Is Metric Required for Expansion and Causality in Science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expansion Metric
Mike2
Messages
1,312
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to say that something is growing and expand, or even proceeding in a causal manner, without a metric? Or does expansion require a metric so that it is possible to compare one state of something to its state from a different time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think so.

We can talk about size without referring to geometry: we can talk about the cardinality of a set. Of course, I think that has the problem then of how to give a "nice" description of local behaviour. Somehow we need to describe the propagation of the elements of the set in terms of causal laws.

I think quantum causal set theory is related to this problem. Not sure though.
 
Strictly speaking, even "counting" the cardinality of a set is a (discrete) metric.

In order to be able to talk about "growing and expanding" you need to be able to measure and that is what a metric is.

I don't know what you mean by "proceeding in a causal way"!
 
HallsofIvy said:
Strictly speaking, even "counting" the cardinality of a set is a (discrete) metric.

In order to be able to talk about "growing and expanding" you need to be able to measure and that is what a metric is.

I don't know what you mean by "proceeding in a causal way"!
I take it that causality requires time to be continuous so that at "every" step of a sequence of events, no matter how small those steps are, you can say that the past is "connected" to the future. It seems that if time is not continuous or connected, then it is not possible to say that two event in ANY way depend on each other. The causal relation is broken if the time betwen them is not connected. Same comment for space.

I just am not sure whether an "amount" of spacetime necessarily required a metric. But if it does then causality proves the existence of a continuous spacetime metric. Next, of course, would be to prove the necessity of the equation for the metric.
 
Causality does not require continuity. Continuity is speculation anyway.
 
turin said:
Causality does not require continuity. Continuity is speculation anyway.
OK, continuity may be too strong a word. I think I only meant connected in the topological sense. I'm wondering if we can derive the metric from these kinds of necessities.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
48
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
986
Back
Top