Let me try to convey 4D this way (the dots are events):



This is 4D spacetime. Your life is a worldline (not shown) somewhere on this map.
Strictly speaking you can choose any coordinate system to read the events shown on the map, spacelike or not, future or past according to your coordinate system, that will not change anything to the 4D 'co'existence of all events of the block universe.

VDam wrote:
I'm new here, but I wonder whether this 'f**k' kind of language is appropriate on this forum. Please stay polite. Thanks.

If you make statements like that, you most certainly are new to the forum! Please familiarise yourself with the Forum User Agreement.

VDam wrote:Let me try to convey 4D this way (the dots are events):



This is 4D spacetime. Your life is a worldline (not shown) somewhere on this map.
Strictly speaking you can choose any coordinate system to read the events shown on the map, spacelike or not, future or past according to your coordinate system, that will not change anything to the 4D 'co'existence of all events of the block universe.

You clearly don't understand a word I'm saying, and I clearly don't understand a word you're saying. It is fruitless for us to communicate.

Block universe is a vacuous concept, bringing nothing new to the table, beyond the idea that spacetime is a 4 dimensional manifold, which we've all known for decades, and only sparks off futile discussions like these:


http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=583606

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=561344

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=578434

Edit: Ben Crowell summed it up nicely:

Asking for the status of the block universe in the field of physics is like asking for the status of socialism or abstract expressionism in physics. It's not physics.

Quote by bobc2 View Post

This topic has been discussed quite a bit here. Most forum members commenting here seem to view the block universe as consistent with relativity but feel it cannot be proven to be the correct interpretation of special relativity. One of the reasons given quite often is that the Lorentz ether theory provides a differing view and that there is no way to show which view is superior to the other--LET or Block Universe.

Comparing LET to the block universe doesn't make sense.

LET was a physical theory. It made predictions (actually mostly retrodictions) about the results of experiments, essentially the same predictions as SR (although I doubt that it was sufficiently complete, consistent, and well developed to do all the things we do with SR today).

The block universe isn't a physical theory. It doesn't make any predictions about the results of experiments.

Kaythanksbai

Being and Becoming in Modern Physics: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/

This thread appears not to be about physics but philosophy and should be moved to the correct section.....

twistor59 wrote:

VDam wrote:Let me try to convey 4D this way (the dots are events):



This is 4D spacetime. Your life is a worldline (not shown) somewhere on this map.
Strictly speaking you can choose any coordinate system to read the events shown on the map, spacelike or not, future or past according to your coordinate system, that will not change anything to the 4D 'co'existence of all events of the block universe.

You clearly don't understand a word I'm saying, and I clearly don't understand a word you're saying. It is fruitless for us to communicate.

Why should we? Let's try to understand each other.

Block universe is a vacuous concept, bringing nothing new to the table, beyond the idea that spacetime is a 4 dimensional manifold, which we've all known for decades, and only sparks off futile discussions like these:


http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=583606

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=561344

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=578434

Edit: Ben Crowell summed it up nicely:

Asking for the status of the block universe in the field of physics is like asking for the status of socialism or abstract expressionism in physics. It's not physics.

Quote by bobc2 View Post

This topic has been discussed quite a bit here. Most forum members commenting here seem to view the block universe as consistent with relativity but feel it cannot be proven to be the correct interpretation of special relativity. One of the reasons given quite often is that the Lorentz ether theory provides a differing view and that there is no way to show which view is superior to the other--LET or Block Universe.

Comparing LET to the block universe doesn't make sense.

LET was a physical theory. It made predictions (actually mostly retrodictions) about the results of experiments, essentially the same predictions as SR (although I doubt that it was sufficiently complete, consistent, and well developed to do all the things we do with SR today).

The block universe isn't a physical theory. It doesn't make any predictions about the results of experiments.

Kaythanksbai

What is the point you want to make? Of course there are other places on the internet where Block Universe is a topic. So what? I can give you a list of references of Block followers (I won't). What does that help us here? I prefer to discuss between the forum members how we can get to an acceptable answer to the opening post.

Block universe is not a physical theory, but a solipsist approach of Relativity of Relativity is? If you deny the existence of events outside your lightcone it is pointless to discuss Special Relativity. And I'm afraid even LET won't work for you.
Your intepretation of your diagram with lightcones shows that you have trouble interpreting a diagram the correct way. I have also a gut feeling that you probably prefer to work with mathematical formula only, only mumbers. But at one stage you have to explain what the results you exatly mean. A solipsist will never do that because in his opinion the mathematical results are sifficient to explain his non existent outside world. You think this kind of physics (?) is easy to grasp? Please allow us to at least question your point of view. I would appreaciate that.
Note: Einstein was not a solipsist.

campermon wrote:This thread appears not to be about physics but philosophy and should be moved to the correct section.....

Why is it not about physics?
Is it wrong to dicsuss what Relativity of simultaneity means?
Physics is more than mathematics. Or not?
We are allowed to say that two events are simultanoeus for one observer, but not for another observer, but we are not allowed to explain/discuss what it means? Really?

campermon wrote:This thread appears not to be about physics but philosophy and should be moved to the correct section.....

Yeah. Because the "Observed block universe" is obviously not the "Block universe in itself". The qualia produced by the block universe are merely a product of consciousness, the only thing that REALLY exists.

iamthereforeithink wrote:

campermon wrote:This thread appears not to be about physics but philosophy and should be moved to the correct section.....

Yeah. Because the "Observed block universe" is obviously not the "Block universe in itself". The qualia produced by the block universe are merely a product of consciousness, the only thing that REALLY exists.

That's it...yes..

VDam wrote:

campermon wrote:This thread appears not to be about physics but philosophy and should be moved to the correct section.....

Why is it not about physics?

Well, the core of this thread is SR, so, so far its physics. However, from this starting point it moves off into the metaphysical, for example there have been questions about the existential status of simultaneous events in distant frames and also the mention of Einstein not being a solipsist. These are metaphysical interpretations of the physics.

VDam wrote:
Is it wrong to dicsuss what Relativity of simultaneity means?

Well, it means that simultaneous events in one frame are observed as non-simultaneous in another frame. That's a really interesting bit of physics which has lots of implications for observers. That's what the physics tells us. To use this as a starting point to speculate as to what reality actually is, is metaphysics. Unless of course you are presenting a testable model.

VDam wrote:
Physics is more than mathematics. Or not?

Of course. But a discussion of the physics is proving to be almost impossible in this thread on account that the OP'er hasn't got a grasp of the basic physics involved (qualitatively or quantitatively). Hence the thread is being reduced to an SR primer (i.e. having to teach the OP'er the basics) in order to correct the persistent misconceptions being demonstrated throughout the thread.

VDam wrote:
We are allowed to say that two events are simultanoeus for one observer, but not for another observer, but we are not allowed to explain/discuss what it means? Really?

Of course you are allowed to discuss what it 'really means' i.e. have a metaphysical discussion on the nature of reality. This is philosophy - unless of course you can provide some testable model which would reveal the nature of this underlying reality, in that case it would be physics.

twistor59 wrote:Block universe is a vacuous concept, bringing nothing new to the table,

That's good enough for me.

campermon wrote:

iamthereforeithink wrote:

campermon wrote:This thread appears not to be about physics but philosophy and should be moved to the correct section.....

Yeah. Because the "Observed block universe" is obviously not the "Block universe in itself". The qualia produced by the block universe are merely a product of consciousness, the only thing that REALLY exists.

That's it...yes..

So in fact you are all in a permanent state of dreaming...Interesting concept for dealing with Physics!

VDam wrote:

So in fact you are all in a permanent state of dreaming...Interesting concept for dealing with Physics!

Perhaps we all are!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9635 ... heory.html

But until there is a testable prediction, it's metaphysics.

Would you then prefer saying that for two relative moving observers A and B, observer A -in his consciousness- 'sees' ('dreams'?) of the time of B running slow, and the measuring stick of B shrinking?
And observer B -in his consciousness- the time of A is running slow, and A's measuring stick shrinking?
It would also mean that we are both in each other's consciousness, sort of... Dzjee, gets tricky,but looks like fascinating physics.

Is that the way I should interpret Special Relativity?

VDam wrote:Would you then prefer saying that for two relative moving observers A and B, observer A -in his consciousness- 'sees' ('dreams'?) of the time of B running slow, and the measuring stick of B shrinking?
And observer B -in his consciousness- the time of A is running slow, and A's measuring stick shrinking?
It would also mean that we are both in each other's consciousness, sort of... Dzjee, gets tricky,but looks like fascinating physics.

Is that the way I should interpret Special Relativity?

I think you missed the point of my earlier point.

By a long way!



edited!

O.K.,let's follow that path of 'everything is consciousness...'
Instead of talking of 'real' or 'existing' I will use 'mental'.
My body, my brain etc are mental concepts. Nothing substantially 'real'.
All events are mental concepts. Past events are mental, future events are mental. My 'now' is a mental concept. Events in your past light cone are mental concepts. Spacelike events are mental concepts. Everything.
Would you then agree that Special Relativity shows that relativity of simultaneity of two events leads to block universe. Of course a mental Block universe.
So it means that we (our consciousnesses) all are in a mental block universe.
I've no problems with that.
Have you?

campermon wrote:

VDam wrote:Would you then prefer saying that for two relative moving observers A and B, observer A -in his consciousness- 'sees' ('dreams'?) of the time of B running slow, and the measuring stick of B shrinking?
And observer B -in his consciousness- the time of A is running slow, and A's measuring stick shrinking?
It would also mean that we are both in each other's consciousness, sort of... Dzjee, gets tricky,but looks like fascinating physics.

Is that the way I should interpret Special Relativity?

I think you missed the point of my earlier point.

By a long way!



edited!

Do you mind repeating it, or a link to that post?

Here:

campermon wrote:

VDam wrote:

campermon wrote:This thread appears not to be about physics but philosophy and should be moved to the correct section.....

Why is it not about physics?

Well, the core of this thread is SR, so, so far its physics. However, from this starting point it moves off into the metaphysical, for example there have been questions about the existential status of simultaneous events in distant frames and also the mention of Einstein not being a solipsist. These are metaphysical interpretations of the physics.

VDam wrote:
Is it wrong to dicsuss what Relativity of simultaneity means?

Well, it means that simultaneous events in one frame are observed as non-simultaneous in another frame. That's a really interesting bit of physics which has lots of implications for observers. That's what the physics tells us. To use this as a starting point to speculate as to what reality actually is, is metaphysics. Unless of course you are presenting a testable model.

VDam wrote:
Physics is more than mathematics. Or not?

Of course. But a discussion of the physics is proving to be almost impossible in this thread on account that the OP'er hasn't got a grasp of the basic physics involved (qualitatively or quantitatively). Hence the thread is being reduced to an SR primer (i.e. having to teach the OP'er the basics) in order to correct the persistent misconceptions being demonstrated throughout the thread.

VDam wrote:
We are allowed to say that two events are simultanoeus for one observer, but not for another observer, but we are not allowed to explain/discuss what it means? Really?

Of course you are allowed to discuss what it 'really means' i.e. have a metaphysical discussion on the nature of reality. This is philosophy - unless of course you can provide some testable model which would reveal the nature of this underlying reality, in that case it would be physics.

May I have your point of view on following:
Do you accept that red observer at event E1 says: "Event E3 happens now"? (whether that event is 'real' of only a 'mental concept' doesn't matter). I know that red observer will only at E6 have confirmation of his statement, but strictly speaking what he said at E1 was correct. Do yo accept the existence of the event E3, even in your mental/conscioussness world concept interpetation of special relativity?

You know where I'm going: I do not accept the problem we have is a philosophical one. The problem is what relativity of simultaneity means as far as events (past/future) are concerned. I will get to that later. I will even accept dropping the fact whether one calls events 'real' or mental', but I want to make sure we are on the same wavelength as far as relativity of simultaneity is concerned. And whether that leads to block universe or not.

VDam wrote:

May I have your point of view on following:
Do you accept that red observer at event E1 says: "Event E3 happens now"? (whether that event is 'real' of only a 'mental concept' doesn't matter). I know that red observer will only at E6 have confirmation of his statement, but strictly speaking what he said at E1 was correct. Do yo accept the existence of the event E3, even in your mental/conscioussness world concept interpetation of special relativity?

You know where I'm going: I do not accept the problem we have is a philosophical one. The problem is what relativity of simultaneity means as far as events (past/future) are concerned. I will get to that later. I will even accept dropping the fact whether one calls events 'real' or mental', but I want to make sure we are on the same wavelength as far as relativity of simultaneity is concerned. And whether that leads to block universe or not.

If I read your diagram correctly, the observer can only conclude that events E1 and E3 were simultaneous at some time after E1.