Timeline for How do different observers decide if they are looking at the same thing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6 at 16:28 | history | edited | Mahammad Yusifov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 480 characters in body
|
| Nov 27 at 17:32 | comment | added | Filip Milovanović | Just wanted to add - you wrote "the most natural worldline is the one parametrized by proper time": note that parametrizations are just a mathematical way to describe a curve; the worldline itself is independent of that and, for a given object, is one and the same for all observers. It's just that relative velocity causes what each observer considers to be "now" (spacelike simultaneous hyperplane) to be tilted in spacetime (a kind of "rotation" in the 4D spacetime), so they observe the same object at different points along its worldline (as characterized by the Lorentz transformation). | |
| Nov 27 at 2:46 | history | edited | Mahammad Yusifov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2738 characters in body
|
| Nov 26 at 16:15 | comment | added | Mahammad Yusifov | @FilipMilovanović, I agree. I also think related to Tob Ernack's answer, the most natural worldline is the one parametrized by proper time since it is also independent of reference frame. I think best answer should just follow along those lines | |
| Nov 26 at 9:55 | comment | added | Filip Milovanović | "x' is not a quantity that exists on its own" - well, in a way, it isn't, and neither is x - these depend on the chosen reference frame and units. What's more fundamental than coordinates is the wordlines of the objects, and where the simultaneous hyperplane of each observer intersects them. | |
| Nov 26 at 8:47 | vote | accept | Mahammad Yusifov | ||
| Nov 26 at 0:36 | comment | added | TLDR | It's also a nontrivial question: I think the OpenRelativity toolkit had a few nontrivial (i.e. physically significant) bugs in it after it first launched. | |
| Nov 25 at 22:49 | comment | added | Tob Ernack | I believe OP's question is not merely philosophical, and touches on the ambiguity of parametrizing worldlines, which I address in my answer. | |
| Nov 25 at 21:48 | answer | added | Tob Ernack | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 25 at 21:09 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Nov 25 at 20:53 | answer | added | WillO | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 25 at 15:27 | answer | added | Andrew Steane | timeline score: 10 | |
| Nov 25 at 15:27 | answer | added | Dale | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 25 at 15:17 | history | edited | Amit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
improve phrasing and title, fix a few typos
|
| Nov 25 at 14:40 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags; edited title
|
| Nov 25 at 14:36 | answer | added | Cort Ammon | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 25 at 14:08 | answer | added | Professor Sushing | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 25 at 13:28 | comment | added | Ruffolo | The Lorentz transformations are derived from the notion that the same event could be represented by two different ways in two different reference frames. If now you say that the two representations of this event represents different events, you are rejecting the founding notion behind Lorentz transformations. | |
| Nov 25 at 13:22 | comment | added | Mahammad Yusifov | I am not saying I need such notions in order to define Lorentz transformations. I am doing the opposite: I accept lorentz transformations but can't decide what did I calculate physically ( as stated what is Lx if x is an event ) | |
| Nov 25 at 13:19 | comment | added | Ruffolo | Lorentz transformations are not related with what rational agents "see", "look" or "think". It could be defined without any reference to human experience. I think your question is more related to an anthropomorphic experience of objective reality. You should try to ask it here: philosophy.stackexchange.com | |
| Nov 25 at 13:08 | history | asked | Mahammad Yusifov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |