Can you rip the space time fabric?

[Shackleford]

It would be more accurate to say there exists a physical phenomenon that is accurately described both quantitatively and qualitatively by a notion we call a particle with its given characteristics. However, the Complementarity Principle dictates whether we call that phenomenon a particle or a wave given the context of the experiment or observation. It is partially correct to say a particle is imaginary insofar as a "particle" is an abstract concept we generate to more accurately describe observed physical phenomena.

 

[Troponin]

The guy is asking for advice about a science fiction book.

Einstein beleived in a fabric. The fabric is real, particles are imaginary.

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."

 

[TCS]

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.

What you believe to be particles are just a convieninet way of mathematically describing wave interactions.

 

[TCS]

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.

If you take the threads form a sheet, yuou have no sheet. If you take the waves from space, you have no space. However, it doesn't mean that the sheet has no physical reality.

 

[TCS]

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."

If you read my earlier post, I explained what it would mean if the space time fabric was ripped. If you have an actual response to that post please give it instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

 

[benk99nenm312]

If you take the threads form a sheet, yuou have no sheet. If you take the waves from space, you have no space. However, it doesn't mean that the sheet has no physical reality.

What waves?.. what?

Troponin has a good point. You can debate all sorts of things, and the reason these debates keep popping up is because people keep trying to make claims without proof. Overconfidence is a bad thing in physics, I'll admit I sometimes find myself in the end needing to be corrected.

There are a lot of tangents developing, either they need to become new threads or we need stay on the same page.

"A rip in the fabric of space-time would be a place where energy couldn't exist. Its energy density would be zero and its rate of time would be infinite. Black holes have an energy density that increases without bound and a rate of time that aproaches zero." - TCS

I'd like to know what source led you to this, not because I believe it to be wrong, I'm just curious.

 

[Shackleford]

What you believe to be particles are just a convieninet way of mathematically describing wave interactions.

Yeah. It's a called a wave packet in QM. The superposition of the myriad wave functions generates essentially a localized phenomenon, i.e. a "particle." It's easier to think of a particle since we experience macroscopic "particles" in our everyday lives.

 

[Troponin]

If you read my earlier post, I explained what it would mean if the space time fabric was ripped. If you have an actual response to that post please give it instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

My post, by definition, was not an ad hominem attack against you.
I specifically stated that my post was NOT a specific attack against TCS, it just happened to be the first post I saw with the word "fabric" in it, a word I wanted to quote. If including the specific announcement that *This isn't a direct attack on TCS, I just "quoted" the first post I saw that contained the word "fabric." isn't enough to satisfy you, I'll make sure to send you a personal letter and bouquet of flowers for any future posts that you could misinterpret as being written for the purpose of attacking you...

 

[DaveC426913]

If you read my earlier post, I explained what it would mean if the space time fabric was ripped.

Space being described as some sort of fabric is just an analogy. It helps make the highly complex more easily understood. But it does not mean that you can then take that analogy and extrapolate back to the real world.

If I described the universe as an expanding balloon you would not then ask where the universe's spigot is, what gas it is full of or how thin the wall is.

 

[TCS]

My post, by definition, was not an ad hominem attack against you.
I specifically stated that my post was NOT a specific attack against TCS, it just happened to be the first post I saw with the word "fabric" in it, a word I wanted to quote.


If including the specific announcement that *This isn't a direct attack on TCS, I just "quoted" the first post I saw that contained the word "fabric." isn't enough to satisfy you, I'll make sure to send you a personal letter and bouquet of flowers for any future posts that you could misinterpret as being written for the purpose of attacking you...

Sorry Man, my bad.

 

[Troponin]

Sorry Man, my bad.

No problem...I wanted to quote one of the OP's posts, but it was too many posts behind mine to show up in the "topic review" below the reply box. lol
I was hoping you wouldn't take me up on the flowers anyway...that would get expensive. lol

 

[TCS]

What waves?.. what?

Troponin has a good point. You can debate all sorts of things, and the reason these debates keep popping up is because people keep trying to make claims without proof. Overconfidence is a bad thing in physics, I'll admit I sometimes find myself in the end needing to be corrected.

There are a lot of tangents developing, either they need to become new threads or we need stay on the same page.

"A rip in the fabric of space-time would be a place where energy couldn't exist. Its energy density would be zero and its rate of time would be infinite. Black holes have an energy density that increases without bound and a rate of time that aproaches zero." - TCS

I'd like to know what source led you to this, not because I believe it to be wrong, I'm just curious.

From our perspective, a gravity well has a high energy density, compressed space, and a small rate of time. From the perspective of the gravity well, we have a low energy density, expanded space, and a high rate of time. From the perspective of a black hole, we are in a rip because nothing can exist long enough to reach us. Every wave will be red shifted out of existence.

 

[DaveC426913]

From the perspective of a black hole, we are in a rip because nothing can exist long enough to reach us. Every wave will be red shifted out of existence.

But this is all just rhetoric. There's no physical or mathematical basis for using the word "rip" in this context, except as techno-babble for Star Trek junkies.

 

[TCS]

But this is all just rhetoric. There's no physical or mathematical basis for using the word "rip" in this context, except as techno-babble for Star Trek junkies.

As I see it, the energy density of mass extends beyond the position of the mass, so that the energy density of a black hole extends infinetly in an inverse square manner form the black hole even though all of the mass of the black hole is at a point. It is the gradient of the energy density that creates the appearence of gravitational acceleration. Also, the energy density provides a thickness to the universe. The extreme thinning of energy density is like a whole in space in the same sense that a worn thin part of a bed sheet is seen to have a hole. Although, it is a relative concept.

Accordingly, my idea for a "ripped space force field" is to locally redistribute the energy density such that all of the energy density in one region of space is displaced into the adjacent region which creates a sort of rip in space, since it creates a large energy density gradient that causes particles to gravitationally accelerate away from the gap such that almost no energy would flow through the energy density gap.

I don't actually know of any way to redistribute energy density. However, I believe that "gravity waves" would be the mechanism even though I don't know how they could be genertated and controlled.

However, we know that space and time can be stretched and that stretching space time changes what it means to move in a straight line.

 

[benk99nenm312]

As I see it, the energy density of mass extends beyond the position of the mass, so that the energy density of a black hole extends infinetly in an inverse square manner form the black hole even though all of the mass of the black hole is at a point. It is the gradient of the energy density that creates the appearence of gravitational acceleration. Also, the energy density provides a thickness to the universe. The extreme thinning of energy density is like a whole in space in the same sense that a worn thin part of a bed sheet is seen to have a hole. Although, it is a relative concept.

Accordingly, my idea for a "ripped space force field" is to locally redistribute the energy density such that all of the energy density in one region of space is displaced into the adjacent region which creates a sort of rip in space, since it creates a large energy density gradient that causes particles to gravitationally accelerate away from the gap such that almost no energy would flow through the energy density gap.

I don't actually know of any way to redistribute energy density. However, I believe that "gravity waves" would be the mechanism even though I don't know how they could be genertated and controlled.

However, we know that space and time can be stretched and that stretching space time changes what it means to move in a straight line.

All you are really saying, once you simplify the language, is that you believe a "rip in the fabric of spacetime" to be a point in space where all energy is accelerated away, causing spacetime to stretch away from a particular point in all directions. Spacetime does not "break", it can be relatively stretched or compressed, but not broken.

 

[benk99nenm312]

The problem lies with what you call a rip. Since such a concept does not exist amongst physicists, it is open to interpretation. If there is a universal definition for a "rip in the fabric of spacetime", probably defined by a science fiction writer, then we must find it. If everyone (no I'm not picking out anyone) has a different interpretation for the same words, then we will be discussing not the issue, but the interpretations, and since no interpretation would be wrong, the discussion would be pointless.

 

[Shackleford]

The problem lies with what you call a rip. Since such a concept does not exist amongst physicists, it is open to interpretation. If there is a universal definition for a "rip in the fabric of spacetime", probably defined by a science fiction writer, then we must find it. If everyone (no I'm not picking out anyone) has a different interpretation for the same words, then we will be discussing not the issue, but the interpretations, and since no interpretation would be wrong, the discussion would be pointless.

What about throwing something in about a region not being simply connected?

 

[Naty1]

Brian Greene says in FABRIC OF THE COSMOS (2004), page 467:

(maybe this discussion belongs in Beyond the standard model)

No one knows whether such tears in space are allowed by the laws of physics. Work with which I've been involved in string theory has shown that certain kinds of tears are possible, but so far we have no idea whther these rips might be relevant to the creation of wormholes..."

(page 386)

My own work with Andrew Strominger and David Morrison showed that a brane can wrap itself around the spherical portion of a Calabi-Yau shape ...we were able to show.. a portion of space (can) tear open-space itself can rip apart- while the wrapped brane ensures that there are no catstrophic consequences..."

This also the basic idea of Roger Penrose...There is a brief discussion of such a cosmic censorship hypothesis here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_censorship_hypothesis

 

[warcio]

TCS sorry for all the flack you took for helping me, but maybe vanadium 50, troponing etc.are right, I'm only a star trek junky, and should take this forum more seriously.
Science more than ficction.
Although,TCS,you held your own my man- or gal-!

So now that the tread is sleeping again,that idea of "thiningh of space" seems far more complicated to expand even in principle than the " ripping of the spacetime fabric".

As I understand you need something very, very heavy to create a gravity wave,and it would only be radial, and would't you have to be in the center to use it?, but I suspect you have a clever idea and are weary to voice it here ;-}

The idea for a force field I first took from Brian Greene's book as Naty1 points out,
where Greene et al as well as Witten had shown that a ripping of space was "possible", and expanded the idea by using the Casimir efect as the posible engine to start and control the "ripping" and the brane itself as the inhibitor for the propagation of said " rip"
Thus the "rip" or brane or force field could be used as a vane, or a plane or the like, and could build a complex structure as needed.

 

[yoron]

I've been reading this whole thread, having a good time. As long as one defines the constrictions I find it perfectly alright to indulge in some imagination. What would life be only using logic?

A Borg collective?

Anyway, the fabric of 'space and the fabric of 'time' I've seen a lot of, and use it myself at times. It's a easy way of describing one, or more, 'dimensions' without falling into the aether well, sort of :)

What I understand that Einstein saw space as was something defined by 'gravity'. Without 'gravity' there would be no metric to discuss. So, assuming that this is right and then considering 'space', a 'rip' should then mean that the gravitational potential would be gone from that area. But if 'gravity' also is what creates a 'space'? What would that leave?
==

Alternatively, if 'gravity' is coupled to, but not the exact same as, invariant mass (or energy) how would that work? Could we then have a infinite 'gravity' inside that 'rip', now assuming that SpaceTime constricts instead of 'create' gravity..

 

[PAllen]

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.



It wasn't clear from context at all. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I thought you were talking about solid objects, not surfaces.
Actually, you won't find the term 'doughnut' used much in math books. But still, people in math circles do use the term, and they usually take it to mean a 'filled' torus. Also, you used the word 'sphere' correctly. The solid interior would be called a ball, not a sphere.

About the string-theory part, I won't comment. I don't understand cohomology yet (even though I'm trying to!) so I don't think I'm qualified to express an opinion about string theory.

This approach was known in ancient Greece:

Euripides
Eumenides