Why is There No Universal Space? - Henrik's Questions

[Hernik]

As I have understood from reading about special relativity there is NO absolute time, NO universal time, ONLY local time. I have two questions:

1) The same transformations apply to space. Is it then reasonable to conclude that there is NO absolute space, NO universal space, ONLY local space.

2) Does any physics theory describe the universe as consisting of only local spaces interacting?

Thanks, and greetings from Henrik.

 

[bcrowell]

You haven't defined what you mean by "absolute," "universal," and "local," and the way you're using them doesn't sound exactly the same as the way physicists use them, so it's going to be hard to answer your questions. I'm particularly unsure of what you mean by "local spaces interacting."

 

[atyy]

2) Does any physics theory describe the universe as consisting of only local spaces interacting?

In a sense, yes. Everywhere, if a freely falling observer examines only up to first derivatives of spacetime, he will say it has the same properties as flat spacetime. The way the little pieces are knit together is in the second derivatives (curvature). In Nordstrom's second theory and in Einstein's general relativity, the redshift experiment and local light bending is the same. But because the two theories knit the local Lorentz frames differently, they make different predictions for the bending of light over large distances.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_deflection

 

[Hernik]

You haven't defined what you mean by "absolute," "universal," and "local," and the way you're using them doesn't sound exactly the same as the way physicists use them, so it's going to be hard to answer your questions. I'm particularly unsure of what you mean by "local spaces interacting."

You're right. I'll try. It's the discussion between the Newtonian, classical sense of space and the SR- relativistic space I'm trying to refer to. "Absolute" I understand as: (and I'm trying again with words, so please excuse my physics) "Time exists on it's own regardless of space and matter. "Universal" would then be that one clock represents all clocks - equal and comparable for every reference system regardless of differences in energy levels and that this clock is unlimited in space and is valid for any thing that might exist. "Local time" is time, as we know it from SR - an interpretation in words could maybe be: Every particle with mass has it's own intrinsic time which relates to all other particles' time depending on their relative levels of certain potential energy (gravitational fields (GR) and relative motion).

"Absolute space" I understand as the idea that space is something that exists on its own, whether there is matter in it or not. "Universal" means that this space is everywhere in our world. And "local" would than be: One space for each particle (or something down that road). Now this part is very unclear, I realize that. But I've been giving it some thought. And so this is what I'm asking into: When relativity so clearly shows us that time is relative in a sense that resembles "one time for every particle with mass" - and the equations in relativity treats space in a matter comparable to the way it treats time - has there been any attempts to describe the space that surrounds us (the "space part of our universe") as something that is similar to the accumulation of a multitude of spaces each belonging to a particle with mass.

Hope this was clearer :-) and I appreciate any help or suggestion.

- henrik

 

[Hernik]

Atyy - thanks for the link. I'll look into it, and surely I will need help to understand it, so I'll be back :-)

- henrik