Adding Another Time Axis to Space-Time Diagram

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the idea of adding another time axis to Einstein's space-time diagram, proposing the use of a cosmological constant average axis. However, participants argue that space and time are distinct dimensions and cannot be represented on a single axis. The concept of separating time into two dimensions to measure mass and energy relative to the expanding universe is debated, with some finding it unclear and lacking theoretical backing. Concerns are raised about the relevance of quantum fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to this topic. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for clarity and established theories when discussing modifications to existing space-time models.
binbots
Messages
170
Reaction score
3
Can we add another time axis to Einsteins space time diagram? Since space and time are one thing they can be represented by one axis. The other axis can be a cosmological constant average axis. By adding this extra term can mass and energy be measured by a time scale relative to the expanding universe?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
binbots said:
Can we add another time axis to Einsteins space time diagram?

Not unless you come up with a theory that uses two time dimensions. There is no such theory currently known.

binbots said:
Since space and time are one thing they can be represented by one axis.

No, they can't. Space and time are still different dimensions of spacetime, and require different axes to represent them in a diagram.

binbots said:
The other axis can be a cosmological constant average axis.

What does this mean? It doesn't make any sense to me.
 
If there was no quantum fluctuations in the CMB then the expansion of the universe would have been smooth. This universe would have a average energy density after 13 billion years as well .
It doesn't require 2 time dimensions. I am only separating one time into two in order to find a different value of time.
 
binbots said:
If there was no quantum fluctuations in the CMB then the expansion of the universe would have been smooth. This universe would have a average energy density after 13 billion years as well .

This is true, but I don't see what it has to do with the topic of this thread. If you're just looking at the difference between the actual energy density in our actual universe, as a function of position, as compared to the average, this is fine, but what does it have to do with time?

binbots said:
It doesn't require 2 time dimensions. I am only separating one time into two in order to find a different value of time.

Still doesn't make sense to me. Do you have a reference for any of this? It looks to me like a personal theory, and PF does not allow discussion of personal theories. If, OTOH, you are asking about standard cosmological models, you'll need to specify which ones and what aspects of them you are asking about.
 
A smooth universe would occupy a larger space-time than ours at this moment. Therefore it would be further into the future than our own. We can use this as a back drop to set a marker of time ahead of use. The more energy or mass a object has the longer it will take to get the marker. Therefore the higher the mass the further back in time an object is.
I wouldn't call this a personnel theory. I was just hoping that people who know a lot about relativity and Minkowski diagrams could tell me If it made any sense.
 
Then please provide a reference by PM and we can reopen the thread. As it is we are just trying to guess what you have in mind.
 
MOVING CLOCKS In this section, we show that clocks moving at high speeds run slowly. We construct a clock, called a light clock, using a stick of proper lenght ##L_0##, and two mirrors. The two mirrors face each other, and a pulse of light bounces back and forth betweem them. Each time the light pulse strikes one of the mirrors, say the lower mirror, the clock is said to tick. Between successive ticks the light pulse travels a distance ##2L_0## in the proper reference of frame of the clock...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
7K