gem_id
stringlengths 20
25
| id
stringlengths 24
24
| title
stringlengths 3
59
| context
stringlengths 151
3.71k
| question
stringlengths 1
270
| target
stringlengths 1
270
| references
list | answers
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gem-squad_v2-train-114000
|
5a42ba0b4a4859001aac72c7
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Arguing against the absolutist position, Leibniz offers a number of thought experiments with the purpose of showing that there is contradiction in assuming the existence of facts such as absolute location and velocity. These arguments trade heavily on two principles central to his philosophy: the principle of sufficient reason and the identity of indiscernibles. The principle of sufficient reason holds that for every fact, there is a reason that is sufficient to explain what and why it is the way it is and not otherwise. The identity of indiscernibles states that if there is no way of telling two entities apart, then they are one and the same thing.
|
What states that two things are not necessarily the same just because no difference can be identified?
|
What states that two things are not necessarily the same just because no difference can be identified?
|
[
"What states that two things are not necessarily the same just because no difference can be identified?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114001
|
572a18491d04691400779769
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The example Leibniz uses involves two proposed universes situated in absolute space. The only discernible difference between them is that the latter is positioned five feet to the left of the first. The example is only possible if such a thing as absolute space exists. Such a situation, however, is not possible, according to Leibniz, for if it were, a universe's position in absolute space would have no sufficient reason, as it might very well have been anywhere else. Therefore, it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and there could exist two distinct universes that were in all ways indiscernible, thus contradicting the identity of indiscernibles.
|
Leibniz's example involves how many universes?
|
Leibniz's example involves how many universes?
|
[
"Leibniz's example involves how many universes?"
] |
{
"text": [
"two"
],
"answer_start": [
34
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114002
|
572a18491d0469140077976a
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The example Leibniz uses involves two proposed universes situated in absolute space. The only discernible difference between them is that the latter is positioned five feet to the left of the first. The example is only possible if such a thing as absolute space exists. Such a situation, however, is not possible, according to Leibniz, for if it were, a universe's position in absolute space would have no sufficient reason, as it might very well have been anywhere else. Therefore, it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and there could exist two distinct universes that were in all ways indiscernible, thus contradicting the identity of indiscernibles.
|
Where are Leibniz's universes situated?
|
Where are Leibniz's universes situated?
|
[
"Where are Leibniz's universes situated?"
] |
{
"text": [
"absolute space"
],
"answer_start": [
69
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114003
|
572a18491d0469140077976b
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The example Leibniz uses involves two proposed universes situated in absolute space. The only discernible difference between them is that the latter is positioned five feet to the left of the first. The example is only possible if such a thing as absolute space exists. Such a situation, however, is not possible, according to Leibniz, for if it were, a universe's position in absolute space would have no sufficient reason, as it might very well have been anywhere else. Therefore, it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and there could exist two distinct universes that were in all ways indiscernible, thus contradicting the identity of indiscernibles.
|
How far are Leibniz's universes situated apart?
|
How far are Leibniz's universes situated apart?
|
[
"How far are Leibniz's universes situated apart?"
] |
{
"text": [
"five feet"
],
"answer_start": [
163
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114004
|
572a18491d0469140077976c
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The example Leibniz uses involves two proposed universes situated in absolute space. The only discernible difference between them is that the latter is positioned five feet to the left of the first. The example is only possible if such a thing as absolute space exists. Such a situation, however, is not possible, according to Leibniz, for if it were, a universe's position in absolute space would have no sufficient reason, as it might very well have been anywhere else. Therefore, it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and there could exist two distinct universes that were in all ways indiscernible, thus contradicting the identity of indiscernibles.
|
What is the only way Leibniz's example would be possible?
|
What is the only way Leibniz's example would be possible?
|
[
"What is the only way Leibniz's example would be possible?"
] |
{
"text": [
"absolute space exists"
],
"answer_start": [
247
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114005
|
5a42be694a4859001aac72cb
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The example Leibniz uses involves two proposed universes situated in absolute space. The only discernible difference between them is that the latter is positioned five feet to the left of the first. The example is only possible if such a thing as absolute space exists. Such a situation, however, is not possible, according to Leibniz, for if it were, a universe's position in absolute space would have no sufficient reason, as it might very well have been anywhere else. Therefore, it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and there could exist two distinct universes that were in all ways indiscernible, thus contradicting the identity of indiscernibles.
|
Who's example involves one universe in two places?
|
Who's example involves one universe in two places?
|
[
"Who's example involves one universe in two places?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114006
|
5a42be694a4859001aac72cc
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The example Leibniz uses involves two proposed universes situated in absolute space. The only discernible difference between them is that the latter is positioned five feet to the left of the first. The example is only possible if such a thing as absolute space exists. Such a situation, however, is not possible, according to Leibniz, for if it were, a universe's position in absolute space would have no sufficient reason, as it might very well have been anywhere else. Therefore, it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and there could exist two distinct universes that were in all ways indiscernible, thus contradicting the identity of indiscernibles.
|
What does Leibniz place at two points in deep space?
|
What does Leibniz place at two points in deep space?
|
[
"What does Leibniz place at two points in deep space?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114007
|
5a42be694a4859001aac72cd
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The example Leibniz uses involves two proposed universes situated in absolute space. The only discernible difference between them is that the latter is positioned five feet to the left of the first. The example is only possible if such a thing as absolute space exists. Such a situation, however, is not possible, according to Leibniz, for if it were, a universe's position in absolute space would have no sufficient reason, as it might very well have been anywhere else. Therefore, it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and there could exist two distinct universes that were in all ways indiscernible, thus contradicting the identity of indiscernibles.
|
What proves the existence of absolute space?
|
What proves the existence of absolute space?
|
[
"What proves the existence of absolute space?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114008
|
572a1a6b1d04691400779789
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the bucket argument: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.
|
What stood out in Clark's response to Leibniz?
|
What stood out in Clark's response to Leibniz?
|
[
"What stood out in Clark's response to Leibniz?"
] |
{
"text": [
"the bucket argument"
],
"answer_start": [
75
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114009
|
572a1a6b1d0469140077978a
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the bucket argument: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.
|
According to Clark's argument, water in a bucket, hung from a rope and spun, will begin with kind of surface?
|
According to Clark's argument, water in a bucket, hung from a rope and spun, will begin with kind of surface?
|
[
"According to Clark's argument, water in a bucket, hung from a rope and spun, will begin with kind of surface?"
] |
{
"text": [
"flat"
],
"answer_start": [
167
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114010
|
572a1a6b1d0469140077978b
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the bucket argument: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.
|
As the buck spins, what happens to the water?
|
As the buck spins, what happens to the water?
|
[
"As the buck spins, what happens to the water?"
] |
{
"text": [
"the water will become concave"
],
"answer_start": [
239
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114011
|
572a1a6b1d0469140077978c
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the bucket argument: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.
|
If the buck stops, the water will do what?
|
If the buck stops, the water will do what?
|
[
"If the buck stops, the water will do what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"continue to spin"
],
"answer_start": [
311
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114012
|
572a1a6b1d0469140077978d
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the bucket argument: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.
|
What is the surface of the water apparently not caused by?
|
What is the surface of the water apparently not caused by?
|
[
"What is the surface of the water apparently not caused by?"
] |
{
"text": [
"the interaction of the bucket and the water"
],
"answer_start": [
444
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114013
|
5a42bf8e4a4859001aac72d1
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the bucket argument: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.
|
Who makes the bucket argument in response to Clarke and Newton?
|
Who makes the bucket argument in response to Clarke and Newton?
|
[
"Who makes the bucket argument in response to Clarke and Newton?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114014
|
5a42bf8e4a4859001aac72d2
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the bucket argument: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.
|
What becomes flat as the bucket spins?
|
What becomes flat as the bucket spins?
|
[
"What becomes flat as the bucket spins?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114015
|
5a42bf8e4a4859001aac72d3
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the bucket argument: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.
|
What does the bucket interact with to create the water surface?
|
What does the bucket interact with to create the water surface?
|
[
"What does the bucket interact with to create the water surface?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114016
|
5a42bf8e4a4859001aac72d4
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the bucket argument: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.
|
What becomes flat when the bucket stops spinning?
|
What becomes flat when the bucket stops spinning?
|
[
"What becomes flat when the bucket stops spinning?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114017
|
572a1b551d04691400779793
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.
|
Leibniz describes space as existing only as a relation between what?
|
Leibniz describes space as existing only as a relation between what?
|
[
"Leibniz describes space as existing only as a relation between what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"objects"
],
"answer_start": [
65
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114018
|
572a1b551d04691400779794
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.
|
According to Leibniz, what has no existence apart from the existence of objections?
|
According to Leibniz, what has no existence apart from the existence of objections?
|
[
"According to Leibniz, what has no existence apart from the existence of objections?"
] |
{
"text": [
"space"
],
"answer_start": [
20
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114019
|
572a1b551d04691400779795
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.
|
What provides the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion?
|
What provides the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion?
|
[
"What provides the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion?"
] |
{
"text": [
"Newtonian space"
],
"answer_start": [
200
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114020
|
572a1b551d04691400779796
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.
|
In Newton's system, how does the frame of reference exist between objects within it?
|
In Newton's system, how does the frame of reference exist between objects within it?
|
[
"In Newton's system, how does the frame of reference exist between objects within it?"
] |
{
"text": [
"independently"
],
"answer_start": [
345
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114021
|
572a1b551d04691400779797
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.
|
For how long did the evidence of a concave water surface hold authority in reference to space?
|
For how long did the evidence of a concave water surface hold authority in reference to space?
|
[
"For how long did the evidence of a concave water surface hold authority in reference to space?"
] |
{
"text": [
"many centuries"
],
"answer_start": [
469
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114022
|
5a42c1514a4859001aac72e3
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.
|
What does space exist independently from?
|
What does space exist independently from?
|
[
"What does space exist independently from?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114023
|
5a42c1514a4859001aac72e4
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.
|
What exists as a relationship between space and objects?
|
What exists as a relationship between space and objects?
|
[
"What exists as a relationship between space and objects?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114024
|
5a42c1514a4859001aac72e5
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.
|
What provides the absolute frame of refrence for space?
|
What provides the absolute frame of refrence for space?
|
[
"What provides the absolute frame of refrence for space?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114025
|
5a42c1514a4859001aac72e6
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.
|
What is dependent on the frame of refrence in Newtonian space?
|
What is dependent on the frame of refrence in Newtonian space?
|
[
"What is dependent on the frame of refrence in Newtonian space?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114026
|
5a42c1514a4859001aac72e7
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.
|
What evidence still holds authority?
|
What evidence still holds authority?
|
[
"What evidence still holds authority?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114027
|
572a1c096aef051400155298
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach suggested that thought experiments like the bucket argument are problematic. If we were to imagine a universe that only contains a bucket, on Newton's account, this bucket could be set to spin relative to absolute space, and the water it contained would form the characteristic concave surface. But in the absence of anything else in the universe, it would be difficult to confirm that the bucket was indeed spinning. It seems equally possible that the surface of the water in the bucket would remain flat.
|
How did Mach describe thought experiments like the bucket argument?
|
How did Mach describe thought experiments like the bucket argument?
|
[
"How did Mach describe thought experiments like the bucket argument?"
] |
{
"text": [
"problematic"
],
"answer_start": [
69
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114028
|
572a1c096aef051400155299
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach suggested that thought experiments like the bucket argument are problematic. If we were to imagine a universe that only contains a bucket, on Newton's account, this bucket could be set to spin relative to absolute space, and the water it contained would form the characteristic concave surface. But in the absence of anything else in the universe, it would be difficult to confirm that the bucket was indeed spinning. It seems equally possible that the surface of the water in the bucket would remain flat.
|
What is difficult to confirm about the bucket in the absence of anything else in the universe?
|
What is difficult to confirm about the bucket in the absence of anything else in the universe?
|
[
"What is difficult to confirm about the bucket in the absence of anything else in the universe?"
] |
{
"text": [
"that the bucket was indeed spinning"
],
"answer_start": [
386
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114029
|
572a1c096aef05140015529a
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach suggested that thought experiments like the bucket argument are problematic. If we were to imagine a universe that only contains a bucket, on Newton's account, this bucket could be set to spin relative to absolute space, and the water it contained would form the characteristic concave surface. But in the absence of anything else in the universe, it would be difficult to confirm that the bucket was indeed spinning. It seems equally possible that the surface of the water in the bucket would remain flat.
|
What was equally possible about the surface of the water in the bucket?
|
What was equally possible about the surface of the water in the bucket?
|
[
"What was equally possible about the surface of the water in the bucket?"
] |
{
"text": [
"would remain flat."
],
"answer_start": [
493
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114030
|
5a42c20b4a4859001aac72ed
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach suggested that thought experiments like the bucket argument are problematic. If we were to imagine a universe that only contains a bucket, on Newton's account, this bucket could be set to spin relative to absolute space, and the water it contained would form the characteristic concave surface. But in the absence of anything else in the universe, it would be difficult to confirm that the bucket was indeed spinning. It seems equally possible that the surface of the water in the bucket would remain flat.
|
Who expanded on thought experiments?
|
Who expanded on thought experiments?
|
[
"Who expanded on thought experiments?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114031
|
5a42c20b4a4859001aac72ee
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach suggested that thought experiments like the bucket argument are problematic. If we were to imagine a universe that only contains a bucket, on Newton's account, this bucket could be set to spin relative to absolute space, and the water it contained would form the characteristic concave surface. But in the absence of anything else in the universe, it would be difficult to confirm that the bucket was indeed spinning. It seems equally possible that the surface of the water in the bucket would remain flat.
|
What can be confirmed about the bucket independent of other objects in the universe?
|
What can be confirmed about the bucket independent of other objects in the universe?
|
[
"What can be confirmed about the bucket independent of other objects in the universe?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114032
|
5a42c20b4a4859001aac72ef
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach suggested that thought experiments like the bucket argument are problematic. If we were to imagine a universe that only contains a bucket, on Newton's account, this bucket could be set to spin relative to absolute space, and the water it contained would form the characteristic concave surface. But in the absence of anything else in the universe, it would be difficult to confirm that the bucket was indeed spinning. It seems equally possible that the surface of the water in the bucket would remain flat.
|
What could not remain flat in absolute space?
|
What could not remain flat in absolute space?
|
[
"What could not remain flat in absolute space?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114033
|
572a1ef81d046914007797a5
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).
|
What did Mach argue about the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe?
|
What did Mach argue about the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe?
|
[
"What did Mach argue about the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe?"
] |
{
"text": [
"would remain flat"
],
"answer_start": [
81
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114034
|
572a1ef81d046914007797a6
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).
|
What did Mach argue would happen if another object were introduce in the bucket's universe?
|
What did Mach argue would happen if another object were introduce in the bucket's universe?
|
[
"What did Mach argue would happen if another object were introduce in the bucket's universe?"
] |
{
"text": [
"the bucket could be seen as rotating"
],
"answer_start": [
229
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114035
|
572a1ef81d046914007797a7
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).
|
What does the increase in the number of objects in the universe do to the curvature of the water?
|
What does the increase in the number of objects in the universe do to the curvature of the water?
|
[
"What does the increase in the number of objects in the universe do to the curvature of the water?"
] |
{
"text": [
"increases the curvature"
],
"answer_start": [
431
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114036
|
572a1ef81d046914007797a8
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).
|
The Mach argument is called what?
|
The Mach argument is called what?
|
[
"The Mach argument is called what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"Mach's Principle"
],
"answer_start": [
619
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114037
|
572a1ef81d046914007797a9
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).
|
Mach argued that the momentum of an object exists as a result of the sum of the effects of what?
|
Mach argued that the momentum of an object exists as a result of the sum of the effects of what?
|
[
"Mach argued that the momentum of an object exists as a result of the sum of the effects of what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"effects of other objects in the universe"
],
"answer_start": [
577
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114038
|
5a42c4a14a4859001aac72f3
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).
|
Who argued that the water experiment in an empty univers would never be flat?
|
Who argued that the water experiment in an empty univers would never be flat?
|
[
"Who argued that the water experiment in an empty univers would never be flat?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114039
|
5a42c4a14a4859001aac72f4
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).
|
What would need to be removed from the universe to prove that the bucket was moving?
|
What would need to be removed from the universe to prove that the bucket was moving?
|
[
"What would need to be removed from the universe to prove that the bucket was moving?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114040
|
5a42c4a14a4859001aac72f5
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).
|
What decreases as objects are added to the universe?
|
What decreases as objects are added to the universe?
|
[
"What decreases as objects are added to the universe?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114041
|
5a42c4a14a4859001aac72f6
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).
|
What principle argues that the momentum of an object is independent of other objects in the universe?
|
What principle argues that the momentum of an object is independent of other objects in the universe?
|
[
"What principle argues that the momentum of an object is independent of other objects in the universe?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114042
|
572a203b6aef0514001552da
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.
|
lbert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on what principle?
|
lbert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on what principle?
|
[
"lbert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on what principle?"
] |
{
"text": [
"relativity"
],
"answer_start": [
86
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114043
|
572a203b6aef0514001552db
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.
|
The principle of relativity holds that the rules of physics must be the same for who?
|
The principle of relativity holds that the rules of physics must be the same for who?
|
[
"The principle of relativity holds that the rules of physics must be the same for who?"
] |
{
"text": [
"all observers"
],
"answer_start": [
166
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114044
|
572a203b6aef0514001552dc
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.
|
In all reference frames, how is the the speed of light?
|
In all reference frames, how is the the speed of light?
|
[
"In all reference frames, how is the the speed of light?"
] |
{
"text": [
"the same"
],
"answer_start": [
261
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114045
|
572a203b6aef0514001552dd
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.
|
Einstein's theory was motivated by who?
|
Einstein's theory was motivated by who?
|
[
"Einstein's theory was motivated by who?"
] |
{
"text": [
"Maxwell"
],
"answer_start": [
330
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114046
|
572a203b6aef0514001552de
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.
|
Before Einstein, speed was though to be relative to what?
|
Before Einstein, speed was though to be relative to what?
|
[
"Before Einstein, speed was though to be relative to what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"the luminiferous ether"
],
"answer_start": [
606
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114047
|
5a42c5fc4a4859001aac72fb
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.
|
Who proposed that the laws of physics where not dependent on relativity?
|
Who proposed that the laws of physics where not dependent on relativity?
|
[
"Who proposed that the laws of physics where not dependent on relativity?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114048
|
5a42c5fc4a4859001aac72fc
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.
|
What did Einstein agrue was dependent on the observers frame of refrence?
|
What did Einstein agrue was dependent on the observers frame of refrence?
|
[
"What did Einstein agrue was dependent on the observers frame of refrence?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114049
|
5a42c5fc4a4859001aac72fd
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.
|
Whatprinciples that light moves at different speeds depending on the refrence point?
|
Whatprinciples that light moves at different speeds depending on the refrence point?
|
[
"Whatprinciples that light moves at different speeds depending on the refrence point?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114050
|
5a42c5fc4a4859001aac72fe
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.
|
What equation was motivated by Einstein's theory?
|
What equation was motivated by Einstein's theory?
|
[
"What equation was motivated by Einstein's theory?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114051
|
572a211b3f37b31900478717
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object without force does what?
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object without force does what?
|
[
"In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object without force does what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"does not accelerate"
],
"answer_start": [
103
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114052
|
572a211b3f37b31900478718
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.
|
What follows a geodesic of space-time?
|
What follows a geodesic of space-time?
|
[
"What follows a geodesic of space-time?"
] |
{
"text": [
"an inertial frame of reference"
],
"answer_start": [
147
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114053
|
572a211b3f37b31900478719
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.
|
An object in free fall does not experience what?
|
An object in free fall does not experience what?
|
[
"An object in free fall does not experience what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"force"
],
"answer_start": [
335
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114054
|
572a211b3f37b3190047871a
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.
|
What holds an object standing on earth against the geodesic?
|
What holds an object standing on earth against the geodesic?
|
[
"What holds an object standing on earth against the geodesic?"
] |
{
"text": [
"the surface of the planet"
],
"answer_start": [
489
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114055
|
572a211b3f37b3190047871b
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.
|
Why will water become concave, according to the relativity theory?
|
Why will water become concave, according to the relativity theory?
|
[
"Why will water become concave, according to the relativity theory?"
] |
{
"text": [
"it is rotating with respect to the geodesic."
],
"answer_start": [
756
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114056
|
5a42c7f24a4859001aac7303
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.
|
What kind of frame includes objects that do not accelerate when force in applied to them?
|
What kind of frame includes objects that do not accelerate when force in applied to them?
|
[
"What kind of frame includes objects that do not accelerate when force in applied to them?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114057
|
5a42c7f24a4859001aac7304
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.
|
What does an external frame of refrence follow?
|
What does an external frame of refrence follow?
|
[
"What does an external frame of refrence follow?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114058
|
5a42c7f24a4859001aac7305
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.
|
What is not experienced by objects moving against a geodesic?
|
What is not experienced by objects moving against a geodesic?
|
[
"What is not experienced by objects moving against a geodesic?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114059
|
5a42c7f24a4859001aac7306
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.
|
What is an object in free fall moving against?
|
What is an object in free fall moving against?
|
[
"What is an object in free fall moving against?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114060
|
5a42c7f24a4859001aac7307
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.
|
What is experienced by objects in free-fall?
|
What is experienced by objects in free-fall?
|
[
"What is experienced by objects in free-fall?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114061
|
572a21741d046914007797c3
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Einstein partially advocates Mach's principle in that distant stars explain inertia because they provide the gravitational field against which acceleration and inertia occur. But contrary to Leibniz's account, this warped space-time is as integral a part of an object as are its other defining characteristics, such as volume and mass. If one holds, contrary to idealist beliefs, that objects exist independently of the mind, it seems that relativistics commits them to also hold that space and temporality have exactly the same type of independent existence.
|
How does Einstein advocate Mach's principle?
|
How does Einstein advocate Mach's principle?
|
[
"How does Einstein advocate Mach's principle?"
] |
{
"text": [
"partially"
],
"answer_start": [
9
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114062
|
572a21741d046914007797c4
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Einstein partially advocates Mach's principle in that distant stars explain inertia because they provide the gravitational field against which acceleration and inertia occur. But contrary to Leibniz's account, this warped space-time is as integral a part of an object as are its other defining characteristics, such as volume and mass. If one holds, contrary to idealist beliefs, that objects exist independently of the mind, it seems that relativistics commits them to also hold that space and temporality have exactly the same type of independent existence.
|
How Einstein's theory compared to Leibniz's?
|
How Einstein's theory compared to Leibniz's?
|
[
"How Einstein's theory compared to Leibniz's?"
] |
{
"text": [
"contrary"
],
"answer_start": [
179
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114063
|
572a21741d046914007797c5
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Einstein partially advocates Mach's principle in that distant stars explain inertia because they provide the gravitational field against which acceleration and inertia occur. But contrary to Leibniz's account, this warped space-time is as integral a part of an object as are its other defining characteristics, such as volume and mass. If one holds, contrary to idealist beliefs, that objects exist independently of the mind, it seems that relativistics commits them to also hold that space and temporality have exactly the same type of independent existence.
|
What is considered contrary to idealist beliefs in regards to space?
|
What is considered contrary to idealist beliefs in regards to space?
|
[
"What is considered contrary to idealist beliefs in regards to space?"
] |
{
"text": [
"objects exist independently of the mind"
],
"answer_start": [
385
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114064
|
5a42c91c4a4859001aac730d
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Einstein partially advocates Mach's principle in that distant stars explain inertia because they provide the gravitational field against which acceleration and inertia occur. But contrary to Leibniz's account, this warped space-time is as integral a part of an object as are its other defining characteristics, such as volume and mass. If one holds, contrary to idealist beliefs, that objects exist independently of the mind, it seems that relativistics commits them to also hold that space and temporality have exactly the same type of independent existence.
|
Who advocates Einstein's theory?
|
Who advocates Einstein's theory?
|
[
"Who advocates Einstein's theory?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114065
|
5a42c91c4a4859001aac730e
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Einstein partially advocates Mach's principle in that distant stars explain inertia because they provide the gravitational field against which acceleration and inertia occur. But contrary to Leibniz's account, this warped space-time is as integral a part of an object as are its other defining characteristics, such as volume and mass. If one holds, contrary to idealist beliefs, that objects exist independently of the mind, it seems that relativistics commits them to also hold that space and temporality have exactly the same type of independent existence.
|
Who's theory compliments Leibniz?
|
Who's theory compliments Leibniz?
|
[
"Who's theory compliments Leibniz?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114066
|
5a42c91c4a4859001aac730f
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Einstein partially advocates Mach's principle in that distant stars explain inertia because they provide the gravitational field against which acceleration and inertia occur. But contrary to Leibniz's account, this warped space-time is as integral a part of an object as are its other defining characteristics, such as volume and mass. If one holds, contrary to idealist beliefs, that objects exist independently of the mind, it seems that relativistics commits them to also hold that space and temporality have exactly the same type of independent existence.
|
What do idealist believe can not exist independent of the mind?
|
What do idealist believe can not exist independent of the mind?
|
[
"What do idealist believe can not exist independent of the mind?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114067
|
5a42c91c4a4859001aac7310
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Einstein partially advocates Mach's principle in that distant stars explain inertia because they provide the gravitational field against which acceleration and inertia occur. But contrary to Leibniz's account, this warped space-time is as integral a part of an object as are its other defining characteristics, such as volume and mass. If one holds, contrary to idealist beliefs, that objects exist independently of the mind, it seems that relativistics commits them to also hold that space and temporality have exactly the same type of independent existence.
|
Space and what have a dependent existence?
|
Space and what have a dependent existence?
|
[
"Space and what have a dependent existence?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114068
|
572a224aaf94a219006aa82d
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.
|
Coordinative definition has how many major features?
|
Coordinative definition has how many major features?
|
[
"Coordinative definition has how many major features?"
] |
{
"text": [
"two"
],
"answer_start": [
28
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114069
|
572a224aaf94a219006aa82e
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.
|
The first feature of Coordinative definition involves what?
|
The first feature of Coordinative definition involves what?
|
[
"The first feature of Coordinative definition involves what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"coordinating units of length with certain physical objects"
],
"answer_start": [
73
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114070
|
572a224aaf94a219006aa82f
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.
|
What is the first feature motivated by?
|
What is the first feature motivated by?
|
[
"What is the first feature motivated by?"
] |
{
"text": [
"we can never directly apprehend length"
],
"answer_start": [
168
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114071
|
572a224aaf94a219006aa830
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.
|
The second feature of Coordinative definition involves what?
|
The second feature of Coordinative definition involves what?
|
[
"The second feature of Coordinative definition involves what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"separated objects"
],
"answer_start": [
467
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114072
|
572a224aaf94a219006aa831
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.
|
Sameness of length must be set how?
|
Sameness of length must be set how?
|
[
"Sameness of length must be set how?"
] |
{
"text": [
"by definition"
],
"answer_start": [
993
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114073
|
5a42ca724a4859001aac7315
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.
|
What definition states that units of length can not be coodinated with physical objects?
|
What definition states that units of length can not be coodinated with physical objects?
|
[
"What definition states that units of length can not be coodinated with physical objects?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114074
|
5a42ca724a4859001aac7316
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.
|
What measurment can be made independently?
|
What measurment can be made independently?
|
[
"What measurment can be made independently?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114075
|
5a42ca724a4859001aac7317
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.
|
What can be determined about two objects regardless of their distance from each other?
|
What can be determined about two objects regardless of their distance from each other?
|
[
"What can be determined about two objects regardless of their distance from each other?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114076
|
5a42ca724a4859001aac7318
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.
|
What is always equal rerdless of position?
|
What is always equal rerdless of position?
|
[
"What is always equal rerdless of position?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114077
|
5a42ca724a4859001aac7319
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.
|
How must diffrence of l;ength be set?
|
How must diffrence of l;ength be set?
|
[
"How must diffrence of l;ength be set?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114078
|
572a26821d046914007797db
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.
|
The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes what?
|
The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes what?
|
[
"The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"all differentiable transformations"
],
"answer_start": [
224
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114079
|
572a26821d046914007797dc
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.
|
What else besides invariance, or symmetry and group part ways in relativistic physics?
|
What else besides invariance, or symmetry and group part ways in relativistic physics?
|
[
"What else besides invariance, or symmetry and group part ways in relativistic physics?"
] |
{
"text": [
"the covariance group"
],
"answer_start": [
62
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114080
|
572a26821d046914007797dd
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.
|
Which theory does the relativity depart from?
|
Which theory does the relativity depart from?
|
[
"Which theory does the relativity depart from?"
] |
{
"text": [
"classical mechanics"
],
"answer_start": [
425
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114081
|
572a26821d046914007797de
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.
|
What are not pair with transformations in the theory of relativity?
|
What are not pair with transformations in the theory of relativity?
|
[
"What are not pair with transformations in the theory of relativity?"
] |
{
"text": [
"single formulation"
],
"answer_start": [
489
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114082
|
572a26821d046914007797df
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.
|
The covariance group of the general theory of relativity is the covariance group of how many theories?
|
The covariance group of the general theory of relativity is the covariance group of how many theories?
|
[
" The covariance group of the general theory of relativity is the covariance group of how many theories?"
] |
{
"text": [
"every"
],
"answer_start": [
634
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114083
|
5a42cb724a4859001aac731f
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.
|
What groups do do not coincide in the classical case?
|
What groups do do not coincide in the classical case?
|
[
"What groups do do not coincide in the classical case?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114084
|
5a42cb724a4859001aac7320
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.
|
What groups coincide in relative physics?
|
What groups coincide in relative physics?
|
[
"What groups coincide in relative physics?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114085
|
5a42cb724a4859001aac7321
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.
|
What is absolute according to the theory of relativity?
|
What is absolute according to the theory of relativity?
|
[
"What is absolute according to the theory of relativity?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114086
|
5a42cb724a4859001aac7322
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.
|
What theory does relativity coincide with?
|
What theory does relativity coincide with?
|
[
"What theory does relativity coincide with?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114087
|
572a2b821d04691400779801
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant; if a cinematographic film were taken of any process describable by means of the aforementioned laws and then played backwards, it would still portray a physically possible process. Secondly, our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses can fall and break, but shards of glass cannot reassemble and fly up onto tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.
|
How many contradictory facts does the problem of the direction of time arise from?
|
How many contradictory facts does the problem of the direction of time arise from?
|
[
"How many contradictory facts does the problem of the direction of time arise from?"
] |
{
"text": [
"two"
],
"answer_start": [
58
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114088
|
572a2b821d04691400779802
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant; if a cinematographic film were taken of any process describable by means of the aforementioned laws and then played backwards, it would still portray a physically possible process. Secondly, our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses can fall and break, but shards of glass cannot reassemble and fly up onto tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.
|
What kind of physical laws are time-reversal invariant?
|
What kind of physical laws are time-reversal invariant?
|
[
"What kind of physical laws are time-reversal invariant?"
] |
{
"text": [
"fundamental"
],
"answer_start": [
96
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114089
|
572a2b821d04691400779803
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant; if a cinematographic film were taken of any process describable by means of the aforementioned laws and then played backwards, it would still portray a physically possible process. Secondly, our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses can fall and break, but shards of glass cannot reassemble and fly up onto tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.
|
If if a cinematographic film were taken by means of physical laws and then played backwards, it would still portray what?
|
If if a cinematographic film were taken by means of physical laws and then played backwards, it would still portray what?
|
[
"If if a cinematographic film were taken by means of physical laws and then played backwards, it would still portray what?"
] |
{
"text": [
"physically possible process"
],
"answer_start": [
303
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114090
|
572a2b821d04691400779804
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant; if a cinematographic film were taken of any process describable by means of the aforementioned laws and then played backwards, it would still portray a physically possible process. Secondly, our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses can fall and break, but shards of glass cannot reassemble and fly up onto tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.
|
How is our experience of time at the macro level?
|
How is our experience of time at the macro level?
|
[
"How is our experience of time at the macro level?"
] |
{
"text": [
"not time-reversal invariant"
],
"answer_start": [
395
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114091
|
572a2b821d04691400779805
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant; if a cinematographic film were taken of any process describable by means of the aforementioned laws and then played backwards, it would still portray a physically possible process. Secondly, our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses can fall and break, but shards of glass cannot reassemble and fly up onto tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.
|
What do we not have memories of?
|
What do we not have memories of?
|
[
"What do we not have memories of?"
] |
{
"text": [
"the future"
],
"answer_start": [
556
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114092
|
5a42cd804a4859001aac7327
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant; if a cinematographic film were taken of any process describable by means of the aforementioned laws and then played backwards, it would still portray a physically possible process. Secondly, our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses can fall and break, but shards of glass cannot reassemble and fly up onto tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.
|
What laws are time-reversal variant?
|
What laws are time-reversal variant?
|
[
"What laws are time-reversal variant?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114093
|
5a42cd804a4859001aac7328
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant; if a cinematographic film were taken of any process describable by means of the aforementioned laws and then played backwards, it would still portray a physically possible process. Secondly, our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses can fall and break, but shards of glass cannot reassemble and fly up onto tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.
|
What do we experience as time-reversal invariant?
|
What do we experience as time-reversal invariant?
|
[
"What do we experience as time-reversal invariant?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114094
|
5a42cd804a4859001aac7329
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant; if a cinematographic film were taken of any process describable by means of the aforementioned laws and then played backwards, it would still portray a physically possible process. Secondly, our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses can fall and break, but shards of glass cannot reassemble and fly up onto tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.
|
What can we influence besides the future?
|
What can we influence besides the future?
|
[
"What can we influence besides the future?"
] |
{
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114095
|
572a34106aef05140015536a
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
But in statistical mechanics things get more complicated. On one hand, statistical mechanics is far superior to classical thermodynamics, in that thermodynamic behavior, such as glass breaking, can be explained by the fundamental laws of physics paired with a statistical postulate. But statistical mechanics, unlike classical thermodynamics, is time-reversal symmetric. The second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics, merely states that it is overwhelmingly likely that net entropy will increase, but it is not an absolute law.
|
How are things in statistical mechanics?
|
How are things in statistical mechanics?
|
[
"How are things in statistical mechanics? "
] |
{
"text": [
"complicated"
],
"answer_start": [
45
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114096
|
572a34106aef05140015536b
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
But in statistical mechanics things get more complicated. On one hand, statistical mechanics is far superior to classical thermodynamics, in that thermodynamic behavior, such as glass breaking, can be explained by the fundamental laws of physics paired with a statistical postulate. But statistical mechanics, unlike classical thermodynamics, is time-reversal symmetric. The second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics, merely states that it is overwhelmingly likely that net entropy will increase, but it is not an absolute law.
|
What are superior to classical thermodynamics?
|
What are superior to classical thermodynamics?
|
[
"What are superior to classical thermodynamics?"
] |
{
"text": [
"statistical mechanics"
],
"answer_start": [
71
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114097
|
572a34106aef05140015536c
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
But in statistical mechanics things get more complicated. On one hand, statistical mechanics is far superior to classical thermodynamics, in that thermodynamic behavior, such as glass breaking, can be explained by the fundamental laws of physics paired with a statistical postulate. But statistical mechanics, unlike classical thermodynamics, is time-reversal symmetric. The second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics, merely states that it is overwhelmingly likely that net entropy will increase, but it is not an absolute law.
|
In order to explain glass breaking, Fundamental laws of physics can be paired with what?
|
In order to explain glass breaking, Fundamental laws of physics can be paired with what?
|
[
"In order to explain glass breaking, Fundamental laws of physics can be paired with what? "
] |
{
"text": [
"a statistical postulate"
],
"answer_start": [
258
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114098
|
572a34106aef05140015536d
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
But in statistical mechanics things get more complicated. On one hand, statistical mechanics is far superior to classical thermodynamics, in that thermodynamic behavior, such as glass breaking, can be explained by the fundamental laws of physics paired with a statistical postulate. But statistical mechanics, unlike classical thermodynamics, is time-reversal symmetric. The second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics, merely states that it is overwhelmingly likely that net entropy will increase, but it is not an absolute law.
|
Is statistical mechanics asymmetric or symmetric in regards to time-reversal?
|
Is statistical mechanics asymmetric or symmetric in regards to time-reversal?
|
[
"Is statistical mechanics asymmetric or symmetric in regards to time-reversal?"
] |
{
"text": [
"symmetric"
],
"answer_start": [
360
]
}
|
gem-squad_v2-train-114099
|
572a34106aef05140015536e
|
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
|
But in statistical mechanics things get more complicated. On one hand, statistical mechanics is far superior to classical thermodynamics, in that thermodynamic behavior, such as glass breaking, can be explained by the fundamental laws of physics paired with a statistical postulate. But statistical mechanics, unlike classical thermodynamics, is time-reversal symmetric. The second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics, merely states that it is overwhelmingly likely that net entropy will increase, but it is not an absolute law.
|
What kind of law is the second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics?
|
What kind of law is the second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics?
|
[
"What kind of law is the second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics?"
] |
{
"text": [
"not an absolute law"
],
"answer_start": [
533
]
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.