Is the description of space-time as "space-time" a bit misleading?

[geordief]

That formulation might seem to put our understandings of space and time on something of an equal footing.

As I understand it  the equations  that allow us to make the space-time diagrams actually   have both/all  axes as spatial with the "time" axis involving the "c" multiplicator  so as  to be of mathematical use (ie all axes have the same units).

So "t" in the graph  seems to me to be a tiny factor (although clearly present)

 

Would a description such as "space-timed light distance"  be as accurate ,if a lot ,lot ,lot less catchy?

Is it possible to reformulate the space-time diagrams in such a way that all the axes are represented in terms of time rather than space?

 

 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is it possible to reformulate the space-time diagrams in such a way that all the axes are represented in terms of time rather than space?

It's called space-time for a reason...

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, geordief said:

That formulation might seem to put our understandings of space and time on something of an equal footing.

It puts the treatment on equal footing.

 

7 minutes ago, geordief said:

As I understand it  the equations  that allow us to make the space-time diagrams actually   have both/all  axes as spatial with the "time" axis involving the "c" multiplicator  so as  to be of mathematical use (ie all axes have the same units).

So "t" in the graph  seems to me to be a tiny factor (although clearly present)

I don’t understand this reasoning. c is a proportionality constant; this situation is present throughout physics. Constants can be large or small. If you double the time, you double ct. That variation is the important thing. It’s not a tiny factor. If t doesn’t change, the dependent variable doesn’t change.

 

 

[geordief]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

It puts the treatment on equal footing.

 

I don’t understand this reasoning. c is a proportionality constant; this situation is present throughout physics. Constants can be large or small. If you double the time, you double ct. That variation is the important thing. It’s not a tiny factor. If t doesn’t change, the dependent variable doesn’t change.

 

 

I see. It's the relation.

 

Is it possible (if undoubtedly impractical) to redraw s/t diagrams so that all axes have units of time?

 

(I think I may have heard of theoretical extreme  circumstances where space and time could flip .Is that "not impossible"?)

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by geordief

[studiot]

41 minutes ago, geordief said:

I see. It's the relation.

 

Is it possible (if undoubtedly impractical) to redraw s/t diagrams so that all axes have units of time?

 

(I think I may have heard of theoretical extreme  circumstances where space and time could flip .Is that "not impossible"?)

 

Nothing to do with flipping time, whatever that is.

Of course you can work in time units.

But that means changinf three axes instead of one

So instead of multiplying time by ic, you divide x,y and z by c and measure in seconds.