That is DEFINITELY an interesting way to look at it. To me, (and I KNOW you'll disagree), it's a little like saying they both agree that there is one reality. And in that one reality, they each exist in a separate reality.!Dale said:In science the link to reality is through experiment. Both the non-inertial reference frame of the muons and the lab can be used to predict the outcome of any experiment. Both frames will agree on all of their predictions. Therefore there is only one reality. In that one reality both the muon frame and the lab frame predict that muons will detect a sunrise every 49 minutes according to their clocks (##\gamma = 29.3##) and the scientists will detect the same sunrise every 24 hours according to their clocks.
Since both frames agree on all experimental outcomes there is one reality, it is just a far more interesting reality than our low-speed experience leads us to believe.
Yes, any physicist with her salt will disagree with that. We don't like working with contradictory statements. If you are going to use the word reality you will need to define it.jefals said:That is DEFINITELY an interesting way to look at it. To me, (and I KNOW you'll disagree), it's a little like saying they both agree that there is one reality. And in that one reality, they each exist in a separate reality.!
Are you here to learn a bit about physics or not? If you are here to learn then please stop saying silly things like this. We do not want nonsensical comments like this to be what people see when they search up our site.jefals said:And in that one reality, they each exist in a separate reality.!
Well, you might agree that there could be multiple univerces, tho, right? And possibly I could travel back in time and prevent my parents from meeting in a separate universe?Dr_Nate said:Yes, any physicist with her salt will disagree with that. We don't like working with contradictory statements. If you are going to use the word reality you will need to define it.
Ok, I'll stop. You guys are way ahead of me. I understand how it's seen as nonsensical to you. It isn't to me. I've enjoyed the discussion, and appreciate all your comments. Up till this one.Dale said:Are you here to learn a bit about physics or not? If you are here to learn then please stop saying silly things like this. We do not want nonsensical comments like this to be what people see when they search up our site.
By this same logic, I’m creating a new reality every time I get on the interstate, because when in history has it been normal to see trees moving at 80 mph?jefals said:As far back as you want to go, the passage of time as been associated with the earthly cycles. We needed to find a way to tell when to plant. When to reap. And we always had an idea about when the sun was going to rise the next day. If all of a sudden, sunrises started happening 10 times faster than normal, our ancestors would have freaked out big time.
So, given that background, and the hundreds of times I've heard the claim "time passes normally inside the spaceship" - those two taken together spurred me to ponder this scenario. It turns out not EVERYTHING about the passage of time is normal inside the spaceship. 10 sunrises per day is not normal.
jefals said:The statement that the traveler experiences the passage of time normally, would fail if you include watching the sunrise in your definition of what it means to experience the passage of time normally.
I would say that every time a caveman tried to outrun a bear, he noticed two things:Pencilvester said:By this same logic, I’m creating a new reality every time I get on the interstate, because when in history has it been normal to see trees moving at 80 mph?
I would say ever since the first caveman tried to outrun a bear, he noticed two things: The trees were moving towards him faster. And so was the bear. No matter how fast he ran - or modern earthman moves - the sun always comes up as expected.Pencilvester said:By this same logic, I’m creating a new reality every time I get on the interstate, because when in history has it been normal to see trees moving at 80 mph?
All of them understand special relativity well enough to realize that it has nothing whatsoever to do with parallel universes.jefals said:A lot of the popular scientists I follow - like Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Brian Cox - Paul Davies - would entertain these discussions
In the words of Al Pacino..."I keep tryin to get out. They keep pulling me back in"! :)jbriggs444 said:All of them understand special relativity well enough to realize that it has nothing whatsoever to do with parallel universes.
Again, even if such universes are real, they have nothing to do with the alternate realities that you incorrectly imagine special relativity to include.jefals said:In the words of Al Pacino..."I keep tryin to get out. They keep pulling me back in"! :)
I think I mentioned multiverses many posts back when in regards to whether we could consider there are multiple realities. I was attempting to make a point that we could consider each universe a separate reality.
I don't imagine special relativity to include any alternate realities at all. Unless I define reality in a way that allows them. One of you folks (I think Norgatory) set me clear on that many posts ago.jbriggs444 said:Again, even if such universes are real, they have nothing to do with the alternate realities that you incorrectly imagine special relativity to include.