3 ms·

How could that possibly support the relativity of simultaneity? Different reference frames disagree on what is happening "now."

thfuran 3y ago
The people in other reference frames must just be simulations, so their experiences are invalid.
- bmacho 3y ago
  Lol. Nah, if we allow virtual experiences, than any model naturally becomes the block universe. I believe, that question of experience is still unsolved. Why do we seem to live in a world made of matter and governed by physics? Is it the same for people that are simulated in a computer? Is it the same for people that are not simulated by a computer (because it is plugged out)? How do they perceive if the data is mangled? Etc. BTW the block universe also needs to solve this problem. But in order to not to be in a block universe, we need the answer that being material based is different than being simulated on a material based simulator, or not even being simulated, just the possibility of it. @sobellian: relativity doesn't need the block universe. It works perfectly fine if people just get shorter when they speed up. Then the simultaneity of events in a frame is not the same as being in a slice.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Maybe I misunderstand, but could an alternate theory be that reality and the universe are not the same thing?
pseudocomposer 3y ago
I mean, relativity already means everything depends on location, so this should just fit right in, right? The contents of your “slice” are from right now at your location, from 20 years ago at locations 20ly from you, 30 years ago at 30ly, etc. We literally can’t know what’s happening at any time other than 20 years ago at locations 20ly from us, after all. So I’d say this jives well with the various “curves” relativity implies exist in spacetime. (Note: I am not a physicist so I’m happy to learn why/if I’m wrong here!)
- notjoemama 3y ago
  How do you think this conceptual model fits at the subatomic scale; everything being a warping of fields? At first glance I can't tell if it works because there is no such thing as a slice at the quantum level. Well, depending on which theoretical model you're looking at. I suppose either way it's might be considered true if mathematically we're talking about the properties of a particle. But even then no one alive today can say for certain why those properties exist, conclusively I mean, outside of theory. We barely have a grasp on the manor in which they exist, which is the theory. For example, based on what we know about the proposed axion particle, how does this slicing concept affect the nature of it warping spacetime? Bringing something new to the table there would be quite the accomplishment here! edit: typo
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

thfuran 3y ago

The people in other reference frames must just be simulations, so their experiences are invalid.

bmacho 3y ago
Lol. Nah, if we allow virtual experiences, than any model naturally becomes the block universe. I believe, that question of experience is still unsolved. Why do we seem to live in a world made of matter and governed by physics? Is it the same for people that are simulated in a computer? Is it the same for people that are not simulated by a computer (because it is plugged out)? How do they perceive if the data is mangled? Etc. BTW the block universe also needs to solve this problem. But in order to not to be in a block universe, we need the answer that being material based is different than being simulated on a material based simulator, or not even being simulated, just the possibility of it. @sobellian: relativity doesn't need the block universe. It works perfectly fine if people just get shorter when they speed up. Then the simultaneity of events in a frame is not the same as being in a slice.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Maybe I misunderstand, but could an alternate theory be that reality and the universe are not the same thing?

pseudocomposer 3y ago

I mean, relativity already means everything depends on location, so this should just fit right in, right? The contents of your “slice” are from right now at your location, from 20 years ago at locations 20ly from you, 30 years ago at 30ly, etc. We literally can’t know what’s happening at any time other than 20 years ago at locations 20ly from us, after all. So I’d say this jives well with the various “curves” relativity implies exist in spacetime. (Note: I am not a physicist so I’m happy to learn why/if I’m wrong here!)

notjoemama 3y ago
How do you think this conceptual model fits at the subatomic scale; everything being a warping of fields? At first glance I can't tell if it works because there is no such thing as a slice at the quantum level. Well, depending on which theoretical model you're looking at. I suppose either way it's might be considered true if mathematically we're talking about the properties of a particle. But even then no one alive today can say for certain why those properties exist, conclusively I mean, outside of theory. We barely have a grasp on the manor in which they exist, which is the theory. For example, based on what we know about the proposed axion particle, how does this slicing concept affect the nature of it warping spacetime? Bringing something new to the table there would be quite the accomplishment here! edit: typo

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]