Why is every event in spacetime limited to our present point

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quantumfunction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Point Spacetime
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the limitations of events in spacetime, particularly why events from the past cannot influence our present if the light from those events has not yet reached us. Participants explore the implications of the finite speed of light and the structure of spacetime, including concepts like light cones and worldlines.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the finite speed of light means we can only observe events as they were in the past, not as they are in the present.
  • Others argue that if an event occurs outside of our past light cone, light from that event cannot reach us in the past, as it would require faster-than-light travel.
  • A participant questions whether the discussion is about past points where we existed or any past point, suggesting a distinction in the implications of the question.
  • One participant describes a spacetime diagram to illustrate how light cones define the relationship between past and future events and the observer's worldline.
  • Another participant challenges the interpretation of events outside the light cones, stating that observers in different states of motion may disagree on the timing of those events relative to the observer's "now."
  • Some participants emphasize the need to define "past" and "future" in the context of 4D spacetime to clarify the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of events in spacetime and the implications of light cones. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the interpretations of past events and their influence on the present.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of "past" and "future," as well as the assumptions made about the observer's motion and the nature of spacetime diagrams.

  • #31
Dale said:
Yes, he does. The events are timelike separated so all observers agree on their order.

This is a quote about simultaneity in general from a previous post and timelike and spacelike separation.

In my post and diagram it shows that events do happen in order. JFK doesn't walk out of the airplane before the plane lands or get assassinated before the Cuban Missle Crisis.

These events happen in order.

There's no force or mechanism that says these events have to happen the same way for observer B as they happened for observer A because the event(JFK assassination) is outside the future light cone of observer B.

So many paths can occur at this point. Sometimes we will take the less probable path, sometimes we will take the most probable path. There's many paths that lead to JFK assassinated/not assassinated, we may have even taken a less probable path. This doesn't mean observer B has to take the same path as observer A.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
quantumfunction said:
So many paths can occur at this point. Sometimes we will take the less probable path, sometimes we will take the most probable path. There's many paths that lead to JFK assassinated/not assassinated, we may have even taken a less probable path. This doesn't mean observer B has to take the same path as observer A.
Not only does B not have to take the same path as A, they must necessarily take different paths. (The only way they could be following the same path is if they start at out at the same location at the same time at rest relative to one another and never accelerate or decelerate). However, if you draw their worldlines (which you still haven't) and identify the event on A's worldline which is in B's "now" and vice versa, you will find that there is no way of configuring the worldlines that do not lead to the same outcomes along both worldlines.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
quantumfunction said:
because the event(JFK assassination) is outside the future light cone of observer B.
As you've drawn the diagram, the assassination event is within the future light cone of B. The diagrams that you posted in #4 and #20 may confusingly not make it look that way, but future light cones extend all the way to the top of the page and keep on going (and past light cones extend all the way to the bottom of the page and keep on going) and you'll want t show this in your diagram as well.

Now consider the point that is the base of B's future light cone in your diagram. That point is a moment when B said "now!", and as well as the past and future light cones it also defines a surface (the plane in the diagram in your post #4) that is B's now at that moment. Where does that plane intersect A's worldline?
 
  • #34
I must confess, I don't like explaining physics using the context of JFK's assassination.
 
  • #35
quantumfunction said:
There's no force or mechanism that says these events have to happen the same way for observer B

Yes there is. As Dale already pointed out, and I pointed out even before that, events that are timelike separated occur in the same order for all observers.

quantumfunction said:
because the event(JFK assassination) is outside the future light cone of observer B

This is false, and it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that it is false.

We can't have a useful discussion if you refuse to accept correction when you make false statements. Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
871
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
949
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K