Is Space-Time Symmetrical or Asymmetrical?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter japplepie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space Space time Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of space and time, specifically whether they are symmetrical or asymmetrical. Participants explore concepts related to the speed of light as a conversion factor between time and space, the implications of the metric in special relativity, and the potential equivalence of space and time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the speed of light serves as a conversion factor between distance and time, represented by the equation D = C*T, where D is distance, C is the speed of light, and T is time.
  • Others clarify the meanings of D, C, and T, explaining that this equation illustrates how time can be converted into distance using the speed of light.
  • There are questions about the equivalence of space and time, with some participants asking to what extent they exhibit similar properties.
  • Some participants note that the metric in special relativity has spatial coordinates with a positive sign and temporal coordinates with a negative sign, which they argue is a crucial difference between space and time.
  • Participants discuss the implications of having different numbers of dimensions for space and time, particularly regarding the existence of closed timelike curves in various spacetime models.
  • One participant asserts that time is irreversible due to the second law of thermodynamics, while space is symmetrical, suggesting that they are not equivalent.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the equivalence of space and time, the implications of the metric in relativity, and the nature of time's irreversibility. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the implications of the metric and the conditions under which certain properties of space and time apply, particularly in different dimensional contexts.

japplepie
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Is it true that the speed of light is a conversion factor between time and space?

and that D = C*T?

and if it is, how does that make any sense?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, the speed of light is a speed - it has units of m/s. For any speed, if you multiply a time by it you get a distance and if you divide a distance by it you get a time. Of course the big deal with the speed of light is that, unlike your car on the freeway, it is constant throughout the universe.

japplepie said:
and that D = C*T?

and if it is, how does that make any sense?

I have no idea what D, C and T mean in that equation.
 
Oh, I just realized that probably "D" stands for "Distance", "C" is the speed of light (we normally use a lower-case c for that) and "T" for "Time".

In that case: yes, this is how you would convert distance to time. For example, you will find that 1 second corresponds to 300,000 km (taking c = 300,000 km/s for convenience, it is really 299,792.458 of course).

If you have ever heard a distance expressed in light years, this is exactly what happens. People often confuse a light year for a time duration, but it is really a distance: the time that light travels in a year. If you want to convert it to kilometers, just plug in t = 1 year in d = ct.
 
Does that mean that space and time are equivalent? And if they are, to what extent?

Does space exhibit all the properties of time (and vice versa)?

I've read somewhere that something that violates parity would also be time irreversible since space and time are equivalent.
 
japplepie said:
Does that mean that space and time are equivalent? And if they are, to what extent?

Does space exhibit all the properties of time (and vice versa)?

Spatial coordinates enter metric with positive sign, temporal one has a negative sign. For a flat space-time of special relativity:

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2

That seems to be the only, but crucial, difference.
 
nikkkom said:
Spatial coordinates enter metric with positive sign, temporal one has a negative sign. For a flat space-time of special relativity:

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2

That seems to be the only, but crucial, difference.
Well, there is the sign of the metric and also the number of dimensions. Since there is only one time dimension you cannot have closed timelike curves in flat spacetime, while you can have closed spacelike curves since there are three dimensions of space.
 
DaleSpam said:
Well, there is the sign of the metric and also the number of dimensions. Since there is only one time dimension you cannot have closed timelike curves in flat spacetime, while you can have closed spacelike curves since there are three dimensions of space.

It has nothing to do with the number of spatial dimensions. (For one, 2D space-time with just one spatial dimension works similarly to 4D case even though there is only one spatial dimension).

Moreover, there are non-flat GR space-time solutions with closed timelike curves.

In flat Minkovski space you can not go back and thus enter a closed loop not because time coordinate somehow does not allow it, but because absolute value of four-velocity of any object is 1 (i.e. the object moves into future), and *then* minus sign comes into play: the curve where |four-velocity| is 1 is not a circle (which would be the case for euclidean space), but a hyperbola because one metric component is ***-dt^2***, not dt^2!
 
nikkkom said:
It has nothing to do with the number of spatial dimensions. (For one, 2D space-time with just one spatial dimension works similarly to 4D case even though there is only one spatial dimension).
No, 1+1D spacetime does not work the same as 3+1D spacetime. In 1+1D flat spacetime you cannot have closed spacelike curves like you can in 3+1D spacetime. Draw any closed curve in a standard spacetime diagram and you will see timelike and spacelike portions.

nikkkom said:
In flat Minkovski space you can not go back and thus enter a closed loop not because time coordinate somehow does not allow it, but because absolute value of four-velocity of any object is 1
If you had two or more dimensions of time then you could construct a closed loop where the absolute value of the four velocity is always 1.

Again, the two things which distinguish time from space are the sign of the metric and the number of dimensions.
 
japplepie said:
Does that mean that space and time are equivalent? And if they are, to what extent?

Does space exhibit all the properties of time (and vice versa)?

I've read somewhere that something that violates parity would also be time irreversible since space and time are equivalent.

Time is irreversible (asymmetrical) due to the second law of thermodynamics. But space is symmetrical. So they are not equivalent.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
3K