Utopia and Time Travel

[psionl0]

One reality, different points of view.

Sorry, but relativity says that there are only "different points of view". There is no "one reality".

Some posters here have suggested that the different points of view exist because of separation or relative motion. However, relativity goes beyond that. It says that people in relative motion to one other are actually in different universes - ones where spatial distances are different and time passes at different rates. There is no basis on which to pick the "correct" universe.

 

[Navigator]

Does the "universal now" have a duration?

I mean if something was travelling fast enough in relation to the rest of the universe, would its "now" look blurry?

Could it be travelling so fast that it kept pace with the "universal now" as it moved from past to future? If so, would that be the same as remaining static in time?

Why does the argument always go back to 'how an observer would see something?' Either the universe is one thing or it is something else.

If it is something else, (which appears to be what many are eluding to) then what is that 'something else' that it is?

It is not important that the universal now 'has a duration' it is only important that the universe exists as a thing and that the thing it exists as must have a universal now. Obviously the universe is moving, so as one thing, the movement can be counted as the perpetual state of now-ness which doesn't involve 'a duration period' because it is an ongoing phenomenon.

And easy enough thing to imagine and one which requires no 'show us the evidence' criteria, in order to be acceptable logically.

 

[Navigator]

No, the theory of relativity makes no reference to beings of consciousness or subjective experience. It applies equally to all matter and energy, neutron stars or Wayne Netwon.

No - there is the obvious need for beings of consciousness to exist in relation to the theories because measurements are involved and measurements can only be made by beings of consciousness.

What it applies to relates to objects which are not considered conscious, but in that the relationship is still about consciousness re those objects.

Remove consciousness from the equation as a thought experiment, and those objects related to each other are still being viewed in the position of being within the universe and the position of observing the objects is within the universe.

One cannot separate consciousness from the equation and still have those theories.

 

[Navigator]

The problem in a nutshell: according to relativity it's possible to order events A,B,C as occurring at the same time, OR as occurring A then B then C, OR as occurring in the order C, then B, then A. And the choice of which ordering you choose is dependent upon an arbitrary choice of reference frame.

Given the above, how do you square your idea that there is a universal "now" with the fact that the ordering of distant events is arbitrary?

What is "now" if not the moment in which things are happening, and what is a "universal now" if not the moment in which events everywhere in the universe are happening?

AS already explained, the universal now is perpetual. There is no moment which is defined as separate from any other moment because the universe does not behave like that as a holistic individual reality.

It has been - right up to now, constantly changing and moving and in that, all of that is part of the universal now. WE can look at its parts and have made pictorial interpretations of those moments which are defining moments, but all such moments altogether happen together as on thing - with a universal now.

The picture is a still taken from the video 2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing in which J. Richard Gott, professor of astrophysical sciences, Princeton University, and author of Sizing Up the Universe: The Cosmos in Perspective holds a visual representation of the universe as an example...that (regardless of whether it is an accurate representation or not) is able to be understood in its wholeness as being a universal now. It is what it is.

 

[Navigator]

Such a property may or may not exist, the universe may or may not exist in the way you think it does.

The universe exists. The process by which it exists is the universal now.

 

[Pianoro]

As examples, we have the ball on the moving train, and the different 'frames of reference' of the person bouncing the ball, the person on the outside of the train, and the person in a jet. All perceive the ball moving in a different way because of their perspectives and the quirks of SR.

AND, in this scene, you and I have a frame of reference: We are describing the reality of the ball on the train, because we have a "god's* view" of the scene. In fact, like god*, we created (describe) the [objective] scene. The reality with the other frames of reference we describe.

Yes, the person on the train, the person standing on the ground and the person in a jet flying over the scene would all constitute different reference frames. In this case we would call them "observational reference frames". As a side note, if they were also in uniform motion (not, for example, accelerating) they constitute "inertial reference frames", which is what special relativity is concerned with.

Like you said the ball behaves differently in each of the three reference frames.

Now, in the frame of reference you and I have, how does the ball behave?

 

[Navigator]

The point is, there is no one, single "objective" frame of reference. You can choose the Big Bang as a time point of reference, or you can choose the creation of earth. Both are equally valid. As was mentioned earlier, is there a universal "up"?

There is a universal out.

Up doesn't really exist. If one says the rocket is flying in the direction of 'up' it isn't. it is flying out.

If one says, the drill is digging in the direction of 'down' it isn't. It is digging out...

All direction is out, except the direction of subjective observation which can also go in and which is why we can have thought experiments and 'see' the universe from outside of it enough to understand that it is one thing in a perpetual moment of now.

SR is focused on the observer within that universe looking out into that universe.

Different perspective, but one which does not and can not argue against the universe existing as one thing and having - as that thing - a universal now.

 

[Navigator]

Sorry, but relativity says that there are only "different points of view". There is no "one reality".

Some posters here have suggested that the different points of view exist because of separation or relative motion. However, relativity goes beyond that. It says that people in relative motion to one other are actually in different universes - ones where spatial distances are different and time passes at different rates. There is no basis on which to pick the "correct" universe.

So for every individual, there is an individual universe?

Can you explain how these universes superimpose to appear to be one universe?

Can you explain why individuals exist together that way?

eta

Furthermore, how do you explain that scientists Such as J. Richard Gott, professor of astrophysical sciences understand the same SR but still refer to 'the universe' as a singular reality, rather than as you say, 'there is one for every individual'. and thus, no single reality?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Yes, the person on the train, the person standing on the ground and the person in a jet flying over the scene would all constitute different reference frames. In this case we would call them "observational reference frames". As a side note, if they were also in uniform motion (not, for example, accelerating) they constitute "inertial reference frames", which is what special relativity is concerned with.

Like you said the ball behaves differently in each of the three reference frames.

I didn't say that. I said they each observed it appearing to behave differently in the three frames of reference.

Now, in the frame of reference you and I have, how does the ball behave?

The one way it behaved in reality, as set forth in the description. It is one ball, right?

You can't be claiming the ball actually moved in 3 different ways. Right? That WOULD be counter-intuitive, and counter-reality.

Really, is it this big of an issue that there is one reality?

 

[ferd burfle]

AS already explained, the universal now is perpetual. There is no moment which is defined as separate from any other moment because the universe does not behave like that as a holistic individual reality.

It has been - right up to now, constantly changing and moving and in that, all of that is part of the universal now. WE can look at its parts and have made pictorial interpretations of those moments which are defining moments, but all such moments altogether happen together as on thing - with a universal now.

Look, I don't have any problem imagining an event happening right now in a galaxy far, far away; such as other sentient beings wasting their allotted existence squabbling about the inconsequential at the same time we are. As a concept, I'm fine with that. But if we're talking about objective reality, especially here in the science subforum, then relativity is our best understanding of that objective reality. If I close the handles of a giant scissors that reaches to Mars, the tips don't close now, they close some 9 minutes later. So much for now. And none of this has anything to do with consciousness, either of the individual or Cosmic Muffin variety.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Pianoro]

The one way it behaved in reality, as set forth in the description. It is one ball, right?

In this case, how did it behave in reality?

 

[The Greater Fool]

In this case, how did it behave in reality?

:sigh:

The described reality is that the ball was being bounced on a moving train.

Regardless of each observers frame of reference, the ball made one trek down the tracks.

How do YOU think the ball behaved in reality?

 

[Pianoro]

:sigh:

The described reality is that the ball was being bounced on a moving train.

Regardless of each observers frame of reference, the ball made one trek down the tracks.

How do YOU think the ball behaved in reality?

Did it bounce straight up and down or did it describe arcs (as it would appear from the observer on the ground as the train passes) when it bounced?

ETA: I think that how it behaved depends on the reference frame.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Did it bounce straight up and down or did it describe arcs (as it would appear from the observer on the ground as the train passes) when it bounced?

OK, I've given you the benefit of the doubt here, but it's now getting silly.

You have the information I have. You read the same scenario. Are you telling me that you can't arrive at an approximation of the forces at play on the ball and it's resulting movement through the scenario?

Do you believe that any of the observational reference frames even slightly impacted the path of the ball in reality?

 

[Brainache]

OK, I've given you the benefit of the doubt here, but it's now getting silly.

You have the information I have. You read the same scenario. Are you telling me that you can't arrive at an approximation of the forces at play on the ball and it's resulting movement through the scenario?

Do you believe that any of the observational reference frames even slightly impacted the path of the ball in reality?

But the train is on a planet that is revolving about its axis while orbiting a star which is part of a rotating galaxy that is moving as part of a local group...etc etc... good luck describing the actual motion of the basketball (relative to what?) once you take everything else into account...

 

[The Greater Fool]

But the train is on a planet that is revolving about its axis while orbiting a star which is part of a rotating galaxy that is moving as part of a local group...etc etc... good luck describing the actual motion of the basketball (relative to what?) once you take everything else into account...

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[Pianoro]

You have the information I have. You read the same scenario. Are you telling me that you can't arrive at an approximation of the forces at play on the ball and it's resulting movement through the scenario?

Do you believe that any of the observational reference frames even slightly impacted the path of the ball in reality?

I think that the forces at play on the ball could be easily determined. The resulting movement can also be easily determined, for any given reference frame. For the reference frame of the train it is straight up and down, for the reference frame of the observer on the ground outside it is arcs.

Selecting a reference frame does not exert forces on the ball, no of course not.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I think that the forces at play on the ball could be easily determined. The resulting movement can also be easily determined, for any given reference frame. For the reference frame of the train it is straight up and down, for the reference frame of the observer on the ground outside it is arcs.

From the framing of your answer, it seems the only information you gleen is that from each observers frame of reference? That were it not for the observers, you could not discern the actual movements of the ball?

 

[alexi_drago]

It has been - right up to now, constantly changing and moving and in that, all of that is part of the universal now. WE can look at its parts and have made pictorial interpretations of those moments which are defining moments, but all such moments altogether happen together as on thing - with a universal now.

Consider light cones, in 3D space they are spheres contracting at c towards an event (the events past) and expanding from an event (the events future), imagined in 3D as 2D space+1D time you have 2 cones one on top of the other with the top one inverted so their points meet, call that point event A.
Any event inside the bottom cone is and always will be (regardless of any frame of reference) in event A's past and can affect A, any event inside the top cone is and always will be in A's future and can be affected by A.
Any event outside of those cones cannot either be affected by A nor affect A.
Imagine a flat plane passing through A, that would be the now for a particular frame of reference with events below the plane occuring before A and events above the plane occuring after events lying on the plane being in A's now.
If you go from one frame of reference to another that plane tilts so events outside the cones can be before/after/simultaneous depending on the frame of reference but the plane defined for the frame of reference is always in respect to another frame of reference.
Since you don't want to involve any frames of reference then that plane becomes undefined so while events inside the cones will always be in A's past or future, you can't say where any event outside the cones lies, unless you define a static (or otherwise) frame of reference.

ETA: If event B lies outside event A's lightcones, you need a reference frame to refer to to determine if event B occurred before, after or simultaneously with event A, to do that for your universal now you need to define a universal frame of rest.

 

[Pianoro]

From the framing of your answer, it seems the only information you gleen is that from each observers frame of reference? That were it not for the observers, you could not discern the actual movements of the ball?

Without a reference frame we could not describe the movement of the ball.

Just to clarify, "observational reference frame" does not imply a person, though in our case we have assumed one in each. Not sure I communicated this well.