I What is the true nature of distance in the context of space and time?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter BobTheFrog
  • Start date Start date
BobTheFrog
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
I have taken physics to Modern so I understand the basics of time and distance dialation. I don't understand what is distance is. It is always given by reference to something else, or tied together like in space time. The closest I've gotten to something I can understand, and answers my question partially is http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/what-is-spacetime-really/
Is the blog on the right path? Am I even asking the right question regarding distance? Most of what I've found looks at space time and it's behavior.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That Wolfram piece is interesting but far too speculative to discuss seriously here (and please note the Physics Forums rule that requires that new theories have been published in a an appropriate peer-reviewed journal before discussion here).

Einstein once said that "Time is what a clock measures", and a similar definition works for distance: Distance is the physical quantity that a meter stick measures.

BobTheFrog said:
I understand the basics of time and distance dilation.
And also relativity of simultaneity? Just checking, as not mentioning it is like leaving off one of the legs of a three-legged stool.
 
This thread is closed, although threads with more specific questions about how the science works here will be welcome, And as always, if you believe that there is something to add to the discussion here, please PM any mentor so that we can reopen it for your contribution.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top