There is no 'fabric' in any modern physical theory, so there is no 'fabric' to be ripped.
I remember from Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe that string theory does allow for spacetime topology changes, which can be thought of in terms of ripping /sewing spacetime (like turning a sphere into a doughnut by punching a hole through the middle). No ragged holes that things can fall into and disappear though.
I remember from Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe that string theory does allow for spacetime topology changes, which can be thought of in terms of ripping /sewing spacetime (like turning a sphere into a doughnut by punching a hole through the middle).
JesseM said:I remember from Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe that string theory does allow for spacetime topology changes, which can be thought of in terms of ripping /sewing spacetime (like turning a sphere into a doughnut by punching a hole through the middle). No ragged holes that things can fall into and disappear though.
Naty1 said:...we have only incomplete hints. I think this is likely because we do not know what space nor time are...nor mass,energy,either for example. And we have no theory (quantum nor relativistic nor informational nor string ) that works at singularities...(big bang, black holes) where ripping seems mostly likely...
I remember from Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe that string theory does allow for spacetime topology changes, which can be thought of in terms of ripping /sewing spacetime (like turning a sphere into a doughnut by punching a hole through the middle). No ragged holes that things can fall into and disappear though.
You can't turn a sphere into a torus by punching a hole in the middle.
I think this is likely because we do not know what space nor time are...nor mass,energy,either for example. And we have no theory (quantum nor relativistic nor informational nor string ) that works at singularities...(big bang, black holes) where ripping seems mostly likely...
Yes we do.
Naty1 said:Which part don't you like?? and do provide (a) an explanation of exactly what space and time are or (b) a consistent theory that handles singularities or a reference that explains either. Right now I stand by what I posted.
thanks
Can't you cut point-size holes in opposite poles of a sphere and then bring the holes together and sew the neighborhoods of each hole together? Not that I'd expect something like this is literally happening in string theory, maybe it's more like a kind of uncertainty in the topology (and I think that topology changes are always 'shielded from view' by branes somehow) Also I wasn't aware "doughnut" was a technical term in mathematics, but from the context I thought it was clear that I meant the 2D surface, just like I used "sphere" to refer to a 2D surface rather than a solid 3D sphere.You can't turn a sphere into a torus by punching a hole in the middle.
Can't you cut point-size holes in opposite poles of a sphere and then bring the holes together and sew the neighborhoods of each hole together?
Not that I'd expect something like this is literally happening in string theory, maybe it's more like a kind of uncertainty in the topology (and I think that topology changes are always 'shielded from view' by branes somehow) Also I wasn't aware "doughnut" was a technical term in mathematics, but from the context I thought it was clear that I meant the 2D surface, just like I used "sphere" to refer to a 2D surface rather than a solid 3D sphere.
Yeah, I did allude to "ripping /sewing spacetime" but I didn't mention the sewing part of converting a sphere to a torus, was speaking rather informally...appreciate the clarification.Exactly! the resulting object would be homeomorphic to a torus. But you have the additional 'sew' operation going on here, so it's not the same as just punching a hole in a sphere. The reason I brought this up is because while you and I may know what we are talking about, the OP might not, and thus might get confused about this.
There is no 'fabric' in any modern physical theory, so there is no 'fabric' to be ripped.
Phrases like "ripping a hole in the space-time continuum" are abuses of notation typically used in science fiction.
- Warren
was speaking rather informally
"ripping a hole in the space-time continuum" are abuses of notation typically used in science fiction.
You did not explain what you mean by 'singularity'. There are many different kinds of singularities in mathematics.
Frame Dragger said:I don't think you can call dimensions, or their related coordinates (or systems) a "fabric", in any way other than informally. To posit a "tear" in a "fabric" is really the linguistic equivalent to "drilling a hole in the AEther."
Frame Dragger said:@IttyBittyBit: Oh please, are you going to tell us about technological singularities next? We're talking about spacetime in the relativity forum, and you seem bright enough to grasp "context".
Don't blow smoke up all of our ****es, and don't extend this anymore than needs be with prattle about basics we all learned in grade-school.
I completely agree. This is probably the best answer given to the OP's question.
You misunderstand. I wasn't trying to nitpicky. I was just trying to base the discussion on a firmer ground, at least as far as my own knowledge. I'm sorry if I came off as a nazi.
When it comes down to it, aren't the basics all that are really important? It is precisely the fact that the basics are left misunderstood, that leads to statements like 'spacetime fabric' and other kinds of sloppy thinking. I'm sure you would agree with this point.
if there is a fabric of space, the four dimension you could call it, space time, is it possible to rip it or open it up, for example do black holes do that, if not what, what would happen?
wow, I have to reply, so the first paragraph you're talking about relativity.
second one is basically the idea I'm trying to write about, the thing is how would you go about ripping spacetime at will an in a controlled fashion?.
from what I've read, physics books for the layman, I liked best witten's idea of the ripping of spacetime, even though I thought it a novel idea, the second paragraph tells that for physicist is ancient rumination.
so IT would act as the most powerful shield possible, with the ability to control a rip on and off, it would be as if you are, literally, on another universe, even though you could still "be there", as it were, and nothing would affect you, as I understand you ,TCS, from a bullet to nuclear device, or am I inferring to loosely?
as Michio kaku put it in is book: Physics of the Impossible.
'A force field could profoundly affect every aspect of our lives'
Tanks for the insight TCS
There is no 'fabric' in any modern physical theory, so there is no 'fabric' to be ripped.
Phrases like "ripping a hole in the space-time continuum" are abuses of notation typically used in science fiction.
Einstein beleived in a fabric. The fabric is real, particles are imaginary.
The guy is asking for advice about a science fiction book.
Einstein beleived in a fabric. The fabric is real, particles are imaginary.
Ok, the word fabric can be taken too literally. The fabric of spacetime is merely a descriptive way of viewing a cross section of our 4 dimensional spacetime (a plane which is viewed to curve in General Relativity, more accurately described with the Einstein Field Equations, built from Tensor Calculus). Beyond that, we have to be careful about what we say. What is it that you mean by "ripping a hole in the spacetime fabric"? What would this constitute in reality? It doesn't make sense to say such a thing, spacetime is not a woven fabric which we can cut with scissors, or "rip" with enough force and energy.
The second part of this quote, particles are imaginary? I just.. I don't understand where you're getting that from, but please read up on the workings of Quantum Mecahnics and particle interactions before claiming anything about them. I assure you, particles, such as the electron, do exist. How they are described is very complicated, but they are there.
I don't think you can call dimensions, or their related coordinates (or systems) a "fabric", in any way other than informally. To posit a "tear" in a "fabric" is really the linguistic equivalent to "drilling a hole in the AEther."
I think chroot was probably pointing out that modern (accepted) physics does away with the notion of an ether, or substrate to reality. The existence of dimensions doesn't imply that they form an "interwoven fabric". That's a great way to describe spacetime without math, but it's not physical.
It's hard if not impossible to imagine a play without a backdrop, but really that's what the universe seems to be. Unless you posit Branes, or other purely theoretical constructs, 4-dimensions don't describe a fabric that can be "torn". Beyond speculation, there is no reason to believe that a singularity represents a "tear", but a departure from the norm. In theory, that BH may evaporate through HR, and what would be left is presumably NOT a "tear" or a "hole", just radiation.
@IttyBittyBit: Oh please, are you going to tell us about technological singularities next? We're talking about spacetime in the relativity forum, and you seem bright enough to grasp "context". Don't blow smoke up all of our ****es, and don't extend this anymore than needs be with prattle about basics we all learned in grade-school.
Yes...I believe you can actually help minimize the stiffness of this "fabric" by using fabric softener. I tend to use Bounty, unless the store brand is on sale.
So, I think we should make sure that we mention that ripping this fabric is only possible if God hasn't done the laundry recently.
*Seriously...threads with MUCH less baseless statements and pseudo-science are deleted every day.
I've never understood why random threads like this, where the very people totally misrepresenting the physics are trashing site administrators, are allowed to stay? In situations like this, the reason that you can't turn a sphere into a torus should be shown in its mathematical notation.
If people still wish to argue, they can argue the math; then there is no room for arguments over semantics.
*This isn't a direct attack on TCS, I just "quoted" the first post I saw that contained the word "fabric."