What is the formal definition of spacetime in physics?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Enrico
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spacetime
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The formal definition of spacetime in physics is established as a pseudo-Riemannian manifold characterized by the signature (-+++) and represented mathematically as a pair (M, gab), where M is the manifold and gab is a locally Lorentzian metric. In General Relativity, spacetime is treated as a Lorentzian manifold, allowing for local inertial frames at any event. The discussion clarifies that all events in this mathematical framework are equivalent concerning the manifold structure, although the metric may vary across different events. The concept of a privileged '0' element is dismissed, emphasizing that the choice of coordinate charts is arbitrary and does not confer special status to any particular event.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds
  • Familiarity with Lorentzian metrics
  • Basic knowledge of differential geometry
  • Concepts of General and Special Relativity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds in detail
  • Learn about Lorentzian metrics and their applications in General Relativity
  • Explore differential geometry fundamentals, focusing on manifolds
  • Read Carroll's lecture notes on General Relativity for a comprehensive understanding of spacetime
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students of theoretical physics seeking a deeper understanding of spacetime concepts, particularly in the context of General and Special Relativity.

  • #61
@Enrico you have not provided a good reason to reject an axiomatic formulation. In fact, you accepted it for vectors but rejected it for spacetime. Your justification was to capitalize the word THE. That is not a valid justification. Nor is bold or italics or underlining.

Since the professional scientific literature uses axioms then those axioms are acceptable here on PF. Material has been provided using those acceptable axioms as a starting point and reasoning from there. As usual, there are multiple such equivalent starting points and approaches that have been provided.

If you find that unsuitable for your preferences then it is up to you to show that your preferences are also suitable by finding a professional scientific reference that embodies your preferred starting point and construction. If your preferences are incompatible with the literature then your preferences should change.

When you have found such a reference please feel free to open a new thread on the topic. Alternatively, while reading the existing material that has been provided please feel free to open a new thread on any point in any of those references that you find confusing.

As this thread has become unproductive and inconsistent with the professional scientific literature it is now closed. The question in the OP has been answered, and the restrictions that you wish to apply are inappropriate, unjustified, and unclear.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, robphy and weirdoguy
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Enrico said:
I don't feel comfortable by pointing to the real physical object. If we want to do maths
Adding one additional note: we're not doing math here. We're doing physics. Relativity is physics, not math. To be doing physics and yet not feel comfortable pointing to real physical objects does not make sense.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Dale

Similar threads

  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K