It's Now or never -- Question about "universal" time

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter johniha
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time Universal
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "universal" time and the implications of relativity on the existence of a universal 'now'. Participants explore whether a universal moment can be defined, the nature of time in different theories, and the assumptions underlying these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that at any moment in time, the whole universe exists, suggesting a universal 'now' that transcends relativistic concepts.
  • Others challenge the meaningfulness of the phrase "any one moment in time," arguing that in relativity, this concept is counterintuitive and not applicable.
  • A participant introduces Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) as a framework that posits absolute time, space, and simultaneity, claiming it resolves the counterintuitive aspects of relativity.
  • Concerns are raised about the elusiveness of identifying a definitive state of absolute time and space, questioning the value of speculating on such principles.
  • Some argue that the postulates of special relativity (SR) regarding the constancy of the speed of light and the nature of time are based on experimental observations, while others critique these postulates as assuming more than necessary.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about abandoning classical notions of time and space in favor of relativistic interpretations, advocating for a mechanistic understanding provided by LET.
  • Discussions also touch on the implications of language and assumptions in scientific discourse, highlighting how plain language can lead to misunderstandings in complex topics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the existence and nature of a universal 'now', with no consensus reached on the validity of the concepts discussed. The debate remains unresolved, with differing interpretations of relativity and alternative theories like LET being presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on definitions of time and the unresolved nature of certain assumptions regarding the applicability of relativistic principles versus alternative theories.

  • #31
CKH said:
... Asimov's idea of assigning extraordinary material requirements to the ether as a proof by incredulity is mute.
Just as an aside from this thread, you really should learn the difference between mute and moot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I have been tempted to respond to much of what has been said here, well, the bits I could understand anyway, but have refrained, mainly because the topics lie beyond the forum's province. However it succeeded very well in answering my query, and more, so many thanks to all.

The question turned out to be more about perception than physics, and perhaps about the relationship between the two. I could blabber on about how the limitations of the human mind might limit the advancement of physics, but I won't... except to question whether theories and equations can ever completely describe the physical world. After all, the most complete and concise description of an object is the object itself, together with rest of the universe, is it not?
 
  • #33
That sounds like a very good place to close the thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
318
Replies
90
Views
11K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
618
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
95
Views
20K