Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
...which is only a paradox (like so many things in SR) if you assume a person can receive information faster than light or assume people can know things which are impossible to know. In other words, only by making bad assumptions is the relative plane of simultaneity a problem rather than always perfectly consistent with observation.
|
But, my point is that Einstein's picture “is making those bad assumptions” by his definition of time; and it does indeed lead to some subtle problems. Consider a world where clocks accurate enough to be used as “the definition of time” were small enough to wear as wrist watches by everyone. Then everyone would know exactly what time it was (by definition) and no two people would agree as to what time it is. Add to that the fact that things can only physically interact when they exist at the same time and “time” seems to have failed in its purpose. That is why I say “time is not a measurable variable” and it only has meaning along the evolving path of an entity. It is a useful parameter for describing the phenomena impacting the evolution of that entity and any additional properties can not be defended.
My definition of time stands! The past is "what we know" and the future is "what we do not know". The present then becomes the boundry (of our knowledge). The fact that we find it convenient to think of what we know (the past) as a collection of "presents" for the purpose of ordering our world view (and the evolution of specific phenomena) does not make time a measureable variable. That is an unjustifieable leap of faith enjendered by the success of Newtonian mechanics. He introduced the idea that the future could be known if the past were known and Einstein's picture is soundly based upon that erroneous illusion. That is precisely the source of the problems between general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Have fun -- Dick
