One Response

  1. Per Östborn
    Per Östborn at | |

    The author noticed an error in Section 3.3 in the discussion about a universal ordering of events, as described by sequential time n. It is written in the paper that two events A and B, perceived by two subjects k and k’, should be regarded as simultaneous whenever the separation between A and B is space-like. This is not always appropriate, as the following simple example shows.

    Consider another event C, perceived by another subject k’’, and suppose that the separation between A and C is space-like just like that between A and B, but that the separation between B and C is time-like. If A and B are considered simultaneous, as well as A and C, then so should B and C. This is inappropriate, of course.

    Even though space-like separation isn’t a sufficient condition for simultaneity, we assume that the question whether two events are simultaneous or not always has a definite answer. This is necessary in order to construct the universal sequential time n, which is at the core of the present reconstruction of quantum mechanics.

    (It should be noted that simultaneity with respect to n, which is considered here, is not the same thing as simultaneity with respect to the time variable t that appears in relativity. Even though I argue that simultaneity with respect to n can have a universal meaning, simultaneity with respect to t cannot, of course. The relation between n and t is discussed in a follow-up paper: arXiv:1801.03396v2)

Please comment with your real name using good manners.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.