The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
of all events occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized
by the set of all physical phenomena taking place at the same instant,
we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed components
found in a given inertial system, talk about “absolute simultaneity”, “universal synchronization”, “common calendar” - these terms then being
capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if we could, without it varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a particular observer to
all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of propagating from A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such
that t(AA') = 0, and the notion of absolute simultaneity would be
immediately proven.
However, this proof does not exist.
On 2023-11-30 16:09:13 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
of all events occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized
by the set of all physical phenomena taking place at the same instant,
The definition of simultaneity being defined in terms of "at the same
time" or "taking place at the same instant", the latter should be
defined first.
we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed components
found in a given inertial system, talk about “absolute simultaneity”,
“universal synchronization”, “common calendar” - these terms then being
capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if we could, without it
varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a particular observer to
all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
The words "absolute", "universal", "common" are not correct when the simultaneity and related terms are restricted to one inertial frame of reference.
It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of
propagating from A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such
that t(AA') = 0, and the notion of absolute simultaneity would be
immediately proven.
There is no known way to create any such signal and no idea about
how to look for one. And anyway, if it is not infinitely fase in
every frame it will not provide absolute simultaneity.
However, this proof does not exist.
And probably never will.
Mikko
Le 01/12/2023 à 10:22, Mikko a écrit :
On 2023-11-30 16:09:13 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
of all events occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized
by the set of all physical phenomena taking place at the same instant,
The definition of simultaneity being defined in terms of "at the same
time" or "taking place at the same instant", the latter should be
defined first.
we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed components
found in a given inertial system, talk about “absolute simultaneity”, >>> “universal synchronization”, “common calendar” - these terms then being
capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if we could, without it
varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a particular observer to >>> all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
The words "absolute", "universal", "common" are not correct when the
simultaneity and related terms are restricted to one inertial frame of
reference.
It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of
propagating from A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such
that t(AA') = 0, and the notion of absolute simultaneity would be
immediately proven.
There is no known way to create any such signal and no idea about
how to look for one. And anyway, if it is not infinitely fase in
every frame it will not provide absolute simultaneity.
However, this proof does not exist.
And probably never will.
Mikko
I'm not sure you understood correctly what I wrote.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 312 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 11:38:24 |
Calls: | 6,982 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,411 |
Messages: | 5,451,786 |