Causality is what distinguishes the temporal dimension from the other ones.This definition/description does not seem to require causality? — guptanishank
Exactly so. Light has no frame, travels in no specific direction, cannot rest, has no mass and exists in no time of its own. But all these things are defined by arbitrary selection of frame.The problem with that specific definition is that time is not defined for light. Light has no frame of reference, and hence no time or space associated with it. — guptanishank
But all these things are defined by arbitrary selection of frame.
Light doesn't exist inside or outside a causal cone, but rather occupies the dimensionless singularity where the rotation of one type of dimension becomes the other type. — noAxioms
Not sure what all else to explain. A photon, or anything else with no rest-mass, is missing half the properties of a classic object due to the inability to be at rest in any frame.Could you explain all of this in a little more detail. I would love to get to the bottom of this. Thanks.
I know the model is mathematically consistent. The interpretation is after all, built on top of the math.
That's not the point I was trying to make. Time CANNOT be defined for all the objects this way, because of mathematical restrictions. It would be counter intuitive to say the least, that a now is not defined for every object as well. — guptanishank
This part confused me since no object has a 'now'. Events do, and 'now' is only a self-reference to that event. Pair an event with any other event and the two events can be said to have pure spatial separation (temporally simultaneous) or pure temporal separation (spatially the same place) by aligning one of the axes to go through both events. If you don't think axes can be arbitrarily assigned, I ask where any of them are? Which direction is the X axis of the universe? There isn't one. There isn't a temporal one either. Choosing one is arbitrary, as per the principle of relativity, which is older than Galileo's work, even if the implications of that principle weren't worked out until a century ago.So every theory, built upon this concept of time, will not have a now for every object, because time itself was not defined for those objects, and we are trying to build a theory of now from the current concept of time.
That is why I said that time is a dimension, a fourth dimension to be precise, and I say that because there is in some sense a capacity - perhaps ontologically - to locate a what or that we are capable of describing it. We are within it, our frame of reference. — TimeLine
OK, we're taking completely different things then. Ignore what I've said.Every object has a separate now attached to it as a property. — guptanishank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.