Theory Without Spacelike Separations: Can It Exist?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gerenuk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of a theoretical framework that excludes spacelike separated events, focusing on the implications for equations of motion and the nature of causality in physics. Participants explore whether such a theory could exist and what it would entail, considering both conceptual and mathematical aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that only past and future timelike separated events are relevant for observers, questioning the necessity of spacelike separated events in theoretical frameworks.
  • Others argue that spacelike separated events do matter, as they can influence future events, even if indirectly.
  • A participant raises the idea of alternative theories that might not incorporate spacelike separation, proposing that equations of motion could be formulated without them.
  • Another participant challenges this notion, stating that removing spacelike separations would fundamentally alter the nature of vectors in spacetime.
  • There is a discussion about the role of initial conditions and the evolution of systems in terms of timelike steps, with some expressing skepticism about the feasibility of excluding spacelike separations.
  • One participant posits that if equations of motion could be expressed purely in terms of timelike steps, it might be possible to develop a theory that avoids the complications introduced by spacelike distances.
  • Another participant expresses doubt about the existence of such a theory and suggests that the topic may require professional scientific references for further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the feasibility of a theory without spacelike separations. Multiple competing views are presented, with some supporting the idea and others challenging its validity.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the lack of specific definitions regarding spacelike separation and the implications for mathematical formulations. The exploration of alternative theories remains vague and unresolved.

Gerenuk
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
5
TL;DR
Spacelike separated events never affect each other. Could you have a theory without them?
From what I understand only the past and future timelike separated events ever matter for me as an observer.

Does that mean there could be a theory where a thing like spacelike separated events does not exist? I mean they never matter for any prediction anyway?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gerenuk said:
Summary: Spacelike separated events never affect each other. Could you have a theory without them?

From what I understand only the past and future timelike separated events ever matter for me as an observer.

Does that mean there could be a theory where a thing like spacelike separated events does not exist? I mean they never matter for any prediction anyway?
Of course they matter, even for you. If something explodes somewhere away from you, that event is space-like separated from an even on your world line. But this doesn't mean that the blast will not affect you later on.
 
martinbn said:
Of course they matter, even for you. If something explodes somewhere away from you, that event is space-like separated from an even on your world line. But this doesn't mean that the blast will not affect you later on.
Oh right. But for the equations of motion I only need timelike steps as only those affect each other?
 
Gerenuk said:
Oh right. But for the equations of motion I only need timelike steps as only those affect each other?
Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about worldlines in some specified spacetime, or solving Einstein's equations in an initial value formulation?
 
Ibix said:
Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about worldlines in some specified spacetime, or solving Einstein's equations in an initial value formulation?
It's not related to a particular calculation. I'm thinking if there are alternative theories which have no concept of spacelike separation, because for equations of motion you don't seem to need them. It's a bit vague, I know.
 
Gerenuk said:
It's not related to a particular calculation. I'm thinking if there are alternative theories which have no concept of spacelike separation, because for equations of motion you don't seem to need them. It's a bit vague, I know.
It is also not true. In what sense do you not need them for the equations of motion?
 
Gerenuk said:
It's not related to a particular calculation. I'm thinking if there are alternative theories which have no concept of spacelike separation, because for equations of motion you don't seem to need them. It's a bit vague, I know.
I don't think it makes sense. We usually specify problems in terms of initial conditions and evolve them forwards or backwards in terms of timelike steps, sure. But that doesn't mean you can avoid thinking about spacelike separations. For example, in Minkowski space the vectors ##(2,\pm 1)## are timelike, but their difference is ##(0,2)## which is spacelike. So if you try to remove spacelike separations your vectors are no longer vectors (because there are cases where a sum of vectors is not a vector).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Gerenuk said:
It's not related to a particular calculation. I'm thinking if there are alternative theories which have no concept of spacelike separation, because for equations of motion you don't seem to need them. It's a bit vague, I know.
No, it is not possible. A given event on your worldline can only be affected by events in your past light cone. But many of those events are spacelike separated from each other.
 
martinbn said:
It is also not true. In what sense do you not need them for the equations of motion?
Equations of motion use infinitesimal steps and these equation are all that really matters. And since for the evolution only timelike steps (influences) matter, only timelike infinitesimal steps are needed. And if equations of motion are handled with pure timelike steps, maybe there is a way to write an theory equivalent to special relativity where you never get that some kind of infinitesimal distance is of the "other sign". Not sure how to phrase this mathematically.
 
  • #10
Ibix said:
I don't think it makes sense. We usually specify problems in terms of initial conditions and evolve them forwards or backwards in terms of timelike steps, sure. But that doesn't mean you can avoid thinking about spacelike separations. For example, in Minkowski space the vectors ##(2,\pm 1)## are timelike, but their difference is ##(0,2)## which is spacelike. So if you try to remove spacelike separations your vectors are no longer vectors (because there are cases where a sum of vectors is not a vector).
I'm thinking if only timelike steps are needed, maybe there is a way to write the math differently, but never get infinitesimal distances of "different signs". This also mean that other theory could drop the concept of Minkowski space and its vectors.
 
  • #11
I am not aware of such a theory and doubt that it is possible. If you find a professional scientific reference exploring such a theory then please open a new thread on the topic, citing that reference as a discussion point. Until then, this topic is closed.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Undergrad Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
Undergrad The spacetime length of finite spacelike intervals
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
Graduate Condition for a spacelike surface to be achronal
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Undergrad An event being in the past of a timelike separated one
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad Einstein Definition of Simultaneity for Langevin Observers
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad Synchronous Reference Frame: Definition and Usage
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Graduate Can a Null Surface Satisfy the Requirements for a Cauchy Surface?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
High School Do all events in my past lightcone have fewer past events in theirs?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
High School Theories about light and time near a black hole
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K