Simultaneity (split from is time real)

[geordief]

Does the relativity of simultaneity have any bearing on "before" and "after" ?

 

Is it possible ,dependng on one's FOR to judge that the order of events are different to the order of the same events as judged by another?

 

Or is it only the proximity of events that can be so altered?

[Strange]

Does the relativity of simultaneity have any bearing on "before" and "after" ?

 

Is it possible ,dependng on one's FOR to judge that the order of events are different to the order of the same events as judged by another?

 

Or is it only the proximity of events that can be so altered?

 

 

Yes, different observers can see events occur in a different order (as long as there is no causal connection between the events).

[geordief]

 

 

Yes, different observers can see events occur in a different order (as long as there is no causal connection between the events).

An interesting caveat.

 

I wonder what would constitute evidence of causal connection at a quantum (and classical?) level .

 

Would it be chicken and egg?

[geordief]

r

 

 

 

Yes, different observers can see events occur in a different order (as long as there is no causal connection between the events).

Suppose we have events A,B,C D and E and we have For#1, FoR#2 and FoR #3 . How many time orderings of A,B,C,D and E can there be FoR#2 and FoR #3.

 

(if we accept ,perhaps for simplicity that for FoR#1 the order is A,B,C,D,E)

 

Here's hoping I have not got the wrong end of the stick and that my question is clearly expressed and valid

[Strange]

There will be frames of references that can see every possible ordering - from all simultaneous to reversed. Is that 3⁴?

[geordief]

There will be frames of references that can see every possible ordering - from all simultaneous to reversed. Is that 3⁴?

And can each frame calculate the ordering as it would appear to any other observer?

[Strange]

And can each frame calculate the ordering as it would appear to any other observer?

 

 

Yes.

[geordief]

 

 

Yes.

By using space-time diagrams?

[studiot]

Every point on the world line of a particle generates a new light cone.

So considering several observers can generate a complicated tangle of light cones.

It is important not to unintentionally include an assumption of some sort of absolute spacetime in consideration of these.

 

A good question to consider here would be:

 

How do the light cones from particles outside the light cone of some given particle overlap with the light cone of the given particle?

[geordief]

Are we talking about the set of all possible particle to particle(more realistically body to body) interactions?

 

Actual light emanating from one body does not physically interact with the light from the other body ,does it?

[studiot]

This is really Mordred's area.

 

I have started another thread with a question that might help here so please watch for his response.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100764-a-light-cone-question-for-mordred/

[geordief]

This is really Mordred's area.

 

I have started another thread with a question that might help here so please watch for his response.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100764-a-light-cone-question-for-mordred/

Yes I see that.

[J.C.MacSwell]

There will be frames of references that can see every possible ordering - from all simultaneous to reversed. Is that 3⁴?

Depending on where and/or when they happen in FOR #1, their may not be that many possibilities in others. I can only picture 4 events separated in space where there could be any order in another frame. I can't see where to place the 5th so that it works in any order...though it may be that I just can't see it.

[geordief]

Depending on where and/or when they happen in FOR #1, their may not be that many possibilities in others. I can only picture 4 events separated in space where there could be any order in another frame. I can't see where to place the 5th so that it works in any order...though it may be that I just can't see it.

I posited a finite number(3) of FoRs and a finite(5) number of events for the sake of simplicity.

 

Although the mathematics and and the general mental ingenuity is beyond me , I anticipated that if these time (re) orderings existed ,then they would exist with a correspondingly infinite number of FoRs and events given enough spacetime to play with.

 

But I don't know if that is correct.

[Mordred]

This is really Mordred's area.

 

I have started another thread with a question that might help here so please watch for his response.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100764-a-light-cone-question-for-mordred/

I'm glad I read this before answering the other thread. I'll dig up a good example diagram for the other thread as it pertains to this one.