[mxplxxx (OP)]

This certainly does not mean that past, present and future all exist at once.

Pretty sure this is what is believed by lots of physicists. See

Well you are wrong again. You do not understand the concepts of past and future light cones. The video discusses time dilation and not that the  past, present and future all exist at once.

Pretty sure I understand light cones, at least at a Pop level. . 

Wrong is a word I would hesitate to use in physics, given many eminent physics in the past have used it and been proved without doubt wrong.

I have come across the theory that the past present and future exist at once many many times in my extensive travels in physics. It is a common explanation of quantum probability where a future alternative state is selected. I gave the reference expecting the video would have backed up the first comment which goes:

http://www.artofspirit.ca/  (not my video) Albert Einstein was very clear in his day.  Physicists are very clear now.  Time is not absolute, despite what common sense tells you and me.  Time is relative, and flexible and, according to Einstein, "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion".  So reality is ultimately TIMELESS.  This sounds pretty bizarre from the view of classical physics, but from the view of consciousness theory and spirituality, it fits in perfectly.

See also https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/a-controversial-theory-claims-present-past-and-future-exist-at-the-same-time.

In any case, SpaceTime is a continuum which I would have thought implied a continuously existing past, present and future. Theoretically time travel is possible.

[jeffreyH]

Well then you are absolutely wrong. If you have "a future alternate state" this implies that the future is not predetermined. Which destroys your own argument. You should stop watching YouTube videos and start studying the subject. That way you won't make yourself look foolish. I am on your side. Although it might not sound like it. You want to understand physics. You are just going about it the wrong way.

[jeffreyH]

Oh, and by the way, you are certainly not an eminent physicist. You are just wrong.

[Halc]

Time is relative, and flexible and, according to Einstein, "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion".  So reality is ultimately TIMELESS. 

By this logic, since there is no objective 'here' dividing all points in 'the east' from 'the west', reality must be LOCATIONLESS and Singapore and Ecuador are in the same place.  (Apparently the caps are necessary, so I'm following form)

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Oh, and by the way, you are certainly not an eminent physicist. You are just wrong.

You are the eminent physicist. Wrong is SO absolute. Things are rarely completely right or wrong in this universe. This seems to apply more so in physics where so many conflicting theories abound. Instead of stating "you are wrong", something like "I am a great fan of such and such theory. According to this what you are saying re ... cannot happen" is much preferable.

I am not trying to learn physics. I have studied physics for a long time now. I am trying to understand it and drawing a blank a lot of the time. It just don't hang together real well. I find being a software developer allows me to have a different perspective on physics that I am bouncing off you guys (no gals!) in this forum. Especially when it comes to state machines (of which the universe seems to be one type) which require decades of study to master.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Time is relative, and flexible and, according to Einstein, "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion".  So reality is ultimately TIMELESS.

By this logic, since there is no objective 'here' dividing all points in 'the east' from 'the west', reality must be LOCATIONLESS and Singapore and Ecuador are in the same place.  (Apparently the caps are necessary, so I'm following form)

A state machine contains concurrent states (as many as you like) that are also separate entities that react with events that are pertinent to them. It is possible to simulate a universe using a hierarchical state machine.

[jeffreyH]

By a state machine I believe you mean a switch statement. These are not complicated.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

By a state machine I believe you mean a switch statement. These are not complicated.

Nup, see https://barrgroup.com/Embedded-Systems/How-To/Introduction-Hierarchical-State-Machines. They are just about the most complicated things to learn in computer science. A state machine deals in objects and states and events and transitions. For example a door is in a closed state. Then someone opens it (a transition). Then it is in an open state. A HSM is a hierarchical state machine that deals in abstractions.  For example, in my gambling software I have a very abstract meeting object and subordinate, more concrete, race objects. If the meeting is in a running state and it receives an abandoned event notification, it will change state to abandoned and send an abandoned event to all subordinate race objects.

[jeffreyH]

I am not an eminent physicist. I do however understand embedded systems being a software engineer. Using objects in programming is pretty standard. I have been developing with them since the 1990s. This is very off topic. How does this in any way relate to the fundamental nature of time? If you need to retreat to your comfort zone then feel free.

[jeffreyH]

Oh and by the way physics hangs together very well if you understand the principles. Maybe your concept of it is a bit faulty

[mxplxxx (OP)]

I am not an eminent physicist. I do however understand embedded systems being a software engineer. Using objects in programming is pretty standard. I have been developing with them since the 1990s. This is very off topic. How does this in any way relate to the fundamental nature of time? If you need to retreat to your comfort zone then feel free.

See my first post on this topic. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73163.msg569592#msg569592. This is describing my software which is based on a hierarchical state machine.  It is interesting that most of the computer programs I have worked on, work without any reference to time. I agree recent posts have been getting off-topic.

[Colin2B]

It is not immediately obvious what you say. Why do you say it? With zero distance, most of physics theorem would seem to break down (as per the big bang singularity). 

The theorems only break down if you try to misuse them.
One problem with reading physics ‘cold’ is that physicists use a lot of shorthand phrases and ideas. Most physics models have a lot of caveats and assumptions that are not usually repeated in detail in papers and articles, it is assumed that the reader is familiar with the basic assumptions and understands the background to the theory.
I will expand on some of the things @jeffreyH  has said:

Einstein's theory of SpaceTime (I think) postulates that the past, present and future all exist at once. How this can occur is not part of the theory (I think).

Yes, it is part of the theory, but often misquoted and misunderstood, because it doesn’t postulate that they all exist at once.

What Einstein said was that our concept of simultaneous is only valid locally ie at our location. So if we take the example of your 2 objects which are zero distance apart then they will progress through time at the same rate and their measurement of each other’s progress will be the same. They will agree that events in their locality happen at the same time for each of them.
However, if these objects are separated by distance or are moving relative to each other they will no longer agree on when certain events happen; their measurements of events might suggest to one that the event was in the past and to the other that it is now (the greater the distance or relative speed the greater the degree of disagreement). So the concept of now, past and future can be difficult to decide in any absolute sense for all objects.
However, each object will experience the passage of time in the same way as the other, but will consider it’s own timeline to be the proper one - and this is how physics treats it. Also, the spacetime interval between events is invariant and will be agreed on by all the objects.

All this in no way suggests that “Time only passes infinitely quickly where the distance between objects is zero.“

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So if we take the example of your 2 objects which are zero distance apart then they will progress through time at the same rate and their measurement of each other’s progress will be the same.

I thought the smallest distance allowed in the universe is the Planck length? https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae281.cfm.
Sure the objects will proceed according to Einsteins theory of relativity, but if they were able to measure the interactions WITH EACH OTHER they would find what ... we don't know. Could a photon be emitted and absorbed in 0 time?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

A state machine contains concurrent states (as many as you like) that are also separate entities that react with events that are pertinent to them. It is possible to simulate a universe using a hierarchical state machine.

I am desperately trying to figure out how this response was in any way related to the post to which it replied, but it was crash and burn all the way.

I think you have to be able to work with hierarchical state machines to be able to understand how all possible states of the Cosmos can exist concurrently.

[alancalverd]

Planck length and planck time are often considered to be the shortest measurable quantities but there is no lower limit to the shortest calculable values. For instance unit Planck time is about 5 x 10^-44  seconds, but the is no reason why I can't discuss a period of 10^-45 s elapsing between events: I just won't perceive them as sequential.

[Colin2B]

@alancalverd beat me to it on Planck length 

Sure the objects will proceed according to Einsteins theory of relativity, but if they were able to measure the interactions WITH EACH OTHER they would find what ... we don't know. Could a photon be emitted and absorbed in 0 time?

You are just reworking Zeno’s paradox. Clearly, it takes 0 time to travel 0 distance, but that is meaningless as nothing has interacted with anything else. 
I’m afraid you are moving into philosophy which has little to do with physics.

[jeffreyH]

Zeno's paradox is a rabbit hole that no one should dive down. It is a distraction. Things move from point a to point b covering the infinite sequence of intervals in between. That's just how things work. Observation is a wonderful thing. It overcomes all such obstacles.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

I am not an eminent physicist. I do however understand embedded systems being a software engineer. Using objects in programming is pretty standard. I have been developing with them since the 1990s. This is very off topic. How does this in any way relate to the fundamental nature of time? If you need to retreat to your comfort zone then feel free.

Suggest you bone up on UML Statecharts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UML_state_machine. IMHO, more and more, physics will solve the hard problems via computer simulations and Statecharts (or Hierarchical State Machines) are the way to go for simulations. This is where I am heading.

BTW a statechart model of a hydrogen atom includes no time. It is like as if a photon of a certain energy is encountered and the atom "decides" to promote the electron to a higher orbit. Very computer-like!

[jeffreyH]

You appear to be attributing a personality to an atom. Your time would be better spent studying linear algebra.

[guest4091]

mxplxxx;
#140

Not sure he said anything about everything happening all at once, but see no reason why this could not occur. A photon observing the universe would likely see the result of everything happening at once (probably nothing, literally?).

[Photons don't observe, they are observed as messenger particles.
The first postulate states, 'physics is the same in all inertial frames'.
Observers in inertial frames, with relative motion, measure a remote process running slower than the same local process. Increasing or decreasing rates in passive observations, are instances of doppler effects. An observer moving at c would be dead, and not aware of anything.]

#144

Einstein's theory of SpaceTime (I think) postulates that the past, present and future all exist at once.

[Spacetime is Minkowski's generalization of Einstein's theory. Einstein made a distinction between space and time.]

Also Electromagnetic waves (which seem closely related to photons) have electro and magnetic wave components that travel faster than light, thus allowing for the possibility that they originate in the future.

[Photons are the objectification (model) of EM energy. They move in space at light speed as predicted by Maxwell. Future events are only known when you become aware of them.]

#148

Pretty sure this is what is believed by lots of physicists

[You are referring to the '4D block universe', where all events exist simultaneously, and each observer experiences their own 'now' as they journey through space. Paul Davies is one advocate for this theory. One critical fact when considering this idea. There is one occurrence for each event, but many perceptions of that event.]

#162

It is interesting that most of the computer programs I have worked on, work without any reference to time.

[There are programs that do require 'time'. GPS, traffic control, security, utilities, astronomy, etc., depending on the purpose.]