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

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kurt101
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time Universal
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of "objective universal time" and its potential conflict with the principles of relativity. Participants explore the implications of defining time universally versus the relativistic framework, touching on interpretations and the mathematical foundations of relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that "universal time" does not exist, emphasizing that all time is relative, which they argue is fundamental to the theory of relativity.
  • Others question whether describing events using "objective universal time" could be an equivalent interpretation, despite conflicting with the established language of relativity.
  • One participant suggests that if events can be modeled in a simulator using the math of relativity, it implies a shared understanding of when those events occurred, raising questions about the validity of universal time in this context.
  • Another viewpoint posits that real life lacks a "master clock," with only clocks in different reference frames available for measuring events.
  • Some participants explore the idea that interpretations of reality, such as living in a simulation, could potentially align with the mathematical models of relativity, although this remains speculative.
  • Concerns are raised about the meaningfulness of discussing simulations in relation to objective reality, with some participants expressing skepticism about the simulation hypothesis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the compatibility of "objective universal time" with relativity. Multiple competing views are presented, particularly regarding the interpretation of time and the implications of simulation theory.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the implications of universal time in relation to the mathematical framework of relativity, and there are unresolved questions about the nature of time and reality as it pertains to different interpretations.

kurt101
Messages
285
Reaction score
35
TL;DR
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kurt101 said:
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.
 
phinds said:
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?
 
phinds said:
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.
 
kurt101 said:
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.
 
kurt101 said:
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.
 
Drakkith said:
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?

phinds said:
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?
 
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.
 
kurt101 said:
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.
 
  • #10
kurt101 said:
Another interpretation might be we are living in a simulation.

This is speculation and is off topic for this forum.

Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Conflict between the Block Universe and Bell Tests?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
Undergrad Physical Universe vs. Simulated Universe
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad No relativistic Bohmian mechanics and superluminal causation
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Undergrad Can the "measurement problem" just be an "epistemological ambiguity"?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Undergrad Confused by nonlocal models and relativity
  • · Replies 491 ·
17
Replies
491
Views
39K
Undergrad Valid local explanation of Bell violations? (Pegg et al., 1999; 2008)
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Undergrad Is there any interpretation of QM that doesn't clash with intuition?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Undergrad Bell violations + perfect correlations via conservative Brownian motion
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Undergrad 2 objects of enormous volume each in relative motion very close to c
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Graduate Post-Selection: Pre-existing Correlations or Action At A Distance?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K