The "reality "of Time Dilation"

[geordief]

Perhaps a trivial and slightly specialist question .

 

 

 

We are told that it is "real" as opposed to being an artifact of observational techniques. (I am not disputing this)

 

Does this definition of "real" coincide with the meaning of "real" that comes up in numerous threads when the question of whether we "can know reality" comes up. ?

 

There seems to be a dichotomy in the case of "Time Dilation " where we are warned not to consider it as an artifact of our sensory or observational apparatus but embedded in the reality of the (geometry of ) the universe.

 

Can anyone clear up this confusion in my mind (as to the way the word "really" is being used in this particular but rather important case?

[Strange]

These are different meanings of "real".

 

When e say time dilation (or length contraction) is real, we mean it is a measurable phenomenon which has real effects in the real world. It is not just an optical illusion or measurement error.

 

When people ask what is "really" happening, they are asking about what happens beyond what we can measure or observer (which is what science deals with). By definition, we can't ever know the answer to that (because it is beyond what we can observe or measure).

 

But that doesn't matter. Even if there is no external reality and the whole thing is just a construct of our minds, we can carry upon using science to build models about it.

 

And if, as in naive realism, you believe that what we observe is exactly the same as reality, then that's OK too.

[studiot]

Perhaps a trivial and slightly specialist question .

 

 

 

We are told that it is "real" as opposed to being an artifact of observational techniques. (I am not disputing this)

 

Does this definition of "real" coincide with the meaning of "real" that comes up in numerous threads when the question of whether we "can know reality" comes up. ?

 

There seems to be a dichotomy in the case of "Time Dilation " where we are warned not to consider it as an artifact of our sensory or observational apparatus but embedded in the reality of the (geometry of ) the universe.

 

Can anyone clear up this confusion in my mind (as to the way the word "really" is being used in this particular but rather important case?

 

Your confusion arises because you expect a single unique definition for the word real.

 

If you look in a decent dictionary (which might be a scientific one) you will find that most words have multiple definitions.

Sometimes these definitions are variations on a similar theme.

Sometimes they are quite different.

And just occasionally these are opposed in meaning.

 

As English speakers we have learned to cope with this using the context.

English itself has sub divisions of some words

 

A very common difficulty with the words real and reality occurs when folks try to shoehorn into one definition.

 

Reality for concrete nouns is quite different from reality for abstract ones.

[geordief]

Thanks to you both.Clear enough.