Paulo Constantino, the purpose of my response is to just encourage you in your pursuit of understanding. Your intuition seems to be driving you to pursue some underlying fundamental aspect of space. I’ve tried thinking through the problem from the viewpoint implied by your questioning. So far I...
eaglechief, you sure bring some provocative inquiries. There are physicists who subscribe to the Block Universe concept. And in that context, and along with your original question, we have the picture of an observer moving along his world line at the speed of light. However, note that the...
Edgar, you bring out such an important point--a point so important to this discussion. The Block Universe follows logically from the relativity of simultaneity. Einstein once stated in a discussion with one of the leading philosophers, not withstanding his position on the Block Universe, that he...
What about quarks? What about strings? What about the relativity of simultaneity and existing 4-D physical universe structure of 12 billion years ago? (PeterDonis advises I should not refer to Block Universe in the context of just the past, because using the term Block Universe includes all...
Excellent way to state it, puzzled fish. One of the arguments used to avoid accepting the Block Universe is that there is an alternate theory: LET. But, how is LET an alternate theory to General Relativity? I have the same feeling that you've expressed here. However, I do feel that it is...
So, your point is that by not accepting the Block Universe, it is not that this one concept is not accepted as uniquely unconfirmed, rather it is not accepted along with all physical laws and theories not accepted (because nothing can be confirmed that is outside the light cone). For the longest...
Dale said: ↑
@Ebeb note that I do not "accept Block Universe". I use the Block Universe interpretation when it suits my needs and I use LET instead when it suits my needs. I don't accept or reject either.
Dale, I'm not trying to be contentious here. I'm just trying to get clarification on your...
O.K. I think I see your position -- a fundamental tenet of operationalism. This is the concept that none of the laws of physics can be known to apply in the future (outside of our past light cones). I had not anticipated that the Physics Forums would operate from that stance. You can certainly...
Sorry to belabor the point, but what do you mean by "...its second premise is not required by SR"? Do you mean that SR does not require relativity of simultaneity for events outside of our light cones, therefore the Block Universe theory is also not required by SR outside of our light cones...
PeterDonis, just trying to make sure I understand the Premise 2 that you are concerned about in your article on Block Universe. Is it that the Block Universe should not be accepted because it has not been verified with observations not available within our light cones? Should it be accepted if...
Nature wouldn't care about that, because our spaces are both special. I'm just saying that nature has selected out special frames for which the laws of physics work in a natural and special way. The laws of physics work in spaces like the ones below. Notice I'm talking about the spaces for which...
I'm not so sure about that. I have a hunch that the universe cares about those special sets of coordinates for which the special geometric features are always consistent with the laws of physics. There are special symmetries associated with those special coordinates, which includes special 3-D...
Peter, does an expert such as Einstein, Roger Penrose or Paul Davies lose his stature and authority in physics as soon as he writes a book for the general public? Or, maybe you're suggesting that he alters the true description of the physics for public consumption? I was quite impressed with...
You seem to be using the idea of causality in a different way, perhaps as a description of the related geometric patterns of bundles of 4-D fibers along the 4th dimension. You have already indicated that the universe is a 4-D object with everything already there. So, if the "future" part of the...
Having accepted the physical 4-D universe, I can't help but ask the following questions. Do we then give up the notion of cause and effect? Do we abandon the idea of forces causing acceleration of masses as a true physical process (as opposed to merely a mathematical tool)? Should we account for...