4 ms·
You could imagine an event happening a day later from a traveling car, but that’s about it. Two people can’t actually observe an event a day later from the same
by awb 5y ago
You could imagine an event happening a day later from a traveling car, but that’s about it. Two people can’t actually observe an event a day later from the same reference point (Earth), and naturally the event occurs at a singular time at Andromeda’s reference point. Same with any point between Earth and Andromeda. So, if you can’t observe it at different times from the same reference point did it actually happen at different times?
From the Wikipedia page on the thought experiment, check out Criticisms:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument#Criticisms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argu...
> The interpretations of relativity used in the Rietdijk–Putnam argument and the Andromeda paradox are not universally accepted.
> Howard Stein[5] and Steven F. Savitt[6] note that in relativity the present is a local concept that cannot be extended to global hyperplanes.
> Furthermore, N. David Mermin[7] states: That no inherent meaning can be assigned to the simultaneity of distant events is the single most important lesson to be learned from relativity. — David Mermin, It’s About Time
- goblin89 5y agoA philosophical idea may not have meaningful implications within the scope of physics, but that doesn’t make it useless. Rietdijk–Putnam argument, for example, appears to sort of elevate the idea of differing planes of simultaneity, taken from special relativity, to an idea of a four-dimensional universe. It’s a curious thought experiment and I wonder how it reconciles with a model where the universe is considered to be 4D with the fourth dimension being time. My intuition doesn’t work all that well beyond three dimension so I can’t tell if those are essentially the same or not. It’s not falsifiable, but neither is string theory.