Relativity of simultaneity ? A superflous idea.

[Strange]

We can't ever tell determinism and indeterminism apart with certainty anyway.

 

Maybe you need to explain what you think these words mean, because this is obviously not true (given the standard meanings).

[xyzt]

 

I claim that relativity of simultaneity, as presently understood, is most likely inconsistent as a very concept.

On the Nature of Time and Simultaneity

Author(s): Benjamin Palan

Abstract

What is time ? Which properties are emergent and which are intrinsic ? Time is discussed, with special emphasis on properly discriminating the hypothetical outside perspective from the time of a world itself. This leads to a single, relatively simple model of time which is thought to encompass all others. Applying it to simultaneity, a conjecture is made which could turn out to be of great importance to proper definition and discrimination of relativity of simultaneity and of absolute simultaneity. The author was unable to disprove the conjecture, but found strong indications pointing to it's truth.

Introduction

Considerable effort has gone from the scientific community into the investigation of time. Change or flow of time, arrow of time, past, present and future, causality, relativity of simultaneity and absolute simultaneity, cyclic time and circular time, perception of time, loops and time travel, beginning of time and end of time are among the investigated properties. Most of them could be either weakly emergent or fundamental. A valid first question about time is »Can there be change ?«, if answered negatively, a lot or even everything about time is defined away. This is not the method employed. Instead, change is at least taken as a valid possibility. Previous attempts to describe time and relate it to the world, however, very often gave insufficient care to distinguish the model that attempts to explain time or defines »how a world might be generated« versus the temporal properties attributable to the world itself or to it’s behavior, including those seen by an inside observer.

Quasi-presentistic model of time

I am presenting a very simple model of time, yet with proper discrimination of the above, it can explain all the possible temporal behavior of any world I could think of, including well-defined time travel. The name ›quasi-presentistic model of time‹ is found to be appropriate:

»The world has an initial state. Optionally there may be laws which modify the world’s state.«

Elaborating on this, if the world was result of a pseudo-code BASIC program, this would look like the following:

10 set world to initial state
20 calculate new state from applying modification function on current state
30 replace current state with new state
40 GOTO 20

Publication of my idea on appropriate internet forums like this one should suffice to snowball annihilation of what I would call Einstein’s insane ideology. That my conjecture is true is obvious to me. I also expect my model of time to become the ultimate or “encompassing” one, yet it’s quite simple .. ok, enough high-handedness – but maybe it motivates disproof attempts …

100 points on the crackpot scale.

Now, to basic stuff. SR is (aside from) QM the most tested theory. To date, no test has falsified this.

As to RoS, things are pretty simple. Start with the Lorentz transform:

 

[math]t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)[/math]

 

Two events separated by the time interval [math]dt[/math] and the spatial interval [math]dx[/math] in frame F are separated by [math]dt'[/math] in frame F' in motion with speed [math]v[/math] wrt F, where:

 

[math]dt'=\gamma(dt-vdx/c^2)[/math]

 

Now, if the events are simultaneous in F, [math]dt=0[/math] but:

 

[math]dt'=\gamma(0-vdx/c^2)=-\gamma vdx/c^2[/math]

 

So, [math]dt' \ne 0[/math], i.e. the events are not simultaneous in F'. This is RoS for you. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Endy0816]

The non-obvious issue is that any simulator can not update the state all at once.

[Silber5]

 

Maybe you need to explain what you think these words mean, because this is obviously not true (given the standard meanings).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

 

1. A deterministic ToE would come close to proving Determinism, but it might still be, that there actually is an underlying reality to it with some indeterminism or that the universe was only deterministic during some time period.

2. We may observe unpredictability, as in quantum physics, but that doesn't require actual indeterminism, deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics exist.

 

Determinism and Indeterminism are philosophical metaphysical ideas, none of them can be disproved by observation.

[Strange]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

 

Not very helpful as the article on Determinism points out that there are many different meanings. I was asking what you meant by the word.

 

However, that page does contain a useful definition:

 

Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states.

 

This corresponds to your toy simulation algorithm. Which is why I assumed you were describing a deterministic universe.

 

This is a reasonable description of our universe with a couple of caveats: some "next states" are probabilistic and some are (apparently) a causal. (So not completely deterministic.)

Edited April 13, 2015 by Strange