Are Space and Time Just an Illusion in General Relativity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In general relativity (GR), space and time do not lose their metrical meanings entirely; rather, they are redefined through the concepts of timelike and spacelike intervals. The speed of light, while invariant in special relativity, becomes coordinate-dependent in GR, complicating its measurement. The philosophical implications suggest that space and time are intertwined with matter and energy, as discussed in Einstein's "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory." However, the notion that space and time are mere illusions is challenged by the existence of local measurements and the necessity of matter for the universe's structure.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity concepts, particularly timelike and spacelike intervals.
  • Familiarity with Einstein's theories, specifically "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory."
  • Knowledge of the speed of light and its implications in different coordinate systems.
  • Basic grasp of the relationship between matter, energy, and spacetime.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of "foliation" in general relativity to understand spacetime structure.
  • Explore modern expository texts on general relativity that simplify Einstein's theories for contemporary learners.
  • Investigate the implications of local measurements of the speed of light in varying gravitational fields.
  • Examine the philosophical debates surrounding the nature of space and time in the absence of matter and energy.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, theoretical physicists, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of general relativity and the nature of spacetime.

brotherbobby
Messages
756
Reaction score
170
(1) I remember reading somewhere that in general relativity, "space" and "time" lose their metrical meanings. Is that true? And yet, we continue talking of space and time in general relativity as spacetime.
(2) Moreover, as someone mentioned in this thread, what happens to the speed of light? In Einstein's 1912 papers (a and b), he abandoned lorentz invariance and made time spatially dependent, ##c(x, y, z)##. So the speed of light is no longer an invariant in (the later) general relativity for coordinate systems. But worse, if space and time have lost their metrical meanings, assuming (1) above is true, how can an observer even measure the speed of light? Locally? Does space and time continue to have their meanings locally secure?
(3) Philosophically, focus has now shifted to matter and fields - see Einstein's fifth appendix in his famous expository book on the subject : Relativity - the special and the general theory. I did not understand it and am even baffled by it. I understand that space and time have been linked to matter, energy, pressure and even electromagnetic energy and momentum (via the two-index tensor). Does it mean however that space and time are mere illusions of something more physically fundamental (like the examples above)? But surely we can see space and time. How about an empty universe, with no matter and energy? Is general relativity saying that if matter and energy would be absent, so would space and time, implying there would also not be a universe at all?
 
  • Wow
  • Sad
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: PeroK, phinds and binis
Physics news on Phys.org
brotherbobby said:
I remember reading somewhere that in general relativity, "space" and "time" lose their metrical meanings. Is that true?
Not really. It is true that we no longer can construct global inertial reference frames in which an observer at rest in a given has a natural universe-wide "time" and "space" that works out to infinity. However, the SR notions of "time" and "space" are special cases (as is everything in special relativity - that's why we call it that) of the more general notion of timelike and spacelike intervals, which work just fine in GR. The concept you're looking for is "foliation".
So no, your premise is not true, at least not in a way that would lead to the your later concerns and conclusions.
see Einstein's fifth appendix in his famous expository book on the subject : Relativity - the special and the general theory.
A cautionary note: You should not be trying to learn relativity from that book, for about the same reasons that we don't teach classical mechanics from Newton's Principiae.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Nugatory said:
A cautionary note: You should not be trying to learn relativity from that book, for about the same reasons that we don't teach classical mechanics from Newton's Principiae.
Why is this ? Is this because, it is written in too much complicated, complex, old fashioned way or are some of what it says were actually found out to be wrong later?
 
silverrahul said:
Why is this ? Is this because, it is written in too much complicated, complex, old fashioned way or are some of what it says were actually found out to be wrong later?
Yes, the former pretty much. It is written in an old fashioned way and for a different audience. With decades and even centuries of experience, it often turns out that there are different ways to motivate the same resulting theory. More fruitful intuitions to create, more helpful symmetries to explore.

Discovering and teaching are different things.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz, pines-demon, phinds and 1 other person
Thread paused for Moderation...
 
After deleting a newbie's necropost side thread without valid references, the thread is reopened.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz
silverrahul said:
Why is this ? Is this because, it is written in too much complicated, complex, old fashioned way or are some of what it says were actually found out to be wrong later?
Because they are written for their peers of that era. You aren't a physicist working in 1912, you are a student trying to understand physics in the modern era. There are far more understandable expositions of the subject matter designed for teaching the subject to students in the modern era.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
994
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
993
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K