Relativity, a theory of information?

In summary: The 'right' frame ends up being the one you are in. The other frames are right for those observers. The weird thing is that all are correct, yet generally different. One of the other frames is 'right' for you when you are in that frame. Relativity of simultaneity is a theory that states that the effects of relativity happen in both frames of reference. The theory is based on the idea that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference, even though the events that happen between the frames are different.
  • #1
faen
140
0
I know that the relativistic effects really do happen, such as time dilation and length contraction. However both frames of references predict these effects in the other frame of reference. It is said that these effects really happen in both of them, due to relativity of simultaneity. The thing is that I don't really believe in relativity of simultaneity. Isn't it possible that only one or none of the frames of references make the right prediction. The other frames prediction is then wrong? The measurements between each frames are different events from the ones being measured.

Consider this example. There is observer A on the ground and observer B on a train. Observer A sees two lightning bolts strike the train at both sides simultaneously. Observer A sees that observer B observes the light from the front lightning bolt first, because he travels towards it. Observer B sees that the front lightning bolt strikes at first and then the one behind. He predicts that observer A sees them simultaneously because the lightning bolt at the back strikes when the light from the front bolt is at the same position. So the question is, why aren't just one or none of these predictions the right one according to more absolute properties of time and space?

In the end when two observers arrive at an equal frame of reference, it is only one of them who shows relativistic effects.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
faen said:
Isn't it possible that only one or none of the frames of references make the right prediction. The other frames prediction is then wrong? The measurements between each frames are different events from the ones being measured.
Yes, it is possible. The problem is identifying the right frame, it looks just like all of the other ones and behaves as though it doesn't exist.
 
  • #3
Isn't it possible that only one or none of the frames of references make the right prediction. The other frames prediction is then wrong?

The 'right' frame ends up being the one you are in. The other frames are right for those observers. The weird thing is that all are correct, yet generally different. One of the other frames is 'right' for you when you are in that frame.

Simultaneity is a tricky 'dude' when time and distance are not agreed upon by different observers, yet the speed of light is agreed upon by different observers...that still seems 'impossible' to me, but it's what we observe, so that's 'reality'...consistently inconsistent! It simply refuses to conform to everyday 'logic'...
 
  • #4
To the degree that the data one receives (magnitude and sequence) is dependent on one's frame of reference, relativity might very well be characterized as a theory of information, not an existential theory of reality.

An existential theory would require absolute positions, magnitudes, and sequences that would ultimately be comprehensive, complete, and consistent for any measures from each frame of reference, and across all possible frames of reference. From an existential perspective, it does seem peculiar that each observer views his local measures as normal but requires relativistic transforms to interpret measures from a distance or at high speed. The "firm fundamental foundation" aspect of an existential concept of physical reality is just not present in relativity measures.

The sense that ultimate reality must be at least logically existential is what I think has motivated analysis of mathematical structures where comprehensive, complete, and consistent entities can be found that display invariant attributes.
 
  • #5
faen said:
I know that the relativistic effects really do happen, such as time dilation and length contraction. However both frames of references predict these effects in the other frame of reference. It is said that these effects really happen in both of them, due to relativity of simultaneity. The thing is that I don't really believe in relativity of simultaneity. Isn't it possible that only one or none of the frames of references make the right prediction. The other frames prediction is then wrong? The measurements between each frames are different events from the ones being measured.

Consider this example. There is observer A on the ground and observer B on a train. Observer A sees two lightning bolts strike the train at both sides simultaneously. Observer A sees that observer B observes the light from the front lightning bolt first, because he travels towards it. Observer B sees that the front lightning bolt strikes at first and then the one behind. He predicts that observer A sees them simultaneously because the lightning bolt at the back strikes when the light from the front bolt is at the same position. So the question is, why aren't just one or none of these predictions the right one according to more absolute properties of time and space?

In the end when two observers arrive at an equal frame of reference, it is only one of them who shows relativistic effects.
I don't see how your example illustrates your reason to disbelieve relativity of simultaneity or how it illustrates conflicts in measurements between frames since both observers agree as to what the observer sees and predicts. What am I missing?
 
  • #6
bahamagreen said:
To the degree that the data one receives (magnitude and sequence) is dependent on one's frame of reference, relativity might very well be characterized as a theory of information, not an existential theory of reality.
Can you give an example of where the data one receives (magnitude and sequence) is dependent on one's frame of reference?
 
  • #7
ghwellsjr said:
I don't see how your example illustrates your reason to disbelieve relativity of simultaneity or how it illustrates conflicts in measurements between frames since both observers agree as to what the observer sees and predicts. What am I missing?

I didn't give any reason yet which explains why I disbelieve in relativity of simultaneity. I was just trying to illustrate how it is possible that there could perhaps be an absolute frame of reference? What each frame predicts is not reality, it is just predictions after all.

Also, it seems as though they have different conclusions as well. In the given example, both of them believe that it is the other person who moves and have relativistic effects, leading to different predictions of sequences of events.

The reason I don't believe in relativity of simultaneity is because I think it can be a bit ignorant to only consider what measurements tells us, without taking into account that what we see is actually based on an objective existence. Measurements are nothing but a separate prediction of a true event. What about entanglement? This tells us how particles relate to each other simultaneously regardless of speed.
 
  • #8
faen said:
The reason I don't believe in relativity of simultaneity is because I think it can be a bit ignorant to only consider what measurements tells us, without taking into account that what we see is actually based on an objective existence. Measurements are nothing but a separate prediction of a true event.
The problem is that the only "objective existence" that is compatible with the experimental evidence is a type that is consistent with there being no "objective existence". In other words, it doesn't matter if there is one "true frame", it doesn't do anything, so you can ignore it if you want to. Of course, if it comforts you to believe that it is there, then you can imagine it is there, somewhere, lurking in the shadows, completely hidden and impotent. But if you don't want to be bothered with it then you will not get anything wrong by ignoring it either.
 
  • #9
faen said:
The reason I don't believe in relativity of simultaneity is because I think it can be a bit ignorant to only consider what measurements tells us, without taking into account that what we see is actually based on an objective existence. Measurements are nothing but a separate prediction of a true event. What about entanglement? This tells us how particles relate to each other simultaneously regardless of speed.

Dalespam's retort is well said.

for the part in bold;
"Relate" to each other in the same sense I "relate" to my brother. And that relation exists no matter the spatial seperation. Also regardless of speed. :rolleyes:

What does "entanglement" mean to you faen?
 
  • #10
ghwellsjr said:
Can you give an example of where the data one receives (magnitude and sequence) is dependent on one's frame of reference?

You are questioning this?
 
  • #11
bahamagreen said:
You are questioning this?
Yes, the OP didn't give an example, can you?
 
  • #12
Originally Posted by ghwellsjr View Post
Can you give an example of where the data one receives (magnitude and sequence) is dependent on one's frame of reference?



ghwellsjr said:
Yes, the OP didn't give an example, can you?

Not sure where your going here but how about:
Simultaneous light flashes are set off on a train [inertial of course and by train clocks]

In that frame the sequence is simultaneous and the magnitudes of the light spheres are isotropically uniform only varying equally with distance from the sources. No Doppler shift.

In the ground frame they are sequential. The observed magnitude is location dependent and does not vary consistently with distance from the source . There is position dependent Doppler shift.

Perhaps this isn't what you are talking about at all, so maybe you could give an example of what you mean.
 
  • #13
Austin0 said:
Originally Posted by ghwellsjr View Post
ghwellsjr said:
Can you give an example of where the data one receives (magnitude and sequence) is dependent on one's frame of reference?
ghwellsjr said:
Yes, the OP didn't give an example, can you?
Not sure where your going here but how about:
Simultaneous light flashes are set off on a train [inertial of course and by train clocks]

In that frame the sequence is simultaneous and the magnitudes of the light spheres are isotropically uniform only varying equally with distance from the sources. No Doppler shift.

In the ground frame they are sequential. The observed magnitude is location dependent and does not vary consistently with distance from the source . There is position dependent Doppler shift.

Perhaps this isn't what you are talking about at all, so maybe you could give an example of what you mean.
This isn't what the OP nor what bahamagreen were talking about. They were talking about what an observer sees or measures. You didn't have any observers, did you? Can you put in some observers and demonstrate how what they see or measure is different in the two frames?
 
  • #14
ghwellsjr said:
This isn't what the OP nor what bahamagreen were talking about. They were talking about what an observer sees or measures. You didn't have any observers, did you? Can you put in some observers and demonstrate how what they see or measure is different in the two frames?

Sorry I thought that observers were implicit as the factors mentioned would apply through out the frames.
So a midpoint train observer would see the flashes as simultaneous and equal in magnitude/brightness and without Doppler shift , other train observers would measure the magnitude as a consistent function of their distance from the sources. No Doppler
A midpoint ground observer would see the rear flash first ,measure it as of lesser magnitude than the front flash even though equidistant and would see the rear blue shifted and the front red shifted.
Another ground observer behind the train but at an equal distance from the rear flash as the mid observer would measure it as having a lesser magnitude and being red shifted . No consistency of the ratio of distance to measured magnitude.Etc,etc...
But maybe I am missing something here and this is still not what you are talking about?
BTW I thought what bahamagreen was talking about was exactly this and thought his view was lucid and to the point.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Austin0 said:
Sorry I thought that observers were implicit as the factors mentioned would apply through out the frames.
So a midpoint train observer would see the flashes as simultaneous and equal in magnitude/brightness and without Doppler shift , other train observers would measure the magnitude as a consistent function of their distance from the sources. No Doppler
A midpoint ground observer would see the rear flash first ,measure it as of lesser magnitude than the front flash even though equidistant and would see the rear blue shifted and the front red shifted.
Another ground observer behind the train but at an equal distance from the rear flash as the mid observer would measure it as having a lesser magnitude and being red shifted . No consistency of the ratio of distance to measured magnitude.Etc,etc...
But maybe I am missing something here and this is still not what you are talking about?
Now you have a bunch of different observers who all see and measure different things as you described but no mention of which frame(s) you used to determine what they each see and measure. Are you suggesting that if you consider all these observers using the ground frame, they make one set of observations and measurements but if you consider them using the train frame they each make a different set of observations and measurements?

For instance, take your first observer, if you analyzed what he sees using the ground frame (or any other frame), would you conclude that he sees the flashes at different times or with different magnitudes or with a Doppler shift? Or any of the other observers analyzed from any other frame?
 
  • #16
faen said:
ghwellsjr said:
I don't see how your example illustrates your reason to disbelieve relativity of simultaneity or how it illustrates conflicts in measurements between frames since both observers agree as to what the observer sees and predicts. What am I missing?
I didn't give any reason yet which explains why I disbelieve in relativity of simultaneity. I was just trying to illustrate how it is possible that there could perhaps be an absolute frame of reference? What each frame predicts is not reality, it is just predictions after all.
Can you be specific about what the characteristics of this absolute frame are? Einstein's Frames of Reference all have an origin (where t=0, x=0, y=0 and z=0). Would this be true of the absolute frame?
faen said:
Also, it seems as though they have different conclusions as well. In the given example, both of them believe that it is the other person who moves and have relativistic effects, leading to different predictions of sequences of events.
If two frames were identical in every respect except that they had different origins, this would result in them having different conclusions, wouldn't it? Would that be a reason to discount the concept of frames?
faen said:
The reason I don't believe in relativity of simultaneity is because I think it can be a bit ignorant to only consider what measurements tells us, without taking into account that what we see is actually based on an objective existence. Measurements are nothing but a separate prediction of a true event. What about entanglement? This tells us how particles relate to each other simultaneously regardless of speed.
Isn't what we see a form of measurement? What if we had a precision, calibrated video camera to make measurements, would you discount that? Aren't all measurements just as much objective existence as what we see?
 
  • #17
ghwellsjr said:
Now you have a bunch of different observers who all see and measure different things as you described but no mention of which frame(s) you used to determine what they each see and measure. Are you suggesting that if you consider all these observers using the ground frame, they make one set of observations and measurements but if you consider them using the train frame they each make a different set of observations and measurements?

For instance, take your first observer, if you analyzed what he sees using the ground frame (or any other frame), would you conclude that he sees the flashes at different times or with different magnitudes or with a Doppler shift? Or any of the other observers analyzed from any other frame?

OK finally I see what your talking about and of course the answer is no. I got from the OP and bahamagreen that the idea was hypothetical direct observation and measurement , not analyzation or calculation which can be done solely from any frame , even this one :-),,,, on a good night.
 
  • #18
ghwellsjr said:
Can you be specific about what the characteristics of this absolute frame are? Einstein's Frames of Reference all have an origin (where t=0, x=0, y=0 and z=0). Would this be true of the absolute frame?

I suppose I am trying to get an idea of what space really is. Assuming that one frame is the "right one" makes it possible to imagine an existing mathematical construct of space. Otherwise I really can't think of any mathematical construct of space which is consistent with that all the relativistic "predictions" are true for all frames of references. At least not if I don't believe in relativity of simultaneity.

ghwellsjr said:
If two frames were identical in every respect except that they had different origins, this would result in them having different conclusions, wouldn't it? Would that be a reason to discount the concept of frames?

No not that alone. I guess it's for the reason mentioned above, and sceptisism towards relativity of simultaneity.

ghwellsjr said:
Isn't what we see a form of measurement? What if we had a precision, calibrated video camera to make measurements, would you discount that? Aren't all measurements just as much objective existence as what we see?

Measurements are evaluated subjectively. Even sight. Thus they are not objective existence. Also the measurements themselves are different events from those measured.
 
  • #19
faen said:
Measurements are evaluated subjectively. Even sight. Thus they are not objective existence. Also the measurements themselves are different events from those measured.
In your first post, you said that "Observer A sees two lightning bolts strike the train at both sides simultaneously". I took that literally as an objective truth. Now you are saying that I was misled, that I should have taken it subjectively, but that just makes it impossible for me to have any idea what you meant. If we can't trust our measurements, then there is no hope of making any sense out of anything. With this level of skepticism, I wonder why you even consider such a thing as an absolute frame or why you are even "trying to get an idea of what space really is".
 
  • #20
ghwellsjr said:
In your first post, you said that "Observer A sees two lightning bolts strike the train at both sides simultaneously". I took that literally as an objective truth. Now you are saying that I was misled, that I should have taken it subjectively, but that just makes it impossible for me to have any idea what you meant. If we can't trust our measurements, then there is no hope of making any sense out of anything. With this level of skepticism, I wonder why you even consider such a thing as an absolute frame or why you are even "trying to get an idea of what space really is".

Maybe it was misleading that I said that it is subjective. I do still consider it as information related to the objective caused "somewhere" by objective reality, most likely by determined by the current models/theories we have. Perhaps it's just best to pretend that I didn't say anything about subjective in case it causes any confusion, sorry..

When it comes to the lightning bolts they were measured by the frame of reference to strike simultaneously, but whether they truly did or not is still unknown to me, since perhaps it did not to an absolute/real frame of reference..
 
  • #21
faen said:
Maybe it was misleading that I said that it is subjective. I do still consider it as information related to the objective caused "somewhere" by objective reality, most likely by determined by the current models/theories we have. Perhaps it's just best to pretend that I didn't say anything about subjective in case it causes any confusion, sorry..

When it comes to the lightning bolts they were measured by the frame of reference to strike simultaneously, but whether they truly did or not is still unknown to me, since perhaps it did not to an absolute/real frame of reference..

Here you have it in a nutshell. Because whether they truly did or not is unknown to everybody That was Einsteins brilliant recognition. Just like absolute motion there is simply no means of determination.
The best we get is the purely operational simultaneity of clocks reading the same proper time in a frame, which makes physics work fine, but tells no truth about actual or absolute simultaneity.
I also think there is an objective reality but sadly we can't seem to access it's truth and must make do with only "information". Relative measurements and theories.
 
  • #22
faen said:
ghwellsjr said:
In your first post, you said that "Observer A sees two lightning bolts strike the train at both sides simultaneously". I took that literally as an objective truth. Now you are saying that I was misled, that I should have taken it subjectively, but that just makes it impossible for me to have any idea what you meant. If we can't trust our measurements, then there is no hope of making any sense out of anything. With this level of skepticism, I wonder why you even consider such a thing as an absolute frame or why you are even "trying to get an idea of what space really is".
Maybe it was misleading that I said that it is subjective. I do still consider it as information related to the objective caused "somewhere" by objective reality, most likely by determined by the current models/theories we have. Perhaps it's just best to pretend that I didn't say anything about subjective in case it causes any confusion, sorry..

When it comes to the lightning bolts they were measured by the frame of reference to strike simultaneously, but whether they truly did or not is still unknown to me, since perhaps it did not to an absolute/real frame of reference..
OK, so let's agree that any observation or any measurement is objective as far as the data collected is concerned but any extrapolation of that data to what is happening at another location and/or time is subjective--at least that's what I think you are saying.

So when you say that "Observer A sees two lightning bolts strike the train at both sides simultaneously" we take that to be an objective truth because the light from those two bolts arrived at his eyes at the same time but that doesn't mean that the bolts actually occurred at the same time at both sides of the train and to draw that conclusion would be subjective--agreed?

Now let's not be concerned about these subjective aspects but only focus on the objective aspects. What we need is a theory to allow us to make predictions about what different observers will objectively see and measure at different times and when they are not all located at the same place. If a theory can do that, even if the subjective aspects vary all over the place, wouldn't that be a valuable theory?
 
  • #23
Austin0 said:
Here you have it in a nutshell. Because whether they truly did or not is unknown to everybody That was Einsteins brilliant recognition. Just like absolute motion there is simply no means of determination.
The best we get is the purely operational simultaneity of clocks reading the same proper time in a frame, which makes physics work fine, but tells no truth about actual or absolute simultaneity.
I also think there is an objective reality but sadly we can't seem to access it's truth and must make do with only "information". Relative measurements and theories.

ghwellsjr said:
OK, so let's agree that any observation or any measurement is objective as far as the data collected is concerned but any extrapolation of that data to what is happening at another location and/or time is subjective--at least that's what I think you are saying.

So when you say that "Observer A sees two lightning bolts strike the train at both sides simultaneously" we take that to be an objective truth because the light from those two bolts arrived at his eyes at the same time but that doesn't mean that the bolts actually occurred at the same time at both sides of the train and to draw that conclusion would be subjective--agreed?

Now let's not be concerned about these subjective aspects but only focus on the objective aspects. What we need is a theory to allow us to make predictions about what different observers will objectively see and measure at different times and when they are not all located at the same place. If a theory can do that, even if the subjective aspects vary all over the place, wouldn't that be a valuable theory?

Yes, I agree with these two posts. The theory of relativity is a valuable theory which makes the correct predictions. However as with all theories, it is only a model of the "real" reality.
 
  • #24
faen said:
Yes, I agree with these two posts. The theory of relativity is a valuable theory which makes the correct predictions. However as with all theories, it is only a model of the "real" reality.
Well, since you agree that only actual observations and measurements are objective, and extrapolations are subjective, then doesn't that make your idea of a "real" reality subjective?

Here are three more quotes of yours that express the same idea:
So the question is, why aren't just one or none of these predictions the right one according to more absolute properties of time and space?
I was just trying to illustrate how it is possible that there could perhaps be an absolute frame of reference?
I suppose I am trying to get an idea of what space really is. Assuming that one frame is the "right one" makes it possible to imagine an existing mathematical construct of space.
What objective observation or measurement can you make in support of these ideas?

I would suggest that you carefully re-read and study DaleSpam's post #8 and see if it now makes more sense to you.
 
  • #25
Once you start down the path of comparing observations, models, and reality, you eventually find that all notions of reality are conceptual models.

And if you look closely it gets weird fast. One might believe that the visual image they see is not the reality but some kind of model analogous of that reality, but at least spatially and geometrically it must correspond...
But what happens to that correspondence when you come to notice that the image on the retina is reversed left to right and top to bottom? And that the optic nerve connections to the rods and cones are not made behind the retina, but from the front surface (this is why the retina has a blind spot where the connections pass through it)? And that the part of the brain that processes this information is on the back surface of the brain?
It's even more complicated because the pairs of left and right halves of the two retinae are connected separately and crossed through the optic chiasma serving as the splitting station, then mapped to six layers alternating left and right in a subsequent pair of nuclei to extract spatial information...
And much more... the movement, color, and shape of a single visual object are processed in three different parts of the brain...

This system works very well; we drive cars, play sports, and manage to get around fine, but please rest assured that what you think you see is quite removed from "reality". The dependence of science on instruments and measurements is the history of untangling our naive misconceptions of reality and substituting coherent models, strange as they may seem.
 
  • #26
ghwellsjr said:
Can you give an example of where the data one receives (magnitude and sequence) is dependent on one's frame of reference?

Take the classic Einstein train example as mentioned in the OP but this time the lightning strike hits the back (Event B) slightly before the strike at the front (Event F) in the reference frame of A who is at rest with the track. He sees light arrive from the back before light arrives from the front. In the reference frame of B who is on board the train and at the centre, light arrives from the front flash before light arrives from the back (If the train is going fast enough) so he concludes that Event F occurred before Event B. (Opposite sequence of events). That is a clear example that the sequence of events depends on the frame of reference. Note also that the sequence in which data is received is also frame dependent.
 
  • #27
yuiop said:
ghwellsjr said:
Can you give an example of where the data one receives (magnitude and sequence) is dependent on one's frame of reference?
Take the classic Einstein train example as mentioned in the OP but this time the lightning strike hits the back (Event B) slightly before the strike at the front (Event F) in the reference frame of A who is at rest with the track. He sees light arrive from the back before light arrives from the front. In the reference frame of B who is on board the train and at the centre, light arrives from the front flash before light arrives from the back (If the train is going fast enough) so he concludes that Event F occurred before Event B. (Opposite sequence of events). That is a clear example that the sequence of events depends on the frame of reference. Note also that the sequence in which data is received is also frame dependent.
The OP did not use any frames in his description of his scenario nor did he mention any remote events. He didn't even say any observers were at the centre of anything. He didn't say this was Einstein's classic train example. None of that is relevant to this discussion. He was talking about what each observer actually sees for himself and what each observer sees that the other observer sees. He does not believe in relativity of simultaneity so he isn't concerned about whether remote events are simultaneous in different frames.

But, to address your concern, of course if you change the scenario, then the observers will see something different than what they saw in the original scenario. That's not the question. The question is for any given scenario, do different Frames of Reference change anything about what each observers sees and measures? In your new scenario, you said the ground observer "sees light arrive from the back before light arrives from the front" and for the train observer "light arrives from the front flash before light arrives from the back." Then you concluded by saying, "the sequence in which data is received is also frame dependent" but you have not shown how this is true because it isn't true. All frames will agree with your two quoted statements about the sequence in which each observer receives the light.
 
  • #28
ghwellsjr said:
... All frames will agree with your two quoted statements about the sequence in which each observer receives the light.
Your question was not very clear but I see what you are getting at now.
In the scenario I gave:

1)Observer A sees event B before event F.
2)Observer B sees event B after event F.

All (reasonable, intelligent, rational, honest, informed, cogent, sane, sober) observers agree that the above two statements are true.
 
  • #29
ghwellsjr said:
Well, since you agree that only actual observations and measurements are objective, and extrapolations are subjective, then doesn't that make your idea of a "real" reality subjective?

Here are three more quotes of yours that express the same idea:



What objective observation or measurement can you make in support of these ideas?

I would suggest that you carefully re-read and study DaleSpam's post #8 and see if it now makes more sense to you.

Yes theories are subjective. However if we were to learn about the reality in more fundamental terms, it could turn out that an absolute frame of reference is a more symmetric describtion with what is "real". At least I was interrested in if it could be a possibility.

bahamagreen said:
Once you start down the path of comparing observations, models, and reality, you eventually find that all notions of reality are conceptual models.

And if you look closely it gets weird fast. One might believe that the visual image they see is not the reality but some kind of model analogous of that reality, but at least spatially and geometrically it must correspond...
But what happens to that correspondence when you come to notice that the image on the retina is reversed left to right and top to bottom? And that the optic nerve connections to the rods and cones are not made behind the retina, but from the front surface (this is why the retina has a blind spot where the connections pass through it)? And that the part of the brain that processes this information is on the back surface of the brain?
It's even more complicated because the pairs of left and right halves of the two retinae are connected separately and crossed through the optic chiasma serving as the splitting station, then mapped to six layers alternating left and right in a subsequent pair of nuclei to extract spatial information...
And much more... the movement, color, and shape of a single visual object are processed in three different parts of the brain...

This system works very well; we drive cars, play sports, and manage to get around fine, but please rest assured that what you think you see is quite removed from "reality". The dependence of science on instruments and measurements is the history of untangling our naive misconceptions of reality and substituting coherent models, strange as they may seem.

I am not disbelieving in any measurements though. I am aware of that all my beliefs about reality are based on some kind of measurement.
 
  • #30
faen said:
Yes theories are subjective. However if we were to learn about the reality in more fundamental terms, it could turn out that an absolute frame of reference is a more symmetric describtion with what is "real". At least I was interrested in if it could be a possibility.
After more than a century of intense searching, there doesn't appear to be any hope that an absolute frame of reference could be objectively determined.

Now the question is: are you interested in learning Special Relativity or do you already understand it but just don't believe it?
 
  • #31
ghwellsjr said:
After more than a century of intense searching, there doesn't appear to be any hope that an absolute frame of reference could be objectively determined.

Now the question is: are you interested in learning Special Relativity or do you already understand it but just don't believe it?

I am interested in the theory in general and learning more about it wherever I can. I believe I understand the basic concepts. I am open for the possibility of relativity of simultaneity, but I am sceptic towards it as well. As of now, if I would have to make a bet, I would put my money on that relativity of simultaneity is not true.
 
  • #32
faen said:
I am interested in the theory in general and learning more about it wherever I can. I believe I understand the basic concepts. I am open for the possibility of relativity of simultaneity, but I am sceptic towards it as well. As of now, if I would have to make a bet, I would put my money on that relativity of simultaneity is not true.
Relativity of simultaneity is one of the basic concepts of Special Relativity. Is it one that you believe you understand? Or do you think you need to learn more about it? Either way, can you summarize what you believe it means?
 
  • #33
ghwellsjr said:
Relativity of simultaneity is one of the basic concepts of Special Relativity. Is it one that you believe you understand? Or do you think you need to learn more about it? Either way, can you summarize what you believe it means?

If you have two different frame of references, A and B. Events which are simultanous in A, exists as not simultaneous to B. That's what I'm skeptic about..

However, that they both predict that the events in the other frame are not simultaneous makes sense, and that is true.
 
  • #34
faen said:
If you have two different frame of references, A and B. Events which are simultanous in A, exists as not simultaneous to B. That's what I'm skeptic about..

However, that they both predict that the events in the other frame are not simultaneous makes sense, and that is true.
What is meant by "event"?
 
  • #35
ghwellsjr said:
What is meant by "event"?

That something happens I guess. A change in the universe.
 
<h2>1. What is relativity?</h2><p>Relativity is a theory developed by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century that describes the relationship between space and time. It states that the laws of physics are the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion.</p><h2>2. How does relativity relate to information?</h2><p>Relativity is often referred to as a theory of information because it explains how information is transmitted and perceived by different observers. It shows that the perception of time and space can vary depending on the observer's relative motion, which has implications for how information is communicated and understood.</p><h2>3. What are the two types of relativity?</h2><p>The two types of relativity are special relativity and general relativity. Special relativity deals with the laws of physics in non-accelerating frames of reference, while general relativity includes the effects of gravity and acceleration.</p><h2>4. How has relativity been tested and proven?</h2><p>Relativity has been tested and proven through numerous experiments and observations, including the famous Michelson-Morley experiment and the observation of the bending of starlight by the sun's gravity during a solar eclipse. It has also been confirmed by the precise predictions it makes, such as the precession of Mercury's orbit.</p><h2>5. What are the practical applications of relativity?</h2><p>Relativity has many practical applications, including GPS technology, which relies on the precise timing of signals from satellites in orbit. It also has implications for space travel and the study of the universe, as it explains phenomena such as black holes and the expansion of the universe.</p>

1. What is relativity?

Relativity is a theory developed by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century that describes the relationship between space and time. It states that the laws of physics are the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion.

2. How does relativity relate to information?

Relativity is often referred to as a theory of information because it explains how information is transmitted and perceived by different observers. It shows that the perception of time and space can vary depending on the observer's relative motion, which has implications for how information is communicated and understood.

3. What are the two types of relativity?

The two types of relativity are special relativity and general relativity. Special relativity deals with the laws of physics in non-accelerating frames of reference, while general relativity includes the effects of gravity and acceleration.

4. How has relativity been tested and proven?

Relativity has been tested and proven through numerous experiments and observations, including the famous Michelson-Morley experiment and the observation of the bending of starlight by the sun's gravity during a solar eclipse. It has also been confirmed by the precise predictions it makes, such as the precession of Mercury's orbit.

5. What are the practical applications of relativity?

Relativity has many practical applications, including GPS technology, which relies on the precise timing of signals from satellites in orbit. It also has implications for space travel and the study of the universe, as it explains phenomena such as black holes and the expansion of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
746
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
517
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
116
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
7
Replies
221
Views
9K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
612
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
503
Back
Top