Reddit mentions of Now: The Physics of Time

It is funny you mention "now", because it is a concept that Einstein himself had trouble explaining (enough that someone wrote a book about it https://www.amazon.com/Now-Physics-Time-Richard-Muller/dp/0393285235) . It is problematic for that reason: what is "now?" And what is the smallest possible increment of time? Obviously the physical limitations of the brain have a smallest increment, but what is the absolute smallest? Especially when the length of that increment is not consistent throughout all points of the universe, as we have mentioned? It is a very tricky subject.

In all likelihood, what you think of, as a human observer with an electrochemical brain, as "now" is actually the past. Because, as I mentioned, there are limiting factors to how fast your brain can see things, process it, extrapolate into a general sense of "now"

But yes, in theory, what feels like "now" to you are the smallest increments of time you are possible of conceiving of. But time is fluid, from a perceptual standpoint. You don't experience it as perfectly segmented little slices.

You experience time narratively. The big moments in your life - weddings, emotional high and low points - those anchor the narrative, while mundane tasks come and go.

Your sense of "now" is distorted in that way, because your are always retroactively "assembling" the "now", and depending on what's going on, you're not always "assembling" it the same.

The "tiny particles moving back through time" is a bit of a joke - there are theoretical subatomic particles called tachyons that may move faster than the speed of light; and therefore "escape" the dimensional constraints of linear time progression.

But others argue nothing is faster than the speed of light, and thus, nothing can move back in time. They're mentioned in The Watchmen by Allan Moore, but if you haven't seen it, i won't spoil it any further!

Compare also Richard Muller, Prof Physics, UCBerkeley, author of "Now-Physics of Time" book: I don’t consider string theory to be a true theory. And many string theorists would agree.... Perhaps the search for the mathematics that unites quantum mechanics and general relativity is pointless..

It's a framework with incomplete postulate set, which are mutually inconsistent each other in addition.

It's good to understand, that the problem of reconciliation of extrinsic and intrinsic perspectives of multiparticle emergent system is way more complex and high-dimensional, than it looks from perspective of simplistic low-dimensional theories. It's not just like the attempt for modeling of the richness of our everyday world with two sets of primitive equations - the worse: it's exactly this. The scope of their inconsistency indicates, these two models can be never fully reconciled at the deterministic level.

Alexander's horned sphere fractal is probably the first attempt for deterministic reconciliation of intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives of 2D ring at 3D space. It apparently provides a neverending job for these involved in it.