Is spacetime just a mathematical trick or is it the actual physical reality?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DoobleD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reality Spacetime
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of Minkowski spacetime, questioning whether it is merely a mathematical construct or a representation of physical reality. Participants argue that spacetime is often regarded as the actual physical reality, challenging the traditional separation of space and time. They highlight that the interdependence of space and time, evidenced by phenomena such as magnetism, supports the notion of spacetime as a unified entity. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the utility of spacetime as a model for understanding physical phenomena, rather than a definitive proof of its "reality."

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Special Relativity (SR) principles
  • Familiarity with Minkowski spacetime concepts
  • Knowledge of electromagnetic theory, particularly the relationship between electricity and magnetism
  • Basic grasp of Lorentz transformations and their implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical foundations of Minkowski spacetime
  • Explore the historical development of Special Relativity and General Relativity
  • Study the implications of Lorentz transformations on space and time perception
  • Investigate the philosophical implications of spacetime as a model in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the philosophical and mathematical implications of spacetime in modern physics.

  • #31
DoobleD said:
Hm yes what is space and what is time separately are tough questions...But does the fact that one exist with the other mean they are the same thing ?

No, I meant. What is space? What is time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Orodruin said:
In particular, when you go to GR, space-time is a fundamental concept...

Yes, I was wondering if that could be a "proof" that the world is "really" spacetime. The thing that annoys me is that the fact GR is expressed using spacetime, does still not prove it can't be correctly expressed via a different model. But yeah it kind of says "there's a huge change that reality is spacetime indeed and nothing else".

A.T. said:
No, you are right. Minkowski spacetime is one possible geometrical interpretation of SR, that was proposed after SR has been already published.

But note that in Minkowski spacetime, time is not "just like space", that why it is pseudo-Euclidean. There is another, less common geometrical interpretation of SR by Epstein, where proper time is more like another space dimension, and (coordinate)time is the Euclidean path integral.

Thank you for the information ! At least that is clearer now. EDIT : can you explain why, in Minkowski spacetime, time is not actually treated "just like space" ?

martinbn said:
No, I meant. What is space? What is time?

Honestly I think any attempt I'd do to define space, and define time, would fail. :D
 
  • #34
DoobleD said:
Experiments confirm SR, they do not confirm our world is a Minkowski spacetime where time is just like space. I distinguish those two things, SR and Minkowski spacetime. This might be wrong, from what everybody says.

Spacetime doesn't mean space is just like time.
 
  • #35
  • #36
martinbn said:
No, I meant. What is space? What is time?

Space is what keeps everything from happening to you.

Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #37
DoobleD said:
Experiments confirm SR, they do not confirm our world is a Minkowski spacetime where time is just like space. I distinguish those two things, SR and Minkowski spacetime.
Nature does not distinguish those two things. All interpretations are experimentally indistinguishable.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DoobleD
  • #38
DoobleD said:
a Minkowski spacetime where time is just like space

Time is not "just like space" in SR/Minkowski spacetime (which are the same thing, as DaleSpam says). There is a fundamental difference between timelike intervals and spacelike intervals (and there is also a third type, null intervals, which is fundamentally different from the other two). Physically, the difference shows up as, for example, the fact that you can't measure timelike intervals and spacelike intervals the same way; you use a clock for the former and a ruler for the latter. Mathematically, the difference shows up as a difference in signs in the metric.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DoobleD
  • #39
Thanks for the answers !
 
  • #40
DaleSpam said:
Nature does not distinguish those two things. All interpretations are experimentally indistinguishable.

How do you measure spacetime?
 
  • #41
industry7 said:
How do you measure spacetime?
s^2= t^2- x^2- y^2- z^2
 
  • #42
This thread is closed
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K