- Where is the bullet? -
Some abreviations used in the text:
3D = Three-Dimensional, (width, depth, heigth), space.
4D = Four-Dimensional, (width, depth, heigth, time),
LET = Lorentz Ether Theory
SR = Einstein Special Relativity
LT = Lorentz Transformations
In his chapter I will show how Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity automatically leads to the physical existence of 4D Block Universe. After going though the previous chapters you might find this chapter a bit superfluous. But do not hesitate. It is easy reading. No mathematics.
Mr Red and Mr Green move relative to each other and pass each other at event -Z-.
At event -A- Mr Red fires a bullet.
At event -B- Mr Green sees the bullet flying by. He quickly calculates and predicts that when he and Mr Red will pass each other (event -Z-) the bullet will be at the tree (event -C-).
At event -Z- Mr Green says: "The bullet is at the tree".
The bullet being at the tree means that this event -C- exists and is really happening.
For Mr Green at event -Z- the event -C- is part of what 'exists', out there in nature.
Notice that at event -Z- the event -C- is not within Mr Green's lightcone, but this exercise is not about the light cone. This exercise is not finding out where causal relationships are. Mr Green simply states that based on his calculations the bullet is really at the orange tree when he and Mr Red cross paths. At event -Z- the content of event -C- is part of Green's 3D world existence.
Let's listen to Mr Red's story.
At event -A- Mr Red calculates and predicts that when he will pass Mr Green (event -Z-), the bullet will not be at the tree (event -C-), but farther away, beyond the tree, already at the house (event -D-).
At event -Z- Mr Red says: "The bullet is at the house."
The bullet being at the house means that this event -D- exists and is really happening.
For Mr Red at event -Z- the event -D- is part of what 'exists', out there in nature. The content of event -D- is part of Red's 3D world existence.
For a microbe on the bullet (the content of) event -D- is a future event of his life relative to (the content of) event -C-, and all observers agree on this. At event -Z- Mr Green and Mr Red look at each other. Green says: "The bullet is now at the tree". Red says: "The bullet is now at the house".
Note . You can now get very picky by saying that at event -Z- Mr Green can never be sure that the bullet is at the tree, and/or at the house for Mr Red, because anything can happen to the bullet on its way to the tree and the house. But this is not the crux of the matter here. Whatever happens to the bullet, and whatever its location, for Mr Red the bullet's event is a future event relative to Mr Green's bullet event.
If you do not believe in the real physical existence of the (content of) event 'bullet at tree' and 'bullet at house' when both men cross paths, then please tell me which events exist, spacelike for event -Z-.
Please be serious.
Where is the bullet for the observers at event -Z-?
According to Mr Green it's at the tree. For Mr Red it's already at the house.
How can this be? Let's suppose Mr Green has never heard of Einstein's relativity. He believes in the existence of only one 3D world (=simultaneous events - a 3D world of non-simultaneous events is a contradiction in terms): his (green) 3D world. He also believes this 3D world evolves in time, the past 3D worlds gone forever and the future 3D worlds not existing yet. If this is correct, then for Mr Red at event -Z- the bullet can never (already) be at the house for Mr Red.
Special Relativity's 'relativity of simultaneity' deals with different set of events (-Z- and -C-) and (-Z- and -D-).
(In other words: SR is not about one set of events (f.ex. -C- and -Z-) that is measured differently by Mr Red's coordinate system, giving only a different abstract mathematical data for the length (and time) between -Z- and -C-. The events -C- and -D- are not about a different length between -Z- and -C- !)
The existence of the events of both Red's world and Green's world make sense because they are only different 3D sections through 4D spacetime 'BlLock Universe' existence.
The invariant is 4D block spacetime. Not 3D space world. 3D space worlds are relative, but all part of one and the same 4D spacetime Block Universe.
At the event Mr Red and Mr Green meet, listening to what Mr Red says, Mr Green has to agree that the event 'bullet at the house' (event -D)- already exists out there, waiting to be part of one of his future 3D worlds.
If you refute real 4D existence, then tell me which events do exists out there to allow the bullet to be at the tree for Mr Green, and at the house for Mr Red?
Does the bullet has -or not- a 4D spacetime existence out there, independent of your 4D spacetime mathematical models? Yes or no? If not, then what is out there, what is existing when Red meets Green (event -Z-) ?
Only event -Z- perhaps?
Let's be serious!
How does Mr Red and Mr Green get different physically real events of the bullet's life in their respective 3D worlds of simultaneous events? It can only be because the bullet not only exists at one instant of time, but its full life exists 4-dimensionally.
Mr Green has to expand his definition of 'reality'. 'Reality' is more than the bullet being at one spot only. The bullet's own existence is not just one event, the present one. The bullet's existence includes all its own past and future events. Otherwise for Mr Red at -Z-, the bullet can never be at the house.
Events -Z-, -C- and -D- co-exist (happen simultaneously) 4-dimensionally, not 3-dimensionally. 'Simultaneity' is a terminology used for 3D space existing, 'co-existing' is more appropriate for 4D existing. The events co-exist timelessly (tenselessly) in 4D spacetime (Block Universe).
Correlating all the people's observations of observer independent events leads to the conclusion that there exists an 'observer independent' world, not an evolving absolute 3D space world of simultaneous events, but different intersecting 3D worlds (= simultaneous events) in a 4D Spacetime of everlasting co-existing events: 4D Block Universe.
Or do you want to refute this because you are of the opinion that the two 'observers' are not allowed to combine their physically real experimental observational data and organize the results in one consistent common physically real space and time structure? Let me give you an analogy to understand what I mean.
A draftsman shows you a bunch of 2D technical drawings. Lots of sheets of paper. He says: "Awesome! 2D drawings is all there is. Nothing else." An architect looks at it and says: "The 2D drawings are fine, but... they are all 'only' sections and elevations/façades of a 3D building. Let me quickly sketch you the 3D perspective of the house so that you can grasp what you are working on and you will understand where your 2D drawings come from, why you mesure what you measure, etc. You measure only 2D sections, but the 3D house is the simpliest explanation for the experimental and observational data." (Exactly like SR (and not LET) is the simpliest explantion to make the Maxwell equations physically valid in all reference frames.) Draftsman reaction: "All this 3D stuff is ridiculous.' Sigh. What then happens is even more pathetic: the more the architect explains how this all works, the more the draftsman holds tight on his 2D drawings. But that's normal behavior. Draftsmen are very good technical experts, they protect what they are good at. But they are -or become- very seldom good architects.