What Is Objective Universal Time and How Does It Conflict with Relativity?

[kurt101]

TL;DR Summary

How does objective universal time conflict with relativity?

In the thread is-the-small-world-uncertain-or-is-that-our-perception @mitchell porter said:

John Bell defined a more generally applicable approach in "Beables for Quantum Field Theory", but it conflicts with the spirit of relativity (in that it requires an objective universal time).

Can someone explain what "objective universal time" is and what it means for it to conflict with the "spirit of relativity"? Is this an aspect of interpretation where you could describe all events using "objective universal time" and it would be an equivalent description, but it would violate the language (spirit?) of relativity that we have decided to use?

 

[phinds]

Summary:: How does objective universal time conflict with relativity?

In the thread is-the-small-world-uncertain-or-is-that-our-perception @mitchell porter said:

Can someone explain what "objective universal time" is and what it means for it to conflict with the "spirit of relativity"? Is this an aspect of interpretation where you could describe all events using "objective universal time" and it would be an equivalent description, but it would violate the language (spirit?) of relativity that we have decided to use?

There simply IS NO "universal time". All time is relative. That's at the heart of relativity. Google "relativity of simultaneity"

So "universal time" doesn't go against the "spriit" of relativity, it goes against the MATH of relativity.

 

[kurt101]

There simply IS NOT "universal time". All time is relative. That's at the heart of relativity. Google "relativity of simultaneity"

So saying it conflicts with the spirit of relativity is equivalent to saying it conflicts with relativity and the use of the word "spirit" added no further meaning?

 

[kurt101]

So "universal time" doesn't go against the "spriit" of relativity, it goes against the MATH of relativity.

Thanks for clarifying. Maybe some day it will click for me why "universal time" conflicts with the math of relativity. If we can model events on a simulator using the math of relativity, it seems as if we can agree on what simulator tick those events happened at. I can't really get past that logic, unless we are saying we can't really model events accurately on a simulator.

 

[Drakkith]

Thanks for clarifying. Maybe some day it will click for me why "universal time" conflicts with the math of relativity. If we can model events on a simulator using the math of relativity, it seems as if we can agree on what simulator tick those events happened at. I can't really get past that logic, unless we are saying we can't really model events accurately on a simulator.

Real life doesn't have a 'master clock' or 'tick system' by which to measure events by. You only have clocks in different reference frames.

 

[phinds]

Thanks for clarifying. Maybe some day it will click for me why "universal time" conflicts with the math of relativity. If we can model events on a simulator using the math of relativity, it seems as if we can agree on what simulator tick those events happened at. I can't really get past that logic, unless we are saying we can't really model events accurately on a simulator.

An individual event certainly doesn't define universal time and the time BETWEEN two events will differ, depending on your reference frame. This is experimentally demonstrable.

 

[kurt101]

Real life doesn't have a 'master clock' or 'tick system' by which to measure events by. You only have clocks in different reference frames.

That sounds like an interpretation of what you think the universe actually is. Another interpretation might be we are living in a simulation. Can these two interpretations share the same mathematical model? If the answer is yes, then don't I have to conclude that describing events with a universal time is mathematically equivalent way to describe the universe?

An individual event certainly doesn't define universal time and the time BETWEEN two events will differ, depending on your reference frame. This is experimentally demonstrable.

I am equating "universal time" to the simulator tick, not an individual event.

From the reference point of the simulation you can say exactly in simulation ticks when any event in the simulation happened. So can the math of relativity be accurately simulated? If the answer is yes, then how can I conclude anything other than that the universe can be conceptually and mathematically described in universal time?

 

[HomogenousCow]

There is no scientific evidence that we are living in a simulation, in fact I'm not sure that is even a meaningful concept. I don't know how you could investigate that question objectively since it involves talking about things that are "outside" of our reality.

 

[phinds]

From the reference point of the simulation you can say exactly in simulation ticks when any event in the simulation happened. So can the math of relativity be accurately simulated? If the answer is yes, then how can I conclude anything other than that the universe can be conceptually and mathematically described in universal time?

Well, if you want to believe we live in a simulation (ARE a simulation?) then you get to make up whatever rules you like. Good luck with that.

 

[PeterDonis]

Another interpretation might be we are living in a simulation.

This is speculation and is off topic for this forum.

Thread closed.