3 ms·
If events A and B are close to each other in space time (light from one can have arrived at the other by then), then the ordering is fixed. If they are far from
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
If events A and B are close to each other in space time (light from one can have arrived at the other by then), then the ordering is fixed. If they are far from each other (light won't get from one to another by then), then time gets weirder.
The notion of what is simultaneous to what gets weird. If you and I are moving relative to each other, we're going to disagree on which distant events happen at the same time. If that happens, then whether something's happening now might change depending on reference frame. The ordering can be t(A) = t(B) or t(A) != t(B). Since no frame is privileged, we can also change the other way around, so t(A) != t(B) can be t(A) < t(B) or t(A) > t(B) depending on reference frame.
It's only flexible like that for things that could be simultaneous in some frame, which at least in special relativity means light from one can't have gotten to another yet. I never took general relativity, so who knows how it works in that setting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#Thought_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#Tho...
- Causality1 6y agoRelativity of simultaneity was definitely a wild concept for me in physics class. The idea that a near-c train is longer than a tunnel to its passengers and hence is never fully inside the tunnel to them but is, after relativistic compression, shorter than the tunnel and hence at one moment entirely inside it to a resting observer blew my mind.