Vol. 26 (1988) REPORTS OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS No.

AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY

PART I: CONSTRUCTION OF A CAUSAL SPACE WITH COORDINATES

JOACHIM SCHR~TER

Department of Physics, University of Paderborn, D-4790 Paderborn, F.R.G.

(Received June 12, 1987)

On the basis of the theory concept of Ludwig a space-time theory is developed. The
starting point is given by primitive notions like elementary event, signal, clock, etc., which
were also used by Reichenbach. The ultimate goal is the construction of a Lorentzian
manifold within this theory. In the first part of the paper a set M’ is constructed, the
so-called set of events which is endowed with a causal structure and an atlas of coordinates.

1. Introduction
1.1. Objectives
1.1.1. Looking at the various accounts of the relativistic theory of space time we
find a common feature which can be stated in a sentence which reads more or less
explicitly as follows:
The mathematical picture of physical space-time is a four-dimensional Lorentz
manifold (M, g) such that each event corresponds to a point of M and such that the
metric tensor g determines the proper time along each timelike world line.
Let us denote this sentence for convenience by RZ. Usually RZ is taken as one of
the axioms of relativity. Though there does not arise any problem in a theory based
on RZ, the sentence itself is by on means self-evident. On the contrary, one expects
a justification of RZ which in most cases is given by using heuristic arguments. This
fact shows that RZ is not suitable as an axiom in a strict sence. Later on, in Section
1.3.9 we shall discuss what the phrase “in a strict sense” means. It is connected with
the term “axiomatic basis”.
The problem we are confronted with can be formulated more precisely as follows:
Find a physical theory 4 the axioms of which are physically (“almost”) evident such
that RZ is a theorem in c$. Alternatively, we could content ourselves by proving
a sentence RZ’ different from RZ which also allows to pursue the theory of relativity.
(It is assumed that the words in quotation marks make sense!)

c3031
304 J. SCHRijTER

1.1.2. This problem was treated in different ways during the last decades.
Nowadays, the theory of Ehlers, Pirani and Schild Cl], the so-called EPS-axiomati~s
is regarded its most convincing solution. It has the advantage that its primitive
notions and axioms show how to come to even more primitive notions and axioms.
Such an analysis was carried out e.g. by Woodhouse [2]. I aim at the same you1 in
this paper.
For this purpose I will use a similar s~ur~~~~point as Reichenbach [3]. His basic
ideas, especially if they are brought into a modern mathematical form (cf. Meyer 14-J)
seem to be well suited for a foundation of the theory of space-time. But I will not
make use of Reichenbach methological or philosophical positions.

1.2. Methodological remarks

1.2.1. In the last section the notion “physical theory” was used. Intuitively it is
clear what we mean when we are speaking about physical theories so that there
seems to be no need to reflect on this notion. In practice almost each theoretical
physicist when establishing a theory will do it without such a reflection. So did I! But
in the earlier versions of this paper several points remained unclear solely because
I had no clear explicit concept of a theory on which the whole treatment could be
based. At a first glance this statement sounds strange. But it becomes clear if one is
aware of the fact that the theory of space-time, one of the foundations of physics, has
a close relation to the philosophy of science, so that conceptual considerations may
also influence purely physical ones. Summarizing my experiences, I think there is
a strong necessity to clarify the concept of a physical theory when one wants to carry
through the program’ outlined in Section 1.1.

1.2.2. In the next section I shall briefly sketch such a concept. Here only a few
words will be said about the extent to which I shall make use of these conceptual
considerations.
There is a big difference between axiomatic treatment in the traditional form and
rigorous form. As already mentioned some points can be made clear only if the
rigorous form is used. On the other hand, such treatments are in most cases very
complicated so that it is difficult to read the text. For this reason I shall proceed as
follows: All axioms are written down tirst in an intuitive form and then a rigorous
but not focalized version of them is given. For the subsequent treatments the
traditional wording is used.

1.3. Remarks on the concept of a physical theory

1.3.1. There are several concepts of a theory in the philosophy of science. For the
purposes of physics I find the most practical one is that of Ludwig [4], the so-called
L-concept. Therefore I will base this treatise on the ideas of Ludwig. The concept of
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 305

Sneed [6], though it is theoretically almost equivalent to the L-concept, is not suited
for practical purposes because it is not worked out in all necessary details.
A comparison of both concepts is given in [7]. In the following short account of the
L-concept I deviate slightly frome the definitions and the notation used in [S].

1.3.2. In the spirit of the L-concept each physical theory Q, is a triple (0, G”, &) of
elements which are interrelated as we will see below. Therein B is a mathematical
theory, G” is the so-called normed basic domain of application, and d are the
so-called correspondence rules.
Since the L-concept was first formulated in German the denominations of G” and
1;9 are not unique (cf. [7], pp. 2-4). In German G” is named genormter Grundbereich
and s4 Abbildungsprinzipien. Throughout this paper we use the above translation.
For short, we shall call G” a normed basic domain.

1.3.3. In our context a mathematical theory 0 is a formal theory in the sense of

Bourbaki [8]. Such a theory is characterized by a formal language, by axioms, and
by a concept of proof. The formal language contains exactly two sorts of assemblies
of signs: terms, also called objects or sets, and relations, also called propositions or
sentences.
The mathematical theories 8 used in physics clearly show some additional
features which will make them suited for applications. The minimal requirements are
the following. First of all 8 is assumed to be stronger than a set theory. This implies
that 0 is logical. Second, 8 is supposed to be a theory of some species o~struct~re~
C (cf. [8], p. 262). Instead of defining the last notion here I will illustrate it by
a representative example, the theory of groups. The axioms characterizing groups
split into two parts, the first on consisting of the rule of composition, the so-called
typifcation, and the second one containing all the other axioms. The splitting is
typical for species of structures where, moreover, the typification has a certain
canonical form, like in the case of groups (cf. [8], p. 262). Generally, a species of
structures C contains an axiom, i.e. conjunction of single axioms and some meta-text
specifying the base sets which are subject to the axiom,
Within a theory 8 of a species of structures C, it is (sometimes) possible to
construct sets E,, , . . , E, and to prove theorems for them which are of the form of the
axiom of smother species ofstructures Z. Then one says that E, , . , . , E, are endowed
with a structure of species c’.
The advantage of using theories of species of structures lies in the fact that
generally there are several models for such theories, like there are several groups.
1.3.4. After these remarks we can now formulate the mathematical problem we
are confronted with in this paper: Construct within the mathematical theory
described in the Chapters 2 and 3 two sets M and % and prove the theorem: (M, %)
is a manifold (with some additional properties).
306 J. SCHRiiTER

13.5.Next we want to describe the notion normed basic domain of application G”

(cf. [S-J, $3). Before defining it some auxiliary considerations’ are necessary. Like
always in physics we assume the existence of reality . independent of our
consciousness. If we want to establish a physical theory #, parts of the reality are
already given. They are described by another theory 4’ which as a limiting case can
consist of a description in everyday language. The theory @’ is named pretheory
(kbrtheorie in German; ES], $3). The parts of reality in question are interpreted by Qt’.
We say that they are read, and call a fact which is read in 4’ a piece of a real-text
(Realtextsteick in German). The collection of all pieces of real-texts read in the
pretheory 4’ is called the basic domain of application G. It contains terms as well as
relations in the language of +’ which all denote distinct items and relations among
such items in reality.
Now, norming G means that the terms of G are biunquely denoted by signs of the
language of 8, the mathematical theory of the triple 4. The normed basic domain G is
denoted by G”. It is normed relatively to 8. An array of signs for terms in G” is called
a normed realtext. Clearly, G” is a finite set of terms and relations.

1.3.6. The correspondence rules Z-Z?

give the connexion between 8 and G”. With the
help of & some assemblies of signs of 0 can be interpreted physically. More precisely
this is to be understood as follows:
& is a text of metamathematical propositions which instruct how to build
a certain text in the language of 8. The rules d contain four classes of sentences.
1. From the terms of the language of B finitely many distinct ones are selected.
They are called interpreted sets (~ildme~gen in German). The sentences of the first
class of d read:
“T is an interpreted set”, r = l,..., k.

2. Similarly to 1, the so-called interpreted relatives (~ildre~atio~e~in German) are

selected. Then the sentences of the second class read:
“R, is an interpreted relation”, 1= l,..., n.

3. Let A = (Al,..., A,) be a normed real-text of G” where Aj are signs from 0 for
certain terms of G. These signs now are to be typified with the help of the interpreted
sets T,, r = 1,. . ., k. Intuitively, typi~cation means e.g. “A1 is a position”, “A2 is
a velocity”, etc. Generally, typification is the fixation of the physical meaning of
a sign from the language of 8. Now the sentences of the third class read:
“For the real-text A write down the relations Aj~ rj, j = 1,. . . , m.”
4. The variables occuring in the relations R, can be replaced by the signs of
A = (AI,..., A,). Since the order of the signs may play a role, we write for the
resulting relations R;[A] or R,[PA] for any permutation P of A. Now we assume
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 307

that in G” for each PA among the items denoted by (A,, . . , , A,) the relations
RI, fEN(PA)Cfl,..., n> or their negations hold. Note that & is a relation in the
language of the pretheory, not in that of 8. Now the sentences of the fourth class
read:
“For the real-text A and for each permutation P write down the relation R,[PA] if R”,
is true, IE N(PA), otherwise write down 1 R,[PA].”

Remark: The characterization of the classes of sentences given above is not

unique, instead of an interpreted set T, one could write down an interpreted relation
y E T,. But there is a procedure (cf. [S], p. 67) to remove this arbitrariness. The
correspondence rules are then given in the so-called normal form. In what follows we
always assume that the correspondence rules have their normal form.

1.3.7 This short account of the elements of the L-concept is the basis of our
analysis of space-time. At this points not all readers may be convinced of the
effectiveness of this concept. To overcome this difficulty I recommend once more [S]
and [6], or which is more comfortable, the Sections 2.1, 3, 4, and 6, where the
abstract notions are exemplified. Before doing this we have to discuss some further
notions of the L-concept. .

1.3.8. A physical theory would be meaningless if it would not be experimentally

testible. With the help of the correspondence rules s$ we can now define t& notion
“test of the theory #“:
For a normed real-text A = (A,, . . . , A,) let dl(A) be the conjunction of all
propositions Ajtz Tj of 1.3.6.3 and d2(A) the conjunction of all (true) propositions
“‘R,[PA]” or “ 1 R,[PA]” of 1.3.6.4. Moreover, let &‘(A) be dl(A) A d,(A) and let
&&‘(A)be the theory with the axioms of 8 together with d(A). Then &d(A) is called
a test of (ti.
If &d(A) is consistent, then d, is called useful. Intuitively this means that the
experimental facts expressed by &(A) are compatible with 0. The set of all real-texts
A which give positive tests is called the proper domain of application (Anwen-
dungsbereich in German). A physical theory Q,is useful exactly, if the proper domain
of application is not empty.
There is no recipe how to come to useful theories. Either they are found by trial
and error or they are deduced from stronger theories which themselves are found by
trial and error.

1.3.9. In Section 1.1.1 we encountered the problem how an axiom ought to be

formulated. A demand of this kind depends on what we are aiming at. For
fundamenta1 considerations as well as for some more practical proposes the
following interrelation of 0 and & is advantageous:
308 J. SCHROTER

1. & has its normal form.

2. The interpreted terms of d are the base sets of the species of structures C of
0 together with some echelons of them. (For the definition see Bourbaki [8J p. 254.)
3. If the typification of 8 has the form (si, . . . , sJE(E~, . . . , E,) then the
interpreted relations are given by Y~ES~, 1 = 1,. . . , n.
If 6 and &’ satisfy these three conditions 8 is called an axiomatic basis of 4.
The adavantage of an axiomatic basis 8 is that is does not contain “superfluous
mathematics”. Clearly not in every case an axiomatic basis is the most appropriate
form of a physical theory. Especially for practical purposes it is mostly too
cumbersome. But for studying basic problems it is adequate, e.g. when one asks for
that part of reality which is made accessible by the theory.
If 8 is an axiomatic basis of a theory 4 and if it is a theory of the species of
structures C, then the axioms of Z different from the typification’ are called natural
laws. This definition indeed meets the notion which is usually used more intuitively.

1.3.10. In 1.3.5 it was already mentioned that one needs a theory 4’ for the
“reading” of the facts of the basic domain G of a theory 4. We call 4’ a pretheory for
6 .
The question now is what is a pretheory for the theory of space-time we intend to
formulate in the next chapters? Following the usual system of physics, the theory of
space-time constitutes the basis of all other physical theories. Thus there is no proper
physical theory as a pretheory to the theory of space-time. Consequently, we have to
read a basic domain of facts in everyday language.

1.3.11. When treating basic problems of physics one often is compelled to use
undefined or undefinable notions. They are called primitive notions. The question . is,
are there, and if, what are the primitive notions in the L-concept.
Generally, in theories based on mathematical language a notion or a concept is
‘a set. This correspondence meets exactly the intuitive meaning of these words.
Having this in mind, a primitive notion in the L-concept is an interpreted term or the
term s of an interpreted relation of the form y E s. Moreover, we use the phrase
primitive notion also for the correlate of one of these terms in the pretheory if the
correlate exists.

1.4. A Survey of the results

The work is divided into three parts which all aim at the same goal, the
construction of a Lorentz manifold. But this goal will be reached successively. In the
first part we shall construct coordinates and a causal structure, in the second one
a Co-manifold is derived, and in the last one a differential structure.
In Chapter 2, which contains the essence of the first part, four theories ~jl
J.- - 1 ,..a, 4 are presented. The mathematical theories f3,, j = 1,. . . , 4 are axiomatic
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 309

bases for their resp. physical theories 4P Each 4j with j > k is stronger then &. All
basic domains Gj, j = 1,. . . , 4 are read in everyday language.
$i is governed b y t h e primitive notions real-point, elementary event, signal, and
coincidence. In $1 a set of events with a causal order is constructed. Clocks are
introduced in +2. It is then possible to parametrize the world lines isomorphic to the
causal order. The dominant notion of & is “fastest signal”. Such signals are realized
mostly by light. In & the structures of different world lines can be compared.
Finally, in 44 the concept of measuring directions of outgoing fastest signals is
introduced. This leads to the following result: The set of events is furnished with
coordinates and with a causal structure. Since we do not make use of global
topological properties of the set of events in any of these theories we shall call them
pretopological.

2. Pretopological theory of space-time

2.1. Incidences and signals
In this section a theory $i is developed which is of the type described in 1.3, and
which is based on six primitive notions.

2.1.1. The basic domain of 41

2.1.1.1. According to the considerations of 1.3.10 the pretheory to q%ihas to be
formulated in everyday language. As will be seen soon we thus arrive at the primitive
notions observer or real-point, elementary event, signal, incidence, coincidence and
rule of composition of signals.
2.1.1.2. An observer in our context is an individual which is capable to describe
and analyze his environment which itself is supposed to be independent and outside
of the consciousness of the observer. In this sense an observer also may be an
apparatus which at least partially can achieve this task. The observer recognizes that
something happens in his environment. Moreover, he or she finds that what happens
takes place on distinguishable objects. Thus a happening in the sense of an accident
is different from an object. In most cases happenings and objects are composite. Also
the parts of happenings and objects are supposed to be distinguishable, so that
different observers can interchange information about them in an objective manner.
It may happen that an observer finds an object indivisible, whereas another one
can distinguish the parts of the same object. For instance, an observer on earth will
describe a star very far away as a point, whereas an inhabitant of a planet of this star
regards it as an extented object. Hence it depends on the inaccuracies of observation
whether an object has to be regarded as composite or not. To overcome this
difficulty we assume that there is a consensus among the observers which
inaccuracies are tolerable and which are not. Such a consensus, e.g. could read:
Galaxies are not composite. (This would be a very high precision for cosmological
purposes!)
310 J. SCHRijTER

2.1.1.3. After these preparatory remarks we are now able to circumscribe the
notion real-point as follows:
A real-point is an object which is indivisible with respect to the inaccuracy of
observation, but which is distinguishable from other objects. All objects are
composed of real-points.
2.1.1.4. An observer is also an object for each other observer, but primarily he or
she is not a real-point. It is useful to define one real-point of the observer as the
“proper observer”. Conversely, we may imagine each real-point to be equipped with
observational devices. Hence it makes sense to identify the primitive notions
observer and real-point.
2.1.1.5. It was already mentioned that an observer may recognize objects and
happenings as composite. This can be the case also for happenings occuring on an
object which is a real-point and which therefore is indivisible for the observer. By
successive division of what happens on a real-point an observer reaches a state where
he or she can not divide any more. This process leads to the primitive notion of
elementary event as follows:
An elementary event is a happening on a real-point which can not be subdivided
by any observer. Each happening is composed of elementary events.
Thus an elementary event is something that happens “instantanously” on
a real-point.
The primitive relation “incidence” is circumscribed by the phrase “happening of
an elementary event at a real point”.
2.1.1.6. Usually by a signal a transport of information or of influence from one
place to another is understood. For our purposes we need the following special
version of this notation:
A signal is a transportation of information or of influence from one real-point to
another one (or the same) such that its emission and its arrival are elementary events.
2.1.1.7. The primitive concept of coincidence in our context concerns the
occurence of an elementary event together with a signal. More precisely, an observer
should be able to test the correctness of the proposition “Together with the
emmision or the arrival of a certain signal a certain elementary event took place”. If
the proposition is true, then the signal is said to coincide with the elementary event.
The idea behind the primitive notions incidence and coincidence is that each
observer should be able to say “here-and-now” in a meaningful way.
2.1 .1.8. Finally, we need a rule ofcomposition for signals. The following relation is
natural:
Two signals can be composed to form a single signal if the arrival of the first
signal coincides with the elementary event of the emission of the second.
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 311

2.1.1.9. The basic domain G, of +r contains all registered facts which are described
by the primitive notions introduced above.

2.1.2. Intuitive formulation of an axiom

In this section we write down in everyday language some properties of real

points, elementary events, and signals. These properties render simple experimental
facts which need not be justified any more. They form the intuitive basis of the axiom
of the mathematical theory 8, which will be written down in the next section. It is to
be emphasized that these considerations are not a part of the intended theory 4,!
They solely serve as a motivation of the abstract formulations of Section 2.1.3.
1. There is a relation of incidence between elementary events and real-points;
there is a relation of coincidence between elementary events and emitted as well as
received signals; there is a rule of composition between signals.
2. Each elementary event occurt at a real-point, and at each real-point an
elementary event takes place.
3. Each signal starts from an elementary event and arrives at an elementary
event. (By this axiom “useless” signals are excluded.)
4. To each elementary event there is a signal starting from it and a signal arriving
at it.
5. If a signal starts from two elementary events, and if a second signal starts from
one of these elementary events then the second signal starts also from the other
elementary event. The same happens if the second signal arrives. (This means that the
elementary events occur “simultaneously”.)
6. This axiom reads like 5, but the lirst signal arrives at two elementary events.
7. Every two elementary events at the same real-point are connected by a signal.
8. Assume that an elementary event occurs at a real-point and that a second
elementary event occurs at a second real-point. Then if the elementary events are
simultaneous (in the sense of 5 or 6) the first elementary event is also at the second
real-point and vice versa. (This means intuitively that the real-points coincide. Hence
simultaneity implies occurence at the “same place”.)
9. If an elementary event is connected with a second one by a signal and if there
is a second signal which connects the two elementary events in the opposite direction
then the two elementary events are simultaneous in the sense of 5 or 6. (This axiom
excludes signals with “infinite speed” and hence forms the basis of “causality”.)
10. A signal can be combined with a second one forming a resulting signal
exactly if there is an elementary event at which the first signal arrives and from which
the second one starts. The rule of composition of signals is associative.
11. A signal which can be decomposed into two pairs of partial signals can be
decomposed into three partial signals.
312 J. SCHRijTER

2.1.3. The mathematical theory of 4,

According to 1.3. we have to formulate a theory of a certain species of structures.

Let us denote the mathematical theory of $I by 8,, and its species of structures by
Z:,. Intuitively, the axiom of 0, is a semi-formal version of the text 1 to 11 of 2.1.2. It
is obtained by replacing notions with signs which do not bear any physical meaning.
The underlying theory of 8, is a theory of sets O,, e.g. in the sense of Bourbaki
[S]. Then C, is the following text:
The principal base sets are A, 9, Y; auxiliary base sets do not occur.
AXIOMPl. 1. (Typijkation)

LCJYX~‘, K,cdYxY,

K, cYxJl, VCYXYXY.
2. For each a E ~2 there is an A E 9 and for each A E .?? there is an u E Jk’ such that
(a, A)EL.
3. For each SE:Y there is an UE.& with (CC,s)EK~ and a PEA with (s, /I)EK~.
4. For each CCEJ? there is an SEY with (a, s)EK~ and an S’EY with (s’, ~)EK~.
5. Let (a, s)EK~ and (/I, s)EK~. Zf (a, s’)EK~ then (p, s’)EK~, and if(s”, CC)EK~
then (s”, /?)E K,.
6. Let (s, a)~ K, and (s, /?)E K,. Zj‘(s’, a)~ K, then (s’, B)E K,, and if(a, S”)E K,
then (8, S”)E K,.
7. Let (a, A)EL and (a’, A)EL. Then there is an SEY with (a, s)EK~ and
(s, a’)~Kz, or there is an s’ E Y with (a’, s’) E K, and (s’, a) E K,.
8. Let (a, A) EL and (Co,A’) EL. Moreover assume there is an s E Y with (a, s) E K 1
and (a’, s)EK~. Then (a, A’)EL and (a’, A)EL.
.9. Let C~EJX and U’EJZ. Assume that there is an s1 EY with (a, SJE K, and
(sl, a’)~ K,, and in addition that there is an S,EY with (a’, S~)E K, and (sz, a)~ K,.
Then there is an SEY with (a, s)EK~ and (a’, s)EK~.
10. V is a function &?-+Y with domain W = {(s’, s”): There is a /3~ &? with
(s’, /?)E K, and (fi, S”)E K,}. Moreover, V is associative and has the property: If
V(s’, s”) = s then (a’, s’) E K I is equivalent to (a’, s) E K 1 and (s”, a”) E K 2 is equivalent
to (s, a”)~ K,.
11. Let s = V(s,, s2) = V(s;, s;). Then there is an SEY with s2 = V(S, s;) and
s; = V(s,, ,?) or with s1 = V(s;, s’) and s; = V(S, sJ.
Using the notation of Bourbaki ([8], p. 262) the theory 8,. is equal to &,F~.

2.1.4. The normed basic domain of C#J~

In 2.1.1 the basic domain G, of +1 was established. In this section G, is to be
normed, i.e. we have to attribute signs of 0, to the terms of G,. This is done in the
following way:
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 313

a, /I, and eventually other lower case Greek letters together with indices if needed,
denote elementary events of G,;
A, B, and eventually other Roman capitals together with indices if needed are
signs for real-points of G,;
s, c together with indices if needed denote signals of G,.
Then the normed basic domain G; of ~$r is the (finite!) set of all signs a, /?,. . . ,
A, B, . . . , s, 0, . . . , which denote terms of G, for real elementary events etc. together
with the relations of G, among these terms.

2.1.5. The correspondence rules of 41:

According to the scheme described in 1.3.6 and according to 2.1.4 we write down
the following text as correspondence rules ~2~ of $1:
1. The sets JZ, 9 and 9’ are interpreted sets.
2. The propositions (a, A) EL, (a, s) E K,, (s, a) E K, V(s’, s”) = s are interpreted
relations.
3. Let X = (aI, . . . . a,,, A,, . . . . A,, s1 ,..., sk) be a normed real text where the
notation is as in 2.1.4. Then write down the following relations:
a,EJl, i = l,..., n,
A,E~‘, j = l,..., m,
s,ECY,l=l ,...) k.
4.LetXbeasin3.Thenwritedownforalli=l,..., n,j=l,..., m,and1,1’,
I”= l,..., k the relations:
(ai, Aj)s L if the elementary event denoted by a, happens on the real-point
denoted by A, otherwise (ai, Aj)$ L;
(ai, sJEK,, if the elementary event denoted by ai coincides with the emission of
the signal denoted by sl, otherwise the negation;
(sl, a,)EK, if the elementary event denoted by ai coincides with the arrival of the
signal denoted by sI, otherwise the negation;
V(s,,, +) = s1 if the signal denoted by s, is the combination of the signals denoted
by s,, and s,“, otherwise the negation.

2.1.6. Remarks
The theory #Jo which is the basis for all our further considerations is defined to be
the triple (0,) G;, &,). Alternatively to it one could proceed along another theory
with only two base sets _/I and 9’. The set 9 would then appear as a structural term
9 c !J3(M). This means intuitively that a real-point is characterized by its elementary
events. Such a procedure was used in Cl] and [2].
The Axiom Pl in its intuitive form (given in 2.1.2) as well as its more abstract
version (given in 2.1.3) is very simple with respect to its physical content, but on the
other hand it is too cumbersome for practical use. Therefore let us agree to simplify
314 J. SCHRijTER

our language in order to get rid of unnecessary complications. Instead of “elementary

event denoted by a” or “a E&Z” let us say “elementary event a”. Similarly we say
“real-point A”, “ set of real-points p’, “ signal s” etc. Moreover, for relationsf we use
the notation xfy instead of (x, y)~f, as usual.

2.2. The set of events M

2.2.1. Some consequences of Axiom Pl
The notion of elementary event, as defined above, is too fine, it is not adequate
for the construction of a space-time-manifold. What we really need are equivalence
classes of elements of Jz’. The following simple theorems provide a basis for such
a subdivision of A.
PROPOSITION. Given a, PEA!, the following two statements are equivalent:
1. There is an SEY with aK,s and pK,s.
2. There is an S’EY with s’K,a and s’K,B.
Proof: Let aK,s and PK,s. Following Axiom P1.4 there is an s’ E 9 with s’Kza.
Then from Axiom P1.5 it follows that s’K,fl. Hence the first statement implies the
second. Similarly the converse is shown.
PROPOSITION.For each s ~9 there is an SEY such that s = V(S, s) and such that
the relations aK,s, aK,S, and SK,a are equivalent. Similarly, there is an S’ E 9 such
that s = V(s, a’) and such that the relations sK,j3, S’K,B’ and PK,s, are equivalent.

Prooj Let SEY. From Axiom P1.3 it follows that there is an a E A’ with aK,s.
According to Axiom P1.4, there is an S”EY with s”K,a. Hence (s”,s)E~. Now put
s1 = s; = s” and s2 = s; = s in Axiom P1.11. Then it follows that there is an SE 9
with s = V(S, s). From Axiom P1.10 we have that aK 1s is equivalent to aK 1 S. Since
(S, s)E.%?, there is a PE J%! with SK,p and PK,s. From a&s and Axiom P1.5 we
conclude SK, a. Now assume SK, a. By deliniton of S there is a /I E JZ with SK, p and
bK,s. From Axiom P1.6 it follows that aK,s and hence aK 1S so that the first of the
proposition holds. The second part is proved similarly.
As an immediate consequence of Axiom P1.5 we have the
PROPOSITION.
The set
koin:= {(a, p): Th ere is an SEY with aK,s and /?K,s}
is an equivalence relation:

2.2.2. Events
DEFINITION. 1. Let a:= [a]:= {/?:/I k oina} for an a E Jll. Then a is called an event.
If aLA we say a is an event at A. In the same sense the notion “event” is also used in
pretheory.
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 315

2. Let w,:= (a:aLA}, i.e. WA is the set of all elementary events at A. The set
W, = nllrAlkoinis called the world line of A, i.e. IV, is the set of all events at A.
3. The set 44’ = J$&,~,, is called the set of events.
An immediate consequence of Axiom P1.2 is the following simple
PROPOSITION.

M’= u WA.
AEb

M’ is the basic set of the space-time-manifold we want to construct. This is

meaningful having in mind the ideas of relativity. There an event is a “here-
-and-now”. All elementary events with te same “here-and-now” are comprised by the
relation koin. Hence in our theory we can speak about the same basic objects as in
relativity. On the other hand, we have enough objects to describe the “whole world’.
For, if we understand the notion world in the sense of Wittgenstein’s tractatus as all
that what happens we have found a set M’ which is the symbol for the “world”.
But it is to be emphasized that M’is not a uniquely determined set. It is rather
a set which can be derived by koin from J&‘.The set & itself is any set which satisfies
together with 9 and Y Axiom Pl. This is a consequence of the fact that our
mathematical theory 8, is not a “constructive” theory within set theory but a theory
of a certain species of structures. The advantage of this approach is that generally
there are several models for a theory unless it is univalent.
Though we have already found the basic set of the space-time-manifold we want
to construct, we have no chance to define coordinates or an atlas in our theory 0,.
To reach this goal we need many other assumptions which we introduce in the form
of additional axioms.
Before doing this we draw same further consequences within B,.The following
definitions serve to simplify the formal apparatus.

2.2.3. The signal relation

DEFINITION. 1. A signal s E Y coincides with an event a if s coincides with an a E a,
i.e. if aK, s or sK,cc.
2. A signal s the emission of which coincides with a and the arrival with b is
denoted by ~(a, b). By Z(a, b) we denote the set of all signals ~(a, b) between a and b.
3. R = {(a, b):C(u, b) # ‘0, a, b EM’} is called the signal relation on M’.
4. We use the following abbreviations:

S(A, B) = Rn(W, x W,), S(u, B) = {b:(u, b)E R, bE WB},

S(A, b) = @:(a, b)ER, UEW~).
5. For the rule of composition I/ we use the shorter notation “0”. i.e.
V(s(a, b), s(b, c)) = ~(a, b)os(b, c) = ~(a, c). The signals ~(a, b) and s(b, c) are called
concatenated. We also say that ~(a, c) meets b.
316 J.SCHROTER

6. Let s be a signal. The set W*(s) = {b:s = ~(a, b)os(b, c)} is called the world
line of s.
7.’ If W,n W’ # 0 we say that A and B coincide.
According to 7, the two real-points A, A’ appearing in Axiom P1.8 coincide. The
intuitive meaning of the sets defined is clear, e.g., S(a, B) is the set of all events b on
B which can be reached by a signal from a. A simple consequence of Axiom P1.3 is
the
PROPOSITION.

Y = u xX@,b).
a,baM’

Axiom P1.3 was introduced mainly to exclude such unnecessary symbols of

signals for which there is no event when they start or arrive. ’
2.2.4. Some properties of the signal relation R
Let a,U'EWA and a # a'.Then either (a, a’)~ S(A, A) or (a’, a) E S(A,
PROPOSITION.
A).
ProoJ From Axiom P1.7 we conclude that the proposition holds with
a non-exclusive “or”. From Axiom P1.9 it follows that the “or” has to be exclusive.
PROPOSITION.(M', R) is a partially ordered set.
Proofi According to the second proposition of 2.2.1 we have Z(u, a) # 0. Hence
R is reflexive. The antisymmetry of R follows directly from Axiom P1.9. Finally, let
uRb and bRc. Then ~(a, b)os(b, C)E .Z(u, c), i.e. uRc, so that R is transitive.
Intuitively the partial ordering of M’ by signals means that M’ is “causally”
ordered. This causal ordering is a global structure. From our everyday experience we
know that our “immediate neighbourhood” in space-time is causally ordered. We
extrapolated this fact to the whole set M’ because acausal models of space-time lead
to severe epistemological difficulties. (Cf. [lo] Chap. 6, esp. p. 189.) Nevertheless, one
could try to establish a theory of space-time starting from a weaker notion, e.g. from
“local causality”. But such a procedure would entail many complications which
I wanted to avoid at the present stage of the investigation.
It is advisable to choose the more suggestive notation.
Notation: Instead of R we write < . The relation d is called causal relation or
causality.
There are some propositions which are equivalent to Axiom P1.9 but which can
be handled sometimes more easily. In order to show this we formulate two
statements X, and X,.
Xi: If for a pair a, U’E IV’ both (a, a’)~ S(A, A) and (a’, u)ES(A, A) holds, then
a = a’.
X,: If bEM’\WA, then S(b, A) c W,\S(A, b).
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 317

Now let us assume Axioms P1.l to 8 together with 10 and 11 to be valid. Then we
have the theorems of 2.2.1, 2 and in addition the

PROPOSITION. The following statements are equivalent:

1. Axiom P1.9.
2. The signal relation R is antisymmetric.
3. X, and X,.

Prooj 1. From Axiom P1.9 the antisymmetry of R follows at once (cf. 2.2.4). Now
let R be antisymmetric. Assume that there are two elementary events a, a’~& and
two signals sl, s2 E Y such that c&i si , a’K 1s2, s1 K, a’, and s2 K, a, but that there is
no signal s E Y for which aK 1s and a’Kl s hold. It follows that a : = [a] # a’ : = [a’].
Moreover, s1 = s(a, a’) and s2 = s(a’, a). This contradicts the antisymmetry of R.
Hence the statements 1 and 2 are equivalent.
2. Let R be antisymmetric. X, follows at once from S(A, A) c R. Now assume X,
is not true. Then there is an event a E S(b, A)nS(A, b). This implies there are two
signals s(a, b)~C(a, b) and s(b, a)E C(b, a), so that R is not antisymmetric.
Conversely, let a E W’, b 4 WA,and e.g. (a, b) E R. The last relation means a E S(A, b). If
X, is true, then a $ S(b, A). Hence C(b, a) = 0 so that (b, a) 4 R. If a, bE W’ the
assumption X, means antisymmetry. Thus R is antisymmetric. Therefore the
statements 2 and 3 are equivalent.

2.2.5. Some consequences of the causality on M

1. Since S(A, A) c R = <, each world line W, is partially ordered. From the first
proposition of 2.2.4 it follows that S(A, A) = < n (W, x W’) is a linear ordering of W’.
Likewise, the world line W*(s) of a signal s is linearly ordered. This follows
immediately from the definition of W*(s). In the language of relativity this means
there do not exist closed world lines.
2. The linear ordering < of W’ or W*(s) induces a topology, the so-called order
topology a basis of which is formed by the open intervals.
3. In the theory 8, the proposition X, is true. It states that W, is the union of the
three sets S(A, b), S(b, A), and W,\(S(A, b)uS(b, A)). Later on we shall see that the
last set is not empty. This means intuitively that the “transmission time” of a signal
s(a, b)os(b, a’) car, not become arbitrarily small. That “it” can not be equal to zero
follows already in 0, directly from the antisymmetry of R. By the antisymmetry resp.
by Axiom P1.9 the existence of rigid rods is denied from the beginning.

2.3. Clocks

By incorporating the primitive notion “clock” into the theory 41 we get an

extension of it which we denote by 42.
318 J. SCHRijTER

2.3.1. The basic domain of gS2

A clock is an apparatus which “produces” elementary events by pointing to

numbers. Idealizing we may regard a clock as a real-point or as a part of the
equipment of an observer resp. of a real-point. Let us consider e.g. a pendulum clock.
The pendulum represents a signal which leaves the real-point clock and comes back
to it thus marking instants that are counted. The number assigned to an instant
when the pendulum goes out from the real-point is conventionally smaller than that
number when it comes back again. Thus the order of the numbers indicated by such
a clock is the same as the causal order of those events to which the elementary events
“pointing to numbers” belong. The same is true for any other clock because the
readings of any two clocks used in practice are monotonely interrelated. Any number
indicated by a clock is called “time” in everyday language. More properly we should
speak of the parameters of time. After these preparations we are now able to
circumscribe the basic domain G, of cP~.
The basic domain G, includes G,. In addition G, contains numbers which are the
readings of clocks, and it contains relations each of which states that a certain clock
belonging to a certain real-point indicates a certain “time” for a certain event
occuring at that real-point.

2.3.2. Intuitive formulation of the axiom of clocks

Mathematically speaking, a clock induces an order isomorphism between events
and numbers which both occur at one and the same real-point. The events are thus
parametrized by “time”. The question now is how many clocks do we need to
parametrize the whole world line of an observer? The following theorem from set
theory helps us to find an answer.

THEOREM. Let Z he a linearly ordered set. If Z is countable then it is order

isomorphic to a subset of the rational numbers Q endowed with natural order. If
Z contains a countable densely ordered subset Y then Z is order isomorphic to a subset
qf the real numbers R endowed with natural order.

Definitions and proofs will be found in [l l] p. 206, 214 and 215. Loosely
speaking, in physics it is (almost) throughout assumed that “everything” can be
“approximated” by countable sets. If this is accepted the theorem suggests that one
clock suffices to parametrize the whole world line of an observer.
Finally, we have to explicate our idea of the nature of time which is to be
expressed in our mathematical picture. Since we intend to formulate a theory on
a macroscopic level, it is plausible to regard “time” as a continuum. Hence the range
of the mathematical picture of a clock is an interval of real numbers. These
considerations lead to an axiom governing clocks:
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 319

1. There is a clock structure on real-points and events occuring on them.

2. On the world line of each real-point the clock structure induces an order
isomorphism on an interval of the reals.

2.3.3. The theory c$~

On the basis of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 we now write down the components of @2.
The mathematical theory 19, of 42 is a theory of a species of structures C, which is
given by the following ‘text:
The prinicipal base sets are &‘, 9 and Y. The set of real numbers R (defined by
construction within the set theory 0,) is an auxiliary base set.
Axro~ P2 (Axiom of clocks).l. (TypiJication)
&Px‘$(&)xR.
. 2. 0 is n function $3 -+ R with domuin 9 = U {A) x W, such that o(A, .) is an
A

order isomorphism upon an interval J, c R.

The normed basic domain G”, of 42 contains all symbols and relations of G;. In
addition it contains the same numbers indicated by clocks and the same relations as
G,.
The correspondence rzdes ~2~ of qf+ contain all sentences of ZJ’, and in addition
the following two:
The proposition o(A, a) = t is an interpreted relation.
If the event a, happens on the real-point A, at time t, which is indicated by the
clock of A,, then one writes down the relation U(A,, a,) = t, , otherwise its negation.
The theory $z is the triple (e,, G”,, &J.
Notution: As abbreviation we use U A:= o(A., a), and call U, the clock of
real-point A.

2.3.4. Some consequences of Axiom P2

1. In 2.2.5 we proved that S(A, A) is a linear causal ordering of WA. By Axiom P2
WA bears a second ordering isomorphic to the first. The latter we call time ordering.
2. Since U, is bijective and D(U,) = W,, we find at once the following nice
PROPOSITION. (W’,, U,) is a one-dimensional manifold, and U, is a global chart.
.
The topology induced by U, on W, is given by the metric ~(a, a’)
= IU,(a)- U,(u’)/.
It is identical with the order topology on WA defined in 2.2.5.2.
Since U, is bijective, the inverse y = U, ’ : J, --+ WA exists. This means that y is
a curve in M’ with range WA.
3. An observer may use different clocks. Mathematically speaking this means
that there are different clock structures U1 and 0,. Now assume that U,, and U,,
are clocks of A.
320 J.SCHRijTER

PROPOSITION. U,, and U,, ,are Co-compatible.

Proo$The function ur2 = U,, o U,,’ is bijective. Moreover, ur2 and ur;’ are
strictly monotone functions of intervals onto intervals. Hence they are continuous.
We see that differentiability is not implied because any homeomorphism u leads
to a clock UL = uoU, if U, is a clock..

2.4. Fastest signals

By incorporating the primitive notion “fastest signal” into $Z we arrive at an
extension of C& which is denoted by $3.

2.4.1. Some more properties of signals

If a E S(A, b) and a’ E S(b, A) for b E M’, then (a, a’) E S(A, A) by definition of the
causal relation. This result holds under weaker assumptions.
PROPOSITION. If aES(A, b) and a’ E W,\S(A, b) for any b E M’, then (a, a’)
ES(A, A). If a”‘~S(b’, A) and a”~ W,\S(b’, A) f or any b’E M’, then (ii, a”‘)ES(A, A).
Proof By hypothesis we have a # a’ and a’$S(A, b). Assume (a’, a)E S(A, A), then
s(a’, a)os(a, b) is a signal from a’ to b. Hence a’ E S(A, b). Since W, is linearly ordered
the first part of the proposition holds. The second part is proved similarly.
The proposition has the following consequence. Let a, a’ be as above. Then from
Axion P2 and a # a’ we conclude that U,(a) < U,(a’). Analogously we find
U,(6) < U,(Z). These relations illustrate the remark of 2.2.5.3 that the transmission
time of a signal s(a, b)os(b, a’) is greater than zero. In 2.455 we will see that this time
for a given b # W, can not become arbitrarily small.
The events of a world line IV, are subdivided by an event a into two classes,
S(a, B) and W,\S(a, B) which have the following properties.
PROPOSITION. Let B be a real-point and a an event. If S(a, B) # 0, and if it is
bounded from below within W, then there is a 6~ W, with 6 = inf S(a, B). Now let A be
a real-point, and b an event. If S(A, b) = 0 and if it is bounded from above within W,,
then there is an ZE W, with Cz= sup S(A, b).
Proof! From2.3.4.2 we conclude that world lines have the same properties with
respect to topology and order as intervals of the reals. In particular, there is
a supremum for each set bounded from above, and there is an inhnum for each set
bounded from below.
COROLLARY. From thefirst proposition of this section we see that S(a, B) is bounded.
from below if W,\S(a, B) # 0. In this case 6 = sup{ W,\S(a: B)}. Similarly S(A, b) is
bounded from above if W,\S(A, b) # 0. Then ii = inf{ W,\S(A, b)}.
, These properties of signals allow to define a mapping between different world
lines in the following way.
 . AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 321

DEFINITION. Let Z’(A, B) = {U:UE IV,,, S(a, B) # 0, JV,\s(a, B) # 0> for any two
(different) real-points A, B. Then define aa,:Z’(A, B) + W, by cr,Ju) = infS(a, B). If
A = B, then Z’(A, A):= W, and ohA:= id,,.

Remark. From the first part of the definition one concludes that Z’(A, A) = IV:,
the open kernel of W,. But later on we need the stronger version of the definition.
PROPOSITION. ff Z’(A, B) is nonvoid, it is an interval.
Proof Let a, a’ E Z’(A, B) and let a < a” < a’ with a” E WA. Since (a”, a’) E S(A, A)
we have S(a’, B) c S(a”, B). Likewise, from (a, a”)~ S(A, A) we conclude
S(u”, B) c S(u, B), or W,\S(a, B) c W,\,S(u”, B). By assumption S(u’, B) # 0 and
W,\S(a, B) # 0, so that a” E Z’(A, B).

2.42. The basic domain of C&

After the more mathematical considerations of the last section let us turn to the
physical implications. From physical experience we know that there are fastest
signals, e.g. light signals in vacuum. The problem we are confronted with now reads.
Is it possible to show the existence of such fastest signals within $??
One might be tempted to define a fastest signal as a realisation od c&(u) for some
a E W,, or in the context of $I~, as a 0 E Z(u, b) with b = o&(u), a E W,. Up to now we
can not prove within (62 that C(u, b) # 0 for the case considered. But even if this
would work we would not be able to define the fastest signals’when W’\S(a, B) = 0.
In this case a signal s(u, 6) with 6 = infS(u, B) is not necessarily what we understand
by fastest signal, e.g. light; it could be a letter!
We conclude that we have to consider the concept “j&test signal” as a new
primitive notion. In reality fastest signals are mostly represented by light. In case it is
not, one needs special arguments that a certain signal is fastest one.
The basic domain G, is now defined to contain G,, and in addition terms (in
everday language) for the real fastest signals and relations each of which states that
a certain fastest signal starts from a certain event at a real-point and arrives at
a second real-point. _
Notation: Since in most cases light signals represent the fastest signals we will use
both notions as synonyms.
2.4.3. Intuitive formulation of an axiom for light signals
The following axioms render simple experimental facts. Therefore, with perhaps
two exceptions they are self-evident, so it suffices to write down them without
comments.
1. There is a function which assigns to each event at a real-point signals which
arrive at a second real-point.
2. These signals are fastest signals and realize okrl whenever it exists.
322 J. SCHRijTER

3. The mapping defined by fastest signals between subsets of the world lines of
two real-points is bijective. (In 2.4.5.2 we will see that this axiom expresses the fact
that real-points move slower than light.)
4. Let a fastest signal starting from a real-point meet two events, and let fastest
signals return back to the real-point from these two events. If the latter signals arrive
at the same event their starting-points are also equal. (This means that a radar signal
which has up to its reflection a common world line with a second radar signal does
not come “home” later than the second signal.)
5. If a fastest signal is a composed one, then the components are fastest signals,
too. .
6. If the world line of a fastest sigiial contains the world line of another signal
with the same starting event, then the latter world line is an initial section of the first.
(Clearly, the second signal is fastest. The axiom expresses that this signal meets all
those events that are in the initial part of the world line of the more far-reaching
signal. This means that both signals can not avoid going through the same events
right after having started.)
7. If the world line of a fastest signal has an initial section in common with the
world line of a second fastest signal, then the first world line contains the second one
or vice versa. (Clearly, a signal which is fastest up to a certain event can be split up in
two signals beyond this event. The axiom then states that at least one of them is not
fastest.)

2.4.4. The theory 43

A,B&

with Z(A, B) c Z(A, B) c WA and with. the property that for (A, B, a)EP there is
b:= infS(a, B)E W, and f(A, B, a) = c(a, b) # 0.
3. Let f(A, B, a) = C(a, b) and e(A, B, a’) = C(a’, b). Then a’ = a.
4. Let OEJ?(A, C, a) and let bjE W*(o)n Ws,, j = 1, 2. [f i(Bj, A, bj)
= C(b,, a), j = 1, 2, then b, = b,.
I 5. Let o~l?(A, B, a) and let o = ~(a, c)os(c, b) with CE W,. Then s(a, c)
E,Y?(A, C, a) and s(c: b)El?(C, B, c).
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY , 323

6. Let a~f(A, B, a), and let SE~(U, c) be such thut W*(s) c W*(a). Then
W*(s) = W*(g)n(c’:c’ < c}.
7. Let 0 = o,oo,Ef(A, B, a) und f~’ = a;oa;~~(A. B’, a). If W*(o,) = W*(O;)
then @‘*(CT)c W*(a’) or W*((T’) c W*(C).
The normed basic domain G; of +J contains all signs and relations of G;. In
addition it contains signs o or s if needed with indices for the fastest signals of G,
and, moreover, the relations of G, concerning fastest signals.
The correspondence rules d, of 43 contain all sentences of ~4, and in addition
the following two:
The relation ‘(TEf(A, B, a) is an interpreted relation.
If o1 denotes a fastest signal from a, at A, to B,, then one writes down the
relation c1 &(A1, B,, a,), otherwise its negation.
The theory c#+ is the triple (O,, Gl, t&J.
Notation: To simplify language we call the elements of the sets i^‘(A, B, a) also
fastest or first signals.

2.4.5. Some consequences of Axiom P3

2.4.5.1. First we want to study the relation between Z’(A, B) and Z(A, B). It
appears that they differ by only one event. We are going to prove a proposition
which is analogous to the last one fo 2.4.1.
PROPOSITION. Let a, u’EZ(A, B). If a < u” < a’, then u”eZ’(A, B).

Proofi As in the proof of the last proposition of 2.4.1 we find that 0

# S(u’, B) c S(u”, B) and S(a”, B) cS(u, B). Now assume S(u”, B) = S(u, B). Then
b: = inf S(u, B) = inf S(u”, B). From Axiom P3.3 we conclude that a = u”
contradicting the supposition u < a’. Hence b $ S(u”, B), so that IV,,\S(u”, B) # 0.
Therefore a” E Z’(A) B).

COROLLARY. Any UEZ(A, B) with a predecessor ti~z(A, B), i.e. ti < a is already in
Z’(A, B). This means that Z(A, B) and Z’(A, B) differ by at most one element
infZ(A, B).

2.4.5.2. In this subsection we aim at a physical understanding of Axiom P3.3.

DEFINITION. The mapping a,,:Z(A, B)+o,,[Z(A, B)] c W, defined by g,,Ju)

= infS(u, B) is called the mapping by j&test signals or simply j&mapping.
COROLLARY. From Axiom P3.3 it follows that oAB is bijective. Moreover, from
Axiom P3.2 we conclude that oAB is an extension of crle and that OGRE S(u, B).
V
The bijectivity of oAB which is the essence of Axiom P3.3 has some simple
physical consequences which are the reasons for introducing that axiom and which
are expressed by the following
324 J. SCHRi)TER

PROPOSITION.Let a, a’ E W, and a < a’. Then s(a, a’) is not a fastest signal. Let A,
B be two different real-points for which W, n W, = (G}. Moreover, let aE W, and
a < a”. Then CAB(a) < 6.

ProojY If s(a, a’) were a fastest signal, then from the two relations oAA(a) = a’ and
cAA(a) = a it follows that a = a’ in contrast to the assumption. To see the second
part of the proposition assume CAB(a) > 6. From the first part of the proposition we
see that oAB(a) > a”.Hence, oAB(a) # infS(a, B), so that again we have a contradiction.
Intuitively the proposition tells us that a real-point does not move with the
“speed” of a fastest signal, but also not “faster”.

2.4.5.3. Anfi-mapping correlates parts of two world lines. In this subsection we

shall show that by mapping these parts on each other, ‘the structures defined on
world lines are preserved. This is the content of the following two propositions.

PROPOSITION. c4s is an order isomorphism.

Proof: Let b = CAB(a) and b’ = ~~~(a’), and assume a < a’. Then ~(a, a’)os(a’, b’) is
a signal. Hence b’ ES(~, B) and b’ > b = infS(a, B). Now assume b = b’. Then a = a’
because cAB is bijective. Thus b < b’. To see the converse let b < b’ and assume
a > a’. If a = a’, then b = b’, and if a > a’, then b > b’ which contradicts the
supposition.

COROLLARY.IfZ(A, B) # 0, then a,,[Z(A, . an interval because Z(A,

B)] LY B) is
an interval.
The next proposition says that also the topological properties of world lines are
preserved when fs-mapped.

PROPOSITION. 04~ is a homeomorphism.

Pro05 Let f : = U,oo,,o CT,‘. Then f is bijective. Moreover, f is a strictly

monotone mapping of intervals. Hence f is homeomorphic. Since U,, U, are
homeomorphic the proposition is seen to hold.

2.4.5.4. In Section 2.4.1 we saw that for some bc W, there is an L?= supS(A, b)E W,.
Here will treat the question what is the relation between ti and b. The answer is given
by the following

PROPOSITION. supS(A, b) = 0;; (b) E S(A, b).

Proof Let a = 0;;; (b). Then a E S(A, b). Now assume that there is an a’ > a with
a’eS(A, b). Then for b’ = ~~~(a’) we find the relation b’ > b which implies
b 4 S(a’, B). Thus a’# S(A, b). This contradicts the hypothesis.
2.4.5.5. In 2.4.1 we remarked without proof that the time measured on A for
a signal ~(a, b)os(b, a’) with a, a’ E W, and b$ W, can not become arbitrarily small.
To see this we first, prove the
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 325

PROPOSITION. Let b$ W,, and assume S(A, b) # 0 and S(b, A) # 0. Then

W,\(S(b, A)US(A, b)) z 0.

Proofi From the corollary of 2.4.5.2 we conclude that a2 : = infS(b, A) E S(b, A).
In 2.4.4.3 we showed that a, := supS(A, ~)ES(A, b). By construction we have
a, 3 u2. According to the third proposition of 2.2.4 on has S(b, A)nS(A, b) = 0 so
that a, < a,. By Axiom P2 a world line has no gaps. Hence W,\(S(b, A)uS(A, b))
={u:u,<a<u,}#0.

GROLLARY. Let z be the time,for a signal ~(a, b)os(b, a’) with a, U’E W, and b 4 W,
measured by the clock of A. Then, since a < a, < a, d a’ we have

7 2 U,(a,)- U,(a,) > 0.

2.4.5.6. Finally, a classical proposition shall be demonstrated within 43 which is

usually stated as an experimental fact and which plays an essential role in the
foundation of Special Relativity. In everyday language the proposition reads: The
speed of light is independent of the motion of the source. Clearly, this classical
formulation can not be found in 43, but its essence which I think is given by the
following

PROPOSITION.Let aE W, and let b be an event where a fastest signal starting from

a arrives. Then b does not depend on W,\{u}.

This result is almost obvious. Nevertheless we will give a

Proof Let A and A, be real-points coinciding in a. Let B be a real-point and let

bE W, be an event where a fastest signal starting from a arrives. This signal is
denoted by ~(a, b). Then UE W,, and b = infS(u, B), so that ~(a, b)Ef(A, B, a) and
o(a, b)Eg(AI, B, a). Since A and A, need to coincide only in a, the proposition
holds.
The reason for this result can be found at the very beginning of our treatment.
Already in the pretheory to +1 a signal was regarded as a “transmission of
something” joining elementary events. This fact together with the unique
determination of light Signals leads to the above result. If it were not acceptable on
any grounds the whole theory had to be changed.

2.4.6. Light rays

First of all we need some
Notation: 1. By g(a): = Uz(A, B, a) we denote the set of all fastest signals
leaving a E W,, i.e. the union runs over all BE B with cAB(u) # a.
2. Let (T, o’~g(u). Then we write u - U’ if W*(o) c W*(o’) or W*(o) c W*(o).
PROPOSITIONS
- is an equivalence relation.
326 J. SCHRijTER

Pro@ Immediately from the definition we see that - is reflexive and symmetric.
Now let us suppose that Q - rr’ and ~9 - ~9’. It is easily seen that the definitions of
these two relations can be written in the form: E, or E, or E, or E, where
E, means “IV*(o”) c IV*(a’) and W*(o’) c W*(o)“,
E, reads “W*(O) c W*(o’) and W*(o’) c W*(C+‘)“,
E, is identical with “IV*(o’) c IV*(a) and II’* c W*(CT”),‘, and
E, is defined by “W(o) c W(o’) and IV*(a”) c W*(C)“.
From “El or E,” we conclude immediately that D - 0”. Now let us consider E,.
With the help of Axiom P3.7 it follows again that G - 0”. Finally, assume E, to be
valid, and let CJ= ~(a, b) and a” = ~“(a, b”). Then we conclude that G
= ~‘(a, b)os, = $(u, b”)o+ From Axiom P1.11 it follows that b d b” or b” < b. This
leads with the help of Axiom P3.6 also to the relation c - 0”.
Using this result we are now able to define equivalence classes of fastest signals or
light rays.
DEFINITION. 1. C*(O) = (0’:~’ - c> IS I ht rayfrom a if a~g(a). We also
. ca 11e d a l’g
use the notation C* for any ray specified otherwise. C*(a(a, b)) is called a light ray
from a through b.
2. g(a): = S(a)]_ is the set of light rays from a.
COROLLARY. If ~(a, cjEC*(o(a, b)), then C*(a(a, c)) = C*(o(a, b)).
Remark. There may exist several light rays from an event a through b. This
phenomenon is known in Relativity as a gravitational lens.

2.4.7. Radar signals

Radar signals are signals with the properties described in Axiom P3.4. This
means a radar signal s is of the form s = ~(a, b)oa(b, Z) where a(a, b) and a(b, a”)are
fastest, a, a”~ IV, and b 4 W,. In this section we study some properties of such signals.
PROPOSITION. Let OE ,??(A, C, a), and let bjE W*(o)n WBj. Zf oBjA(bj) = a”j, then
b, < b, is equivalent to a”, < a”,.
Proox If b, < b, there is a signal s = a(b,, b,)oa(b,, a”J. Hence a”, = inf S(b,, A)
d a”,. From Axiom P3.4 we conclude that 6, < a”,. Now let a”, <ii,, and assume
b, Z b,. Then there is a signal B’ = o(b,, b,)oo(b,, a”,)os(a”,, a”J which is fastest, so
that s(&,, GJ is fastest, too. This implies 5, = a”,.
This proposition means intuitively that the reflection of a fastest signal at
different events preserves their causal order.This fact enables an observer to explore
the causal structure of a “neighbourhood” by. radar signals. The result can be
generalized in the following form.
PROPOSITION. LetA, B,, B, be real-points and let b, E W,, and b, E W,, with
b, < b,. Moreover, assume that there are events aj = aiij(bj) and iii = ~.B,A(bj), j = 1,
2. Then either u1 < a2 and a”, 6 a”, or a, < a, and 6, c a”,.
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 327

Proc$ 1. Let us assume the proposition is not true. This means that u1 > a2 or
a, > a2 and a”, > a”, or 111> a2 and a”, > a”, or a”, > a”, .
2. First assume a, > u2. By supposition there is a signal s(b,, b2) and
there are fastest signals a(a,,,b,), ~(a,, b2). Since n, > u2, there is a signal
s@,, b,) = s(a,, aI)=+, , b,)os(b,, b2) which is also fastest. Hence s(aZ, a,) is
fastest, so that a2 = a,. Thus the first and the second part of the alternative lead to
a contradiction.
3. Secondly let us assume that a, 3 u2. As before we conclude that a, = a2. Since
s(a2, b2) is a fastest signal which meets b, the hypothesis of the first proposition of
this section is satisfied so that a”, < 6,. Hence the third part of the alternative is
contradictory.
4. Finally, we assume a”, > a”, . Then there is a signal s(b,, a”J = s(b,, b,)o
oo(b,, a”,)os(a”,, ~2~)which is fastest so that s(k,, a”J is fastest, and hence ;I = a”,.
This completes the proof.
COROLLARY. The proposition holds with G, = LIT,exactly ifthere is a fastest signal
in C(b,, &). (Then all signals of C(b,, d2) are fustest!) Likewise, a, = a2 exactly if
C(u,, b,) contains (o&y!) fastest signals.

Proof Assume the elements of Z(b,, &) are fastest signals. Then o(b,, a”,)0
s(a,, a2) is fastest so that a”, = ii,, and s(b,, b,)os(b,, a”*)is fastest so that it is also
s(b,, bJ. The other assertions of the corollary follow similarly.
The last proposition also holds in the following form:

PROPOSITION. Let bj = GABI and Gj = ohjA(bj), j = 1, 2. Assume that there are

signals between b, and b,, i.e. either Z(b,, b,) # 0 or C(b,, b,b# 0. Ifa, < a2, then
b, < b,, and if a”, < a”,, ihen b, < b,.

Proqf Let a, < a,, and assume h, >, b,. Then there is a signal s(a,, aJo
oo(a,, b,)os(b,, b,) which is fastest by hypothesis. Hence s(a,, aJ is fastest so that
a, = a2 which contradicts the supposition. Similarly, the second part of the
proposition is proved.
Summarizing, we arrive at the following compact form of the results: under the
above hypotheses the propositions “hI < b,” and “ii1 < 6, and a”, < a”, or a, < a2
and GZ < a”,” are equivalent.

2.5. Causal structure on M’

2.5.1. Chronology and horismos
DEFINITION. 1. The relation on M’ defined by
< = ((u, b):sEC(a, b) is not fastest}
is called a chronological relation oi simply chronology.
2. The relation -+ = <\ < is called horismos on M’.
328 J. SCHRijTER

3. Let X be a set and let R,, R,, R, be relations on X with the foll’owing
properties: R, is a partial ordering; R, c R, is antireflexive and non-symmetric;
R, = R,\R,; finally, if xR,y and yR,z, then xR,z, and ifxR,y and yR,z, then .xR,z.
The quadruple (X, R,, R,, RJ is called a causal space (cf. [12]).
Immediately from the definition we see that the horismos is defined by the fastest
signals. Moreover, we have the

PROPOSITION. (M’, 6, <, -+) is a causal space.

Proof: In 2.2.3 we showed that < is a partial ordering. By definition < c < and
-+ = < \ <. Since s(a, a) is fastest, 4 is antireflexive. From a 4 b and b 4 a it follows
that a = 6. Hence 4 is non-symmetric. Finally, assume a < b and b-4 c. Then there
is a signal s(a, c) which is not fastest because otherwise b-+c according to Axiom
P3.5. Hence a $ c. Similarly, the last condition is shown to hold.

2.5.2. Alexandrov topology on M’

DEFINITION. 1. Let Z’(a) = {b:u < b} and I-(a) = {b:b + u}. Then 1’(u) is called
the ChronologicuE future of a, and I-(u) is called its chronological past.
2. The topology 2’ with the subbase {I”(a):aE M’, x = -L-} is called the
Alexundrov topology on M’.

Remark. The sets I’ (a) and hence the Alexandrov topology can be defined on
each set X with an antireflexive partial ordering.
In Chapter 2, i.e. in the pretopological theory we will not make use of 2’ globally.
Rather we restrict 2’ to certain properly chosen subsets. We enocuntered already the
order-topology on a world-line IV, which is the restriction of 2’ to W,.
In the next step we use 2’ to topologize sets of light rays. For this purpose let us
introduce the

DEFINITION. Let 0 E 2’ and let C*(o(a, b)) be a light ray from a through b (cf.
2.4.6). Then O(a):= {C*(o(a, b)):bEO) and G(u) = {I”(u): 0~2’).
Since 2’ is a topology we conclude immediately from the definition that the
following proposition holds.

PROPOSITION. G(a) is u topology on Z(u).

Up to now the physical interpretation of 2’ and G(u) is obscure. To cope with

this problem let us first consider both terms in Minkowski space. In this case 2’ is
the natural topology on R4. Since by 2(a) light rays are considered to be
neighbouring if they go through neighbouring events, we may regard G(u) as the
“natural” topology on the set of light rays E(u). In the general case, when we are
looking for a notion of neighbourhood in M’ we can not avoid to take signals for this
purpose. This means the best thing we could manage is 5’. In this sense 2’ is natural.
If this is accepted, the same. argument as above shows that G(u) is natural, too.
 AN AXIOMATIC ‘BASlS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 329

2.6. Spatial directions of fastest signals

In this section we introduce the primitive notion of “measuring device for
directions of fastest signals” into the theory & , thus arriving at an extension 44.

2.6.1. The basic domain of q54:

To simplify the language in this section let us agree to speak only about
measurements on fastest signals. Any apparatus for directional measurements displays
two angles or more properly an element of S2 : = {x E R’: (jx[[ = 11. Now we consider
such a device applied to fastest signals all starting from the same event. Then the
apparatus should assign to each light ray exactly one element of S2, and it ‘should
assign different elements of S2 to light rays which do not meet a common event.
Moreover, the assigned elements of S2 should be “near” if the light rays are “near”.
On earth such apparatuses are realized, e.g. by glassy spheres with spherical
coordinates on them. Also any surface with a star-shaped interior can be used to
build a device for directional measurements. Such surfaces can be obtained by
continuous deformations of the sphere. Generally, an apparatus for directional
measurements is any device which in a certain sense is “equivalent” to those
described above. In any particular case this equivalence has to be defined and tested
ad hoc. We are now able to circumscribe the basic domain G, of $4.
The basic domain G, includes G,. In addition G, contains elements of S2 which
are the readings of directional measurements, and it contains relations each of which
expresses that a certain device for directional measurements applied in a certain
event of a real-point assigns an element of S2 to a certain fastest signal starting from
that event.

2.6.2. Intuitive formulation of an axiom:

A “good” device for directional measurements has to assign “neighbouring”
elements of S2 to “neighbouring” light rays. It is our task to translate this phrase into
mathematics. In 2.5.2 we made it plausible that the topology G(a) is natural on E(u).
This leads us directly to the intuitive version of an axiom governing directional
measurements on fastest signals.
1. There is a directional structure on events at real-points and light rays starting
from these events.
2. In each event this structure gives a homeomorphism between light rays and
the sphere S2.

2.6.3. The Theory 44

With the help of 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 we are now able to formulate the components 0‘
4 4’
The mathematical theory 8, of 44 is a theory of a species of structures C, which
given by the following text:
330 J. SCHRiiTER

The principal base sets are &!, 9 and Y. The auxiliary base sets are R and S*
(both understood to be constructed within the set theory 0,).

AXIOM P.4 (Axiom of directional measurements). 1. (Typijkation)

B C P x q&q x ‘$3(,4p)x s*.

2. fi is a function &‘-+S* with the domuin 2 = U U {(A, a)} x E(a) such that
A& OGWA
&A, a, .) is a homeomorphism upon a subset of S’.

The normed busic domain G$ of $4 contains all symbols and relations of G;.
Moreover, it contains the same elements of S* and the same relations as G,.
The correspondence rules d4 of 4, include all sentences of &3 and in addition the
following two:
The proposition @A, a, .2*) = o is an interpreted relation.
If a fastest signal c1 starting from u1 at A, has the direction o1 write down the
relation fi(A,, a,, C*(a,)) = ox, otherwise the negation.
The theory 44 is the triple (O,, Gi, &J.

Notation: To simplify the language we call 6(A, a, C*(g)) the direction of the light
ray C*(a) or of the fastest signal TV.

2.7. Radar coordinates on M’

2.7.1. Introductory remarks

In this section we want to combine the results of the previous sections in order to
introduce coordinates on M’. For this purpose an observer has to explore his
“neighbourhood”. The best he or she could use for this exploration are radar signals
as described in 2.4.7. But then the observer is confronted with the following problem.
At the first glance it seems reasonable to take the direction of a fastest signal o(a, b)
as a part of the coordinates of b. But this procedure is not unique if there are fastest
signals which are not equivalent in the sense of 2.4.6. Consequently, an observer
A may use the direction of a radar signal outgoing from a as part of the coordinates
of an event b only if there is exactly one light ray from a through b. Saying it
otherwise, one expects that the observer A may not use the whole set Z(A, B) to
introduce coordinates for the events at B but only a subset Z,(A, B).

2.7~2. Radar charts

Our task now is to express the ideas of 2.7.1 in mathematical language. We start
with some notation.

DEFINITION. 1. Q A: = {B EL??: There is an aE WA such that oBAooAB(a)E WA}.

2. Z,(A, B):= {~EZ(A, B): a # cAB (a), and if o, c’~C(a, CAB(a)), then (r - a’}.
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 331

3. V,, = LJ (a,,CZ,(A, @lnZ,@, 4)UW,.

BEQA
4. The function TAB:oiBl [Z(B, A)] -+ R is defined by T,,(a) = c(U,(ii)- U,(a))
with a”:= (T~~o(I~~(u) and with ~~10, l[.
5. The function xAB.‘2, (A, B) -+ S2 is defined by ;~~~(a) = fi(A, a, C*(cr(a, o,,(u)))).
Let us recall to the definition of S2 as the set of unit vectors in R3.
The intuitive meaning of the above terms is the following. QA is the set of all
real-points which can be reached from A by radar signals. Z,(A, B) is the set of
events on A from which there is one and only one light ray to B. The set V,, is the
“neighbourhood” of A which can be explored by unique radar signals starting from
A. The number T’,(u) is proportional to the transmission time of a radar signal.
From the corollary of 2.4.4.5 we know that T,,(a) > 0. Later on we will use the
so-called Einstein convention E = l/2. This avoids superfluous complications. The
function xAB assigns directions to outgoing fastest signals from A to B. It is defined
when the light rays from A to B are unique. Such a uniqueness is not needed for the
definition of TAB,rather it is defined when a radar signal from A back to A is possible
at all.
After these preparations we are now able to define radar charts as follows.
DEFINITION. 1. The function $,,.,: V,, + $,,[V,,] c R4 is defined by $,,(h)
= (xl, x2, x3, x4) with

xk = T,,(a)&(a)7 k = 1, 2, 3, (1)
x4 = T,,(a)+ U,(a)
anda=a,() ’ b # b. In case that a = b, we define xk = 0, k = 1, 2, 3 and x4 = U,(u).
(tioA does not depend on B.)
2. We use the notation O,, : = $OAIVoA], and write I+&: = niot,bOA for the
components of $eA.
It only makes sense to use tiOA as a chart if it is invertible. This is indeed the case.
PROPOSITION. I/,,~is bijectiue.

Prooj From (1) and $,,(b) = $,,,(b’) we conclude

j=l j=l

This means T,,(u) = TAB’(a’) with a = a;;,‘(b) and a’ = a;&(b’). Then from
+iA(b) = I,&@‘) for j = 1, 2 3 we find ~~~(a) = ~~~(a’). Finally, from t&(b)
= $&(b’) and T,,(u) = TABP(Q‘) we infer U,(u) = U,(u’) so that a = a’. Hence we
have

LA4 = LM, (2)

X,4&)= XABW (3)
332 J. SCHRdTER

From (2) it follows that

U&,,o?4,(aJ) = ~,(%M4,@)).
Conseqently,
~BAO~‘Q?(~)= %f’AO@AB’(& (4)
Because of (3) and Axiom P4.2 the signals (~(a, b) and ~(a, b’) are in the same light
ray. Then from (4) and Axiom P3.4 it follows that b = b’.

COROLLARY. Since V,, and I+!I~~ are de$ned for each AE 9, and because of
M’ = u l/oA, one has coordinates for each UE M’.
Ad

DEFINITION. CLI’: = {( VoA, tjOA): A E P} is called the atlas of radar charts (VOA,tiOA)
on M’.
Though by definition ‘W is an atlas on M’, it is to be emphasized that (M’, W) in
general is not a manifold. In Chapter 3 (Part II) we shall see that we need a series of
additional axioms in order to construct a manifold. But (M’, 2V) is the lirst step on
this way.

2.8. Final remarks

The essence of the foregoing sections are the following points.
1. The introduction of the theories 4i, j = 1,. . . , 4 such that $,i is stronger than
(bk if j > k. They are based on the primitive notions real-point, elementary event,
signal, clock, fastest signal and device for directional measurements.
2. The construction of the causal space (M’, <, 4, -+) in &.
3. The construction of a radar atlas 21’.
It was already mentioned at the end of 2.7.2 that (M’, ‘?I’) is generally not
a manifold. This can be proved by giving a model for 0, which does not lead to
a manifold. Such models exist [13]. Their sets M’ look like haystacks. Nevertheless,
there are also models of 0, which give Lorentzian manifolds.

REFERENCES
[l] J. Ehlers, F. A. E. Pirani and A. Schild: The Geometry ofFree Fall and Light Propagation, in: General
Relativity, L. O’Raifeartaigh (ed.), Clarendon Press Oxford, 1972.
[2] N. M. J. Woodhouse: J. Math. Phys. 14 (1973), 495.
[3] H. Reichenbach: Axiom&k der relatiuistischen Raum-Zeit-Lehre, in: Gesammelte Werke, Band 3,
Vieweg 1979.
[4] J. Meyer: Theoretische Physik 11, Lecture given at the University of Paderborn in 1981, unpublished
manuscript.
[S] G. Ludwig: Die Grundstrukturen einer physikalischen Theorie, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg,
New York, 1978.
[6] J. D. Sneed: The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics, D. Reidel Publishing Company,
Dordrecht - Holland, 1971.
 AN AXIOMATIC BASIS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY 333

[7] A. HartkHmper and H. J. Schmidt: Structure and Approximation in Physical Theories, Plenum Press.
New York and London, 1981.
[S] N. Bourbaki: Elements of Mathematics, Theory of Sets, Hermann, Publishers m Arts and Science,
1968.
[9] R. E. Edwards: A Formal Background to Mathematics la, b. Logic, Sets and Numbers, Springer
Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1979.
[lo] S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis: The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University
Press, 1980.
[II] K. Kuratowski and A. Mostowski: Set Theory, North-Holland Pub]. Comp., Amsterdam, 1976.
1121 E. H. Kronheimer and R. Penrose: Proc. Camb. Phil. Sot. 63 (1967), 481.
[13] J. Schriiter: Ein diskretes Modell der Raum-Zeit-Theorie, Preprint, Paderborn, 1985.