Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?

Martin Hogman wrote:
>The equations of special relativity (SR) tell us
>where the particle actually is not where it is
>seen to be.

>Events which are simultaneous in one frame of
>reference may ('really') not be so in another. This is
>one of the most important points to understand
>in SR.
>> Would you agree with Paul that they are EITHER simultaneous events
OR
>> not?
>This is wrong. Paul is one of the regular 'aether
>theorists' on this group.
>>Or do you go for the 'there is no absolute reality, we can only
>> know what we measure' view shared by Dave A. Smith, and believe that

>> they are both simultaneous AND non-simultaneous?
>That is not put very well. Events themselves are the
>absolute reality in SR. Whether they are simultaneous
>or not depends on your frame of reference.
>> Or do you say that this is where the evidence leads, despite that
fact
>> that it is beyond us to understand the multiple 'realities'?
>Multiple realities are not part of SR; measurements
>(allowing for the transit time of light) made in different
>frames of reference are.
>> If the box was a bomb that blew up instantly when two photons hit it

>> simultaneously at both ends, would an observer in frame 1 see it
>> explode but an observer in frame 2 see it remain unexploded?
>No, this never happens. The final result is always
>the same in both frames.
Straight talk - refreshing - but appears to me to be contradictory.
I will buy a textbook if I have to but at this stage I'm just a layman
with a question which I believe doesn't need great maths to answer - if
you tell me it does, ok, I'll accept that at face value for now.
But the question is this:
If in frame 1, the two photons are calculated (not perceived) to arrive
at each end of the box simultaneously, but per frame 2 there is no
point in time at which they will arrive at the ends of the box
simultaneously, then we have two MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE versions of events.
Either they DO hit the ends of the box simultaneously, or they do NOT.
Either one or both of the descriptions of events must be claimed to be
due to perception - for a logical contradiction cannot be truth.
(Unless you believe that the observer's presence affects reality.)
If you claim that whether they are simultaneous or not depends on the
frame, then you are having your cake and eat it.
Going back to the bomb, never mind the mechanism, but the trigger is
that two photons arrive simultaneously. Will an observer in frame 1 see
the bomb blow up? Yes, of course. Will an observer in frame two see the
bomb blow up? No, of course not.
Correct?
Now don't make me catch a fish with my bare hands like Jon again!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR vs. Emitter Theory
    ... lightning strike at A' in the train reference frame. ... moving (all relative to the observer). ... Lets say we have a star emitting photons, and an observer (in a spaceship, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Anyone ever read this Einstein physics book?
    ... >>> term that is valid only if ONE absolute aether frame exists. ... >>> space at that same speed until interaction with another observer frame ... >>How can you get slow AND fast photons to tend toward a single speed? ... >>They will roll at a constant velocity (what ever velocity you start them ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR vs. Emitter Theory
    ... > lightning strike at A' in the train reference frame. ... moving (all relative to the observer). ... But it did not travel at c as measured by the observer. ... Lets say we have a star emitting photons, and an observer is flying toward the star at speed 0.5 c. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
    ... >trigger it with the simultaneous arrival of the photons and it will go ... simultaneous arrival of the photons at the *bomb* (not at the ends of the ... >Now look at frame #2. ... If both leprechauns throw rocks, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR vs. Emitter Theory
    ... point in three dimensional space in your frame of reference at 'c'. ... What's been refuted is photons do not travel at 'c+v' or 'c-v' which my ... Lets say the photons reach the observer at some time t (and continue to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast