Can mankind transcend the fabric of space and time?

In summary: According to physics our material bodies will never go beyond these limits.All thoughts occur in your brain, where is the problem?The problem is, that we do not yet know what exactly thoughts are, nor are we in a position to explain why they originate.What is the 'fabric of space time' and what is there to transcend to?I mean no personal offense. I am dissecting your ideas, not you. So please return the favor and let's keep this civil.

can mankind transcend the fabric of space and time?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • No

    Votes: 8 47.1%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • Total voters
    17
  • #1
eextreme
24
0
A question that came out spontaneously, what do you think?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is not scientific nor philosophical in the smallest regard.
 
  • #3
Its both to me, is it too hard for you to answer?
 
  • #4
robertm said:
This is not scientific nor philosophical in the smallest regard.

Following Kant you would be exactly right in saying that it is not a philosophical question.

I do not see any reason why it is necessarily not a scientific question, according to Popper's definition of science.

Finally, I am inclined to answer the question in the affirmative, following Sartre who emphasized the meaning of the quote from Dostoevsky, viz "If there is no god, then anything is possible."
 
  • #5
There is nothing difficult about it. Why do you automatically assume that I am ignorant to difficult questions? I didn't initially feel the need to waste my time with such a question because applying simple logic negates the proposition. Not to mention it was not proposed in a logical and comprehensive manner.

Posting this shows that you did not fully read the forum guidelines that you agreed to when you registered.

You did not define any parameters of your statement.

The question was spontaneous, meaning you didn't give it serious thought before posting.

What do you mean by transcend?

How do you mean 'humans transcending'?

What is the 'fabric of space time' and what is there to transcend to?

I mean no personal offense. I am dissecting your ideas, not you. So please return the favor and let's keep this civil. If we can answer these questions and reformulate the original then we might have something to discuss, but I imagine this thread will be locked anyway.

Edit: to crosson: the manner and the premise in which the question was asked is not scientific. As I said above, it might be if really reformulated...
 
Last edited:
  • #6
I am very interested in the scientific concepts of space and time, and I should say I fully agree with robertm : there is not much scientific content in this discussion, not even general discussion. "Transcend" can be interpreted in too many ways. What do you mean by "fabric" ? That there is something more fundamental from which space-time emerges ? That we may find technological uses from those speculative theories, such as space-time travel (teleportation and/or time machines) ? See, internet and this very forum transcend space and time in some sense.

Unless the question is reformulated, I'm afraid it won't take long for this thread to be locked.
 
  • #7
Transcend: to pass beyond the limits of.

The phrase "the fabric" in "the fabric of space and time" is redundant, so we could reformulate this as simply "spacetime."

So the reformulation of the question is:

Can mankind go beyond the limits of spacetime?

According to physics our material bodies will never go beyond these limits, but I do not know anyone who can convincingly argue that we are merely material bodies. Our more abstract thoughts already seem to be beyond space and time, so it seems that without our mundane bodily lives we would all be beyond space and time.
 
  • #8
Yeah its definitely possible...using advanced antimatter reactors(which have not been invented yet) you can develop an anti gravity field around a craft, which can be used to warp space-time... This also enables a craft to travel along contours of spacetime while anti gravity stops any influence of other mass, making the craft effectively massless and capable of faster than light travel !
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Crosson said:
According to physics our material bodies will never go beyond these limits, but I do not know anyone who can convincingly argue that we are merely material bodies.


All thoughts occur in your brain, where is the problem?
 
  • #10
JoeDawg said:
All thoughts occur in your brain, where is the problem?

the problem is, that we do not yet know what exactly thoughts are, nor are we in a position to explain why they originate.
 
  • #11
Crosson said:
Transcend: to pass beyond the limits of.
Thank you, I have a dictionary. I am interested in the OP context of thoughts.
The phrase "the fabric" in "the fabric of space and time" is redundant, so we could reformulate this as simply "spacetime."
No it would not be redundant if you say for instance that space-time emerges from loop quantum gravity, or from twistor space, or from any other mechanism you can mathematically define (or at least describe).
Can mankind go beyond the limits of spacetime?
So this is not a scientific question, since by definition (such as Einstein was describing in great details more than a century ago), space-time should be understood as comprehending the entire Universe, including possible extension we are not yet aware of, and which were later suggested by the flexibility of the equations.

I do not know anyone who can convincingly argue that we are merely material bodies.
Nobody could possibly convince anybody else either way, provided one has already make up his mind on this question. Once again this is not scientific.
Our more abstract thoughts already seem to be beyond space and time, so it seems that without our mundane bodily lives we would all be beyond space and time.
My abstract thoughts are located in the chemical reactions taking place in the neurons of my brain.
 
  • #12
aniketp said:
using advanced antimatter reactors(which have not been invented yet) you can develop an anti gravity field around a craft
I do not know what book you read, but I can tell you I personally talked to people who measure antineutrons fall. Antimatter does not fly away in a gravitational field, this is an experimental fact. There is no such thing as antigravity. This is science-fiction.

I'm aware that science-fiction can become future technology, and that this has happened often in the past. But it happens more often that science-fiction simply is imagination.
 
  • #13
Anti gravity is not like gravity at all... All i am saying is that energy evolved during annihilation can be used to create a repulsive force field around the desired object, which can be used to counteract effects of gravity.
 
  • #14
aniketp said:
Anti gravity is not like gravity at all... All i am saying is that energy evolved during annihilation can be used to create a repulsive force field around the desired object, which can be used to counteract effects of gravity.
I think the technics you are referring to in your previous post require negative energy density. Basically, there are Hawking theorems which prove you will not be able to do fancy stuff such as time travel and teleportation (or merely over-speeding light) unless you break some energy positivity condition.

There has always been around exotic ideas about antimatter/antigravity hiding where we had not done experiments yet.
 
  • #15
But there is no reason for antigravity to not exist. Of all the four fundamental forces other three attract as well as repell.. so why should gravity just attract?
 
  • #16
aniketp said:
But there is no reason for antigravity to not exist. Of all the four fundamental forces other three attract as well as repell.. so why should gravity just attract?
I think the answer to that one will not satisfy you : gravity is always attractive for the same reason that mass is always positive.

There are many arguments to show that gravity must attract, but in the end, they all reduce to this condition.

Now there is a way out of this annoying situation. One can insist that antimatter can not fall, but must fly away. For this, one only needs to re-interpret antimatter just as matter going backward in time. Although it might seem foolish, it is quite a useful trick, and it works wonders.
 
  • #17
humanino said:
My abstract thoughts are located in the chemical reactions taking place in the neurons of my brain.

You can't literally mean that the thoughts are in my brain, the same way that my brain is in my skull. You must mean that you think the chemical reactions somehow give rise to thoughts. But there is no mathematical or scientific formulation of this idea, and so your idea is just as nonsensical as any other.

If I type a thought into the computer, that doesn't mean the thought is in the computer, but only a typed symbolic record of it. In fact it would require thought to interpret the typed symbolic record as a thought. Don't confuse the thing that holds a record of the thoughts (computer memory, the human brain) with the thing that has (feels) thoughts.

By the way, I am a physicist and I also formerly held on to the nonsensical dogmatic belief that "thoughts are identical to the electro-chemical processes of the brain."
 
  • #18
Crosson said:
You can't literally mean that the thoughts are in my brain, the same way that my brain is in my skull. You must mean that you think the chemical reactions somehow give rise to thoughts. But there is no mathematical or scientific formulation of this idea, and so your idea is just as nonsensical as any other.

If I type a thought into the computer, that doesn't mean the thought is in the computer, but only a typed symbolic record of it. In fact it would require thought to interpret the typed symbolic record as a thought. Don't confuse the thing that holds a record of the thoughts (computer memory, the human brain) with the thing that has (feels) thoughts.

By the way, I am a physicist and I also formerly held on to the nonsensical dogmatic belief that "thoughts are identical to the electro-chemical processes of the brain."

I am sorry that you have changed your mind, and am interested to know what could possibly have convinced you.

There is nothing nonsensical about it. No one is confusing the brain with any special magical 'feeling' of thoughts. Your thoughts can not exist without your physical brain. It is that simple. Just because the human brain has the wonderful ability to experience the senses without physical input dose not mean that there is anything magical going on.

As a physicist, why would you rather assume that an option based on ZERO logical and empirical evidence is in anyway viable? Why would you base a belief, ANY belief on 'feelings' and whimsical ideals? We all know how incredibly subjective 'feelings' can be.

The bottom line: There is no evidence to support any form of the possible transcendental nature of human thought. There is however a logical way of describing and quantifying with the scientific method the reasons why 'thoughts' which exist only in the imagination of a brain seem so intangible.
 
  • #19
aniketp said:
But there is no reason for antigravity to not exist. Of all the four fundamental forces other three attract as well as repell.. so why should gravity just attract?

Gravity is not a force. It is a pseudo force that arises from the nature of spacetime.
 
  • #20
The way I see it is this: I know my thoughts exist, but I don't know for sure that my brain exists, hence my thoughts are not the same thing as my brain or anything that happens within it. Maybe my thoughts couln't exist without my brain, but maybe my brain couldn't exist without my thoughts.
 
  • #21
robertm said:
I am sorry that you have changed your mind, and am interested to know what could possibly have convinced you.

I studied the history of philosophy for a few years. Now it's hard for me to discourse with other physicists, because they are only playing with half a deck.

There is nothing nonsensical about it. No one is confusing the brain with any special magical 'feeling' of thoughts. Your thoughts can not exist without your physical brain.

In logical discourse the standard for claims of impossibility is nothing less than rigorous proof. This means that your claim is unfortunately based only on a feeling that you have. Stories like this are not totally uncommon, I also know of one involving a graduate student in mathematics who was functionally identical to his colleagues:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290610,00.html

Unless you have had brain surgery or an MRI, it is entirely conceivable that upon your death we will open your skull and find it to be empty.

It is that simple. Just because the human brain has the wonderful ability to experience the senses without physical input dose not mean that there is anything magical going on.

Physical input is irrelevant to my argument. The plain fact that we have any thoughts, whether based on a physical reality or not, is enough to ask "what's going on?"

As a physicist, why would you rather assume that an option based on ZERO logical and empirical evidence is in anyway viable? Why would you base a belief, ANY belief on 'feelings' and whimsical ideals? We all know how incredibly subjective 'feelings' can be.

When all else fails, use connotations ("feelings") and talk louder ("ZERO"). How about this as empirical evidence: "I see the color red."

According to classical physics the state of my material brain is given by the set of positions and momenta of the various particles in my brain. Tell me, what configuration of these particles could give rise to my experience of the color red? More directly, how could any configuration of these particles give rise to any subjective experience by an individual consciousness whatsoever?
There is however a logical way of describing and quantifying with the scientific method the reasons why 'thoughts' which exist only in the imagination of a brain seem so intangible.

What is this logical way of describing and quantifying thoughts in terms of electro-chemical processes?

Gravity is not a force. It is a pseudo force that arises from the nature of spacetime.

I agree, that has been our best model so far. But the questions in this thread go beyond our current physical models. Don't you realize that what you are stating as a universal fact is actually a model that has existed for less than 10^(-18) % of the duration of the universe, and has weakly been confirmed by limited observation of the light that is visible from this solitary planet? Remember that cosmology predicts that up to 98% of the mass in the universe is exotic matter that is not to be found on the periodic table, and so we must admit that we have no idea what forces between these particles must be like. Don't let "the quest for the theory of everything" hype affect your thinking about what is possible, we should be willing to admit how much we don't know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
aniketp said:
But there is no reason for antigravity to not exist. Of all the four fundamental forces other three attract as well as repell.. so why should gravity just attract?

ok seeing as einstein was the greatest mind we have ever known and he said that gravity is just mass making a dent in the fabric of space-time which governs everything we have ever experienced, I'd say he was right. So gravity is not an attractive force but just objects "falling" towards other larger objects which create a bigger dent in space-time. Now how do we create anti-matter then? The absense of a dent in space-time? wouldn't that just be space-time? so there would be nothing falling or repelling.
 
  • #23
shamrock5585 said:
ok seeing as einstein was the greatest mind we have ever known and he said that gravity is just mass making a dent in the fabric of space-time which governs everything we have ever experienced, I'd say he was right.

Proof by authority is not valid, and Einstein succeeded because of his hardwork, not because of his intelligence. Consider what the great mathematician David Hilbert said:

"Every schoolboy in Gottingen knows more 4-dimensional geometry than Einstein, but chalk is cheaper than grey matter."

In other words, Hilbert was saying that what Einstein lacked in pure intelligence he made up for with the amount of chalk he expended while working.
 
  • #24
haha so your saying einstein was wrong? ask NASA if they agree! or even people in Hiroshima for that matter haha
 
  • #25
shamrock5585 said:
haha so your saying einstein was wrong? ask NASA if they agree! or even people in Hiroshima for that matter haha

I never said that Einstein was wrong, I just pointed out that he is far from being "the greatest mind we have ever known." You must have low perception if you think I said he was wrong.

As for your comment about Hiroshima, if you knew about the history or science behind the first atomic bomb you would know that the splitting of the uranium nucleus was first accomplished by German chemists who were not using special relativity in any way. Einstein's only role in the creation of the nuclear bomb was to urge president Roosevelt to construct one, in a 1939 letter. About this I am almost certain that the residents of Hiroshima would say "Einstein was wrong."
 
  • #26
eextreme said:
A question that came out spontaneously, what do you think?
I voted no because spacetime encompasses the entire universe, and nothing {at least that we know of} is beyond the universe.
shamrock5585 said:
...ok seeing as Einstein was the greatest mind we have ever known...
Who decided that? I'm not saying that he wasn't one of the greatest, but who decided he was the greatest...?
 
  • #27
Crosson said:
By the way, I am a physicist and I also formerly held on to the nonsensical dogmatic belief that "thoughts are identical to the electro-chemical processes of the brain."

We don't know what thoughts are or how the brain works exactly, but the mind clearly is a process of the brain in some way... sounds like you now hold another nonsensical dogmatic belief about the mind. And how does being a physicist make you an expert in AI and neuroscience, anyway?
 
  • #28
Crosson said:
...Unless you have had brain surgery or an MRI, it is entirely conceivable that upon your death we will open your skull and find it to be empty...
.. um .. what..? :confused:
Now, I've worked with some people who {I feel} could possible have an empty cavern instead of a brain, but that comment is ridiculous.
 
  • #29
Being an expert in AI or neuroscience would not give you knowledge of how thoughts arise from organic matter. It is an unsolved (possibly unsolvable) problem.
 
  • #30
Crosson said:
I studied the history of philosophy for a few years. Now it's hard for me to discourse with other physicists, because they are only playing with half a deck.



In logical discourse the standard for claims of impossibility is nothing less than rigorous proof. This means that your claim is unfortunately based only on a feeling that you have. Stories like this are not totally uncommon, I also know of one involving a graduate student in mathematics who was functionally identical to his colleagues:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290610,00.html

Unless you have had brain surgery or an MRI, it is entirely conceivable that upon your death we will open your skull and find it to be empty.



Physical input is irrelevant to my argument. The plain fact that we have any thoughts, whether based on a physical reality or not, is enough to ask "what's going on?"



When all else fails, use connotations ("feelings") and talk louder ("ZERO"). How about this as empirical evidence: "I see the color red."

According to classical physics the state of my material brain is given by the set of positions and momenta of the various particles in my brain. Tell me, what configuration of these particles could give rise to my experience of the color red? More directly, how could any configuration of these particles give rise to any subjective experience by an individual consciousness whatsoever?




What is this logical way of describing and quantifying thoughts in terms of electro-chemical processes?



I agree, that has been our best model so far. But the questions in this thread go beyond our current physical models. Don't you realize that what you are stating as a universal fact is actually a model that has existed for less than 10^(-18) % of the duration of the universe, and has weakly been confirmed by limited observation of the light that is visible from this solitary planet? Remember that cosmology predicts that up to 98% of the mass in the universe is exotic matter that is not to be found on the periodic table, and so we must admit that we have no idea what forces between these particles must be like. Don't let "the quest for the theory of everything" hype affect your thinking about what is possible, we should be willing to admit how much we don't know.

1. I fail to see the empiricality of any philosophy involving the workings of the mind. However, nueroscience seems to be doing pretty well...

2. I may not be able to offer rigorous proof of my claims, however I can at least offer some empirical evidence that points to the mind having to follow the laws of physics the same as every other grouping of atoms: try the entire known body of science and especially nueroscience. Where as there is no evidence for any of your claims except in the philosophical sense. As far as I know, matter follows the claims of science much more closely than the teachings of philosophy.

3. Not sure what you are getting at with the link, maybe I'm missing something here. Your claim that my brain will be empty when I die is totally logically false, and I assume you meant it in the sense that I will have no thoughts in my head. Well that is obvious. My thoughts arise jointly through the physical make-up of my cells and the electro-chemical activity in my neurons propagated by the biological activity of my body. When those many processes cease my body can not sustain itself nor the electrical activity in my brain, hence the end of my conscience.

4. I completely agree with you that we should always ask 'what is going on'. That does not mean that we should assert that there is something magical going on.

5. I use connotations and capitalization in my text to try and convey emotion that I would normally convey through changes in my voice, not to back up any claims. I fail to see what your being able to see the color red and state that you see the color is evidence for, other than known neurological processes.

6. It is quite evident that the combination of the various facilities of the human brain can give rise to experience. What do you experience when you are un-conscience?? It seems to me that you need to spend more time read a psych 101 book rather than all that philosophy. Do you realize that the human mind is capable of approximately 100 trillion synaptic operations per second?? Does it not seem that a physical system capable of that many complicated operations every second of every day may be capable of giving rise to something like consciousness?

7. The scientific method is the logical argument that uses electro-chemical activity of the brain to attempt to explain the origin of consciousness.

8. I am the first to admit how much we as a species don't know, and how much more I personally don't know. But I am the last to admit that there must be a supernatural explanation for anything. Much less a supernatural explanation that is contradicted by empirical testable evidence.

In till there is any reason for me to consider that there is something beyond the physical realm, I will continue to apply the methodology of reason and logic and empirical testable evidence to any and all inquiries. I do not get caught up in pop science hype nor do I follow pop science. I hope that my decedents will be able to accomplish things that I can only dream of, and that is exactly why I apply skeptical reasoning and logic to all my thinking, not superstitious philosophical rambling.

There is much more to the universe than what we know today, however there is no reason to believe that there is something beyond the physical world. I do believe that there is more to the human mind than what we already know, it is quite obvious really, but that is not to say that there is something supernatural or magical going on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
JoeDawg said:
We don't know what thoughts are or how the brain works exactly, but the mind clearly is a process of the brain in some way... sounds like you now hold another nonsensical dogmatic belief about the mind. And how does being a physicist make you an expert in AI and neuroscience, anyway?

Admittedly, I don't know the true origin of thoughts. But getting rid of my dogmatic self-contradictory beliefs about materialism was a first step in the right direction.

It doesn't matter that I am a physicist, I have degrees in physics, mathematics, and philosophy, and more importantly, I have thought deeply about the nature of computation, materialism, mind-body duality, and the locus and nature of thoughts. Credentials are truly worthless in this world, but I at least hope you can see that I have considered your materialist position very carefully in my life.
 
  • #32
6. It is quite evident that the combination of the various facilities of the human brain can give rise to experience. What do you experience when you are un-conscience?? It seems to me that you need to spend more time read a psych 101 book rather than all that philosophy. Do you realize that the human mind is capable of approximately 100 trillion synaptic operations per second?? Does it not seem that a physical system capable of that many complicated operations every second of every day may be capable of giving rise to something like consciousness?

7. The scientific method is the logical argument that uses electro-chemical activity of the brain to attempt to explain the origin of consciousness.

No, any logical argument that uses electro-chemical activity of the brain to attempt to explain the origin of consciousness must use mathematics. Anything less is mere hand waving, which doesn't pass the muster in science (except for this one issue, about which I find scientists to be dogmatic).

In other words, show me the mathematical model that allows brain states to be mapped onto thoughts. Let B be the set of brain states, and T be the set of thoughts, then any materialist scientific theory of the brain must construct an operator:

O:B -> T

That maps any brain state b to its corresponding thought t. Now the elements of B could be vectors representing the classical state of the particles in the brain, or they could also be smooth vector fields, or maybe something else. But I don't have a clue what mathematical structure would satisfactorily represent the elements of T, perhaps they are infinite-dimensional vectors?

Anyway, I know there is no such model, and although I must admit that I cannot rule out such a possibility in the future, you must also admit that as long as there is no model of the kind that I described then there is no logical materialist explanation other then hand waving.

I don't know why you think anything that goes outside of current scientific theories is necessarily "magic" or "supernatural." As far as I can tell, this is just name calling, and the same thing was done to Newton over his theory of gravity.
 
  • #34
robertm said:
1. I fail to see the empiricality of any philosophy involving the workings of the mind. However, nueroscience seems to be doing pretty well...

Empiricism is a philosophy.

4. I completely agree with you that we should always ask 'what is going on'. That does not mean that we should assert that there is something magical going on.

Well said.
 
  • #35
Crosson said:
No, any logical argument that uses electro-chemical activity of the brain to attempt to explain the origin of consciousness must use mathematics. Anything less is mere hand waving, which doesn't pass the muster in science (except for this one issue, about which I find scientists to be dogmatic).

In other words, show me the mathematical model that allows brain states to be mapped onto thoughts. Let B be the set of brain states, and T be the set of thoughts, then any materialist scientific theory of the brain must construct an operator:

O:B -> T

That maps any brain state b to its corresponding thought t. Now the elements of B could be vectors representing the classical state of the particles in the brain, or they could also be smooth vector fields, or maybe something else. But I don't have a clue what mathematical structure would satisfactorily represent the elements of T, perhaps they are infinite-dimensional vectors?

Anyway, I know there is no such model, and although I must admit that I cannot rule out such a possibility in the future, you must also admit that as long as there is no model of the kind that I described then there is no logical materialist explanation other then hand waving.

I don't know why you think anything that goes outside of current scientific theories is necessarily "magic" or "supernatural." As far as I can tell, this is just name calling, and the same thing was done to Newton over his theory of gravity.

I would also like to see the mathematical model that can be applied and measure and predict in a system so complex as the human brain. The fact that we do not have such a model does not mean that I am relegated to hand waving, were as philosophy itself could be considered the definition of 'hand waving'. How can you negate the entire field of neurology? I don't know how much you know about psychology, but it becomes quite obvious that there is something physical going on even with a basic knowledge of modern psychology. I have my own ideas on where and how the conscience arises, but it will take quite a while for me to write it out here (not to mention it is getting late). If you would like to hear it just let me know.

I have nothing against theories beyond the present scope of knowledge, I gave my opinion on your ideas of conscious not arising from the physical processes of the brain, and the OP's lack of a well formulated question. I never said anything else about any other fringe theory.

Do not mistake, I love philosophy. And I love reading and studying philosophy just like I do physics. However, I will never try to explain a physical phenomenon with a philosophical mind set. That is not the method of science nor will it lead to productive science.
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. Can mankind truly transcend the fabric of space and time?</h2><p>This is a highly debated topic in the scientific community. While some scientists believe that it is theoretically possible for humans to transcend the fabric of space and time, others argue that it is not possible due to the limitations of our physical bodies and the laws of physics.</p><h2>2. What is the current scientific understanding of space and time?</h2><p>Space and time are intertwined and make up the fabric of our universe. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, space and time are not fixed entities, but rather they are relative and can be influenced by gravity and the movement of objects.</p><h2>3. Is there any evidence to suggest that humans have transcended space and time?</h2><p>There is currently no scientific evidence to support the idea that humans have transcended space and time. While some individuals claim to have had experiences of time travel or out-of-body experiences, these claims have not been scientifically verified.</p><h2>4. What are some potential implications of humans transcending space and time?</h2><p>If it were possible for humans to transcend the fabric of space and time, it would have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place within it. It could also potentially open up new possibilities for space exploration and time travel.</p><h2>5. Are there any ongoing scientific studies or experiments related to transcending space and time?</h2><p>While there are ongoing studies and experiments related to understanding the fabric of space and time, there is currently no scientific research specifically focused on humans transcending it. However, advancements in fields such as quantum physics and astrophysics may shed more light on the possibility in the future.</p>

1. Can mankind truly transcend the fabric of space and time?

This is a highly debated topic in the scientific community. While some scientists believe that it is theoretically possible for humans to transcend the fabric of space and time, others argue that it is not possible due to the limitations of our physical bodies and the laws of physics.

2. What is the current scientific understanding of space and time?

Space and time are intertwined and make up the fabric of our universe. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, space and time are not fixed entities, but rather they are relative and can be influenced by gravity and the movement of objects.

3. Is there any evidence to suggest that humans have transcended space and time?

There is currently no scientific evidence to support the idea that humans have transcended space and time. While some individuals claim to have had experiences of time travel or out-of-body experiences, these claims have not been scientifically verified.

4. What are some potential implications of humans transcending space and time?

If it were possible for humans to transcend the fabric of space and time, it would have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place within it. It could also potentially open up new possibilities for space exploration and time travel.

5. Are there any ongoing scientific studies or experiments related to transcending space and time?

While there are ongoing studies and experiments related to understanding the fabric of space and time, there is currently no scientific research specifically focused on humans transcending it. However, advancements in fields such as quantum physics and astrophysics may shed more light on the possibility in the future.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
24
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
663
Back
Top