Movement & Spacetime: Point A to B Difference

  • Thread starter Thread starter matthewmussen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movement Spacetime
matthewmussen
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
what would be the difference between the idea of being at point A and moving toward B in space-time; and being at point A and not moving and B not moving but the space-time between them moving and warping out of the way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Didn't you just answer it yourself while asking the question? In the second case, space-time is curved. I assume that's not what you wanted to hear, since you said so yourself. What sort of answer are you looking for?
 
matthewmussen said:
what would be the difference between the idea of being at point A and moving toward B in space-time; and being at point A and not moving and B not moving but the space-time between them moving and warping out of the way?

The difference is that is scenario 1, the subject would have the epxreince of moving from A to B, whereas in scenario 2, the subject would ahve the experience of not moving while the two points would move to coincide.

It would be easy to tell the difference merely by observing external reference points, such as distant stars.
 
matthewmussen said:
what would be the difference between the idea of being at point A and moving toward B in space-time; and being at point A and not moving and B not moving but the space-time between them moving and warping out of the way?
Particles have wordlines in spacetime and cross events which are points. In a curved spacetime worldlines can cross even if at some point the lines were parallel to each other.

But spacetime itself is fixed, it does not change.
 
Last edited:
Fredrik said:
Didn't you just answer it yourself while asking the question? In the second case, space-time is curved. I assume that's not what you wanted to hear, since you said so yourself. What sort of answer are you looking for?


would the idea change the way the motion, or lack thereof, of particles, is conceived; where as all particles are motionless, only space-time warps, muli-dimentionally. (i.e. - "my arm is not moving my fingers to my nose, but the amount of space time is curving or moving so there is less between them.) we would perceive in 3+1 dimensional space, as my arm is moving my fingers to my nose, using Einstein's perspective.

----------


DaveC426913 said:
The difference is that is scenario 1, the subject would have the epxreince of moving from A to B, whereas in scenario 2, the subject would ahve the experience of not moving while the two points would move to coincide.

It would be easy to tell the difference merely by observing external reference points, such as distant stars.


fredrik, thank you sir, but this idea is theoretical. visible external reference other than point A and point B (the sight of my fingers and the feel of my nose) are not applicable in this theoretical scenario.

MeJennifer said:
Particles have wordlines in spacetime and cross events which are points. In a curved spacetime worldlines can cross even if at some point the lines were parallel to each other.

But spacetime itself is fixed, it does not change.


Thank you MeJennifer, but your answer is based on part on Einstein's "Absolute Spacetime theory"in which this thread is written to challenge.

thanks to you all for helping
 
matthewmussen said:
would the idea change the way the motion, or lack thereof, of particles, is conceived;
I guess you can say that it changes the meaning of velocity. Consider e.g. the case of galaxies moving away from each other due to the expansion of the universe. I'm quoting myself from another thread:

Fredrik said:
When we say that galaxy A and galaxy B are moving apart with speed v, it really means that "the proper distance between A and B along the shortest possible path in the hypersurface of constant time coordinate changes by v units of length for each unit of time that we change the time coordinate".
This speed is something very different from the speed an object has in a local inertial frame. That's why it can be >c.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
58
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top