4 ms·

>The solution to the Andromeda Paradox that I am proposing is to say that there is one universal ordering of events Proposing this is fine, but proving it is q

>The solution to the Andromeda Paradox that I am proposing is to say that there is one universal ordering of events Proposing this is fine, but proving it is quite a matter altogether - you have to replace special relativity. Special relativity pretty much explicitly states this isn't the case, making an exception for events that are causally connected, but there's been a slew of experiments over the past several decades that call into question even that exception at long distances, and more recently, even ones for local observers, e.g. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832 Personally, I'm in the Rovelli and loop quantum gravity camp - time probably isn't actually a real thing on its own, and what we perceive as time is just an emergent property of thermodynamics.

cellular 6y ago
I agree! Time is emergent. It is only comparing one thing moving relative to another thing. Without anything moving relative to each other, time can't exist: https://youtu.be/A-2XQQDD6QQ https://youtu.be/A-2XQQDD6QQ
- bostonsre 6y ago
  Yea, i think time is kind of used to define two different things and that seems to make these discussions confusing. I think if you are close to the speed of light, your atoms are moving slower than those of the stationary person and so your local clock time seems to stay constant while the stationary persons clock time seems to speed up in relation. But it's all a matter of perception of clock time passing and now is the same everywhere.
javert 6y ago
To be clear, my conception of a "universal ordering" doesn't mean we can always measure when things happen relative to one another. If two things are causally related, we know one happened first. If a tree falls on Andromeda "right now," I don't know if that happened before or after a particular timestamp here on Earth, but it either did or it didn't. (Same goes for all possible timestamps for all clocks going at whatever speed they are going; their timestamps will diverge, but they could still be ordered if we knew the speed they travel relative to light and the starting value and how often they tick, e.g. once per second nanosecond or whatever. So if we had an observer on Andromeda with such a clock, we could eventually order events there relative to events on Earth based on the timestamp they report, though it would take a very long time for their report to reach Earth). Are you sure that's not compatible with special relativity? Genuinely asking. If not, is it possible to explain why it isn't? I'd like to know (but if I'm asking you to write a book, never mind). When you say you're in the Rovelli and loop quantum gravity camp - is that compatible with special relativity? I'm guessing yes, but let me know. I think time is an emergent property of causality. That sounds close to what you are saying (possibly a different way to say the same thing).

cellular 6y ago

I agree! Time is emergent. It is only comparing one thing moving relative to another thing. Without anything moving relative to each other, time can't exist: https://youtu.be/A-2XQQDD6QQ https://youtu.be/A-2XQQDD6QQ

bostonsre 6y ago
Yea, i think time is kind of used to define two different things and that seems to make these discussions confusing. I think if you are close to the speed of light, your atoms are moving slower than those of the stationary person and so your local clock time seems to stay constant while the stationary persons clock time seems to speed up in relation. But it's all a matter of perception of clock time passing and now is the same everywhere.

javert 6y ago

To be clear, my conception of a "universal ordering" doesn't mean we can always measure when things happen relative to one another. If two things are causally related, we know one happened first. If a tree falls on Andromeda "right now," I don't know if that happened before or after a particular timestamp here on Earth, but it either did or it didn't. (Same goes for all possible timestamps for all clocks going at whatever speed they are going; their timestamps will diverge, but they could still be ordered if we knew the speed they travel relative to light and the starting value and how often they tick, e.g. once per second nanosecond or whatever. So if we had an observer on Andromeda with such a clock, we could eventually order events there relative to events on Earth based on the timestamp they report, though it would take a very long time for their report to reach Earth). Are you sure that's not compatible with special relativity? Genuinely asking. If not, is it possible to explain why it isn't? I'd like to know (but if I'm asking you to write a book, never mind). When you say you're in the Rovelli and loop quantum gravity camp - is that compatible with special relativity? I'm guessing yes, but let me know. I think time is an emergent property of causality. That sounds close to what you are saying (possibly a different way to say the same thing).