Utopia and Time Travel

You say that events happen in a specific sequence. The clock reading a specific time is just an event. So what sequence do the events happen in?

If you don't like clocks, choose whatever you like. Dave and Cindy each have a bomb. Bob sees both bombs explode at the same time. Alice sees them explode at different times.

Do Dave and Cindy die at the same time or does Cindy outlive Dave? You are clearly saying that only one sequence of events can be true, so which is it?
ETA: You are pressing me to decide which frame is the 'real' frame. You know better. Reality is what each of these frames of reference are peeking into.

Make it so one bomb going off first prevents the other bomb from exploding at all for an even more counterintuitive twist. One person lives and one dies, but who? Can we change our frame of reference and change the outcome?

I don't think that's possible. Information about one bomb going off can only be transmitted to the other bomb at the speed of light so there will be a delay during which the second bomb can still go off.

And that doesn't even consider relativistic effects.
I believe all the foregoing demonstrate that reality happens in a specific way, in a specific sequence, otherwise frame of reference would change outcome.
 
Last edited:
Considering the speed of light may help show why there can't be a universal now. Do you accept that the speed of light is always c regardless of the reference frame?
I can't see why the speed of light would affect a now.

Speed of light would have impact on which aspects of reality can interact with each other, but not the sequence in which events occur.
 
If there is such a thing as a frame of universal rest, how would the universe observed from that differ from this universal now? Other than the time it takes to gather the information.
 
Last edited:
I can't see why the speed of light would affect a now.

Speed of light would have impact on which aspects of reality can interact with each other, but not the sequence in which events occur.

Quantum entanglement points to the fact that the concept of universal time is not Dependant solely on the speed of light, because information can be altered, over distance at infinate speed without information transfer from point source to point source.
 
Draw some shapes on a piece of paper: a square, a triangle, a circle, etc. Just lay them down randomly on the paper. Now, looking at the paper you will see, perhaps, that the triangle is at the bottom whereas the square is at the top of the page.

Walk around to the other side (or simply turn the paper), and now you'll find that the triangle is that the top while the square is at the bottom. Yet nothing about the relationships of the shapes to each other has changed.

The shapes on the page have some properties that are invariant with respect to rotations in my reference frame: the distance from the centre of the square to the centre of the circle, for instance, in invariant with respect to rotation. They also have properties that are reference frame dependent and are not invariant with respect to rotation: for instance their distance from the top or bottom of the page as defined by the page's position in relation to me.

That seems pretty obvious and even silly, but a very interesting thing about our universe is that the distance between two objects and the duration between two events is reference frame dependent, it is simply an arbitrary description of the underlying 4D reality, much like my description of the shapes on my page as nearer to the top or the bottom. There is still an underlying reality, but it is not made of distances and durations, it is made of spacetime separations.

This is a great illustration that, in my opinion, bears repeating. When people ask for the "reality" of something, this is it (as per special relativity). The reality of the symbols is their position on the paper, independent of the viewpoint of the observer. The reality of the events in, for example, the bouncing ball example is their position in spacetime. The event of the ball hitting the floor on the train is an event in spacetime and its position is independent of a reference frame. Observers in any reference frame will agree on it.

As per special relativity, the universe just exists like the piece of paper. Like the shapes on the paper, events that make up the universe are fixed in spacetime, independent of any observer or reference frame. They don't happen, they just are. This philosophical view is called "eternalism".

When the universe is viewed as "moving" through time, an idea called "presentism", the issues that are being discussed in this thread arise. And indeed, presentism is incompatible with special relativity, which is our best model for the reality we observe. As far as we know, presentism, the idea of a "now" moving from the past towards the future is not a correct description of reality. A person not willing to move away from this worldview will likely always be add odds with special relativity.
 
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.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=11106[/qimg]

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.

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.

What you are talking about is not what I am talking about.

If one wants to think of the universe as being constantly in a purely objective state, bringing relativity into that discussion is an attempt to move away from that.

Relativity is about how subjectivity explains its position within the universe which is (and I am quite positive those arguing it in relation to what I am saying KNOW this to be the case) a distraction away from that.

A different subject. Ignoring that wont make it go away.

Which is why you didn't include the full context of my post with accompanying picture of the scientist holding a representation of the universe as an object, and my pointing out that the representation clearly shows one thing and that there is no reason why the one thing cannot be understood objectively as existing in its own time of perpetual nowness.

Perhaps you et al would actually like to address that rather than pretend it is a case of relativity?
 
Quantum entanglement points to the fact that the concept of universal time is not Dependant solely on the speed of light, because information can be altered, over distance at infinate speed without information transfer from point source to point source.
This sounds like support that speed of light doesn't matter?
 
At any rate, I want to thank those engaging honestly on the topic.

I think I understand why folks that disagree disagree. I hope they understand why I disagree.
 
ETA: You are pressing me to decide which frame is the 'real' frame. You know better. Reality is what each of these frames of reference are peeking into.

What you are describing is Minkowski's geometry. A 4d mathematical representation of spacetime. Choosing an inertial reference frame gives us instead three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Having a single independent dimension of time is what lets us talk about things like "now".


I believe all the foregoing demonstrate that reality happens in a specific way, in a specific sequence, otherwise frame of reference would change outcome.

With Minkowski's geometry, yes, all events happen a specific way, there is no ambiguity. However, as there is no specific dimension called time, it doesn't always make sense for events for which a time like path cannot connect which event happened first or second. In other words, if two events cannot effect each other because there cannot be communication between them even at the speed of light, not only does it not matter in which order the events occurred, it's a nonsensical question in the first place. To do that, you have to pick an inertial reference frame.


It helps a bit of you think of spacetime as a graph connecting events. The only reality is the connections between events, anything else is just your own personal interpretation.
 
Einstein called it spooky action at a distance, and it is imagine changing information at intimate speed.

You can't use quantum entanglement to transmit information faster than the speed of light, even information of an intimate nature. The idea that quantum state is being communicated instantly is based on an interpretation of QM that doesn't have any experimental support. Of course, none of the currently accepted interpretations have any more experimental support than any other.
 
You can't use quantum entanglement to transmit information faster than the speed of light, even information of an intimate nature. The idea that quantum state is being communicated instantly is based on an interpretation of QM that doesn't have any experimental support. Of course, none of the currently accepted interpretations have any more experimental support than any other.

I said change not transport, and quantum intanglement has been used to change information over distance.
 
I can't see why the speed of light would affect a now.

Speed of light would have impact on which aspects of reality can interact with each other, but not the sequence in which events occur.
It sounds like you are rejecting relativity altogether (or at least, those parts that conflict with your Newtonian world view).
 
I said change not transport, and quantum intanglement has been used to change information over distance.

That's using the word change in a very odd way. Imagine both detectors are set up equidistant from the source. Depending on your chosen inertial frame of reference, it's a changing b, b charging a, or somehow they change each other at the same time
 
Last edited:
I had thought that I was getting repetitive, but this post raises a different aspect for me...

I think you are conflating reality and a description of reality. Perhaps I am guilty of some of that also:
What you are describing is Minkowski's geometry. A 4d mathematical representation of spacetime. Choosing an inertial reference frame gives us instead three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Having a single independent dimension of time is what lets us talk about things like "now".
I don't think I am describing Minkowski Space since you built SR frames of reference, then pushed me to choose one or the other as more real. Though, at first blush, perhaps it conveys the idea I am trying to get across, I'll have to read about it and reflect.

Again, below is a construct attempting to describe reality, but it raises an issue about connectedness:
It helps a bit if you think of spacetime as a graph connecting events. The only reality is the connections between events, anything else is just your own personal interpretation.
The idea that any aspect of reality / spacetime is not connected to the entirety of reality / spacetime strikes me as wrong.

Is it possible that the smallest nit of spacetime is somehow not connected even possible? I don't think so. What you describe as "connections between events" desribes virtually all of reality, there is no aspect that is not connected. As an example, gravity would have an effect on everything.
 
Considering the speed of light may help show why there can't be a universal now. Do you accept that the speed of light is always c regardless of the reference frame?

I can't see why the speed of light would affect a now.

Speed of light would have impact on which aspects of reality can interact with each other, but not the sequence in which events occur.

It sounds like you are rejecting relativity altogether (or at least, those parts that conflict with your Newtonian world view).
Not at all, you are reading something that is not there.

Reality is all encompassing. Why would the speed of light matter? Reality doesn't depend on the speed of light. Choose two locations in spacetime 1 billion LY apart. The speed of light has no impact on the two spacetime locations. They both are as they are.
 
Last edited:
Not at all, you are reading something that is not there.

Reality is all encompassing. Why would the speed of light matter? Reality doesn't depend on the speed of light. Choose two locations in spacetime 1 billion LY apart. The speed of light has no impact on the two spacetime locations. They both are as they are.


Actually, it has to do with the time component. You didn't really answer the question, so I am not sure if you see where I am going with it. Do you agree that the speed of light is a constant, regardless of the reference frame?
 

Back
Top Bottom