Friday 27 October 2017

special relativity - Is causality a formalised concept in physics?


I have never seen a “causality operator” in physics. When people invoke the informal concept of causality aren’t they really talking about consistency (perhaps in a temporal context)?


For example, if you allow material object velocities > c in SR you will be able to prove that at a definite space-time location the physical state of an object is undefined (for example, a light might be shown to be both on and off). This merely shows that SR is formally inconsistent if the v <= c boundary condition is violated, doesn’t it; despite there being a narrative saying FTL travel violates causality?



Note: this is a spinoff from the question: The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.




No comments:

Post a Comment

Understanding Stagnation point in pitot fluid

What is stagnation point in fluid mechanics. At the open end of the pitot tube the velocity of the fluid becomes zero.But that should result...