Space-like Events & Time-like Events: Exploring Causality & Proper Distance

  • Thread starter Mikeal
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Events
In summary, the author re-visited special relativity and spacetime, and found that all went well until he reached the topic of time-like and space-like events and their relation to causality. However, he ran into some trouble understanding how the spacetime relationship between ct and x can be flipped at will to make things work-out right. space-like events are imaginary and cannot have a causal relationship with Event (0,0), but if V < c the proper distance between them becomes real.
  • #1
Mikeal
27
3
I decided to re-visit special relativity and spacetime. All went well until I reached the subject of time-like and space-like events and their relation to causality.

Time-like Events

The residual spacetime value between two time-like events is defined as: ∆S = √(c∆t)^ - ∆x^2, where c∆t > ∆x.

Thus, ∆S is real and defines as series of hyperbolic curves in the past and future light-cones of an Event (0,0). Events in these regions can have a causal relationship with Event (0,0).

Proper time is given by ∆S/c = ∆t = t√(1 - (V^2/c^2))

Any attempt to determine proper distance in these regions, results in an imaginary value (i.e. there is no proper distance for space-like separated events). So far, so good.

Space-like Events

This is where my understanding breaks down.

The residual spacetime value between two space-like events is defined as: ∆S = √(c∆t)^2 - ∆x^2, where c∆t < ∆x.

Thus, ∆S is imaginary. This makes sense, as space-like events are in the "elsewhere regions" of Event (0,0) and thus cannot have a causal relationship with it.

However, The texts that I've read , magically reverse the signs within the square root, such that:

∆S = √∆x^2 - (c∆t)^2 and ∆S thus becomes real. I think this mathematical manipulation is akin to rotating the elsewhere regions by ninety degrees to where the past and future lights cones used to be.

Once this is done: ∆S = ∆x√(1 - (c2/V2)), which is defined as the "proper distance" between Event (0,0) and events in the elsewhere regions. Because of this mathematical manipulation, even though V > c, the proper distance is a real value. In fact if V < c, proper distance becomes imaginary.

So my questions are:

1) How can the spacetime relationship between ct and x be flipped at will to make things work-out right?

2) How can there be a "proper distance" between Event (0,0) and events in the elsewhere regions, if they are not causally related?

3) Shouldn't we just define the "elsewhere regions" as imaginary/not causally related and ignore the concept of "proper distance"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Here is an example (first posted by JDoolin). If an observer at (0,0) sends two light pulses, one each of the -x and x directions where the light is reflected back from (0,-5) and (0,5). The two mirrors are space-like separated but are still involved in an interaction with the emitter.

We can't ignore proper distance - it is the geometric invariant of the Minkowski spacetime.
 
  • #3
Mikeal said:
1) How can the spacetime relationship between ct and x be flipped at will to make things work-out right?
So this is a piece of special relativity that is really clarified by the math of general relativity: Riemannian geometry.

In Riemannian geometry the signature of the metric determines the number of dimensions as well as whether they are spacelike or timelike. So the first expression you wrote corresponds to a (+---) signature, and the second one you wrote corresponds to a (-+++) signature.

The two signatures are completely equivalent. The thing which identifies time is the fact that there is only one timelike dimension, and whether you assign that a positive or negative signature doesn't matter.
 
  • #4
Mentz114 said:
Here is an example (first posted by JDoolin). If an observer at (0,0) sends two light pulses, one each of the -x and x directions where the light is reflected back from (0,-5) and (0,5). The two mirrors are space-like separated but are still involved in an interaction with the emitter.

We can't ignore proper distance - it is the geometric invariant of the Minkowski spacetime.

Events (0,-5) and (0,5) reside -5 and +5 space units to the left and right of Event (0,0), but zero time from it. In other words they are simultaneous with Event (0,0). My understanding is that they cannot have a causal relationship with Event (0,0), or each other, due to the finite speed of light.
 
  • #5
Mikeal said:
Events (0,-5) and (0,5) reside -5 and +5 space units to the left and right of Event (0,0), but zero time from it. In other words they are simultaneous with Event (0,0). My understanding is that they cannot have a causal relationship with Event (0,0), or each other, due to the finite speed of light.
I was reacting to this
3) Shouldn't we just define the "elsewhere regions" as imaginary/not causally related and ignore the concept of "proper distance"?
which I mis-read as a 'ignore the elsewhere regions'.

I'm not sure what 'causal relationship' is. if I can send a signal to something that is space-like removed from me (at transmission time), and be sure that it will arrive sometime in both our futures - are we causally connected ?
 
  • #6
Mentz114 said:
I'm not sure what 'causal relationship' is. if I can send a signal to something that is space-like removed from me (at transmission time), and be sure that it will arrive sometime in both our futures - are we causally connected ?
This doesn't make sense. "Timelike" separation and "spacelike" separation applies to pairs of events in spacetime. An event has both a time and a place. Objects are not events. Places are not events. So you cannot talk about "spacelike separated places" or "spacelike separated objects".

You can't send a signal towards an event that is spacelike-separated from you. You can send a signal to an event in the future. You can send a signal to a place (without specifying any time).
 
  • #7
DrGreg said:
This doesn't make sense. "Timelike" separation and "spacelike" separation applies to pairs of events in spacetime. An event has both a time and a place. Objects are not events. Places are not events. So you cannot talk about "spacelike separated places" or "spacelike separated objects".

You can't send a signal towards an event that is spacelike-separated from you. You can send a signal to an event in the future. You can send a signal to a place (without specifying any time).

I was referring to pairs of events. I expressed it as
"if I can send a signal to something that is space-like removed from me (at transmission time)". So there is 'I' at (0,0) and the mirror at (0,5) . I can send a light pulse in the x-direction, which is a well-defined thing. How is that not towards the mirror ?

I may be sloppy in expressing things but not that sloppy.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Mentz114 said:
I was referring to pairs of events. I expressed it as
"if I can send a signal to something that is space-like removed from me (at transmission time)". So there is 'I' at (0,0) and the mirror at (0,5) . I can send a light pulse in the x-direction, which is a well-defined thing. How is that not towards the mirror ?

I may be sloppy in expressing things but not that sloppy.
Yes, I understand what you mean. Perhaps a little correction?
You send definitely toward the mirror. Not at (0,5) but at (5,5). Still (??,5) if I may say.
 
  • #9
Stephanus said:
Yes, I understand what you mean. Perhaps a little correction?
You send definitely toward the mirror. Not at (0,5) but at (5,5). Still (??,5) if I may say.

No. I shine the light in the +x direction. There is no direction but +x or -x in the ST diagram.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the difference between a space-like event and a time-like event?

A space-like event is one in which the distance between two events is greater than the time interval between them, meaning that they are not causally connected. In contrast, a time-like event is one in which the time interval between two events is greater than the distance between them, indicating a causal relationship.

2. How does exploring causality in space-like events differ from exploring causality in time-like events?

Exploring causality in space-like events is more complex because there is no direct cause-and-effect relationship between the events. In contrast, exploring causality in time-like events is more straightforward because there is a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the events.

3. What is proper distance in the context of space-like events and time-like events?

Proper distance is the distance between two events as measured in the frame of reference in which the events occur simultaneously. In the context of space-like events and time-like events, proper distance is important in understanding the relationship between events and how causality is affected.

4. Can an event be both space-like and time-like?

No, an event cannot be both space-like and time-like. This is because the definition of space-like and time-like events is based on the relationship between distance and time, and an event cannot have both a greater time interval and a greater distance at the same time.

5. How does the theory of relativity play a role in understanding space-like events and time-like events?

The theory of relativity, specifically the concept of spacetime, is essential in understanding space-like events and time-like events. It explains how the perception of causality and distance between events can vary depending on the observer's frame of reference, and how time and space are interconnected. This theory also provides the mathematical tools for calculating proper distance and understanding the relationship between space-like and time-like events.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
901
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
Back
Top