How Does 3D Distortion Affect the Space-Time Fabric?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of space-time fabric and how it can be distorted. Participants clarify that distortions do not require an additional dimension, emphasizing that the properties of a surface can be understood without embedding it in higher dimensions. The conversation touches on the intrinsic nature of curvature in geometry, particularly in relation to general relativity, where time is considered the fourth dimension. There is also a light-hearted exchange about pop culture references, but the main focus remains on the complexities of dimensionality in physics. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the importance of understanding geometric properties without relying on unnecessary dimensional constructs.
sreekant
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
hey guys,

i jus got a question regarding space time fabric...if we take an example of a 2d fabric...it is distorted in the third dimension...now if it is a 3d fabric ( which is what it is supposed to be ) then in which dimension will it get distorted??
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
sreekant said:
hey guys,

i jus got a question regarding space time fabric...if we take an example of a 2d fabric...it is distorted in the third dimension...now if it is a 3d fabric ( which is what it is supposed to be ) then in which dimension will it get distorted??
Good question. You don't actually need to have an 'extra' dimension to accommodate the distortion. In your 2D example, sure, we are accustomed to thinking of a 2D surface embedded in 3D space. However, the surface is still 2D, and we can geometrically encode the bending and warping of the surface by data on the surface, without the need for a higher dimensional ambient space within witch to place our 2D surface. For example, a torus (donut) has a well known form when its 2D surface is embedded in 3D space. However, I can equivalently represent a torus as a 2D sheet, with 'rules' for how to connect opposing edges of the sheet -- specifically, glue together opposite edges. The old Atari game 'Asteroids' is an example of toroidal topology even though the surface (screen) is only 2D!
 
Yeah that's a very good question. In my opinion, it will get distorted in the 4th dimension - time. As well all know from the general theory of relativity, times run slower for objects in a strong gravitational field compared to other objects that are not in such a field.
 
silentbob14 said:
In my opinion, it will get distorted in the 4th dimension - time.

Also possible - but bapowell's explanation is better because it shows that you don't need to introduce any new elements for its explanation (elements that might or might not get one into trouble later on). It is not necessary to invoke another dimension to have distortions.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It is not necessary to invoke another dimension to have distortions.
Right. This is key. The Ricci curvature is intrinsic to the surface, and completely independent of the (unnecessary) embedding. Silentbob -- the OP's 2D example helps visualize the problem, but really we have a 4D curved manifold in GR. The question the OP is asking then is...what is the 5th dimension? Time is already included in the 4D.
 
Ahh, the 5th dimension is where the String Theorists hide their extra Gravity. :biggrin:
 
Frame Dragger said:
Ahh, the 5th dimension is where the String Theorists hide their extra Gravity. :biggrin:
Dude, you're not helping :wink:
 
bapowell said:
Dude, you're not helping :wink:

Look, it was that or a reference to Buckaroo Bonzai. I think I made the right choice. :smile: Now, the 6th dimension is where lost ballpoints go... and the 7th is all marmalade.
 
I don't think the example works quite well though? Although identifying opposite edges of a square gives a quotient topology of a torus, this torus is flat - it's gaussian curvature is zero.
 
  • #10
yenchin said:
I don't think the example works quite well though? Although identifying opposite edges of a square gives a quotient topology of a torus, this torus is flat - it's gaussian curvature is zero.
Right, sorry. I gave a topological example instead a geometric one! However, the point of the example was meant to convey that fact that you don't need to embed a manifold in order for it to have nontrivial properties. Of course, one could just say that the Ricci curvature (or the fundamental form, or whatever) is intrinsic to the surface and is independent of any embedding. But point taken, sorry.
 
  • #11
Frame Dragger said:
Look, it was that or a reference to Buckaroo Bonzai.
Nicely done John FrameDragger. :biggrin:
 
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
Nicely done John FrameDragger. :biggrin:

You are too kind monsieur! Too kind! Nah... just right. :wink: Glad someone got the reference though... classic movie, absolutely classic. Lithgow is an AMAZING actor, and the rest... well.. rofl. just rofl! :smile:

EDIT: @bapowell: No need to apologize to anyone. Hell, if we had to say "sorry" every time we're wrong about spacetime... um... have you ever seen a western businessman try to "bow" properly in Japan? I can only describe the resulting series of bows as a kind of "bowing war", or maybe a bit like those rocking-birds that use surface tension as a spring. Anyway, that's what it would look like around here!
 
  • #13
Frame Dragger said:
You are too kind monsieur! Too kind! Nah... just right. :wink: Glad someone got the reference though... classic movie, absolutely classic. Lithgow is an AMAZING actor, and the rest... well.. rofl. just rofl! :smile:
It is one of my top ten. And Lithgow was indeed a shining star.
 
  • #14
DaveC426913 said:
It is one of my top ten. And Lithgow was indeed a shining star.

You are clearly a man of substance. :smile:

Are you a fan of 'Dexter'? Lithgow played the villain this season, and he was TERRIFYING. I'm normally unmoved by simulated violence, but... wow. He has an amazing range.
 
  • #15
Frame Dragger said:
You are clearly a man of substance. :smile:

Are you a fan of 'Dexter'? Lithgow played the villain this season, and he was TERRIFYING.
Huh. Did not know that.
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
Huh. Did not know that.

He is amazing, but it is VERY graphic. Frankly he's not the most violent in the show, or on tv/movies, but... well, the opening has him killing a woman and using a mirror to see her die. His acting makes it utterly convincing, and deeply DEEPLY frightning. For this, he won an emmy, I should add.

So... it may not be for everyone (I found it difficult at times... a first for me), but to see a master at his craft, it's worth it.
 

Similar threads

B Could singularities be just rips in the space-time fabric?
Replies
23
Views
5K
B Does Space Recover or Oscillate After Being Distorted by Massive Objects?
Replies
3
Views
891
B Can We Use Space/Time Fabric to See the Past?
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Was There Another Dimension Shaping Time Before Our Known Dimension?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Entanglement as the fabric of space-time?
Replies
2
Views
2K
B Is the Big Bang Just an Event in an Existing Space/Time Fabric?
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Space Time fabric graphic is misleading
Replies
4
Views
2K
What Defines the Fabric of Time in Space?
Replies
37
Views
8K
B Waves in space
Replies
10
Views
3K
Space-time fabric distortion measuring
Replies
5
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top