a philosophical perspective as pertaining to science: That the universe *as a whole* transcends local "frames of reference" and as such *for the universe* now is simply the ongoing present. (Future not yet present... past not still present.... That only leaves NOW... see?... *for the universe as a whole* if anyone can "wrap his/her mind around it."

I guess I'm just used to discussions of physics and cosmology being more "physical" and less philosophical. What leaps to mind are questions: What do you mean by "the universe as a whole" compared to just "the universe"? What do you mean by "transcends local FORs"? I don't doubt that the universe exists, and any observer anywhere in the universe will experience "now". So, "now" would be universally accessible, or experiencable. When you say "that only leaves NOW" it appears you are using a semantic word-game as metaphor. You logically "eliminate" the future and past, but only in a rather simple semantic sense. So, two out of three time-states are eliminated, leaving only "now". Sure, if I have three apples and remove two, I will only have one left.

But it appears that you want "that only leaves NOW" to be a demonstration or proof (if you will) that there must therefore be a universal omni-simultaneous "now" that applies everywhere. Wrapping my mind around this is quite easy. But the propositions that (1) everywhere in the universe has a "now"; and (2) all these "nows" are the SAME now -- are not identical.

In this sense, time is not a thing but the *concept* of "event duration" as in "elapsed time" for whatever specified event to happen as "designated" by the observer's arbitrary "beginning and ending of the observed event".)

Time is actual several things. (1) It is indeed a human "concept", actually an umbrella concept, that describes a number of observable phenomena. (2) Time is an aspect of the observable universe, in that Humans found it necessary to coin the concept in order to describe the aspect. (3) Time is both a "location" in a linear sequence of discrete events, and a "distance" or "duration" between two events. (4) Time is an arbitrary measurement of the "location" and "distance" between observable events; arbitrary in the sense that the "units" of time and how they are measured, is arbitrary. (5) Time is a physical manifestation of deeper structures in the universe, which I alluded to in my previous essay which you dissed without giving any explanation for why you didnt' like it.
(6) Time only has meaning in a greater context of observations (of events) and measurement; time can only be observed if events trigger a sequence of cause-effect phenomena that lead from the events to the observer; terminating in a parallel sequence of secondary events in the observer; what the observer "measures" is the time between these secondary events.

What relativity is really good at is comparing this relative perspective with that one and taking into account "signal delay" and different velocities creating different relative frames of reference in information propagation from one location to another, given the speed limit of light/
Anyone "get it" yet? ...

Yes, I get it, I get it, I get it. Michael, it isn't that hard to get. Your core thesis, though at times annoyingly ambiguous and ill-defined (you really have to work on that) is not overly arcane or esoteric.

The universe exists in a universal Now. Now is everywhere. There is only one Now.

There, see? I may have trivialized it too much (sorry) but isn't that basically your thesis?

If it is, then great, now we can go to the next step. If not, then please correct me. However, do NOT give me nine yards of criticism and side-arguments. (Please) Just give me the correct 3-sentence definition of your thesis as I have tried to do above.

Then we can go on to the next step, which is to reach some sort of agreement on the six aspects of Time that I have laid out.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Then we can go on to the next step, which is to reach some sort of agreement on the six aspects of Time that I have laid out.

Excellent! I very much like your "Six Aspects of Time"! (you should copyright that )

I'm ready to move on and start discussing these. First, can you please clarify number 5? It is the only one that doesn't make sense to me (perhaps because I don't know what previous essay you are referring to).

For number 6, bing bing bing.

It's funny because when I read it the first time, it seemed to suggest something akin to "particles" of time creating reality as they traversed the universe (or photons). The second time I read it, it read simply as an explanation of things exactly like we experience them. In other words, it defines the argument that nearly everyone makes against the absolute now and why it is not possible. Then of course, I thought about my first impression: Why did I think that? How did I get that impression from reading your description? (and of course) Does this mean that time is...nah...couldn't be.

[lawcat]

Why is it important to find or have absolute time? Something occurs everywhere at this time. But, why should we care about that universal. If time is a dimension, than all that is of any importance is the frame of reference--as in x,y,z,. There are no absolute x,y, or z; but that which we assign to pertinent frame of reference. There is no doubt that something occurs everywhere at location (2, 5, 12) from it, but we do not care. All we care about is the reference that we are measuring from.
Then, absolute can be defined as that which is measured from the base frame of reference; and to us, it is the Earth, or any arbitrary location we may choose.

[watcher]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

That the universe *as a whole* transcends local "frames of reference"

a photon transcends local frame of references.
so, does something that transcends local frame of references dwells in time?
is it not obvious that such transcending entities are prior to time?

and as such *for the universe* now is simply the ongoing present. (Future not yet present... past not still present.... That only leaves NOW... see?... *for the universe as a whole* if anyone can "wrap his/her mind around it."

i can.
your problem is that you think that if local frames of reference are transcended, time remains and is exempted to those that which is transcended.
well, sorry but time is also transcended. so there is no absolute now everywhere.

In this sense, time is not a thing but the *concept* of "event duration" as in "elapsed time" for whatever specified event to happen as "designated" by the observer's arbitrary "beginning and ending of the observed event".)

and if you say time is not a thing, then now is also not a thing and non existent.
to say there is nothing but absolute now means nothing is happening in the universe.
what is there everywhere instant by instant are events.
events are happening everywhere all the time.

What relativity is really good at is comparing this relative perspective with that one and taking into account "signal delay" and different velocities creating different relative frames of reference in information propagation from one location to another, given the speed limit of light.

you might want to think differently as to what it means that velocities create different frame of references. clue: this frame of references are space and time.

We *All* know that earth doesn't "see" light from the sun for 8.3 minutes, but now *is* now both there and here.... and everywhere.

Anyone "get it" yet?

yes i get what to mean.
the fundamental problem is you think that the no-thingness of time makes it absolute and fundamental above everything else. and you called it now. if this is not absurd, i dont know what.

simultaneity does not exists. or at least it exists partially but not for the universe as a whole, imho.
so beneath everything else there is no now, either timelessness perhaps or simply undefined.

[lemit]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

My temper is just fine, thank you. My passionate disagreements are mistaken for anger, but, Truth is, equanimity prevails in my life, including on these boards. Do not presume to know my emotional state better than I.

If you are as bright as you say you are, you know the language you use is what we then use as an introduction to you. It is presumptuous of you to use inflammatory language and then berate any of us for thinking the inflammatory language might just have come from an inflamed soul.

I am beginning to think that your control, like your IQ, might be inflated. I thank you for the respectful way you have treated me, but I wish you would stop. I can't emphasize enough that the way you treat others is the way you treat me. I am part of them.


The more I see this thread circling, the more dizzy I become. I think we might be about where I got on. I hope so. I wouldn't want to throw up on my laptop.

--lemit

p.s. A "universal NOW" seems to me to be antithetical to the transpersonal psychology you say you practice. Is the NOW stored in Meno's cave? I would think the archetype would be within our psyches.

OH MY GOD! I'm starting to argue. HELP! Get me out of here!

[modest]

Originally Posted by freeztar

For number 6, bing bing bing.

It's funny because when I read it the first time, it seemed to suggest something akin to "particles" of time creating reality as they traversed the universe (or photons). The second time I read it, it read simply as an explanation of things exactly like we experience them. In other words, it defines the argument that nearly everyone makes against the absolute now and why it is not possible. Then of course, I thought about my first impression: Why did I think that? How did I get that impression from reading your description? (and of course) Does this mean that time is...nah...couldn't be.

I like #6. I think it's necessary. Without matter or energy (or some event happening or 'thing' to reference) there could be no time. Any description of time is essentially saying what material particles do—so the material particles can't be left out of the equation. That would be especially true if General Relativity is true meaning matter/energy tell time how to behave. Peas in a pod, I say.

~modest