Are we ever in the present time?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter 4newton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the nature of time and space in relation to current physical theories, particularly the implications of the Big Bang. Hypnagogue argues that while theories like Newtonian mechanics and relativity are foundational, they are not the final word on reality. The conversation posits that the universe's expansion from the Big Bang can be interpreted as a transition in the time dimension, suggesting an absolute time that is uniform across the universe. This perspective allows for the possibility of instantaneous information transfer without contradicting established theories.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newtonian mechanics and its evolution
  • Familiarity with Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR)
  • Basic knowledge of the Big Bang theory and cosmic expansion
  • Concept of absolute time in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Big Bang on time and space in cosmology
  • Study the relationship between Newtonian mechanics and modern physics
  • Explore theories of instantaneous information transfer in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate alternative interpretations of time in theoretical physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of time and space in modern physics.

4newton
Messages
191
Reaction score
0
Hypnagogue:
While current physical theories aren't the final word on the nature of reality, we have to have some confidence that they are heading in the right direction. Newtonian mechanics wasn't overthrown; it was demonstrated to be a special case. Likewise, any further refinement on our notion of time and space is not likely to overthrow relativity, but to place it in a wider context. That is, our understanding of time will not be crumpled up and thrown in the trash can, but rather refined, edited, fine-tuned. And for mid-level organisms existing in relatively banal physical circumstances such as ourselves (let alone any arbitrary physical system), instantaneous information transfer would indeed require a complete rewrite of the rules, contradicting everything we know about physical reality, including what has been experimentally confirmed to many, many decimal places. Something like that is just not going to happen, no matter what form the prospective GUT could take.
I am sorry but I am called upon to disagree with you. Here is a description of our universe that is simple and answers the above questions. You may think of this as and extension of Newtonian if you wish. It shows SR and GR to be only a small part of all things. If you disagree please be specific and don’t just make a comment that it does not agree with some other theory.

Observation indicates that the universe started with the Big Bang and that all that is the universe transitioned outward from the Big Bang and is now a distance from the Big Bang. Having no evidence of reason or observation it is expected that all that is the universe is at an equal distance form the Big Bang in all directions. Thus forming a type of hollow sphere. The rate of transition outward from the Big Bang having no known limit other than the speed of light can be assumed to be at a rate equal to the speed of light.

At this point we are able to touch again on observation and we find that this transition outward from the Big Bang meets all the tests and qualifications of what we recognize as time. Therefore a reasonable result is that the transition of the universe outward from the BB is a transition in the time dimension.

We are able to come to the conclusion that there is an absolute time, the distance outward from the BB, and that this time is the same for the whole universe. All actions therefore are always in the present throughout the whole universe.

The above being the case there is no prohibition against instantaneous information transfer, as you can never arrive before an event.

You now have an observational viewpoint that does not contradict any known theory or observation. It may contradict the interpretation of some theories but not the basic theory.
 
Space news on Phys.org
As per forum guidelines, I'm moving this over to the Theory Development subforum.
 
Hypnagogue:
I am sorry that you find my post out of line with your post I thought that you were asking for a theory that answered the questions you posted. I gave you solid foundation for the viewpoint I presented. I realize this thought is outside of your educational conditioning but I think a more specific disagreement on any of the points would only be courteous before sending me off to never never land. I do not however question you absolute authority to do so it is your forum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K