3 ms·
There is no now on earth, as each point on earth has its own light cone disjoint from everyone else's. Of course that these light cones intersect quite a lot, a
by 4ad 5y ago
There is no now on earth, as each point on earth has its own light cone disjoint from everyone else's. Of course that these light cones intersect quite a lot, and because of this intersection you are free to declare a region of small spacetime around an observer as "now", provided that it is within the intersecting region. Of course when you do this you invent an ontologically distinct notion of now that very different from any set of points of equal time coordinate in GR. And this notion of now is very useful for us on earth, for sure, but its definability depends on exactly how much the light cones on earth interact, and when you deal with events that don't interact this notion becomes meaningless.
When you talk about equal-time coordinates in GR, the notion of now is non-unique, and this is interesting, but popular articles fail to convey this.
When you talk about the human notion of now, the notion of now is local, it's not that this notion of now in astronomical phenomena is different, it's that it can't be defined at all. Popular articles not only fail to convey this, but give the impression that it can be defined. It can't, and that is what is interesting.
There are multiple levels of category error happening simultaneously. The confusion between equal-time surfaces, and neighbourhoods (4-volumes) around points, along with the conflation of a point with its neighbourhood. And from these popular articles fail to convey the interesting properties of either -- the observer's choice in defining surfaces, and that 4-neighbourhoods can't be extended arbitrarily far while preserving their topological properties.
- p1mrx 5y agoPBS Space Time (on YouTube) makes a reasonable attempt at teaching non-physicists how GR actually works. I'm probably smarter than the average human, and I can't follow half of it. Writing an accurate "popular" article about GR might be impossible, because the topic is so far beyond human experience that only a fraction of the population could ever hope to hold it in their heads. You can teach people that the concept of "now" is observer-dependent, but as long as we're stuck on Earth, that information is pretty useless. Software engineers working on stuff like global databases and video game synchronization might benefit somewhat from that way of thinking, but they're about as uncommon as physicists.
- jacquesm 5y agoTo quote Monty Python: "you're only making it worse!". This GR thingy holds for every observation, even those here on Earth, but there the time-delay is small enough that we can ignore it. But if you think of it as the first stretch on a very long gradient all the way out to the stars where that difference becomes more manifest then what these researchers have just done is shown you is to prove that the gradient exists on every level of scale, likely all the way down to the interaction of two atoms in a gravity field, but for now we have it down to a mm or so. This is a super impressive result and it makes this concept a lot more accessible than the 'Earth time is special' vs 'interstellar distances are in the past'. They're all in the past from the point of an observer, even if that observer is a few mm away from the event.
- xavieralexandre 5y agoThis reminds me of one of my favorite physics lessons in undergrad: classical mechanics are a limiting case of general relativity where v << c so that all terms with v/c can be neglected.
- account-5 5y agoNon-physist (obviously) but my layman's (idiots version) from all this is: when I die my feet will be older than my head, and my eyeballs (as each are the separate light comes) have different nows.