Quote:
Originally Posted by AnssiH
I am a bit puzzled by your reply. I had to go back to my post to see what exactly did I say, in order to try and understand what are you saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AnssiH
Yes, in other words the simultaneity planes themselves are not observable at all; they are things we have defined as part of relativistic spacetime, but their ontological reality is an assumption.
|
I think you're the only one assuming it has any ontological reality. I honestly don't think that would be a normal assumption. The present instant is no more real than a world line. |
By that, do you mean to say that I am the only one to presume, that anyone would assume ontological reality to the "present moment"?
Or to the "relativistic present moment"?
In our everyday conception of reality, I think just about everyone do assume reality is in some specific state at "present instant" even before they themself see that state.
Of course if one assumes the relativistic description of "present moment" to be ontologically correct, they are forced to change their assumptions of how world looks like right "now", beyond their natural senses.
Since you say "the present instant is no more real than a world line", I am interested to hear what you think world looks like beyond your sight. Is it a mixture of all the possible states?
Also, from a physics standpoint, people regularly make assertions that hinge completely on the assumption that "relativistic present moment" (inside relativistic spacetime) is ontologically correct. For example that "Rigorous Proof of Determinism..." that I just mentioned (and the whole Andromeda invaders Wikipedia page for that matter). And length contraction and isotropic speed of light. They are not ontologically correct descriptions if simultaneity is not ontologically relative. Different models would communicate the same reality rather differently.
-Anssi |
When solving a problem of special relativity you see how the present instant is a construct or confluence of things. It's an extrapolation of ideas - not so much something that's real in and of itself. I would think you'd agree with this
If you're looking for a way to disprove or maybe question relativity, this is not a good way to go about it. The present instant is completely unobservable. There is nothing conceptually that prevents two people from having different present instants - even if they are not spatially separated. It is easily implied by relativity that it is necessary for them to have different present instants.
As it's conceptually possible and impossible to disprove with observation - it's not a good way to attack the theory.
But, no, I don't think the average expert in relativity would tell you the present instant or a world line or the lorentz factor, or many other things that represent the method of solving a transformation are necessarily ontologically real.
~modest
