What is time (discussion)

[sushi]

I find it very intriguing that although time is observable, it cannot be described. what is time, can it be defined relative to other things?

If something is observable it should be able to described in relations with other things.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Things can only ever be described relative to other things. Anyhow, Einstein's work on relativity get's to time's fundamental nature.

 

[redbaron]

The measurement of time literally is time. It's defined by its measurement.

Yes that's very unhelpful, but it's the simplest and most complex answer possible.

 

[MentalBrain]

I think time is defined by change. Since change requires time to happen, you can inversely say that time requires change to happen. After all, a universe with zero change is equivalent to a universe with zero time. In order to make time useful, as opposed to a random arbitrary concept, we've chosen relatively regular changes by which to measure it, i.e. the second, which is the rate of decay of a specific radioactive element, or the day, which remains fairly regular in length.

 

[sushi]

The measurement of time literally is time. It's defined by its measurement.

Yes that's very unhelpful, but it's the simplest and most complex answer possible.

No , its helpful.

But measurement of what? (movement and change?)

 

[MasterProcrastinator]

Time (as a concept and not as a unit of measurement) is said to be intertwined with space (hence, spacetime). You'll notice this when large gravitational objects, say a black hole, distort space. If someone from Earth happened to travel to and orbit a hypothetical black hole only one light year away (using a ship capable of traveling at the speed of light) without entering the event horizon and then travel back to Earth, to this person, they would essentially have travelled into the future (by many years, partially due to their speed traveling to the black hole but also because of how close they were to the event horizon) as noted by the time differences between the traveller's clock and an Earthbound clock. This is what is known as time dilation.

I don't know if this helps or if you were looking for some other understanding of time, but it's intriguing all the same. Time is a bit confusing conceptually, and there isn't a unified notion as to what time is.

 

[cornbread666]

time is a unit we use to measure change.

 

[Architect]

I find it very intriguing that although time is observable, it cannot be described.

Yes it is observable and can be described. Read the original paper Einstein wrote on SR, he talks about the nature of time as you discuss here.

what is time, can it be defined relative to other things?

If something is observable it should be able to described in relations with other things.

Time can only be described relative to other things. The tick of a clock, or oscillation of a cesium atom, etc.

 

[Captain]

My grandpa Willa invented a phrase to describe time. He said 1 hour with a hot first cousin girl is like 1 minute and 1 minute with a donkey's donkey up your anus felt like 1 hour. that's how time works

 

[Brontosaurie]

the answer "time is a measurement of change" is tempting of course. but aren't time and change kind of dependent on each other in their definitions?

 

[Black Rose]

time is shaped by our illusions
the most recurrent theme start as seeds.

 

[AquaTron]

Time, simply put is like an observation of change. Humans perceive 3 dimensions visually. Time is like a 4th dimension in your conscious mind. So you are constantly moving along this axis which time is on your whole life. In your mind you can even travel in time. If you're reliving a memory in your head wouldn't that be like some sort of time travel?

Also, if we looked at what time isn't we might develop more ideas. For example if time didn't exist then either everything would happen spontaneously at once in one quick bang, or nothing would happen at all.

 

[Black Rose]

If time is a relationship with rearrangement of time (has no fixed past or future) the present moment is all that is. Frame of reference with infinite frames in one frame.

 

[AquaTron]

If time is a relationship with rearrangement of time (has no fixed past or future) the present moment is all that is. Frame of reference with infinite frames in one frame.

Well, yes the present moment is all that is, for now. However you have the past which was, and the future which will be. I can see how time has passed if I go to my hometown, see a new building and say "this wasn't here two years ago!" Time is relative to the observer, and to space.

Also, time has a fixed past. There is only what happened. If we go into what could've happened now we're talking about alternate realities.

Do we have a fixed future? That depends on the actions of ourselves and everything around us. Therefore the future is not fixed and anything could happen.

 

[Black Rose]

Well, yes the present moment is all that is, for now. However you have the past which was, and the future which will be. I can see how time has passed if I go to my hometown, see a new building and say "this wasn't here two years ago!" Time is relative to the observer, and to space.

Also, time has a fixed past. There is only what happened. If we go into what could've happened now we're talking about alternate realities.

Do we have a fixed future? That depends on the actions of ourselves and everything around us. Therefore the future is not fixed and anything could happen.

relative to us time may be fixed past and future but it may still have no location, nonlocality shifts data to form new in(form)ation. If no trace is left behind or is in the path heading our way and time is an quality like red or smell or taste (not 4D location but attached to us from beyond spacetime)then it is illusion and we create it.

There is no continuum but a fundamental information source.

 

[sushi]

If time is a relationship with rearrangement of time (has no fixed past or future) the present moment is all that is. Frame of reference with infinite frames in one frame.

It is how the past becomes the present.
Reverse time is how the present become the past (time travel)

the problem is does time still exist without the past?

Well, yes the present moment is all that is, for now. However you have the past which was, and the future which will be. I can see how time has passed if I go to my hometown, see a new building and say "this wasn't here two years ago!" Time is relative to the observer, and to space.

Also, time has a fixed past. There is only what happened. If we go into what could've happened now we're talking about alternate realities.

Do we have a fixed future? That depends on the actions of ourselves and everything around us. Therefore the future is not fixed and anything could happen.

good point, but i think its still determined by the varibles at the present

( i have more crackpottery, but i am just only to wait for more responses)

 

[redbaron]

It is how the past becomes the present.
Reverse time is how the present become the past (time travel)

the problem is does time still exist without the past?

Read, "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. There's more things that it'll confuse you with but it talks about this concept.

 

[sushi]

Yes it is observable and can be described. Read the original paper Einstein wrote on SR, he talks about the nature of time as you discuss here.



Time can only be described relative to other things. The tick of a clock, or oscillation of a cesium atom, etc.

The problem I have with einstein's theory is that is it does not explain the existence of time, it merely describes perspectives of different objects relative to each other (or different frames of references) But then i haven't really read into detail einstein's works because i find hard to understand. so what i said is just a general imprression or a grain of salt.

Read, "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. There's more things that it'll confuse you with but it talks about this concept.

Thanks for the recommendation. I will definitely look it up.

 

[AquaTron]

For the universe to exist time must exist.

 

[Black Rose]

For the universe to exist time must exist.

but the past and future need not be stored
only a short buffer to allow change

 

[AquaTron]

What do you mean stored?

If there is a buffer of some sort, or as I would call it an interval of time, it can be perceived and then time must exist.

 

[Black Rose]

What do you mean stored?

If there is a buffer of some sort, or as I would call it an interval of time, it can be perceived and then time must exist.

yes and I think it means it does not need to go backwards forever as infinite regress. The future does not exist in the same way also.

Time is one interval of overlap.

 

[AquaTron]

yes and I think it means it does not need to go backwards forever as infinite regress. The future does not exist in the same way also.

Time is one interval of overlap.

We can use radiometric dating to test how old rocks are for example. So now we see that a few billion years have passed since this crystal in a rock formed. So time exists. It is the difference in what was then and what is now. And we have ways of measuring it. If we have a radioactive element we can also predict how much of it will be left at a set time in the future as it decays. Therefore a future also exists. This has been tested many times.

 

[PhoenixRising]

It is confounding at times to differentiate between a phenomenon and our human perception of a phenomenon.. this, I think, is inevitable. Our perception of time is indeed quite relative to us, the observers. But, if we did not exist to observe the universe, would what we're calling time still exist?

We quantify our observation of time as a measurement, but in reality, the universal phenomenon we are observing isn’t that measurement. So I believe time would exist independent of our observation.

I think that the universal phenomenon of time is change relative to the speed of light. Why the speed of light? Because, as Einstein predicted in his Relativity theory, the speed of light is the universal constant which all other movement is ultimately relative to. I think the passage of time is the relative relationship between a phenomenon traveling slower than light-speed to that which is traveling at light-speed. In order to experience the passage of time, one must be traveling slower than the speed of light, because if one is traveling at speed, then there is no relative difference between their movement and the overall speed of the universe. A thing subject to time is literally being passed by other elements of the universe that are traveling at light-speed.

Something that's always fascinated me is the Lorentz Transformation (http://physics.about.com/od/relativisticmechanics/a/relativity_3.htm). The Twin Paradox thought experiment based on this equation reveals something very telling about the nature of time. Basically, it indicates if you were to travel at the speed of light, there would be no passage of time for you. What does this really say?.. I think it's telling us that time is indeed change or movement, but that it is ultimately defined by the top-speed that exists in this universe.

Something else indicated by the theory of Relativity is that space and time are two measurements of the same thing. It seems reasonable to me to see space as the placement of matter relative to other matter - it is ultimately the relationship between elements. Time, then, would be the speed at which these relative relationships change in comparison to the speed of light - the speed at which the overall universe is expanding.

It seems that the nature of our universe is indeed quite relative, not only due to our observation of it, but due to the way its existence relies upon the relationship between things.

 

[redbaron]

Light is not the top speed of the universe, nor is it the speed limit for objects moving within the universe. Also the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light - not at the speed of light.

Let's not turn this into pseudoscience.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Light is not the top speed of the universe, nor is it the speed limit for objects moving within the universe. Also the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light - not at the speed of light.

Let's not turn this into pseudoscience.

The speed of light is the fastest speed at which matter can travel, according to calculations within relativity. A particle traveling at speed would have zero mass, therefore light-speed is the point at which matter transforms into pure momentum. If something were to travel faster than light-speed, it would likely have properties unlike anything we have observed, and would be equivalent to pure energy. In my opinion, it is matter that defines the properties of the universe, so I'm not sure how such a thing would effect space-time. I don't buy into the notion that space has a substance and is moving faster than the speed of light. There are many different theories about this apparent phenomenon, the one that makes the most sense to me is superluminal motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion).

I could argue that the views you have presented are pseudoscience, but I think that many of the opinions floating around the scientific community today could be considered as such. I think the truth of the matter is that we humans haven't settled on a collectively validated view of our universe, and most theories are probably at least incomplete, if not entirely incorrect.

 

[redbaron]

The speed of light is the fastest speed at which matter can travel, according to calculations within relativity.

Oh for fuck's sake. Please stop paraphrasing things which you obviously don't understand.

In my opinion, it is matter that defines the properties of the universe.

You're basing your argument off opinion. Outstanding. Let's take scientific misunderstanding and then combine it with our own opinions.

Do you realise how utterly unscientific you're being right now?*

Go and check your resources again. Read some papers and documents from both past and present empirical research. We're meant to be having a discussion about science and you put forward this:

"in my opinion"
"what makes sense to me"
"i don't buy into this"
Then you use Wikipedia to support your arguments.

It seems as though you're actually trying to undermine the entire point of science.

*In before someone asks if I realise what a meanie I'm being
;-( :::((

 

[PhoenixRising]

Oh for fuck's sake. Please stop paraphrasing things which you obviously don't understand.



You're basing your argument off opinion. Outstanding. Let's take scientific misunderstanding and then combine it with our own opinions.

Do you realise how utterly unscientific you're being right now?*

Go and check your resources again. Read some papers and documents from both past and present empirical research. We're meant to be having a discussion about science and you put forward this:

"in my opinion"
"what makes sense to me"
"i don't buy into this"
Then you use Wikipedia to support your arguments.

It seems as though you're actually trying to undermine the entire point of science.

*In before someone asks if I realise what a meanie I'm being
;-( :::((

There's no reason to get emotional, this is a rational debate after all.

If you have a valid example of a scientific observation of matter moving faster than the speed of light, then by all means please share it ^^ I consistently read a lot of scientific papers, especially about new research and discoveries, but I haven't seen anything about matter moving faster than speed since the recent misconception at CERN involving neutrinos.

The truth about any assertion a human being (even a scientist) makes is that when it comes down to it it's an opinion. Some opinions may be more well-informed than others, but that doesn't make them any less of an opinion. We construct our best approximation of reality based on observation, and make that our world-view, but I don't think that any human being is capable of a truly objective point of view. I am not ignorant enough to claim that I know anything with certainty or in its entirety, so I will openly state the things I have to say as opinions.

I'm actually quite disgusted with the state of the scientific community at this point. I say I don't "buy into" a particular hypothesis because the nature of it is more like an advertising scam than a scientific theory based on observed facts. There is no solid evidence to suggest that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. This hypothesis was based on some initial observations made by astronomers, but has since been largely discarded by the scientific community in favor of other explanations, such as superluminal motion (which happens to be one of the most widely-accepted theories at this time in astronomy for the apparent faster-than-light-speed motion of distant galaxies).

There are many other resources out there about superluminal motion, Wikipedia just happened to have the most straight-forward definition I could find in a moment's notice. If the information on Wikipedia hadn't matched what I already knew about the phenomenon from other sources, then I wouldn't have linked to it.

(PS - If you'd like to debate this further with me, I suggest we take it to a private discussion, since I don't want to fill this thread up with back-and-forth posts. I think sushi might like to hear other people's responses to his question as well.)

 

[Black Rose]

If you have a valid example of a scientific observation of matter moving faster than the speed of light, then by all means please share it ^^ I consistently read a lot of scientific papers, especially about new research and discoveries, but I haven't seen anything about matter moving faster than speed since the recent misconception at CERN involving neutrinos.

Motion could be an illusion. If it were that matter is information then form changes relationship, not that anything is moving. This could be why lightspeed is relative?

 

[sushi]

some people say that time is vaccum energy. I do not think that is possible.
can energy exist without mass? energy is a direct consquence of mass, so we can infer that a universe without mass has no energy.
the whole process is mass--> energy conversion

it can be said that everything that exist is a direct consequnece of mass.

this is so to say, that energy is stored in empty space because empty space itself has mass.

 

[sushi]

The speed of light is the fastest speed at which matter can travel, according to calculations within relativity. A particle traveling at speed would have zero mass, therefore light-speed is the point at which matter transforms into pure momentum. If something were to travel faster than light-speed, it would likely have properties unlike anything we have observed, and would be equivalent to pure energy. In my opinion, it is matter that defines the properties of the universe, so I'm not sure how such a thing would effect space-time. I don't buy into the notion that space has a substance and is moving faster than the speed of light. There are many different theories about this apparent phenomenon, the one that makes the most sense to me is superluminal motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion).

I could argue that the views you have presented are pseudoscience, but I think that many of the opinions floating around the scientific community today could be considered as such. I think the truth of the matter is that we humans haven't settled on a collectively validated view of our universe, and most theories are probably at least incomplete, if not entirely incorrect.

these are the things i think time is related to:

energy
change
work
space
gravity
light
motion (movement)

so it must be related to one of these variables at least.

 

[Black Rose]

what is mass fundamentally?

 

[sushi]

what is mass fundamentally?

density of matter.

space has density
therefore space has mass
therefore space has energy

I don't know, but my hypothesis is that anything that is massless does not have energy, but i could be werong.

 

[Black Rose]

I just remember this from point 14 min.

http://youtu.be/60P7717-XOQ

 

[wilsonwatson]

Oh for fuck's sake. Please stop paraphrasing things which you obviously don't understand.



You're basing your argument off opinion. Outstanding. Let's take scientific misunderstanding and then combine it with our own opinions.

Do you realise how utterly unscientific you're being right now?*

Go and check your resources again. Read some papers and documents from both past and present empirical research. We're meant to be having a discussion about science and you put forward this:

"in my opinion"
"what makes sense to me"
"i don't buy into this"
Then you use Wikipedia to support your arguments.

It seems as though you're actually trying to undermine the entire point of science.

*In before someone asks if I realise what a meanie I'm being
;-( :::((

As someone who's majoring in the subject (granted, still only as a second year undergrad) and therefore someone very interested in the subject and who reads many papers on such, I'd like to try and shed some light on the subject:

Information of any kind has NOT been accurately documented to travel faster than the speed of light through a vacuum (other than the recent discovery of entangled particles, which by their inherent entanglement are transmitting information faster than the speed of light, though no actual particle has traveled...and also which we don't fully understand and which still follow the laws of general relativity through a method I won't go into here)

However, particles CAN travel faster than the speed of light through a certain medium. Light, as you all should know, slows down when going through various media, shown by the simple bent pencil trick in a glass of water. They've had particles traveling faster than the light surrounding it IN CERTAIN MEDIUM.

There are also some hypothetical particles not proven to exist that travel faster than the speed of light (tachyons) as well as certain (most likely incorrect) discoveries that claim to have neutrinos traveling just over the speed of light. The people who "discovered" these neutrinos are even doubtful of this data and examining further before making any claims.

And finally, the possibility of traveling faster than the speed of light is not ruled out completely, because it only applies to direct travel through the space-time continuum. There are many people with plans of elaborate space ships that get around this rule, usually by the idea of bending space-time in various ways (read up on Michio Kaku if you're interested) though none of it has actually been put into practice.

There are also probably other theoretical ways of going faster than the speed of light in a vacuum that I haven't heard of. It's never really been documented and many believe it's not possible because relativity tells us infinite energy is needed (specifically only through the direct, no space-time bending in a vacuum method), but that doesn't mean there aren't respectable people who don't still think it's a possibility.

This is all from what I've read in textbooks, heard from my professors, and from general fun reading by respected authors (usually in the form of other textbooks).

 

[wilsonwatson]

Also, I don't personally like Michio Kaku, but if you're into a non-mathematical explanation of theoretically possible sci-fi stuff by a highly respected theoretical physicist who you can trust actually knows the theoretical possibility of his imagined stuff, then you'd like Michio Kaku.

And, I'd like to stress one more time, that when I talk about the possibility of traveling faster than the speed of light, I mean c, the speed of light THROUGH A VACUUM.

 

[wilsonwatson]

Also to clarify (sorry about the constant posts) Tachyons would theoretically travel that quickly all the time, and their slowest speed would be the speed of light. This is because they have the reverse property of gaining speed as they lose energy. This is all just theoretical though, and the theory of tachyons violates the theory of special relativity anyways, which is part of the main principle we're talking about stating that things can't travel faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum).

I don't know much about tachyons outside of what I've already said. I wanted to clarify some of what I'd said because I had only heard snippets of tachyons so I admit I looked it up a bit (though on reliable sites, not wikipedia, though I like wikipedia redbaron doesn't seem to trust it)

To conclude, you were both a little right in some ways, though as a general overarching statement I'd say it's more correct to say that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum).

 

[PhoenixRising]

Also to clarify (sorry about the constant posts) Tachyons would theoretically travel that quickly all the time, and their slowest speed would be the speed of light. This is because they have the reverse property of gaining speed as they lose energy. This is all just theoretical though, and the theory of tachyons violates the theory of special relativity anyways, which is part of the main principle we're talking about stating that things can't travel faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum).

I don't know much about tachyons outside of what I've already said. I wanted to clarify some of what I'd said because I had only heard snippets of tachyons so I admit I looked it up a bit (though on reliable sites, not wikipedia, though I like wikipedia redbaron doesn't seem to trust it)

To conclude, you were both a little right in some ways, though as a general overarching statement I'd say it's more correct to say that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum).

Hi wilsonwatson, thank you so much for your thoughtful reply to the topic redbaron and I were debating about It's good to see someone formally educated in science taking interest in this thread.

However, particles CAN travel faster than the speed of light through a certain medium. Light, as you all should know, slows down when going through various media, shown by the simple bent pencil trick in a glass of water. They've had particles traveling faster than the light surrounding it IN CERTAIN MEDIUM.

I'm curious about what you're saying here.. It sounds like you're indicating that light is slowing down from c because it is obstructed by this medium, and therefore particles that are not obstructed can travel faster than the specific photons which have slowed down. Is that correct? If so, then it doesn't sound like the particles would be traveling faster than light-speed, and therefore the assertions of Einstein's relativity would be validated.

I wonder if you'd mind sharing your thoughts about the question in the OP? I'd be very interested in hearing your take on what time is, and I think others here would be as well. Only if you feel like it tho! No pressure ^^

 

[gilliatt]

Time is a measurement of motion, relationship. The universe, it is the standard. I travel around the sun on earth, its motion relative to the sun. Around the sun one time, one year old, one earth year. Around the universe, we do not know that standard yet. But all time is within the known universe and the universe is eternal, no outside the universe.

 

[StevenM]

You hear time. You feel time. You can smell it, and taste it. You can see time.

Because without time, you cannot use any of your senses. Without time, there would be no distance in space; no here from there. Solids would disintegrate into practical nothingness.

Idk, I just know I need more time.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Oh for fuck's sake. Please stop paraphrasing things which you obviously don't understand.



You're basing your argument off opinion. Outstanding. Let's take scientific misunderstanding and then combine it with our own opinions.

Do you realise how utterly unscientific you're being right now?*

Go and check your resources again. Read some papers and documents from both past and present empirical research. We're meant to be having a discussion about science and you put forward this:

"in my opinion"
"what makes sense to me"
"i don't buy into this"
Then you use Wikipedia to support your arguments.

It seems as though you're actually trying to undermine the entire point of science.

*In before someone asks if I realise what a meanie I'm being
;-( :::((

well maybe you're being very boring

it's ok to identify as a rational but please develop a less yawn-worthy and trivial idea about what rationality means

 

[redbaron]

well maybe you're being very boring

it's ok to identify as a rational but please develop a less yawn-worthy and trivial idea about what rationality means

I find it far more enjoyable and fun to read studies than to discuss science with people who are ill-informed and base their scientific ideas around their, "opinions".

Nothing in science is ever definite, and so opinions are completely worthless. Ideas are interesting, opinions are worthless and there's and important difference.

What Phoenix has are a bunch of opinions. Boring, worthless opinions. She's disgusted with the scientific community because like so many others, she's not only content but apparently actually prefers to discuss in the realm of opinion instead of science/empiricism. Which is a complete self-gratifying waste of time.

By the way, I don't ever claim to be "rational". It would be moronic to ever consider oneself as being inherently rational, not to mention the myriad ways one could define what rational is in the first place.

 

[sushi]

My new hypothesis: time is a consequence of matter and gravity.

It might be related to space, and motion.

but what directs the laws and rates of motion? why don't things move in triangles, sideways, circles but have definte vectors? Because of gravity

When you have space and motion without gravity, things can be chaotic and move everywhere without any definite direction or definite velocity, this is when times breaks down.

It could be a universe with just space and motion, or just space and matter (wihtout gravity) but neither seem to explain the flow of time in my thought experiment

 

[_cdub]

This will change some thoughts http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4191

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[ryuzaki1]

time is movement of an object compared to the movement of another object. the earth sort of circles around the sun and as a result, any animal knows its night time as the sky everyone gazes upon gets darker the further the sun appears to move away unto the horizon. atleast, that's how creatures perceive time. gravity has a major impact on 'time'. although there might be lots of other factors yet unseen by the naked eye, gravity seems to be one of the biggest factors and it seems atleast animals including us, can see the difference.

 

[Vrecknidj]

This will change some thoughts http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4191

This makes sense, actually. There's no reason to suppose that quantum entanglement effects would be restricted to pairs of objects happening to be correlated in someone else's timestream.

 

[Vrecknidj]

My new hypothesis: time is a consequence of matter and gravity.

From what (little) I understand, gravity and matter have been around almost as long as the universe has, and, for however much time elapsed between t=0 and their appearance, their existence was likely implicit in what came before them.

So, I don't know that time is a consequence of matter and gravity, but I frankly have no problem accepting that the three are strongly correlated.

 

[sushi]

Time is a point

It is not a continuous flow (like a river) as many falsely percieved.

Try sitting still for a very long time and you will sense it.

 

[QuickTwist]

TL;DR

Time is what drops balls and digs ditches.

 

[Feather]

There is time that is a creation of our measurements then there is time that creates something that can be measured. The first is observable time that just relates movement between physical systems, such as a pendulum moving ten swings compared to the distance you can walk. Because there are consistent laws of physics this comparison is useful and we name it time. We use it to coordinate and sync locations or events and to find energy or power requirements. It is just an arbitrarily standardized figure to solve physics equations.

The other time that creates that which can be observed is a computation of information 'relative' to another process. So processes are sequenced to optimize the observability and experience of the reality.

Think if you had a puzzle to put together but only so many people to help, you don't want a puzzle with billions of pieces you could never put it together with only a few people. That is why space is not continuous besides the fact it is a paradox and impossible. The fewer pieces the easier it is to put the puzzle together but too few pieces your picture at the end will be to simple and boring. There exist some optimal balance between pieces and number of people available to help. At this same time not every person will do the same process. As say one person puts together a chunk of ten pieces another person will take that chunk and look at the larger picture of chunks and make one move for every ten moves of the other person.

There is a fixed speed that the picture can be put together. To go faster you need better and more powerful processing. This is what the constant speed of light is: Space is defined by a fixed smallest discrete cell there is a fixed number of cells in any straight path distance. The rate a cell can change is determined by the delta {t} of the processing. This kind of change is "local" meaning for one cell to change the neighbor cell must have already clarified it has changed. "Non-Local" change is not limited by the state of the neighbor cell, it is not determined by distance because cells are only active when required to provide information to a request by inspection of an awareness - once a causal state has been declared the rate the cell can change is on a faster loop compared to speed of light - such delta {t}'s between processes are different. Either non-local change has to be faster for it to sync with local change or it takes less processing to implement and as such it can compute faster.

Our awareness is not independent of each computation meaning that if the process was paused we would never know it or if they were slowed uniformly we would not notice. For multiple awareness to communicate effectively the information they send to each other has to sync or the information has no validity.

The speed of light gives way to many paradox if you assume that reality is continuous and that there is are endless puzzle pieces {fields} and that there is only one mystical unified process {assuming one makes it easier to ignore} and that there has to be only local cause. When scientists say quantum mechanics is weird and we will never understand it or things like reverse time that is coming from their assumptions that the experiments don't support.

This I speak is just philosophy generally associated with science like the sports fan who thinks he can coach his team from his couch. There are scientists who have taken this notion and more specifically applied it to science as I tend to forget details if it’s not something I work with every day.