Everything in the universe is relativistic for our practical purposes. You can only know something in comparison to another, and that comparison makes things different based on what is being compared.
That means the answer is either “it depends” or “no”.
Some slightly too philosophical examples 😅:
What does it mean to be a man without first seeing a woman?
What does it mean for something to happen in New York if you don’t first know of that which is not New York?
What does it mean for it to be 5am if you do not know what it means to be 4am?
What does it mean for something to happen at one side of the universe without first knowing what the other half is?
So the question of absolute time is a relative question. In comparison to what? In comparison to two particles in superposition? To a person looking through a telescope? To a ship travelling through space?
The only absolute in the universe is the sum of the whole universe. If you account for everything, you have everything.
We see distant galaxies as they were billions of years ago. If there’s intelligent life on one of those galaxies, they see our Galaxy as we see theirs, an ancient blob of stars without any proof of intelligent life beyond theirs. It’s fair to say if there are aliens, they also invented the nuclear bomb, invented new ways to travel their planet, and might even be searching for intelligent life like we are, and with the size of the universe being so big, it’s likely some species made their discoveries at the same time as we did, it’s also possible they are far more/less advanced than we are.
Depends on what you mean by time.
But if something happens somewhere, where it can not interact with us (the observer) then in all practical purposes it didn’t happen at all.
But time is a tricky thing, because it is and isn’t. It is a thing that exists between things that exist. If you have an empty cube with absolutely nothing in it, no particles no interacting forces, there is no time in it. Time exists between two things that interact.
For an observer to say that something has happened, it can only measure it from it’s perspective so time comes in to existence from our perspective. If it can’t interact with us or we can’t observe it, the time starts existing in practical sense. Yes it can exist between other things, but only thing that matters is the observer and the other thing. Even if there isn’t a direct link to observe or for interaction, there can be indirect thing, in which case time comes in to existence through the chain that leads all to way to the even itself.
I don’t know if it makes it any easier, but stuff like this becomes way easier to understand when you accept the fact that time is not a thing, while also being a thing. Time is a thing between things, it can not exist by itself. You can not tell time from a still image, but you can tell time from two images, as in you can say that time has happened because things have changed.
But in short. If there is no observation or interaction, whatever just happened might as well not have ever existed.
Latest Answers