Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- From: Ben Rudiak-Gould <br276deleteme@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:29:59 +0100
Curious wrote:
Does 'relativity of simultaneity' mean that an event which is simultaneous in one frame of reference, need not be simultaneous in another frame? Or do the two frames just APPEAR to have a different timing of events?
There is no "relativity of simultaneity", because there is no simultaneity. When you understand this, you will have achieved enlightenment.
The idea that different parts of the universe evolve in lockstep is a relic of Newtonian physics. There's no avoiding it in Newton's world, because gravitation acts instantaneously on objects at arbitrarily great distances. Without a common universal time, you can't calculate the gravitational force on an object.
There's nothing like that in modern physics. Relativistic theories are /local/ theories: what happens at a particular place at a particular time only depends on what happens at (differentially) nearby places a (differential) moment earlier. Different parts of the universe don't /need/ to evolve in lockstep.
"Relativity of simultaneity" is the result of trying to graft a Newtonian notion of universal time onto a universe which has no use for it. It is a profoundly misleading and confusing idea. In my opinion it should be dropped from textbooks along with "relativistic mass" and other artefacts of a less enlightened past.
-- Ben .
- References:
- relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- From: Curious
- relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Prev by Date: Re: dirk works on google?
- Next by Date: Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Previous by thread: Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Next by thread: Journalists' perception of Einstein
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
