Cyclical dynamics are ubiquitous in the universe with spatial/temporal extents varying over many orders of magnitude. Each dynamical structure has its own tempo and is likely to be a consonance of many varying sub-system tempos. We select a certain, extremely rarefied atomic frequency to ground our SI time unit upon the underlying physical reality. Thus, any temporal measurement of a dynamical system is referential to a highly unique clockwork tempo that is currently accurate to one second in some billions of years. Question: Does this practice project upon our mechanics a clockwork regularity that is not in fact actual? Does it create the illusion of a universe in which every part moves in phase with interlocked regularity? Alternatively, and more attractively to me, if the depth of distinction between entities bestows upon them their own clockwork which governs their turnings, then, particularly with more complexly organized entitles, any interaction between them creates the possibility of an eureka moment in which a new future path may be created. Which is the case? This question may be better stated and perhaps lies more in the realm of physics, but we are reminded that philosophy has long played the role of elder sibling to physics and been helpful in its refinement. Attached: Photo of entity – Bubble of exhaled air in water.

  • 1
    You'll get a better technical response in PhysicsSE. Newtonian absolute time was replaced by relativistic time in which time dilates between extensions of space moving at different speeds. A simple intuitive proof can be done with trigonometric vectors.
    – J D
    Nov 16 '21 at 0:43
  • Can't seem to add a jpeg picture because body disappears when I do.
    – Don Foster
    Nov 16 '21 at 0:44
  • 1
    For organisms moving at different times, read up on the twins paradox.
    – J D
    Nov 16 '21 at 0:46
  • 1
    According to modern physics, no. Even physical time is relative, not to entities' own clockwork, but to their reference frames. There are "internal clocks" in biological organisms known as circadian rhythms, and even philosophical conceptions of subjective/phenomenal "time", e.g. Bergson's duration. But it is unclear why someone needs an "individual clock" to "create new future paths", universal clock would do just as well.
    – Conifold
    Nov 16 '21 at 0:52
  • Thanks for considerations here.
    – Don Foster
    Nov 16 '21 at 15:51

I think that the answer to this is basically a clear 'no'.

Post special relativity* - think of clocks as like odometers, they measure what is called 'proper time' along the trajectory that they are moving; this is basically an interval between two events in spacetime (an event being a spacetime equivalent of a point). There is no defined meaning to the idea of an absolute simultaneity between times at clocks at different events. Any physical system that can be used to measure time (a conventional clock, a human body, etc.) follows the same rules.

Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time by Tim Maudlin goes over this very clearly, from a geometric perspective.

*General relativity doesn't change this essential point, it just says that the spacetime metric can vary from place to place, whereas in SR it is always the same.

  • @Conifold. I appreciate the all comments here. Lots of questions and some thoughts. At the moment most curious about your comment: “But it is unclear why someone needs an "individual clock" to "create new future paths", universal clock would do just as well.” That seems to be at variance with a deterministic world view held by many physicists. How would new paths arise in a world where the past fully determines the future and the present moment, should we locate it, is of no particular significance.
    – Don Foster
    Nov 16 '21 at 19:55
  • You say "There is no defined meaning to the idea of an absolute simultaneity between times at clocks at different events." However, clocks can compensate to create simultaneity, as with satellites being in sync. Also, in the absolute sense, how is the 'now' on the satellite different from the 'now' on Earth? How is there no meaning to that? It seems quite straightforward. Nov 16 '21 at 23:38
  • Perhaps, the complication with syncing over more convoluted space-time is that multiple, different light-paths and therefore timelines may connect two points. I contend that it is still 'now' everywhere though. Nov 17 '21 at 7:07
  • @ Chris Degnen, the point is that whether or not 2 different events appear simultaneous will vary according to the reference frame, so they may or may not be simultaneous, there is no coordinate-invariant answer to the question. Nov 22 '21 at 10:06
  • Re convoluted space-time - there is one and only one trajectory that light can follow between two points, but what this trajectory is will indeed be different depending on spacetime curvature, which results from the distribution of mass/energy. Nov 22 '21 at 10:13

The time experienced by satellites can be computationally adjusted to keep them functional for GPS, etc. They do not wander off into their own incalculable time when unobserved. There is no reason that the same cannot be said for more convoluted space-time. Consequently the one-clock idea pertains. In other words, the 'now' moment is universal.

To reiterate: Notionally, relativistic time difference are calculatable and can be synced to any unprivileged clock. For example, on the satellite add one second per hour and the satellite clock tells the same time as on Earth: Therefore one clock.

Edit 23/11/21

The counter-argument is that closed time-like curves (CTC) produced by a spinning black hole could scatter the 'now' moment over time, resulting in past and future at the same time.

  • I think that's only true because the satellite started off on earth. You were able to sync its clock at that point and then account for its acceleration to a new inertial frame.
    – Ewan
    Nov 17 '21 at 19:39
  • @Ewan If the compensation calculation can be made - and it is the difficulty of this calculation that seems to be at issue - then the clocks could at least be adjusted to turn synchronously. And then any signal could be synchronised to. Even if, through gravitational lensing, you could see two images of the satellite (at different ages) the calculations would resolve to the same singular space-time at the target. Nov 23 '21 at 12:49
  • its not the difficulty of the calculation, but the question of which observer is correct about the time.
    – Ewan
    Nov 23 '21 at 13:50
  • @Ewan The actual time is arbitrary: Earth time, moon time. The point is that people on a satellite, on the moon and on Earth can use compensated clocks to coordinate in time, ("one clock"). And the same would apply over longer ranges, although the calculations become more difficult. Only if a closed timelike curve is involved does the calculation break down. Nov 23 '21 at 14:03
  • how do you justify "the universe has one clock" when two observers at time t, disagree about what their clocks read and how fast time runs?
    – Ewan
    Nov 23 '21 at 14:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.