Can you rip the space time fabric?

[Gravitons]

Can you rip the space time fabric!?

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?

 

[chroot]

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

 

[Gravitons]

Einsteins general relativity describes a fourth dimension regarding up down, left right, back and forth, the fourth is space time, aka a "fabric of space".
Check it out genius: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

 

[chroot]

Excuse me? You've only been here for a half hour, and you're already insulting one of the site administrators?

Your link does not include the word 'fabric,' by the way. Think hard.

- Warren

 

[Naty1]

No one really knows the answer to your question...we can't even find it nor "sew" it...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...it could be the "quantum foam" (high energy oscillations) at Planck scale activity "ruins" spacetime and makes distinction between say, space and mass impossible...String theory also hints at this possibility.

There is no 'fabric' in any modern physical theory, so there is no 'fabric' to be ripped.

This is an exaggeration...I think, but not incorrect...had it said "none proven in classical relativity" I'd say "ok" that might be about right. we don't have an agreed upon definiton of "fabric" for one thing...

Anyway, one perspective of spacetime rips can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_censorship_hypothesis

but these are hypothetical, not experimentally proven.

We have had long discussions in the forums about "what is space-time" and of course no one really knows...but quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory in particular, I believe, posits space time is discrete rather than continuous as in classical relativity. That suggests it to possibly be something...but there is no agreement here either: continuous or discrete?.

You can also look up causal dynamic triangulation as to how spacetime might form, and spin foam is another variety. A recent discussion on the forums from a paper by Verlinde hypothesisizes that space time forms from entropy and while unproven offers I think fascinating possibilities. And of course one can utilize incomplete theories about the universe being formed of information, a relative of entropy...

And a case can be made that the holographic principle offers yet another insight into spacetime, and everything else that we perceive as being three dimensionally space enclosed...maybe everything we know is really area rather than volume based...information content and flow sure seems to be that way.

Another hint at an answer, might be contained in the big bang versus black hole singularities. Apparently Weyl curvature in the former approach zero, or is at least finite, while Weyl Curvature in the latter diverges...so the low entropy of the big bang might be markedly different than the exceedingly high entropy (information) of the latter...
I posted asking about the implications some time ago and never got an answer.

Roger Penrose discusses naked singularities in THE ROAD TO REALITY SECTION 28.8 AND YOU MIGHT GET FURTHER HINTS FROM THE Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal which Penrose discussesd in 28.9.
however, all the above simply offer tangential insights..not answers because no one has the real solution...yet...

 

[atyy]

Gross et al, Instability of Flat Space at Finite Temperature, Physical Review D, 1982
"In the general theory of relativity, ... the spacetime manifold is warped by the presence of matter. Gravitational collapse can give rise to singularities in the fabric of spacetime"

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012345
"spacetime fabric"

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508121
"fabric of spacetime"

 

[JesseM]

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.

 

[atyy]

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.

Interesting! I googled "topology change" and apparently it can even happen in a slightly extended form of classical GR.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9109030, http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/8/4/007/
"It is clear from these classical solutions that the problem of topology change has been turned around. The question is not whether topology change can occur, but rather how do we stop topology from changing? Why doesn’t the space around us suddenly split into disconnected pieces?"

 

[Naty1]

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).

I had forgotten...have to reread again I guess...Greene does go into some detail about how string theory suggests spacetime can "tear" in ways different from black holes and wormholes...Chapter 11, "Tearing the Fabric of Space"

one concept is minimum distances in short distance geometry which obscures any "rips" as we might think in traditional terms.

In a nutshell Greene discusses theoretical pinching of Calabi-Yau spaces and the possibility of flop transitions to a new topologically distinct shape...and Witten showed a string might encircle such a tear shielding the universe from catastrophic consequences.

 

[IttyBittyBit]

The level of physics misunderstanding in this thread is astonishing. But I'm not a physicist, so I won't comment. I do feel like I have to correct a few math-related comments 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). 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.

...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...

Yes we do.

 

[Naty1]

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.

That seems to me to be an entirely reasonable analogy. At least as good as the rubber membrane analogy for gravity...

If Itty means in doesn't happen in a single step, a single mathematical conifold transition, I can buy that...
But there IS a series of diagrams in THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE, Figure 13.3, that shows just such a transition. In fact Smolin says "while string physics remains perfectly well behaved."

 

[Naty1]

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.

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

 

[IttyBittyBit]

First of all, a sphere is a 2-dimensional manifold and a doughnut is a 3-dimensional one. You can't continuously transform one into the other; that is just absurd.

What you mean could be a torus (which is the surface of a doughnut). It won't work in this case either:
A sphere is a closed 2-dimensional manifold. So is a torus. A sphere with a single point removed is an open 2-dimensional manifold. You can't construct a homeomorphism from an open manifold to a closed one.

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

You did not explain what you mean by 'singularity'. There are many different kinds of singularities in mathematics. One kind is a removable singularity, and most physical theories deal with this kind quite nicely. Singularities also arise in areas outside of fundamental physics (such as continuum mechanics e.g. the Prandtl-Glauert singularity) and they pose no threat to the acceptability or validity of current theories. I'd be glad to elaborate further, but I will only reply if you precisely define your terminology so I know what exactly we are talking about :)

 

[JesseM]

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.

 

[IttyBittyBit]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[JesseM]

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.

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.

 

[Phrak]

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

The picture in the link clearly depicts a fabric. I believe it is what sailors call a scrim.

 

[Naty1]

was speaking rather informally

yes, and I understood the context...and it was I believe on the plane of the posters apparent question...he/she did not ask for a mathematical description. On the other hand Itty makes some technical statements that I understand to be accurate, some I don't understand, but did not take the earlier posts to assert such a level of technical accuracy.

"ripping a hole in the space-time continuum" are abuses of notation typically used in science fiction.

a bit of an exaggeration, I think, but regardless of one's point of view, these are surely theoretical considerations, not experimantally observed ones so far.

You did not explain what you mean by 'singularity'. There are many different kinds of singularities in mathematics.

I was also posting in an informal way, but I surely do NOT know all types of singularities in mathematics...nor do I care to nor ever claimed to ...on the other hand I was referring to big bang and black holes singularities and posted that explicitly...

So if anyone knows of a paper that addresses these singulairites in a convincing way that relates to the observed physical world,in other words the singularities themselves rather than the nearby environs, I'm willing to read it...if I can understand it...right now my understanding remains that our current QM and relativity theories fail at big bang and black hole singularities...I believe they remain fundamentally still a mystery...at least so to me...

The last thing I am interested in on these forums is inserting myself into a mathematicians discussion about interpreting mathematics relevance to the physical world...there are just too many that don't seem to match our physical universe...so far...

 

[Frame Dragger]

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.

 

[IttyBittyBit]

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 completely agree. This is probably the best answer given to the OP's question.

@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".

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.

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.

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.

 

[Frame Dragger]

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.

Mmmm, yes I would agree with that.

 

[warcio]

first I'm not a physicist, I'm a marine biologist and belong to a small group of informal writers, now I was awarded with the task of writting about a force field short novel - very brieff aprox. 30 pages- by a felow physicist scientist,we do this all the time where we exchange science ficction outside our areas of expertize, we're 7 diciplines and 21 members strong
so please don't laugh but i was thinking of using the ed witten idea of a spacetime ripp protected by a supersting that could some how be converted int a brane big enough as to have some practical applications as a shield of sorts, yes I will continue my work as a biologist and not become a physicist but what do you think, is this at least valid as science ficction or am i not even close to impress this guy.
thank you

 

[TCS]

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?

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.

 

[warcio]

thanks for the reply TCS, if you could indulge me for a last posting.
this then means that if spacetime IS ripped would mean that no energy could be passed from one side of the ripping to the other no matter the size of the rip, thus in principle it could mean that a shield or force field could be constructed this way - a superstring over a ripping be stretched into a brane, where no energy nor matter could pass in principle ( exept gravitons according some) but that is only IN the separation not into the surface of the brane it self,could the surface of the brane take the pressure of a lot of energy or matter? I know I'm talking scientific nonsense but this is for fiction :) - .
Not as subtle as the idea of Arthur C. Clarke's beautiful book :The light from other days.
But could I expand this baseless idea into something akin to science fiction?
Thank you.

 

[TCS]

I think that there are a variety of interpretations of the underlying structure of the universe. However, you can think of energy as creating the fabric in which it exists. Each particle has an energy distribution and the energy at a particular point in space is determined by the sum of the energy contibutions of every particle in the universe at that point in space. The total energy density at each point provides a type of thickness to the universe at that point, where energy is like rubber in that it pulls in the universe together (think of a rubber band that is stretched and that is thicker at some points). Accordingly, in high energy density (thick) space, space is smaller and time is slower If you look at a ruler in high energy density area while standing in a low energy density area, the ruler will be smaller and a clock will tick slower.

Anyway, if you have a rip in space time (an area of zero energy density), particles or waves directed at the rip would appear to be reflected away from it sort of like anti-gravity (quantum mechanically, a rip is similar a forbidden zone, although if you were completely encircled by a rip, you couldn't tunnel through).

You wouldn't be able to see the rip. If you were encircled by a rip, it would make you invisible. It would be the same as creating your own island universe. It is similar to what happens with a black hole. In an expanding universe, from the frame of the black hole, the outer universe between black holes is so thin as to almost be a rip.


You can think about the universe as being a giant balloon with the thickness of the rubber being determined by the energy density of the baloon and particles are like accoustic waves traveling through the baloon. A rip in space time will affect particle waves in a similar way as a hole in the balloon affects accoustic waves, except that the universe wouldn't deflate.

 

[warcio]

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

 

[TCS]

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

I've given some thought as to how to create your force field. Rather than ripping space time, what you would really do is to make a region of space extermely thin.

Imagine that you are at the center of a sphere of radius R and that there is a region of space that surrounds you from R to R + X. What you want to do is to stretch space so that almost all of the energy that is in the region between R and R + X exists in a region very near R + X. The region R + X - dx to R + X will contain almost all of the energy of the entire region.

If you think about a ruler pointed radially away from you in the stretched portion of space, it will still be one foot long, but 11 inches of marking will apear to be in the last one inch of region of space. This will create a trough which will channel the energy away from you.

Creating such a trough would seem to require an understanding of the fine structure of the thickness of the universe. However, such a trough can be thought of as a standing spherical gravity wave where there is only one wavelength. Accordingly, your force field generator would have to be some means of manipulating and combining gravity waves.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The last half-dozen or so messages have more of science fiction about them than science. See this earlier post:

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.

 

[TCS]

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

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

 

[benk99nenm312]

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.

 

[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..